Walker, Wilbert
PD-0592-15
| Tex. App. | Jul 10, 2015Background
- Appellant Wilbert Walker was indicted for possession of cocaine with habitual-offender enhancements; jury found him guilty and assessed 75 years' imprisonment.
- During voir dire, a potential juror (juror #4) stated she remembered Walker from about 20 years earlier and that he had been "in and out, you know, locked up." The trial court did not instruct the panel to disregard the comment and ultimately granted challenges for cause including juror #4.
- At trial, the State introduced evidence of an extraneous controlled buy (cocaine) that a confidential informant purchased from a residence associated with Walker; defense objected at trial only on chain-of-custody/authentication grounds.
- Walker moved to suppress drugs found after a traffic stop; officer stopped Walker for taillights off, asked him to exit, asked to pat him down, and requested to see his cigarettes; Walker handed the officer a cigarette box and the officer discovered cocaine. The trial court found consent to search the cigarette box was voluntary.
- Defense exhibit (offense report) containing statements that Walker was on parole for drugs was introduced without a limiting instruction and later read at trial; defense asked post-admission for redaction but the trial court denied it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the venire should have been quashed after a juror revealed prior incarcerations | Juror's remark exposed the entire panel to Walker's criminal history and deprived him of an impartial jury | The remark was remote (20 years), no showing other jurors were prejudiced, and juror #4 was excused for cause | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Walker failed to show harm required by Callins |
| 2) Admission of cocaine from an extraneous offense at punishment | Admission was improper because the State failed to prove Walker committed that extraneous offense beyond a reasonable doubt | State: defense preserved only chain-of-custody/authentication objection, not the burden-of-proof objection | Court affirmed: Walker forfeited the complaint by not raising it at trial |
| 3) Denial of motion to suppress search that disclosed cocaine | The pat-down and subsequent search exceeded the scope of a traffic stop and were unreasonable; evidence was discovered without valid consent | State: officer had reasonable basis to stop and the record (including video) shows Walker voluntarily consented to the officer’s examination of the cigarette box | Court affirmed: trial court's finding of voluntary consent was supported and not clearly erroneous |
| 4) Admission of Walker's criminal-history statement during guilt-innocence | The offense report revealing Walker was on parole for drugs was inadmissible extraneous-offense evidence and unfairly prejudiced the jury | State: defense introduced the report into evidence without a limiting instruction and did not redact it; the report became general evidence | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion because defense failed to seek a limiting instruction when offering exhibit |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. State, 552 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for denial of motion to quash venire)
- Callins v. State, 780 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harm standard when panel exposed to prejudicial remark)
- Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1975) (no presumption of prejudice from jurors' preconceptions absent showing of bias)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App.) (state must prove voluntariness of consent by clear and convincing evidence)
- Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App.) (voluntariness reviewed under totality of circumstances; defer to trial court's factual finding)
- Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. Crim. App.) (party introducing evidence for a limited purpose must request a limiting instruction at first opportunity)