Thomas v. State
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1337
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Jeremy Thomas was convicted of murdering Vernon Keith Moses based on eyewitness testimony; two witnesses (Trancquena Johnson and Ochelata Reliford) identified Thomas as the shooter.
- During jury deliberations the jury requested "all transcripts of the case"; the court asked them to specify the disputed testimony and the jury identified Trancquena Johnson and disputed the number of people outside the apartment and shirt colors.
- The trial court had the court reporter read three short excerpts of Johnson’s testimony (two from State direct, one from cross); defense objected that additional cross/redirect testimony responsive to the jury’s request was not read.
- The jury convicted Thomas and he was sentenced to life. On direct appeal the First Court of Appeals held the trial court erred under Article 36.28 by failing to read additional cross-examination testimony (that one person wore a white shirt) but deemed the error harmless and affirmed.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to evaluate the appellate court’s harm analysis under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) and affirmed: the omission was error but harmless because it did not affect Thomas’s substantial rights after reviewing the entire record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred under Art. 36.28 by reading only limited excerpts of Johnson’s testimony | Trial counsel argued the court should have read Johnson’s cross and redirect testimony in full (including that one person wore a white shirt) because it was responsive to the jury’s request | Court limited read-back to the portions the jury specified (and the judge interpreted the request as asking for State’s questions) | Court: Error occurred — trial court should have read the additional responsive cross-examination testimony; appellate preservation adequate |
| Whether error was preserved for appeal | Thomas: on-record objection asked that Johnson’s testimony be read in its entirety (direct, cross, redirect) | State: appellant failed to specify shirt-color testimony at the bench and thus forfeited the point | Court: Preservation rules applied flexibly; objection preserved the claim |
| Proper standard for harm analysis | Thomas: (implicitly) appellate court should not treat omission as harmless without full Rule 44.2(b) review of the record | State: court of appeals’ harmlessness finding was correct | Court: Use Rule 44.2(b) nonconstitutional standard — reversal only if substantial rights affected |
| Whether omitted testimony affected substantial rights (harmlessness) | Thomas: omission undermined defense theory that another man (in white shirt, e.g., Carnell Meredith) could be the shooter | State: omitted detail was insignificant in light of other evidence identifying Thomas; error harmless | Court: Harmless — after reviewing all evidence (other eyewitness Reliford, testimony about Meredith, closing arguments), omission had at most slight effect and did not substantially influence jury verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 706 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (trial court must interpret jury read‑back requests fairly; failure to read responsive cross‑examination can deprive defendant of fair trial)
- King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (harmless‑error test: whether the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence on verdict)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (standard for harmless error review: whether error had substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (classic formulation of harmless‑error inquiry used to assess whether error substantially influenced the jury)