Walters, William Kyle
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1661
Tex. Crim. App.2011Background
- In January 2007, Walters and a friend stabbed multiple people during a nightclub fight in Dallas; he claimed self-defense.
- Walters’ girlfriend, West, witnessed the events and was subpoenaed but refused to testify citing the Fifth Amendment.
- Before resting, West’s attorney indicated fear of incriminating herself due to potential cross-examination about related conduct.
- The trial court allowed West to invoke the Fifth and decided not to compel further testimony; hearings were held outside the jury.
- The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Ross v. State; the issue was whether the trial court erred by not requiring a real and substantial fear determination.
- This Court overruled Ross and held the trial court did make a sufficient inquiry into the reasonableness of West’s Fifth Amendment claim; Walters’ convictions were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must trial courts assess the reasonableness of a Fifth Amendment claim? | Walters argues Ross is wrong and courts must evaluate fear of prosecution. | State contends the trial court’s inquiry was sufficient under existing protections. | Yes; trial court must assess reasonableness of the fear. |
| Does Ross v. State conflict with Supreme Court precedent on Fifth Amendment inquiry? | Walters asserts Ross conflicts with Reiner and should be overruled. | State supports Ross’s approach as compatible with protections. | Ross is overruled; require inquiry into reasonableness per Supreme Court. |
| Was the trial court's actual inquiry in this case sufficient under Supreme Court standards? | Walters argues there was inadequate inquiry into the reasonableness. | State maintains the hearing outside the jury with proffered testimony sufficed. | Yes; the inquiry was sufficient to establish risk of incrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. State, 486 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. Cr. App. 1972) (held that counsel-advised Fifth Amendment invocation requires no further inquiry)
- United States v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (U.S. 2001) (trial court must inquire into the reasonableness of fear of incrimination)
- Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1951) (witness’s assertion alone does not establish risk; court decides)
- Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1917) (premise that some inquiries focus on danger from a direct answer)
- United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2003) (illustrates trial court’s appropriate procedure outside the jury)