Hall v. State

Citation283 S.W.3d 137
Decision Date01 May 2009
Docket NumberNo. 03-07-00626-CR.,No. 03-07-00627-CR.,03-07-00626-CR.,03-07-00627-CR.
PartiesLaura Ashley HALL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

C. Bryan Case Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Ronald Earle, Dist. Atty., Austin, for appellee.

Before Justices PURYEAR, PEMBERTON and WALDROP.

OPINION

BOB PEMBERTON, Justice.

We withdraw our opinion and judgment dated February 19, 2009, and substitute the following in its place. We overrule Hall's motion for rehearing and the State's "Supplemental Prayer for Relief on Appellant's Motion for Rehearing."

In Pitonyak v. State, 253 S.W.3d 834 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, pet. ref'd), this Court affirmed the conviction of Colton Pitonyak, an intermittent University of Texas student, for the murder of twenty-one year-old Jennifer Cave, whose dismembered body was found in Pitonyak's West Campus-area condominium. Pitonyak was apprehended after fleeing to Mexico in the company of Laura Ashley Hall, a fellow UT student. This appeal arises from subsequent criminal proceedings against Hall.

Following a jury trial, Hall was convicted of the felony offense of tampering with physical evidence—namely, a human body or body part—and the misdemeanor offense of hindering apprehension. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.09(c), (d)(1) (West 2003),1 § 38.05(a), (c) (West Supp.2008).2 Punishment was assessed at five years' imprisonment for the evidence-tampering offense and one year's imprisonment for hindering apprehension. Hall appeals, bringing seven points of error.

In her first two points, Hall seeks a new trial based on the State's advocacy of what she contends were inconsistent factual theories during her trial and Pitonyak's trial. Her third and fourth points raise claims of charge error. In her fifth and sixth points, Hall seeks a new trial based on allegations that the State suppressed or withheld evidence in violation of a discovery order and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as construed in Brady v. Maryland3 and its progeny. In her seventh point, Hall seeks, in the alternative, a new punishment trial based on an additional claimed Brady violation.

We agree with Hall that the State suppressed evidence in violation of a discovery order and Brady. While we conclude that these actions ultimately did not cause reversible error in Hall's convictions, they do require a new trial on her punishment.

BACKGROUND

Although Hall does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions, several of her appellate points must be evaluated in the context of the evidence presented at trial. We accordingly review the evidence in some detail.

Jennifer Cave's disappearance, death, and discovery

When last seen alive, Jennifer Cave was with Colton Pitonyak in Austin's Sixth Street district during the late evening hours of Tuesday, August 16, 2005. On this particular evening, the pair was celebrating a new job that Cave had obtained with an Austin law firm, which she was to start the following day. By all accounts, Cave was very excited about her new professional opportunity. A friend of Cave, Michael Rodriguez, testified at trial that he spoke with Cave via cell phone several times that evening, the latest at 1:05 a.m. on Wednesday, August 17. During that final conversation, according to Rodriguez, Cave indicated that she was still with Pitonyak, who was beating on car windows and urinating in public.

At approximately 3:00 a.m. that morning, according to witness Nora Sullivan—a former UT student whose connections to the underlying events included being a "good friend" of Pitonyak and down-the-hall neighbor in his condominium complex—Pitonyak showed up at her door alone indicating that he had misplaced his cell phone and asking to borrow hers. Sullivan recounted that Pitonyak, who appeared to her to be intoxicated, claimed to have exchanged gunfire at his condo with "two or three Mexican guys." Sullivan testified that Pitonyak remained at her condo for approximately half an hour while the two visited and smoked cigarettes on her balcony. During their visit, Sullivan ascertained that Pitonyak had a handgun in his possession, which he unloaded in her presence. She added that Pitonyak also asked her if she noticed any blood on him. She noted a "smudge" of blood on Pitonyak's arm. Despite her observations and Pitonyak's statements, Sullivan did not contact police. She told the jury that she had simply dismissed Pitonyak's tale of a gunfight as false because she had not heard any shots.

That afternoon, Pitonyak purchased several items from Breed & Company, a hardware store located about four blocks from his condo: bathroom tissue, shop towels (described as a type of heavy-grade paper towel), 55-gallon drum liners, carpet cleaner, a quart of ammonia, Febreze odor eliminator, a two-pack of latex gloves, a small plastic-handled hack saw, and dust masks. These items, as well as a corresponding receipt, were later recovered from Pitonyak's condo. The receipt indicated that the purchases were made on August 17 at 3:18 p.m.4 Jeffrey Breed, an owner of the hardware store, testified that he assisted a young man that afternoon in purchasing these items from what appeared to be a handwritten list. According to Breed, the young man was alone. Another receipt later recovered from Pitonyak's condo reflected a purchase from a nearby Burger King at 3:26 p.m.

In the meantime, Jennifer Cave had not shown up for work at her new job. The law firm attempted unsuccessfully to reach her by phone, and eventually sent someone to look for her at her apartment. Again having no success in finding her, the firm called Sharon Cave, Jennifer Cave's mother, expressing concern. Sharon5 testified that after receiving the call, she made several calls to Jennifer's cell phone but did not get an answer. Sharon proceeded to contact Jennifer's cell phone provider, obtained a list of her daughter's incoming and outgoing calls the preceding evening, and began calling those numbers in an effort to locate her daughter.

