Wilkins, Terrance Germaine
PD-1122-15
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- Terrance Wilkins was tried for capital murder (State did not seek death); a jury convicted him and the court imposed life without parole. Trial concerned the October 26, 2010 shooting death of Carlon Hellner; Sarah Malesky (roommate/cohabitant) was the State’s primary witness.
- Malesky testified Wilkins entered the apartment with a gun, demanded money/marijuana, searched the freezer, forced her into the bathroom, and shortly thereafter Hellner was found shot. Wilkins admitted being in the apartment that night, had a gun, and searched the freezer but denied shooting Hellner.
- Crime-scene testing produced no fingerprints, DNA, or gunshot-residue tying Wilkins to the killing; GSR particles were found on Malesky’s right hand. Autopsy collected fingernail clippings that were not DNA-tested until trial; later testing found a third-party DNA under Hellner’s right fingernails (neither Wilkins nor Malesky).
- During trial the defense discovered (on witness stand) that Malesky’s initially reported missing items (cash, purse, meds) had been recovered earlier; defense argued this was undisclosed Brady material. Defense also argued prejudice from late DNA testing and several trial incidents (alleged hearsay, improper question, courtroom disturbance, and prosecutor comment).
- The trial court denied multiple mistrial motions and denied a curative instruction in some instances; it later granted a new-trial motion based on the DNA results, but the court of appeals vacated that new-trial order and reinstated the conviction (modified judgment to reflect life without parole).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support capital murder (murder in course of robbery) | Evidence (Malesky’s testimony, Wilkins’ admissions he was armed, searched freezer, had bad blood with victim, and flight) supported jury inference of intent to obtain/maintain control of property contemporaneous with murder. | Evidence was insufficient: no physical tie to shooting, Malesky unreliable, no proof anything was stolen or attempted to be stolen; jury could not find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Court of Appeals: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt — sufficiency claim overruled. |
| Late disclosure of recovered property (Brady) / request for mistrial or curative instruction | Disclosure tardy but defense received the information during trial and was able to use it on cross and in closing; no prejudice shown and no reversible Brady violation. | Failure to disclose earlier deprived defense of impeachment material and voir dire strategy; mistrial or curative instruction required. | Court of Appeals: no Brady prejudice — defense had the material in time to put it to effective use; mistrial not required; denial of curative instruction not an abuse. |
| Late DNA testing of fingernail clippings / new-trial and mistrial request | The autopsy report and clippings had been in defense possession months before trial; defense overlooked them and thus cannot claim suppression by State — no Brady; the belated testing resulted from defense counsel’s oversight, not State suppression. | DNA results showing third-party DNA constituted newly discovered/exculpatory evidence; proceeding to verdict while tests were pending (and State’s suggestion results could be remedied by new-trial) prejudiced Wilkins and warranted mistrial or new trial. | Court of Appeals: no Brady violation because the autopsy report (which referenced clippings) was provided earlier; failure to have DNA results sooner was attributable to defense counsel’s oversight; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial. |
| Prosecutor’s personal-opinion comment during closing about defense counsel putting sister on stand / motion for mistrial | Comment was improper but brief, did not inject new facts, court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard; instruction cured any error given strength of evidence. | Comment was an impermissible personal opinion meant to bolster witness credibility and warranted mistrial. | Court of Appeals: sustained objection and instruction to disregard cured the error; mistrial not required after balancing severity, cure, and evidence strength. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence to defendant)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Lincecum v. State, 736 S.W.2d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (definition of "in the course of committing" for offenses committed during robbery)
- Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (State need not prove theft completed to establish robbery/attempted robbery)
- Sheffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (intent to obtain/maintain control formed before or contemporaneously with murder supports murder-in-course-of-robbery)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (presumption jury follows instruction to disregard improper evidence)
- Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (mistrial for bystander conduct requires reasonable probability that conduct affected verdict)