Tony Dewayne Crayton v. State
06-14-00208-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2015Background
- Defendant Tony Dewayne Crayton was tried in Hopkins County for murder after waiving a jury; the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 50 years.
- After the homicide, officers found Crayton injured on a highway; officers seized his shoes, glasses, hat, and later collected clothing and biological samples; a search warrant was obtained later the same day and used to search the seized items and collect body samples at a hospital.
- The trial court, during its private deliberations, reviewed and took judicial notice of a court-ordered psychiatric competency report by Dr. Michael Pittman concluding Crayton was likely fabricating symptoms. The court referenced that report in announcing guilt and at punishment.
- Crayton moved to suppress: (1) items seized without a warrant on the highway and at the hospital, and (2) evidence seized under a search warrant executed in a county where the executing officers lacked jurisdiction or proper assisting officers; both motions were overruled.
- Crayton raised appellate arguments that the trial court’s consideration of the competency report violated Rule 201, Article 46B.007, and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; he also argued the warrantless seizures, and the warrant’s execution outside proper jurisdiction, violated the Fourth Amendment and Texas evidence statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crayton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held (trial-court outcome reflected in brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly took judicial notice of Dr. Pittman’s competency report (and thereby violated Rule 201, Art. 46B.007, and the Sixth Amendment) | Crayton: judge read and relied on a testimonial competency report during deliberations without giving parties opportunity to be heard, violating judicial-notice rules, art. 46B.007 (bar on using competency exam statements at trial), and Crawford confrontation rights | State: (implicit) trial court considered file; judge concluded report did not affect conclusions (or relied on its own observations) | Trial court admitted/relied on report in verdict explanation; Crayton argues preserved error and requests reversal/new trial |
| Whether officers unlawfully seized clothing/items without a warrant (Fourth Amendment / art. 38.23) | Crayton: shoes, hat, glasses and clothing were seized before a warrant; State failed to prove a recognized exception (exigent circumstances) to the warrant requirement | State: contested facts and likely argued items were properly handled/seized as evidence or that exigent circumstances existed | Trial court denied suppression; Crayton contends State did not meet burden to justify warrantless seizure |
| Whether the search warrant was improperly executed outside officers’ jurisdiction | Crayton: Sulphur Springs officers executed a warrant in Smith County without a Smith County peace officer assisting, violating Art. 18.04 and controlling authorities | State: (implicit) warrant execution was proper or effectively assisted | Trial court denied suppression; Crayton argues the execution was invalid and evidence should be excluded |
| Whether the trial judge’s testimony at the motion-for-new-trial hearing (about deliberations) violated Rule 605 and impaired review | Crayton: judge testified at the new-trial hearing about deliberations and whether report influenced him, undermining impartiality and denying meaningful review; objected and requested recusal | State: (implicit) judge’s statements were explanatory and cured doubts | Trial court heard proffer and denied relief; Crayton argues Rule 605 concerns and that judge’s testimony cannot cure the error |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent prior cross-examination or unavailability)
- Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic/expert reports prepared for trial are testimonial and implicate confrontation rights)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (testimonial laboratory reports require the analyst who prepared the report to testify for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (framework for determining testimonial hearsay)
- Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (harmless-error factors for Confrontation Clause violations)
- McNairy v. State, 835 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (factors relevant to exigent-circumstances analyses for warrantless seizure)
- State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Texas rejects certain federal exceptions to exclusionary rule; evidence obtained in violation of Article 38.23 must be excluded)