William Joshua Zellars v. the State of Texas
09-19-00225-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Appellant William Joshua Zellars was convicted of DWI; sentence (one year jail) was suspended and he received two years community supervision and a $2,000 fine. The trial court denied his motion for new trial.
- Before trial Zellars obtained a written limine order prohibiting witnesses from saying a second blood vacutainer was "for the defense" unless foundation was laid (e.g., proof it was provided to defendant or court-ordered). The court expressly included the vacutainer provision in its signed limine order.
- DPS forensic analyst Yenjun Eric Ho testified that the blood kit contained two gray-top tubes and that the second tube is available for additional testing; Zellars did not object to some of this testimony during direct examination.
- On rebuttal the prosecutor asked whether the second vial could be tested by an independent lab; defense counsel objected as violating the limine, the court sustained the objection, instructed the jury to disregard anything beyond availability for retesting, and denied a request for mistrial.
- Zellars later moved for a new trial under Rule 21.3(g), alleging jury misconduct because jurors in the jury room said they considered that the second vial was available to the defense; the trial court denied the new-trial motion.
- On appeal the Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion: errors (if any) were not preserved or shown to have harmed Zellars, and the partial reporter’s record (without required points statement) must be presumed to support the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of mistrial was erroneous after alleged limine violation (testimony that second vacutainer was for the defense) | Zellars: State elicited testimony in violation of limine implying second tube was for defense; prejudicial and warranted mistrial | State: Testimony only said vial was available for additional testing by anyone; defense failed to timely object to similar testimony and any error was harmless | Court: Denial of mistrial affirmed; within zone of reasonable disagreement; no incurable prejudice shown |
| Whether denial of new trial for alleged jury misconduct was erroneous | Zellars: Jurors told the judge in the jury room they considered that a vial was available to the defense, so misconduct deprived him of a fair trial under Rule 21.3(g) | State: Jurors only said the vial was available for testing by anyone; no evidence jurors relied on inadmissible or forbidden testimony; no misconduct shown | Court: Denial of new trial affirmed; trial court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous and appellant failed to show harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Zavala v. State, 498 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (partial reporter’s record presumptively supports trial court’s judgment)
- Riley v. State, 378 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mistrial appropriate only for extreme, incurable prejudice)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (uphold mistrial ruling if within zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Aguilar v. State, 26 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (must object at first opportunity to preserve complaint about evidence)
- Lasiter v. State, 283 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (denial of limine is not a substitute for a timely objection when evidence is offered)
- Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (untimely objection after question answered waives error)
- Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (nonconstitutional error is harmless if it did not influence the jury or had but slight effect)