Harris v. State
Citation | 738 S.W.2d 207 |
Decision Date | 24 September 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 69224,69224 |
Parties | Curtis Paul HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
This is an appeal from a conviction for capital murder 1 in which the death penalty was imposed after the jury affirmatively answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071, V.A.C.C.P.
Appellant's previous conviction for the same offense was reversed because he was denied his constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses against him due to the trial court's refusal to allow effective cross-examination of the State's principal witness, Valerie Rencher, to establish her bias or motive in testifying. Harris v. State, 642 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Following a change of venue from Brazos County to Montgomery County, appellant was retried and again convicted of committing capital murder. 2
At the outset we are confronted with a claimed error in jury separation. Appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing the jurors in this death penalty case to separate after the charge was given at the guilt stage of the trial, and before a verdict was reached. Appellant argues that the separation was without his consent, that the mandatory provisions of Article 35.23, V.A.C.C.P., were violated, and that the State failed to rebut the presumption of harm.
After the charge was given to the jury and the opening arguments of the State and defense at the guilt stage of the trial had been completed, the court declared a recess telling the jury to go to the jury room. It appears that during this recess the claimed separation took place. Immediately after the recess the record reflects:
Appellant made the jury separation one of the grounds set forth in his motion for new trial, alleging his lack of consent.
Appellant testified that he had not consented to the jury separation nor had he been given an opportunity to consent or not to consent to the separation. The State did not cross-examine. Appellant's counsel, Michael McDougal, testified:
The record then reflects:
No other effort was made by the State to show the circumstances under which the separation took place. The State did not contest the lack of consent to the separation or the lack of opportunity to consent or refuse to consent to the separation. The jurors were not called, although juror Vittrup, who apparently had gone to "his Dad's ..." to get his car, was a witness at the hearing on the motion for new trial on another ground.
Article 35.23, V.A.C.C.P., gives the trial court the discretion to permit the jurors to separate in a felony case until the court has given its charge to the jury. After receiving the charge, the jury "shall be kept together" until a verdict is rendered or until the jury is finally discharged. Once the charge is given, Article 35.23, supra, allows the jury to separate only by permission of the court and with the consent of the parties. 3 The provisions of Article 35.23, supra, are mandatory. Green v. State, 510 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Goodall v. State, 501 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Wells v. State, 634 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1982) pet. ref'd.
The statute requires reversal if the jury is allowed to separate after the court's charge has been given unless the defendant consents. McDonald v. State, 597 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), cert. den. 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 467 (1980); Skillern v. State, 559 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). See also Rhynes v. State, 479 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
It is the defendant's burden to insure that the record shows that he or she did not consent to the separation. McDonald v. State, supra, at 367; Green v. State, supra; Burgett v. State, 646 S.W.2d 615, 619 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1983); Taylor v. State, 636 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1982). "Where the defendant has established in the record that a separation occurred without his consent, the mandatory language of Article 35.23 raises a presumption of harm which the State must then seek to rebut." Taylor v. State, 636 S.W.2d, supra, at 602. See also Reed v. State, 595 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Goodall v. State, 501 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Decker v. State, 570 S.W.2d 948, 950, n. 7 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Trevino v. State, 565 S.W.2d 938, 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Skillern v. State, supra.
In order to afford the State an opportunity to rebut this presumption of harm, the issue of improper jury separation must be raised during trial or in a motion for new trial. Green v. State, supra, at 922; McDonald v. State, supra, at 367; McIlveen v. State, 559 S.W.2d 815, 818-819, n. 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Taylor v. State, supra, at 602.
The appellant raised the issue by his motion for mistrial during trial on the merits. While he might not have fully developed the facts then, he did allege the issue in the motion for new trial. At the hearing thereon he demonstrated that neither he nor his attorneys consented to the separation, nor were they ever given an opportunity to consent. The burden thus shifted to the State to rebut the presumption of harm.
Apparently trying to equate failure to object with consent, the State argues, for the first time, on appeal, that appellant did not object to the separation before the alleged incident. The record does not show that appellant was ever aware of the proposed separation or plan to have the jurors move their vehicles. 4 In fact, the record indicates the contrary. The State's argument is without merit.
The State also attempts to rely upon the "housing" exception in Article 35.23, supra, and contends the men and women jurors separated and moved their vehicles in anticipation of the separation of men and women for the night as permitted by the statute. This argument is totally meritless.
Argument is also advanced that the separation was a mere temporary "de minimus" apartness of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lackey v. State
...with Fierro v. State, 706 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). A typical articulation of the standard appears in Harris v. State, 738 S.W.2d 207, at 225-26 (Tex.Cr.App.1986): 'When we view the facts, we must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any......
-
Alvarado v. State
...any rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to the punishment issue was "yes." Harris v. State, 738 S.W.2d 207, 225-226 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 207, 98 L.Ed.2d 158 Utilizing the required standard of review, we must again re......
-
Ex parte McAfee
...L.Ed.2d 355; Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403 (5th Cir.1987), cert. den. 484 U.S. 838, 108 S.Ct. 122, 98 L.Ed.2d 81; Harris v. State, 738 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), cert. den. 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 207, 98 L.Ed.2d 159. See also Tex.Jur.3rd, Vol. 21, Crim.Law, § 1644, p. 462. Another e......
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Harris
...the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals still requires that the body of the deceased be found and identified. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 738 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Crim.1986) (holding that homicide victim's body must be found and identified), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 207, 98 L.Ed.2d 158 ......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...of a crime. Kunkle v. State , 771 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (and, although superceded on other grounds, Harris v. State , 738 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986), contains a good discussion of accomplice witness law as well). §3:240 Connection of Accused to Criminal Act — Test The test to......
-
Table of cases
...Harris v. State 565 S.W.2d 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) 13:30 Harris v. State 645 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) 3:150 Harris v. State 738 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) 3:230 Harris v. State 784 S.W.2d 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) 6:300, 6:410 Hart v. State 537 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 19......
-
Defense witness as "accomplice": should the trial judge give a "care and caution" instruction?
...was an accomplice, the issue must be presented to the jury); Spears v. State, 900 P.2d 431, 440 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995); Harris v. State, 738 S.W.2d 207, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. (16) Thus, that a state witness was originally charged as an accessory after the fact, because he lied to police abo......