Through her calls, Sharon was able to determine that Jennifer had been out with Pitonyak the preceding evening. Pitonyak's number had also appeared among Jennifer's incoming or outgoing calls, and Sharon attempted unsuccessfully to reach him. Pitonyak later returned her call.6 Pitonyak, according to Sharon, acknowledged that he had been with Jennifer the preceding evening but claimed they had parted ways around midnight. At the same time, Sharon happened to be on a different phone line with Michael Rodriguez, the friend who had spoken with Jennifer by phone at 1:05 a.m. Rodriguez overheard Pitonyak's statements and informed Sharon that Pitonyak was lying because Jennifer had indicated during their later call that she was still with Pitonyak. Sharon confronted Pitonyak with that assertion. Pitonyak, according to Sharon, "just got mad and hung up."

Around 6:30 p.m., Scott Engle, a former boyfriend of Jennifer, called Pitonyak. Engle testified that "I had previously called him [Pitonyak] trying to find Jennifer as well and left him a message and told him that I believed the cops were on their way to his house because we knew Jennifer's car was over there." Engle added that Pitonyak's demeanor during this call was "[t]alking fast, jittery, nervous."

Sharon further testified that her fiancé, Jim Sedwick, was assisting her search efforts and had left a message that evening for Pitonyak to call him. Pitonyak called back, and Sharon answered.7 She confronted Pitonyak, "Colton, I know that you were with Jennifer. I want to know where she is." Pitonyak, according to Sharon, responded, "Dude, I'm eating pizza with my friends. Leave me alone." Thereafter, Sharon contacted Austin police to report her daughter missing.

On the following morning, Thursday, August 18, 2005, Sharon, accompanied by Sedwick, drove from Corpus Christi to Austin, where they met another of Sharon's daughters and continued efforts to locate Jennifer. Sharon testified that while en route, Austin police contacted them and advised that Jennifer's car had been located at Pitonyak's condominium building. Concerned about Jennifer's safety and fearing that Pitonyak was somehow involved in her disappearance, Cave and Sedwick ultimately broke into Pitonyak's condominium. Sedwick entered the unit. He discovered Jennifer's body in the bathtub of the unit's bathroom. Sedwick immediately left the condo and called the police.

Sedwick and Austin police found a gruesome scene in Pitonyak's bathroom. Jennifer Cave's head and hands had been severed and placed in plastic garbage bags found on the bathroom floor. A plastic-handled hacksaw—one of the items Pitonyak had purchased at the hardware store the preceding afternoon—was found laying on top of Cave's headless torso. There were blood stains in the bathroom sink and on the carpeted floor of the condo's living area.

Police also found two bullet or shell casings on a table in the condo's living room. An additional shell casing was found in the bathtub with Cave's body. On the living room table was also found a folding buck knife and one of the blue shop towels. Each of these items, as well as the hacksaw, later tested positive for blood. A dishwashing machine in the unit's kitchen area contained a machete and a steak knife. Also found in the unit were the other hardware items, an "Ace Hardware" bag, and the hardware store receipt, previously described. A pair of women's flip flops was also found on the bathroom floor near the bathtub and toilet.

Medical examiner Elizabeth Peacock performed an autopsy on Cave's body and testified on its results at trial.8 She determined that Cave had been killed by a gunshot that had passed through Cave's right arm into her chest, severing her aorta, before the bullet lodged near her back. Peacock could not determine an exact time of death, but opined that unconsciousness and death would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 2016
    ...at 760. Such a showing can be made with evidence presented at a hearing on a motion for new trial. See Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137, 175–79 (Tex.App.—Austin 2009, pet. ref'd) (reversing appellant's sentence and remanding for new trial on punishment based on evidence presented at hearing on......
  • Young v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 17, 2019
    ...probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different." Hall v. State , 283 S.W.3d 137, 169 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. ref'd) (quoting Webb v. State , 232 S.W.3d 109, 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ); see United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 6......
  • Nelson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 2018
    ...a criminal defendant "has no general right to pretrial discovery of evidence in the State's possession." Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137, 163 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. ref'd). Limited statutory discovery is available pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14. Michaelwicz v. Stat......
  • Branch v. State , 03–09–00477–CR.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 2011
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2015 Contents
    • August 17, 2015
    ...witness’ failure to identify the defendant in a pretrial photo lineup can be material exculpatory or mitigating evidence. Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The state has a duty to reveal material admissible, such as audio recordings of conversations between the defendant......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2015 Contents
    • August 17, 2015
    ...158 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), §15:122.2 Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), §§8:13, 15:121.2 Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), §13:54 Hall v. State, 297 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), §§1:21, 1:74, 2:85, 6:57.1, 6:121, 16:62.1, 17:23.2.1 Ha......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2019 Contents
    • August 16, 2019
    ...witness’ failure to identify the defendant in a pretrial photo lineup can be material exculpatory or mitigating evidence. Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The state has a duty to reveal material admissible, such as audio recordings of conversations between the defendant......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 5, 2022
    ...witness’ failure to identify the defendant in a pretrial photo lineup can be material exculpatory or mitigating evidence. Hall v. State, 283 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The state has a duty to reveal material admissible, such as audio recordings of conversations between the defendant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT