481 F. App'x 188
5th Cir.2012Background
- On Aug. 15, 2008, two robbers, one armed with a shotgun, robbed Derek Woods; Ward and Janice witnessed and identified Houston as the larger robber in court at trial.
- Ward and Janice reported the robbery and provided the automobile license plate; McCray (Houston’s brother) made post-arrest statements implicating Houston.
- Police determined the car belonged to Houston and, six days later, observed a shotgun in Houston’s garage during an arrest.
- Houston testified he did not participate in the robbery and was at home; he claimed he was unaware a shotgun was in the garage and that McCray had access.
- The jury twice deadlocked, the district court instructed it to continue deliberating, and Houston was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm; he was sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment.
- Houston timely appealed raising challenges to jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and confrontation-clause issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the constructive possession instruction was proper. | Houston | Government sought construct. possession; facts supported only actual possession | Constructive possession instruction improper; reversible error |
| Whether the district court should have given an alibi instruction. | Houston | General instructions sufficient; alibi instruction unnecessary | District court erred by not giving alibi instruction; reversible error |
| Whether admission of prior misdemeanor theft and probation-revocation evidence was improper. | Houston | Evidence admissible for impeachment under 609(a)(2) | Admission was error; reversible collectively with other errors |
| Whether McCray’s confession statements violated the Confrontation Clause and tainted the trial. | Houston | Limited cross-examination evidence; not wholly inadmissible | McCray’s statements were testimonial and should have been barred; reversible error; cumulative impact persists |
| Whether the cumulative effect of the errors requires reversal. | Houston | Errors were harmless individually | Cumulative errors denied due process; reversal and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instructions)
- United States v. Ortega, 484 F.3d 123 (5th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes actual vs. constructive possession; evidentiary limits)
- United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200 (5th Cir. 1996) (constructive possession requires knowledge and access)
- United States v. Laury, 49 F.3d 145 (5th Cir. 1995) (alibi instruction necessity; review for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Aggarwal, 17 F.3d 737 (5th Cir. 1994) (test for granting alibi instruction)
- United States v. Jara-Favela, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13426 (5th Cir. 2012) (constructive amendment concerns; (LEXIS) not official reporter; omitted from list if no reporter)
- United States v. Riddle, 103 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 1997) (cumulative error requires reversal when prejudicial errors accumulate)
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc; cumulative error framework)
- United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 1997) (strong evidence requirement for reversible cumulative error)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (S. Ct. 2006) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements)