Thomas Milton Buchanan, Jr., A/K/A Milton Buchanan v. State
08-16-00072-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Buchanan was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon after a jury trial.
- The assault occurred April 4, 2014, when Buchanan attacked his mother, Susie Maloney, in her home with a 12-gauge shotgun.
- Maloney initially told 911 she did not have a weapon, but Buchanan later reappeared with the shotgun and assaulted her, causing bruising, a dislocated jaw, and panic.
- A 911 call capturing the incident was admitted into evidence, and psychologist Terri Arnold testified about statements Buchanan made during hospital treatment.
- Buchanan was found incompetent to stand trial in 2014, later restored to competency, and the trial proceeded.
- The trial court granted a motion in limine; on appellate review, Buchanan challenged the admission of the treatment-record statements as confidential under Rule 509 and as due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of treatment-statements violated confidentiality and due process | Buchanan asserts confidentiality and due process violations. | State contends error was not preserved due to lack of timely objection. | Error not preserved; no reversible issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Priester v. State, 478 S.W.3d 826 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2015) (timely objection required to preserve appellate error)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (specific objection informs trial judge and opposing counsel)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (requirement of clear objection for preservation)
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (timeliness and specificity of objections; preserved error rules)
- Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (motion in limine preservation rule)
- Coutta v. State, 385 S.W.3d 641 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2012) (motions in limine do not preserve appellate review)
- Smith v. State, 499 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 2016) (two-part Rule 803(4) analysis requires timely objection)
- Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (preservation principles for appellate review)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (due process voluntariness framework)