Beaty v. State
| Decision Date | 21 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-17-00287-CR,05-17-00287-CR |
| Parties | JOSEPH GLENN BEATY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Evans
Joseph Glenn Beaty was charged by indictment with the aggravated sexual assault of complainant, D.A. A jury convicted appellant of the offense as alleged in the indictment and assessed punishment at life imprisonment. On appeal, appellant raises five issues contending that: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the DNA evidence because the State failed to prove that the evidence was obtained under a valid search warrant; (2) the trial court erred by admitting extraneous offense evidence; (3) the limiting instruction regarding the extraneous offense evidence was defective; (4) the trial court failed to implement his "right to be punished according only to the facts of the case;" and (5) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the DNA evidence because the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause that evidence of crime would be found in a sample of appellant's saliva. In three cross-issues, the State requests that we modify the judgment to reflect a deadly weapon finding; that appellant pleaded "not true" to the enhancement paragraph; and that jury found the enhancement paragraph true. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
D.A. testified that growing up she had no parental supervision and became addicted to PCP when she was fourteen years old. She started working in prostitution at that same age. In July, 2009, she lived in the Fair Park area, a known prostitution area. Much of her life involved getting high and working as a prostitute. On July 3, 2009 she was walking down Martin Luther King Boulevard to Minyards when a man in a black four door Lincoln asked her if she wanted a ride, took her to the Minyards, and then waited for her.1 When she got back in the car, the man said he wanted "to do a date" with her and she agreed. The man drove her to an alley in a secluded area near some railroad tracks where he first pulled out some money but then pulled out a knife and started choking her using both hands. D.A. tried to wrestle with him to get loose and out of the car but she was unable to unlock the door. The man then sexually assaulted her without using a condom. D.A. testified that before he sexually assaulted her, he held the knife up to her throat and she thought that he was going to kill her if she did not comply. She also testified that he was choking her so tightly that she blacked out. After the assault was over, the man threw her and her clothes out of the car. When she got back home, the police were called and she was taken to the hospital where a sexual assault exam was done. When D.A.'s sexual assault kit was tested several years later, there was a positive match to appellant's DNA.2
During the trial, three other women testified regarding sexual assaults that appellant had committed against them. S.R. testified that in the early morning hours of August 3, 2008, after a night of drinking and smoking PCP at a biker club, she was walking to her children's father's house in Oak Cliff when appellant, driving a four door maroon car on the opposite side of the street asked her if she needed a ride.3 After she said no and kept walking, appellant made a U-turn, pulled up beside her, grabbed her and put her in the car. S.R. tried to get out of the car, but she could not unlock the door because the power lock did not work. At that point, she fought with appellant but he choked her until she passed out. When S.R. regained consciousness, appellant was having sex with her. She started fighting again, at which point appellant grabbed her and choked her until she lost consciousness again. When she came to the second time, they were in a new location near a barn about ten minutes away from the first location and close to downtown. At that point, S.R. was able to get out of the car and run to people standing outside of some condos who called the police for her. The police took her to Parkland Hospital where a sexual assault exam was done. Testing done several years later on the sexual assault kit resulted in a positive match to appellant's DNA.4
B.S. lived in the Fair Park area of Dallas. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia when she was eighteen or nineteen years old, a condition that sometimes affects her memory. B.S. testified that on March 31, 2009, she was trying to go to her mother's house in Irving and walked up to Martin Luther King Boulevard. As she stood on the sidewalk trying to figure out what she was going to do, a black four door car driven by a light-skinned man pulled up to her and started aconversation. B.S. could not remember the man's face or what was said, but she knew the man wanted her to go with him. Although she had concerns about what kind of person the man was, she got in the car and asked him if he could take her to Irving. The man then drove her to a wooded area, stopped, got out of the car and forced her into the back seat where he sexually assaulted her at knifepoint. B.S. could not remember if he wore a condom during the assault but did not think he did. After the assault was over and the man moved away from her, B.S. got out of the car and, wearing no pants, ran to a nearby gas station where she called 911. A short time later, her mother took her to Parkland Hospital where a sexual assault examination was done.5 Testing done several years later on the sexual assault kit resulted in a positive match to appellant's DNA.6
In 2013, U.W. lived at a motel in Grand Prairie located right on the Grand Prairie/Arlington border. That area was known to be frequented by prostitutes. On July 15, 2013, she was walking to her daughter's house in Grand Prairie when there was a sudden downpour of rain. As she was looking for shelter, a black four door car made a U-turn in a nearby parking lot. Appellant was the driver of the car and offered U.W. a ride. U.W. was grateful for the offer and got in the car. U.W. told appellant she was going to her daughter's house which was across the nearby train tracks. Appellant, however, started driving in the opposite direction and drove U.W. to a remote area behind an abandoned warehouse where he held a knife behind her and sexually assaulted her. Appellant did not use a condom during the assault. When the assault was over, appellant told U.W. to get out of the car. U.W. was still naked and wiped herself with a napkin she had in her purse which she gave to the responding police officer. U.W. refused to go to the hospital for a sexual assault exam.
Detective Donalson of the Arlington Police Department investigated U.W.'s sexual assault case. Appellant became a suspect in the case due to a CODIS7 hit on the DNA that was collected as part of the case. On December 9, 2013, Detective Donalson interviewed appellant at the Dallas County criminal courthouse.8 During the interview, appellant admitted to picking up prostitutes, but was emphatic about the fact that he always wore a condom. Appellant's DNA was found on the napkin U.W. used to wipe herself after she was sexually assaulted.
Detective Haecker investigated the sexual assault cases of D.A., B.S., and S.R. He also investigated the sexual assault cases of two other victims, T.W. and D.Az.,9 with circumstances similar to those of D.A., S.R., and B.S. Detective Haecker testified to the following similarities in the cases he investigated: (1) all of the cases involved a black four door car, and with the exception of D.A., all the sexual assaults occurred in close proximity to each other in known prostitution areas around Fair Park or South Dallas; (2) with the exception of S.R., all of the victims were prostitutes; (3) all of the assaults were vaginal sexual assaults and occurred in the daytime; (4) a condom was not used in any of the cases; (5) the cases of D.A. and S.R. involved choking to some level of unconsciousness, and the cases of D.A., B.S., and T.W. involved an allegation of a knife or weapon; and (6) DNA linked appellant to all of the victims, except for D.Az. who refused to go to the hospital and have a sexual assault examination done.
Detective Haecker interviewed appellant as part of his investigation. The interview was played for the jury. Appellant admitted picking up prostitutes for sex but said that he would never have sex with a prostitute without a condom, that he always paid, and that he never used any kind of force or a weapon with a prostitute. Appellant told the detective that he recognized the complainant, D.A. who he knew to be a prostitute and had multiple sexual encounters with her. Appellant said that S.R. looked familiar but he did not really remember her. Appellant did not recognize B.S. Appellant also told the detective that in 2008, 2009, he bought older model Lincoln cars and he did have one that was black. During the video recorded interview, Detective Haecker served appellant with a search warrant.
In appellant's first issue, he contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the DNA evidence because the State failed to prove that the search warrant was valid because it did not produce the original warrant and proof as to the contents of the warrant. The State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress because the record supports the trial court's finding that a valid search warrant existed. We agree with the State.
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. Lujan v. State, 331 S.W.3d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (per curiam). In conducting this review, appellate courts employ a bifurcated standard. Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex....
To continue reading
Request your trial