Bluitt v. State, No. 723-02.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Johnson, J. |
| Citation | 137 S.W.3d 51 |
| Docket Number | No. 723-02. |
| Decision Date | 09 June 2004 |
| Parties | Maurice BLUITT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. |
v.
The STATE of Texas.
William Reagan Wynn, Fort Worth, for Appellant.
Anne Swenson, Asst. DA, David M. Curl, Asst. DA, Fort Worth, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for State.
En banc.
[137 S.W.3d 52]
JOHNSON, J., delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
A jury convicted appellant of one count of indecency with a child by contact and sentenced him to twenty years confinement, the maximum term, and a $5,000 fine. At the guilt-innocence phase of trial, appellant testified and denied that he had inappropriately touched the alleged victim, who was his girlfriend's eight-year-old daughter. Appellant also testified that he had disciplined her with an open hand and that she had made the allegations because she was angry with him. The state, on cross-examination, introduced evidence of four prior convictions: a 1998 conviction for assault with bodily injury on a family member; two convictions, in 1992 and 1993, both for assault-domestic violence in Denver County, Colorado; and a 1982 conviction for fraud in Dallas County. During voir dire of appellant in the absence of the jury, appellant admitted numerous other offenses, and state's exhibits 4, 5, and 6, concerning four of those offenses, were offered and admitted into evidence without objection.
At the punishment phase of trial, the state re-offered all of the evidence previously presented, including state's exhibits 4, 5, and 6. Exhibit 4 showed a two-year misdemeanor probation for assault and a four-year deferred adjudication for kidnapping/sexual assault in 1998 in Arapahoe County, Colorado. Exhibit 4A, included in the record on appeal, contains the terms and conditions for those probations. There was nothing to indicate that either probation had been revoked or adjudicated. Exhibit 5 showed a deferred adjudication for sexual assault in 1987 in Dallas County, Texas. Exhibit 5A, included in the record on appeal, shows that appellant had discharged that deferred adjudication. Exhibit 6 showed a 1998 conviction for misdemeanor Class A assault on a family member in Tarrant County, Texas.
On appeal, appellant claimed that, at punishment, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could consider evidence of extraneous offenses only if it believed beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed those offenses. The state argued that appellant had waived his right to complain of the failure to instruct because his counsel affirmatively stated on the record that he had no objection to the jury charge. The court of appeals reviewed the case law noted by the parties and then, citing Webber v. State, 29 S.W.3d 226 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd), held that no distinction should be drawn between waiver by silence and waiver by an affirmative approval where there is jury-charge error. The court of appeals further held that the trial court's failure to include the required reasonabledoubt instruction was error. Bluitt v. State, 70 S.W.3d 901, 906 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002). The court of appeals then reviewed the record for evidence of egregious harm. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).
In making that determination, the court of appeals noted that Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)(op. on reh'g), and Almanza direct the courts of appeals to "review the degree of harm in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including contested evidence and the weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information" shown by the record. Id.
Based on its findings that: 1) during closing argument, the prosecutors focused on the extraneous-offense evidence; 2) the issue of guilt was hotly contested; and 3) the jury returned the maximum term of imprisonment, the court of appeals concluded
t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruffins v. State, NO. 03-18-00540-CR
...object to that portion of the jury charge, Ruffins effectively withdrew his objection to that part of the charge. See Bluitt v. State , 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explaining that stating that party has "no objection" to jury charge is "equivalent to failure to object" and doe......
-
Beham v. State, No. 06–14–00174–CR
...testing, it is not necessary that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt be again presented at the punishment stage. Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 54 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).4 During punishment, the trial court may admit evidence of "any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing," inclu......
-
Brooks v. State, No. 08-15-00208-CR
...to the charge, we will not reverse unless the record shows "egregious harm" to the defendant. Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743; Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171. In assessing the degree of harm, we do so in light of the entire jury charge, the state ......
-
Martinez v. State, No. 03-05-00345-CR.
...failed to object, we will not reverse for jury-charge error unless the record shows "egregious harm" to the defendant.3 Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim.App.1984). Errors that result in egregious harm are those that affect "......
-
Ruffins v. State, NO. 03-18-00540-CR
...object to that portion of the jury charge, Ruffins effectively withdrew his objection to that part of the charge. See Bluitt v. State , 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explaining that stating that party has "no objection" to jury charge is "equivalent to failure to object" and doe......
-
Beham v. State, No. 06–14–00174–CR
...testing, it is not necessary that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt be again presented at the punishment stage. Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 54 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).4 During punishment, the trial court may admit evidence of "any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing," inclu......
-
Brooks v. State, No. 08-15-00208-CR
...to the charge, we will not reverse unless the record shows "egregious harm" to the defendant. Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 743; Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171. In assessing the degree of harm, we do so in light of the entire jury charge, the state ......
-
Martinez v. State, No. 03-05-00345-CR.
...failed to object, we will not reverse for jury-charge error unless the record shows "egregious harm" to the defendant.3 Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim.App.1984). Errors that result in egregious harm are those that affect "......