Hallman v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 02-18-00434-CR |
| Citation | 647 S.W.3d 805 |
| Parties | Robert F. HALLMAN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
647 S.W.3d 805
Robert F. HALLMAN, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas
No. 02-18-00434-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
Delivered: June 16, 2022
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LISA MULLEN, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE: SHAREN WILSON, CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY; JOSEPH W. SPENCE, CHIEF OF THE POST-CONVICTION DIVISION; SHELBY J. WHITE, ASHLEA DEENER, SAMANTHA FANT, ASSISTANT CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR TARRANT COUNTY, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.
Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
OPINION ON REMAND
Opinion by Justice Wallach
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a classic swearing match in a multiple-count sexual-abuse-of-children case involving the suspicious timing of outcries. Almost two years prior to Rita's1 March 9, 2016 outcry, on August 10, 2014, a domestic dispute between Appellant Robert F. Hallman, his then-spouse Kim, and their eight-year-old son Ron resulted in Hallman and Kim giving written statements to the police. Their children—Ron, Amy, Rita, and Kelly—and some outside witnesses also spoke with the responding officers, who completed a family-violence packet that described the actions taken and everyone's demeanor that day. These documents show that no complaints of or allegations about sexual abuse of the children were raised by anyone that day. See Hallman v. State (Hallman I ), 603 S.W.3d 178, 181–82, 185–86, 198 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020), vacated (Hallman II ), 620 S.W.3d 931 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Child Protective Services (CPS) became involved, and Hallman, who had been in and out of the family home over the course of several years, was charged with assault-family violence. Kim and the children moved into an apartment. Several months later, Hallman was allowed to visit the children and to drive Amy and Rita to their CPS-sponsored counseling appointments.
Fast forward to March 6, 2016, when—after fighting with Rita and Kim—Amy decided to live with Hallman even though he was homeless and living in his truck. Three days later, Rita made an outcry of sexual abuse against Hallman, and he was arrested a month later while in class at Tarrant County College. Amy was found in his truck in the Tarrant County College parking lot. CPS interviewed her, and she was returned to Kim's custody. In May 2016, Kim filed for divorce but did not mention Rita's sexual abuse allegations in her divorce petition. Id. at 181, 197. Kim took possession of Hallman's truck, which had contained all of his and Amy's belongings, and she sold it to CarMax with Hallman's belongings inside.
After various delays, Hallman's trial on Rita's sexual-abuse allegations was set for Monday, February 13, 2017. However, Rita had become reluctant to testify. On February 12, 2017, the day before Hallman's trial date, Amy made her own sexual-abuse outcry against him, delaying Hallman's trial until 2018. Id. at 197.
Three Tarrant County judges presided over portions of Hallman's 2018 jury trial on whether he had sexually abused Rita and Amy: a magistrate judge presided over voir dire, a visiting judge heard the trial's guilt–innocence phase, and the elected judge of Criminal District Court No. 1 heard the trial's punishment phase.2 At the conclusion of the trial's guilt–innocence phase, the jury acquitted Hallman of the most serious charge—continuous sexual abuse of children (both Rita and Amy)—but
convicted him of the remaining six offenses—two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen, three counts of indecency with a child by contact, and one count of sexual assault of a child under the age of seventeen, all of which pertained solely to Amy. Id. at 181.
A failure on the part of the prosecution to disclose impeachment evidence—the family-violence packet and Kim's written statement from the August 10, 2014 incident that directly contradicted her trial testimony about whether she had spoken to the police that night about her concerns that Hallman had been sexually abusing Amy—came to light for the first time during the second day of the trial's punishment phase. Hallman requested a mistrial and alternatively asked the elected judge to review relevant portions of the guilt–innocence trial record or to let the visiting judge decide his motion for mistrial. The elected judge denied all of Hallman's requests.
Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the elected judge's denial of the requested mistrial constituted an abuse of discretion, and the resulting harm affected Hallman's substantial rights. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
II. BACKGROUND
We begin with a full recapitulation of the case's background and earlier proceedings in this court, followed by the case's review and remand by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
A. Prelude to the First Appeal
Until August 2014, Hallman had lived off-and-on with Kim and the children—Rita was the oldest, followed by Amy, Ron, and then Kelly. Id. During Hallman and Kim's tumultuous twenty-year relationship, they took turns calling the police on each other. Id. Kim called the police on August 9, 2014.3 That day, the police told Kim that they could not make Hallman leave, so Kim took Rita, Ron, and Kelly and left for a few hours, while Amy stayed with Hallman.
