Travis Massingill v. State
11-14-00289-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Travis Massingill, a roofing contractor, was convicted of theft between $1,500 and $20,000 for accepting $14,734.24 from Harold Sowa for roof repairs that he never performed and never refunded.
- The State introduced testimony from three other customers (Charles Rice, Sally Willett, Jeanie Rice) who paid Massingill for roofing repairs that were not completed and were not refunded.
- The State also introduced evidence of Massingill’s prior conviction for theft by deception arising from a similar roofing dispute.
- Massingill objected (principally under Rule 404(b) and argued Rule 403 prejudice on appeal) to admitting the other-customer testimony as unfairly prejudicial and argued that the evidence was unnecessary.
- The trial court admitted the testimony; Massingill was sentenced to two years in state jail and a $5,000 fine. He appealed solely arguing improper admission of other-acts evidence under Rule 403.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about other customers under Rule 403 | Other-customer testimony was relevant to show Massingill’s intent when he took Sowa’s money. | Massingill argued the evidence was unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, and unnecessary (some transactions occurred after charged offense). | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value on intent outweighed prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shuffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion framework for evidentiary rulings)
- Taylor v. State, 450 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (other similar transactions probative of intent)
- Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (rare reversal for abuse of discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Rule 403 presumption favoring admission of relevant evidence)
- Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Rule 403 balancing factors and State’s need for evidence)
- Hegar v. State, 11 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (admissibility of subsequent similar transactions under the Rules of Evidence)