Lapointe v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-03-00460-CR.,03-03-00460-CR. |
| Citation | 166 S.W.3d 287 |
| Parties | James THOMAS LaPOINTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Tina A. Graves, Georgetown, for Appellant.
Doug Arnold, Asst. Dist. Atty., Georgetown, for Appellee.
Before Justices KIDD, B.A. SMITH and PEMBERTON.
In order to address concerns raised in the State's motion for rehearing, we withdraw our judgment and opinion issued on March 17, 2005 and substitute this opinion abating the appeal.
Appellant James Thomas LaPointe was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated kidnapping, one count of assault-family violence second, and three counts of aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 20.04 (West 2003); id. §§ 22.01, 22.021 (West Supp.2004).1 His wife Kara LaPointe was the victim. James2 argues that the district court erred because: (1) it barred James and James's counsel from attending an in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence of the alleged victim's previous sexual conduct; (2) it refused to allow James's counsel to make offers of proof or bills of exception regarding evidence of the victim's previous sexual conduct; (3) it excluded evidence of the victim's previous sexual conduct and other evidence; (4) it erroneously admitted evidence of extraneous acts by James; (5) the evidence is factually insufficient to support his conviction. We agree that the district court erred in barring James's counsel from the in camera hearing. However, the nature of the district court's error presents unique circumstances in which the error prevents the proper presentation of James's issues regarding the in camera hearing and the exclusion of evidence of Kara's past sexual conduct. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.4(a)(1). We, therefore abate the appeal and direct the trial court to correct the error by conducting a hearing consistent with this opinion. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.4(b).3
James and Kara LaPointe, were married in March 2000 following the birth of their son, J.L. In July 2001, following repeated marital difficulties, the couple separated, and Kara and J.L. moved in with Kara's mother.
On October 4, 2001, Kara and J.L. were at her mother's house in Williamson County when James arrived and apparently began to argue with Kara. Kara testified at trial that she told James to leave, but James refused to leave and assaulted her by pulling out some of her hair, throwing her to the floor, and stepping on her hand and head. She stated that James forced her to remove her clothes, told her to lie down on the bed, and forced her to perform oral sex on him and allow him to perform oral sex on her. He then forced her to have vaginal sex with him.
Kara testified that James threatened her with a pair of pinking shears and made Kara and J.L. leave with him. After the three arrived at James's apartment in Travis County, James again performed oral sex on Kara and forced her to perform oral sex on him. Kara stated that James also inserted a water bottle into her vagina. She testified that James forced her to engage in sexual intercourse with him again that evening. While the two were asleep that night, James handcuffed their wrists together.
Kara testified that the next morning, James, Kara, and J.L. returned to Kara's mother's house in Williamson County, where James again forced Kara to engage in sexual intercourse with him. Kara testified that James forced her to write a letter conveying custody of J.L. to James; James then took Kara to a notary public, where Kara signed the letter in front of the notary. James then returned Kara to her mother's house, and ordered Kara to remain quiet about the events that had just occurred; he then left with J.L.
After James left, Kara told her mother what had happened; Kara's mother then called the Leander Police Department. Leander police obtained an arrest warrant for James and a search warrant for his Travis County apartment. On the morning of October 6, Leander and Austin police officers entered James's apartment and discovered James hiding with J.L. in the apartment's attic. The police also discovered a water bottle and a pair of pinking shears in the apartment.
James was indicted and tried on one count of aggravated kidnapping, one count of assault-family violence second, and three counts of aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. §§ 20.04, 22.01, 22.021. After a four-day trial, a jury convicted James on all five counts and sentenced James to twenty years' imprisonment for the count of assault-family violence second and life imprisonment for the remaining four counts. This appeal followed.
Evidence of an alleged victim's past sexual conduct is admissible in a prosecution for sexual assault only under limited circumstances. Tex.R. Evid. 412(b). The Texas Rules of Evidence provide:
(b) Evidence of Specific Instances. In a prosecution for sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, or attempt to commit sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, evidence of specific instances of an alleged victim's past sexual behavior is also not admissible, unless:
(1) such evidence is admitted in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this rule;
(2) it is evidence:
(A) that is necessary to rebut or explain scientific or medical evidence offered by the State;
(B) of past sexual behavior with the accused and is offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual behavior which is the basis of the offense charged;
(C) that relates to the motive or bias of the alleged victim;
(D) is admissible under Rule 609 []; or
(E) that is constitutionally required to be admitted; and
(3) its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.
(c) Procedure for Offering Evidence. If the defendant proposes to introduce any documentary evidence or to ask any question, either by direct examination or cross-examination of any witness, concerning specific instances of the alleged victim's past sexual behavior, the defendant must inform the court out of the hearing of the jury prior to introducing any such evidence or asking any such question. After this notice, the court shall conduct an in camera hearing, recorded by the court reporter, to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under paragraph (b) of this rule. The court shall determine what evidence is admissible and shall accordingly limit the questioning. The defendant shall not go outside these limits or refer to any evidence ruled inadmissible in camera without prior approval of the court without the presence of the jury.
(d) Record Sealed. The court shall seal the record of the in camera hearing required in paragraph (c) of this rule for delivery to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.
Tex.R. Evid. 412(b)-(d). Rule 412 is commonly referred to as the "rape shield" rule. See Southwell v. State, 80 S.W.3d 647, 649 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
At trial, James sought to introduce evidence of Kara's previous sexual behavior. The district court concluded that rule 412(c) required that only the judge, alleged victim, and court reporter needed to be present at the in camera hearing. The district court proposed that James's counsel would submit specific areas of inquiry for the judge to discuss with Kara. The district court would then determine the admissibility of any evidence of previous sexual behavior based on the court's own questioning of Kara outside the presence of James or his attorney.
James's counsel requested the right to examine Kara with respect to several subject areas. First, James sought to introduce evidence of Kara's previous sexual behavior with James upon the issue of whether Kara consented to the sexual behavior in question. At trial, Kara testified that James handcuffed her wrist to his while they slept. James maintained that they had previously used a pair of handcuffs—which Kara admitted she had given him—in consensual sexual activity, and that this evidence was admissible to show that Kara had consented to the events at issue here.
Second, James sought to examine Kara regarding their prior use of objects such as vibrators in consensual sexual activity. James argued this evidence was admissible to show that Kara consented to the sexual activity at issue here, which allegedly involved the use of a water bottle.
Third, James sought to introduce evidence of Kara's recent sexual encounter with a friend4 to present an alternative explanation for Kara's injuries and rebut evidence offered by the State, which included evidence of bruising and vaginal trauma to Kara.
Fourth, James sought to introduce evidence regarding Kara's possible motive or bias. James's counsel explained this argument to the district court as follows:
I believe that one of the possible motives or explanations for this case is that ... the alleged victim had engaged in conduct which would jeopardize her ability to keep her child, that she by the admissions of the State, what they have allowed me to get in, she had engaged in sexual activities with some people, [naming the complainant's friend]. I believe there are other people that she has done that with and that those other sexual escapades would lead to problems in a custody case. Whether she would win them or not, I don't think is material, but would lead to a problem or a set of problems that would be posed in a custody case regarding the child, [J.L.]. And as a result of that, that having signed off on the letter, it is plausible that she ... now realizes she's done wrong, and she is putting together a rape story for—to avoid a child custody matter.
We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing. In the hearing, the district court briefly discussed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Matt
...743 N.Y.S.2d 405, 405-06 (1st Dept.2002); State v. Addison, 128 N.C.App. 741, 496 S.E.2d 412, 413-14 (1998); LaPointe v. State, 166 S.W.3d 287, 296-98 (Tex.App.3d Dist.2005). The evidentiary issues and argued at the in-chambers conference included: (1) whether the District Court would susta......
-
Dean's Campin' Co. v. Hardsteen, No. 13-05-468-CV (Tex. App. 8/29/2008)
...App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (citing Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1985)). A somewhat analogous situation was presented in LaPointe. See LaPointe v. State, 166 S.W.3d 287, 300 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005), affirmed, 225 S.W.3d 513, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)) (if a trial court'......
-
In the Interest of T.L.B., No. 07-07-0349-CV (Tex. App. 12/17/2008)
...an adversarial process employing such means as live testimony and confrontation by cross-examination. See LaPointe v. State, 166 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. dismissed). Although an inmate does not have an absolute right to appear personally in court in a civil case, Armstron......
-
Morgan v. State, No. 2-07-375-CR (Tex. App. 5/14/2009)
...to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation"); LaPointe v. State, 166 S.W.3d 287, 296 n. 11 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005, pet. dism'd). Each confrontation clause issue must be weighed on a case-by-case basis, carefully taking into account the......
-
Table of Cases
...pet .), §20:98 Lape v. State, 893 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d ), §§15:24.1.3, 16:72.9 LaPointe v. State, 166 S.W.3d 287 (Tex.App.—Austin 2005, pet. dismissed ), §17:52 LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), §§17:52, 17:53.4 LaPorte v. State,......
-
Table of Cases
...pet .), §20:98 Lape v. State, 893 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d ), §§15:24.1.3, 16:72.9 LaPointe v. State, 166 S.W.3d 287 (Tex.App.—Austin 2005, pet. dismissed ), §17:52 LaPointe v. State, 225 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), §§17:52, 17:53.4 LaPorte v. State,......