Troy Williams II v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 13978
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Troy Williams II was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder; trial court sentenced him to 18 years’ confinement. Williams appealed raising voir dire, juror exclusion, closing-argument, and ineffective-assistance claims.
- Evidence: neighbor heard Spanish cries for help; police found victim Avila bludgeoned and strangled; a 20‑lb dumbbell and blood evidence connected Williams to the scene; autopsy showed multiple blunt-force blows and compression of the neck.
- Williams's account at trial: he had been sleeping on Avila’s couch, awoke to a sexual assault, fought, picked up a dumbbell and struck Avila repeatedly claiming self-defense; he previously gave false statements to police and did not report sexual assault until trial.
- Procedural events at trial challenged on appeal: (1) prosecutor told venire he would have dismissed if he thought defendant innocent (voir dire); (2) trial court granted State’s challenge for cause of a veniremember with an indecent-exposure conviction; (3) prosecutor argued defense had used the State’s open-file to craft a fabricated defense (closing); (4) Williams alleged multiple instances of ineffective assistance based on counsel eliciting/allowing damaging testimony.
- The court affirmed, rejecting mistrial and ineffective-assistance claims and holding any juror-exclusion error harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Williams’ Argument | State’s / Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire prosecutor comment (said he would have dismissed if he believed defendant innocent) | Comment injected prosecutor’s personal opinion and warranted mistrial | Trial court promptly sustained objection and instructed panel to disregard; instruction cures harm | Comment improper but not so egregious; instruction cured prejudice; denial of mistrial affirmed |
| Challenge for cause of veniremember with indecent exposure conviction | Excusal was error because indecent exposure is a misdemeanor and Code procedure disqualifies only certain convictions | Trial court could rely on juror qualifications / moral-character standard; any error harmless if jury still lawfully constituted | Even assuming error, Williams failed to show deprivation of a lawfully constituted jury; any error harmless; affirmed |
| Closing argument accusing defense ("they" crafted defense from open file) | Argument struck at defense counsel — accused counsel of manufacturing a defense; sustained objection but mistrial requested | Prosecutor’s comment partly tied to facts (defendant reviewed file and changed story); trial court instructed jury to disregard; remark not repeated | Although improper and close, court finds comment not extremely inflammatory; curative instruction effective; denial of mistrial affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (eliciting/allowing harmful testimony) | Trial counsel opened door to inadmissible/extraneous/privileged evidence and failed to object, undermining defense | Many elicited facts were strategic (minimize surprise, explain behavior, control narrative); record doesn’t show counsel’s reasons so cannot prove deficient performance or prejudice | Under Strickland, Williams failed to prove counsel’s performance was deficient and that outcome would likely differ; ineffective-assistance claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (mistrial standard; abuse of discretion review)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (instruction to disregard ordinarily cures prejudice)
- Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (special concern for prosecutor attacks on defense counsel; three-factor balancing test)
- Archie v. State, 340 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (factors for evaluating severity, curative measures, and certainty of conviction)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance framework)
- Wyatt v. State, 566 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (prosecutor may not convey opinion based on evidence outside the record)
- Johnson v. State, 698 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (prosecutor may not inject personal opinion)
- Beltran v. State, 99 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (voir dire statements by prosecutor about his belief in defendant’s guilt were improper)