Woodall v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 285
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Phyllis Anne Woodall was indicted on one count of aggravated promotion of prostitution and four counts of engaging in organized criminal activity; trial proceeded on Count II, resulting in a guilty verdict and a 16-year confinement term with a $10,000 fine.
- The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reversed on punishment and remanded for rehearing on that issue; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to address confrontation rights.
- The Naked Harem club in El Paso was involved; witnesses testified about prostitution activities occurring at the club notwithstanding a policy prohibiting sexual contact, with some dancers and patrons admitting sex acts.
- A defense witness, Lucia Pinedo, testified with memory loss about whether she danced there; the State sought to read her grand jury testimony when she could not be recalled.
- Appellant objected to reading Pinedo's grand jury transcript for lack of proper predicate and for confrontation concerns; the trial court offered a writ of attachment to compel Pinedo’s presence, which Woodall declined.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately held that memory loss did not render Pinedo “absent” for Confrontation Clause purposes, but Woodall is estopped from arguing a confrontation violation because she declined the attachment remedy; the case is remanded for consideration of Woodall’s remaining point of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause impact of Pinedo's grand jury testimony | Woodall argues Pinedo’s memory loss rendered her absent and unavailable for cross-examination | State contends memory loss does not render present witnesses unavailable and that proper foundation existed | No Confrontation Clause violation for memory loss; estopped from arguing physical absence; remanded for remaining issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements and confrontation analysis; threshold absent/testimonial inquiry)
- Owens v. United States, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1988) (memory loss does not automatically render witness absent; cross-examination opportunity can be sufficient)
- California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1970) (memory loss and cross-examination adequacy; present witness may mitigate concerns at issue)
- Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (lack of memory for basis of determination does not necessarily violate confrontation if cross-examination opportunity exists)
- Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex.Crim.App., 1999) (invited error/waiver concepts in appellate review)