Timothy Garrett Linney v. State
2013 WL 1897125
Tex. App.—Waco2013Background
- Linney was convicted of indecency with a child and sentenced to eight years’ confinement, probated for eight years.
- Jane is Linney’s great-niece and complainant; Linney is her paternal uncle.
- Jane disclosed in Aug. 2008 that Linney touched her after babysitting, leading to an indictment on two counts.
- The State offered expert testimony that post-offense behavior and anxiety supported the offense claim.
- Linney sought to admit extraneous-event evidence to explain Jane’s post-offense conduct; the trial court restricted cross-examination and limited defense evidence.
- The court conducted Rule 702 proceedings and ruled on admissibility of testimony about Jane’s sexual history and related notes; several evidentiary rulings were challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cross-examination limit violated Linney’s rights | Linney argues limits impaired cross-examination | State argues limits were within evidentiary rules | No constitutional violation; error was harmless |
| Whether Linney was denied a meaningful defense | Linney contends defense was curtailed by evidentiary limits | State asserts defense remained capable of presenting substance | Not reversible; defense presented despite limits |
| Whether outcry testimony by Cindy violated Art. 38.072 | Cindy’s statements described an extraneous event and were hearsay | Testimony admissible to show state of mind within exceptions | Abuse of discretion; error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether Kelly’s prior consistent statement was admissible | Statement rehabilitates Jane’s credibility | Statement improperly admitted as hearsay | Abuse of discretion; harmless error; not affecting verdict |
| Whether cumulative errors require reversal | Cumulative harm undermines trial fairness | No reversible cumulative effect | Cumulative error not shown; overruling the point |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Arsdall v. State, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (three-factor harmless-error analysis for confrontation)
- Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (right to present a complete defense; due process considerations)
- Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (evidence admissibility and preserving error for review)
- Miller v. State, 36 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (due process and reliability considerations in cross-examination)
- Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (deferral to cross-examination and confrontation rights)