Howard v. State, No. 01-07-00686-CR (Tex. App. 8/21/2008)
| Decision Date | 21 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-07-00688-CR.,No. 01-07-00686-CR.,No. 01-07-00687-CR.,01-07-00686-CR.,01-07-00687-CR.,01-07-00688-CR. |
| Parties | PRECIOUS LAMONT HOWARD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 268th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 42232B, 42233B, 42234B.
Panel consists of Justices TAFT, JENNINGS, and BLAND.
A jury found appellant, Precious Lamont Howard, guilty of two separate offenses of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault1 and one offense of burglary of a habitation, attempting to commit assault or committing assault.2 After finding true the allegation in an enhancement paragraph that appellant had a prior felony conviction, the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for sixty years in each case, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant presents eleven issues for our review. In his eighth issue, appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his convictions. In his fourth issue, appellant contends that he was denied due course of law, due process, and a fair trial under the Texas and United States Constitutions3 as he was incompetent during the trial on the merits. In his first through third issues, appellant contends that the trial court, in the competency trial, erred in admitting a state hospital report, in excluding defense evidence that appellant exhibited signs of mental illness "months before the offenses," and in improperly charging the jury regarding the presumption of competency and the burden of proof. In his sixth issue, appellant contends that the trial court, in the trial on the merits, erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on a juror's failure to divulge during jury selection that she knew an assistant district attorney. In his ninth through eleventh issues, appellant contends that the trial court, in the trial on the merits, erred in charging "the jury that the term mental disease or defect does not include abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct," in not charging the jury that "there was no presumption of sanity," and in charging the jury that "voluntary intoxication is not a defense because there was no evidence [that] appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense." In his fifth and seventh issues, appellant contends that the trial court, in the trial on the merits, erred in admitting evidence from a State's psychologist regarding the effects of narcotics on appellant and his admission to her during an interview regarding his sanity.
We affirm.
At the trial on the merits, Stacey Winton testified that, in the early morning of May 10, 2005, at the Richmond House Apartments, she heard a loud banging emanating from the direction of her locked front door. She got out of bed, turned on a light, and opened her bedroom door to check on the noise. When Winton opened her bedroom door, she saw that appellant had kicked in her front door and was standing shirtless inside of her apartment. Winton immediately started to scream and to back away from appellant. Appellant grabbed Winton's arm and brushed her breast, mumbling "come with me," as appellant attempted to back Winton towards her bed. Winton quickly snatched up her cellular telephone, called for emergency assistance, and left her apartment. Appellant followed her into the hallway and subsequently kicked in the door of her neighbor, Dora Medina. Winton noted that appellant had left his shirt on her desk in her bedroom and a crumpled dollar bill on the floor of the dining room area. On cross-examination, Winton conceded that she did not know if appellant was intoxicated during the incident.
Medina testified that, at approximately 1:30 a.m., she was awakened by a scream. When she got out of bed and walked out of her bedroom, appellant kicked in her front door and started touching her breast. Medina quickly left her apartment, and appellant followed her into the complex's hallway. Medina told appellant that a woman lived upstairs in the complex. Medina explained that she knew that Pam Spillers lived upstairs and that her father, Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department Sergeant L. Spillers, who had a gun, was a frequent guest. Appellant then said, "woman upstairs" and walked away from Medina in order to climb the complex's stairs. Medina noted that appellant's eyes were not normal, describing them as "golf-sized" and "white." On cross-examination, Medina admitted that she did not know if appellant was intoxicated.
Pam Spillers testified that she lived on the floor above Medina and that her father, a frequent overnight guest at her one-bedroom apartment, was sleeping on the couch in her living room. After she heard loud sounds, she went to her father in the living room. He had already awakened and had his gun ready. Appellant broke in the locked door,4 and Sergeant Spillers shot him. Appellant left the apartment and went down the stairs.
Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department Deputy M. Duran testified that, as he was driving to the Richmond House Apartments, a motorist flagged him down and told him that appellant was sitting on the steps at Calvary Episcopal Church. When Duran arrived at the church, he saw that appellant, who was shirtless, was bleeding from his chest. After Duran arrested appellant, paramedics took appellant to the Oakbend Medical Center ("Oakbend") in order to treat his gunshot wound.
Richmond Police Department Detective D. Butinski testified that appellant told her "that he had gone knocking on some doors looking for a cigarette and a man started shooting at him." When asked on cross-examination whether appellant was "drunk or doped up or something," Butinski replied, "I figured [that] he was probably either high or really intent on getting what he was looking for."
After the State had rested, appellant presented numerous witnesses in an attempt to prove his affirmative defense of insanity. Helen Howard, appellant's mother, Stanley Howard, appellant's father, Jeremy West, appellant's brother, Carolyn Shepherd, appellant's aunt, Joe Neal, appellant's friend, and J.A. Hill, Jr., appellant's friend, all testified as to appellant's delusions about being God. Mrs. Howard also recalled that, when appellant was in the hospital, after being shot, appellant still told her that he was God and that a woman had touched his gunshot wound and healed him. Appellant further told his mother that he would leave the hospital by flying out of the window. Mrs. Howard conceded that appellant never told her "what he did or what he saw when he got shot" and that appellant had a past history of narcotics use.
Lester Aldridge, appellant's friend, testified that appellant had told him that he was God and normally had this delusion after consuming narcotics. Finally, Thomas Gordon, Jr., appellant's cousin, testified that, on May 9, 2005, before appellant went to the Richmond House Apartments, he and appellant had consumed several beers together. He also stated that appellant had told him that he had taken one-half of a pill of ecstasy and had consumed some cocaine. Gordon explained that appellant was "delusional," asserting that he was God and spinning in circles, while proclaiming that the world was his.
After resting, appellant objected to the rebuttal testimony of Dr. Karen Gollaher, a licensed forensic psychologist, regarding appellant's sanity at the time of the offenses. Appellant argued that Gollaher, in previously interviewing appellant, had violated his Fifth Amendment5 right against self-incrimination because he did not receive his proper legal warnings under Miranda6 and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.22.7 Appellant also objected that Gollaher had violated his Sixth Amendment8 right to counsel.
At a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Dr. Gollaher conceded that she did not notify appellant's trial counsel prior to her interviewing appellant. Also, although she "talk[ed] about the Fifth Amendment right" and informed appellant that his statements to her could be used at trial, she did not inform appellant of his legal rights. Gollaher did, however, inform appellant that he had the right to consult his attorney and that he could refuse to participate in the sanity evaluation. The trial court overruled appellant's objections to Gollaher's testimony, concluding that she could testify about the statements appellant made during his sanity evaluation, except for those statements that related to the charged offenses.
Dr. Gollaher then testified in front of the jury that she had met with appellant three times in order to conduct appellant's sanity evaluation. She diagnosed appellant with "polysubstance dependence," which is a "major psychiatric disorder" that refers to a person who abuses more than one controlled substance. Gollaher explained that her diagnosis was based on appellant's extensive use of "fry," which is marijuana dipped in formaldehyde, marijuana, "PCP," "Tylenol 3 with codeine," ecstasy, and cocaine, along with the presence of amphetamines, cocaine, and PCP as noted in Oakbend's medical records.
Also, after interviewing appellant and several witnesses, Dr. Gollaher determined that appellant's delusions about being God were not due to a narcotic — induced psychosis, i.e., when narcotics cause one to hallucinate or become delusional. She explained that only one person recalled that appellant had referred to himself as God near the time of the incident. Gollaher noted that a detective, who had interviewed appellant at Oakbend shortly after appellant was shot, thought that he heard appellant say "God," but the detective could not remember the context and, in retrospect, thought that appellant may have said "gone" rather than "God." Also, other detectives...
To continue reading
Request your trial