On August 10, 2014, Rita and Ron called the police,4 id. at 181–82, and Hallman was arrested for assaulting Kim. Kim secured a restraining order against Hallman, a CPS case was opened, and Kim and the children moved. As part of the CPS case, the children were ordered to attend weekly hour-long counseling sessions for four months, and Kim and Hallman unsuccessfully tried marriage counseling. Kim said that after Hallman was released from jail in October 2014, he went to live with his relatives and never lived with her and the children again. Kim and Hallman did not get back together after the August 10, 2014 incident, although Hallman received visitation with the children after the CPS case closed, and he called CPS to check on them.
Over a year later, on March 6, 2016, Amy moved out of Kim's apartment to live with Hallman, who was homeless and living in his vehicle. Amy said that when she moved out, Kim told her that Hallman was going to prostitute her and that this cut her to the core because she knew it was not true.5
Three days after Amy left with Hallman, Rita made a delayed outcry, accusing Hallman of sexual abuse. A warrant was issued
for Hallman's arrest two weeks later. He was arrested on April 7, and Amy was returned to Kim. Id. at 197. Kim filed for a divorce from Hallman in May 2016,6 and the divorce was finalized a few months later. Id. at 181, 197.
In February 2017, the day before Hallman's trial was supposed to begin on Rita's sexual-abuse allegations, Amy made a delayed outcry of sexual abuse against Hallman, resulting in the trial's postponement and his indictment on new charges. Id.
Before trial, the State provided Hallman's defense counsel with a two-page notice of disclosure pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 39.14 that did not include thirteen pages of discovery regarding the August 10, 2014 incident between Hallman and Kim, who was one of the State's key witnesses.7 Id. at 181.
After a jury was selected under the magistrate judge's administration, the visiting judge presided over the five-day guilt–innocence phase of trial. During that phase, several witnesses testified about the August 10, 2014 incident. Id. They testified that the incident began either when Amy tried to leave with Hallman and Kim tried to stop her, or when Hallman hit Ron during a dispute with Kim. Id. at 181–82. Kim claimed that she had "told the police on August the 10th, 2014, that [she] had suspicions that [Hallman] may have been sexually molesting [Amy]," and that an officer had pulled Amy aside separately and spoke with her. Id. at 182. Kim further testified,
Q. Okay. So that's August the 10th of 2014, and your testimony is that on that date, you told the police -- do you remember what the police officer looked like?
A. No. Because that was four, almost five years ago.
....
Q. Okay. But you're saying that you told that police officer that you thought [Amy] was being sexually abused?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And you're saying that the police officer talked to [Amy] about that; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. He pulled her to the side. She was upset. It wasn't the fact that she was taking sides. She was upset because she did not want [Hallman] to go to jail .... She was upset. She was not the only child upset that day. [Kelly], my baby, was upset also because she did not want [Hallman] to go to jail. She was also upset because he had assaulted me.
Q. Well, and in the end, the police did take [Hallman], right?
A. Yes.
Q. They arrested him?
Okay. And he was taken away from the house, right?
A. Yes.
Amy's testimony supported Kim's: Amy stated that the officers had asked her about whether Hallman had ever been abusive or sexually abusive to her and that she had told them no.
Kim also testified that Hallman had threatened her and the children, stating,
"If we ever sent him to jail, it was a known fact, he told myself and the children, if we ever sent him to jail that he would kill all of us."
During the defense's case, Kim again reiterated that on August 10, 2014, she had told the responding officer about her concern that Amy was being sexually abused by Hallman. She agreed that she had testified that Hallman had threatened that he would kill her if she sent him to jail but acknowledged that although she effectively had sent him to jail on August 10, 2014, they continued to see each other afterwards.
Then the defense called Crowley Police Detective Cesar Robles, who had worked for the Fort Worth Police Department on August 10, 2014, and who had been one of the two patrol officers who responded to the domestic-disturbance call that day. Id. Detective Robles stated that Kim had never told him or the other responding officer, Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial