Beavers v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-81-0477-CR,01-81-0477-CR |
| Citation | 634 S.W.2d 893 |
| Parties | Roosevelt BEAVERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Janet S. Morrow, Houston, for appellant.
Larry Urquhart, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, for appellee.
Before DUGGAN, WARREN and PRICE, JJ.
Appellant was convicted of murder by a jury; punishment was then assessed by the court at life imprisonment.
By the testimony of a state's witness, who was appellant's brother, it was established that appellant and his brother had driven to a secluded field in Harris County with the deceased, who was appellant's girlfriend, and that appellant there struck the deceased on the back of her head with a tire jack handle, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire. She was subsequently found dead in the field by other persons. Appellant presents four grounds of error. We affirm.
By his first ground of error, appellant alleges the trial court abused its discretion in finding appellant's brother, Charles Beavers, mentally competent to testify, thereby denying appellant due process of law. Under Art. 38.06(2), V.A.C.C.P., all persons are competent to testify in criminal cases except
2. Children and other persons who, after being examined by the court, appear not to possess sufficient intellect to relate transactions with respect to which they are interrogated, or who do not understand the obligation of an oath.
As stated in Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.Cr.App.1980),
It has also been said that there are three elements which must be considered in determining whether a witness is in fact competent to testify. The first is capacity to observe intelligently at the time of the events in question. The other elements of capacity are recollection and narration, though the former is usually merged into the latter. (citation omitted). The capacity to narrate involves on the one hand, both an ability to understand the questions asked and to frame intelligent answers and, on the other hand, a moral responsibility to tell the truth. If a person afflicted with a physical or mental disability possesses sufficient intelligence to receive correct impressions of events he sees, retains clear recollection of them and is able to communicate them through some means, there is no reason for rejecting his testimony. (original and added emphases; citation omitted.)
596 S.W.2d at 870, 871. The question of the competency of a witness is one for the trial court. The question of credibility of the witness is one for the jury. The court's decision as to the witnesses's competency may be based on voir dire examination of the prospective witness, or on the evidence of others. The burden of raising and proving incompetency is on the party alleging it, and the showing must be by a preponderance of the evidence. Hennington v. State, 101 Tex.Cr.R. 12, 274 S.W. 599 (1925); Foster v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 615, 155 S.W.2d 938 (1941). In reviewing a trial court's decision as to the competency of a witness, the applicable standard is whether the trial court abused its discretion. In so deciding, the reviewing court may consider the entire record, including the witness's trial testimony. Villarreal v. State, 576 S.W.2d 51 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
It was established and undisputed that Charles Beavers, the State's sole eyewitness, suffered from severe mental retardation. Although he was 30 years old, his mental development was that of a 51/2 year old. Appellant's trial counsel requested and obtained a pre-trial hearing to determine Charles' competency. Evidence heard included the testimony of Charles Beavers, his mother, Dr. Paul Malone, and the report of psychologist Dr. Robert White. Dr. White's conclusion in his letter stated:
The client did not give any signs of a mental health disorder, other than mental retardation. He appears to be in good contact with reality at his level of development. However, he is not considered to be a reliable witness for any complex and fast-occurring event. In order to determine his possible experiences one would have to offer him multiple choice answers.... Even when this is done, the information he could relate would be limited by the choices that he was offered. And, if a 'correct' internal choice were not offered, he would choose one of those offered to him. The client is not trying to deliberately mislead others; he simply does not have the necessary cognitive skills to communicate adequately.
The examiner judges that his testimony as a witness would not be reliable.
The trial judge acknowledged out of the presence of the jury that he had considered the psychologist's letter in reaching his decision on competency.
The competency hearing testimony included the following:
(Prosecution): But is (Charles) able in the way that you and he communicates, able to relate to you and tell you things that he has observed?
(Charles' Mother): Some.
(Prosecution): So he would appear to you to at least understand right from wrong?
(Mother): Well, if I tell him, 'If you do such a thing, the police will pick you up.'
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. Well, he won't do that.
Q. So he must understand?
A. Well, he's scared of the law.
(Defense Counsel): As his mother and being the one closest to him for his 30 years of life, are you of the opinion that he does not have a factual basis to determine right from wrong? He's not able to do that on a factual basis.
(Mother): Not on his own, no, sir.
(Defense Counsel): What is a lie? If you don't know, you can say you don't know.
(Charles): I don't know.
(Prosecution): Mr. Beavers, do you know the difference between telling the truth and telling something that is not true?
The Court: You are indicating yes?
The Witness: Yeah.
Q. If I were to say my coat is green as opposed to brown, then I'd be telling a lie, wouldn't I?
A. Yeah.
Q. So you know the difference between telling something that's true and real as opposed to just making something up and telling it? Are you nodding your head yes? You have to speak up.
A. Yeah.
The Court: Let me ask you this, Charles: What happens to people who tell lies? What is your idea of what happens to them?
The Witness: You get in trouble.
The Court: You get in trouble? In other words, it is wrong and you are punished if you tell a lie?
The Witness: Right.
The Court: If you are called to testify in this case, will you tell the truth?
The Witness: Yeah, I tell it.
The Court: Then you understand if you don't, then you would be punished? Do you understand that?
The Witness: Yeah.
At the conclusion of the competency hearing, the trial court held Charles Beavers competent to testify.
At trial itself, in establishing the alleged crime, Charles testified on direct examination as follows Q. Did anybody have any gasoline?
A. Yeh.
Q. Who had gasoline? Pinky had gasoline?
A. No.
Q. Did you have gasoline, Charles?
A. No. I ain't got no gas.
Q. Then who had that gasoline?
A. Roosevelt.
Q. Roosevelt had the gasoline?
A. Roosevelt.
Q. Roosevelt had the gasoline? Did you see what Roosevelt did with it?
A. Yeah.
Q. What did he do with the gasoline?
A. Burned.
Q. He burned what?
A. Pinky.
Q. Did you see Pinky get burned up?
A. Huh-uh.
Q. Did you hear Pinky say anything to Roosevelt?
A. He didn't say nothing.
Q. Did she say anything to Roosevelt about the gasoline?
A. No. Didn't say nothing.
(Prosecution): For the record, this is State Exhibit No. 19.
Q. Charles, would you look at that for me, please? Do you know what that thing is?
A. Yeah, I know what it is.
Q. Okay. Tell me what it is.
A. A jack handle.
Q. It's a jack handle?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you ever see Roosevelt use a jack handle the day that you were in the woods with Pinky and Roosevelt?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what did you see him do with the jack handle?
A. Hit her upside the head.
Q. He hit who upside the head.
A. Pinky.
Q. What did Pinky say at that point?
A. She didn't say nothing.
Q. Did she fall down or did she stay standing up?
A. Standing down, I guess.
While the appellant contends that the written report of psychologist Dr. Malone establishes the incompetency of Charles, such report was marked but never admitted before the jury; the court accepted such testimony by stipulation of the parties. Upon a review of the complete record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Charles Beavers competent as a witness. The record as a whole, and Charles' own testimony, provides sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding. The testimony quoted above showed the witness's ability to understand questions and frame intelligent answers, as well as to recollect and communicate that recollection. That he was mentally retarded was not in itself grounds for establishing incompetency. See Watson; Villarreal. Furthermore, inconsistencies alone in a child's testimony do not render the witness incompetent. Fields v. State, 500 S.W.2d 500 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Smith v. State, 410 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1966).
The record also provides support for the trial court's finding of Charles' awareness of a moral responsibility to tell the truth, as partially shown by the testimony quoted above. The first ground of error is overruled.
By his second ground of error, appellant asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's failure to offer the psychologist's testimony before the jury on the issue of Charles' credibility. Appellant does not specify what "psychologist's testimony" should have been brought before the jury, but we assume that reference is being made to Dr. White's or Dr. Malone's reports attached to the records as a defense exhibit. While this exhibit was marked, the record does not establish that it was admitted as evidence before the jury. While the State asserts in its brief, without reference to the record, that the letter was admitted and was before the jury, we do not assume so from the record. Alth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romines v. State
...competency of the witness. See Hennington v. State, 101 Tex.Crim.R. 12, 274 S.W. 599, 600 (1924) and Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd). A determination of the witness's competency is primarily the function of the trial court and the decis......
-
Berotte v. State
...hearing, but the entire testimony. Fields v. State, 500 S.W.2d 500, 503 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd). N.F. frequently nodded or shrugged in response to questions and much of her testimony before the jury was cont......
-
Rhea v. State
...Smith v. State, supra; Clark v. State, 659 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.); Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd); D.L.N. v. State, 590 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1979, no pet.). I am not willing to hold that to be c......
-
Zurita v. State
... ... Crim. App. 2014). We review a trial court's decision that a witness is competent to testify under an abuse-of-discretion standard, considering all of the witness's testimony. Rodriguez v ... State , 772 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, pet. ref'd); Beavers v ... State , 634 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref'd); see Montgomery v ... State , 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). In a hearing outside the jury's presence, Josie testified that she knew the difference between the truth and a lie: Page 19 State: So if I ... ...
-
Trial motions
...§15:111 Issue Is Discretionary With the Court The question of competency of a witness is one for the trial court. Beavers v. State , 634 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref’d ). Whether a witness is competent to testify is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.......
-
Table of cases
...838 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1991, pet. ref’d ), §15:122 Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995), Form 20-10 Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref’d ), §§15:111, 15:112 Beckcom v. State, 938 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no pet. ),......
-
Trial Motions
...§15:111 Issue Is Discretionary With the Court The question of competency of a witness is one for the trial court. Beavers v. State , 634 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref’d ). Whether a witness is competent to testify is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. ......