Miller v. State

• Decision Date: 17 January 2001
• Docket Number: No. 1939-99,1939-99
• Citation: Miller v. State, 36 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)
• Parties: (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) DELESLYN LIGHTSEY MILLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 503

36 S.W.3d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001)

DELESLYN LIGHTSEY MILLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

No. 1939-99

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS, En Banc.

Jan. 17, 2001.

ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS TRAVIS COUNTY

O P I N I O N

Holland, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, and Holcomb, J.J., joined.

Appellant was indicted for delivery of less than one gram of cocaine, which is a state jail felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112. The indictment also alleged that appellant had twice before been convicted of felony offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(2). After a jury convicted appellant of the offense of delivery of a controlled substance, she pleaded true to both enhancement paragraphs. Appellant elected to have the trial court assess her punishment, and it sentenced appellant to confinement for six years. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

On direct appeal, the Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Miller v. State, No. 03-99-00040-CR (Tex.App.-Austin September 9, 1999)(not designated for publication). On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court erred when it excluded the evidence that she committed the offense under duress, which she offered in support of her defense, as irrelevant. The Austin Court explained that it could not conclude the trial court abused its discretion, and it overruled appellant's point of error. See id. This Court granted the second ground for review of appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine if the trial court erred when it found appellant's testimony in support of her defense of duress irrelevant.¹ We reverse the decision of the Austin Court of Appeals.

I.

Appellant claimed another person coerced her into committing the instant offense. At trial, she testified that a man, James Magee, threatened her with harm if she did not deliver cocaine to the undercover officer in this case.² She also testified that she was afraid of Magee and that she felt her "life was in danger." Appellant sought to admit evidence that Magee physically assaulted her shortly after the commission of this offense, but the State objected that the evidence of the assault was not relevant because it happened "after the crime was committed."

Appellant responded that "these [sic] next sequence of events clearly establish why her state of mind was what it was when she engaged in the transaction with the police officer." The trial court stated that he believed appellant had already established her defense of duress by her testimony that Magee threatened her before the commission of the offense. Appellant explained to the trial court that

the outcome of the threat, the carrying out of the threat and that it happened -- and she's about to testify to that -- is all part of the same duress and coercion.

The trial court then allowed appellant, outside the presence of the jury, to proffer her testimony of the assault.

Appellant testified that she attempted to hide from Magee after she delivered the cocaine to the undercover officers. When Magee found appellant some hours after the delivery of the rock cocaine, he told her that she "had messed things up." Magee was angry, and he pushed her around, telling her "to give up the $10." Appellant stated that she told Magee she did not have the $10³ and that she "didn't want nothing to do with it." At this point, Magee struck her with his hands many times on her face and neck, and then he cut her several times with a broken beer bottle. Appellant testified that she bled from her nose, mouth and arms after this assault.

Because Magee's assault on appellant occurred several hours after the delivery of the rock cocaine, the trial court stated that it did not "see how it [was] relevant to this lawsuit." Appellant responded that the evidence went "directly to her state of mind. that she felt threatened by this man." Even though the assault was not contemporaneous with the delivery of the rock cocaine, appellant argued that evidence of the assault so soon after the delivery demonstrated her state of mind at the time she delivered the rock cocaine - that she was scared of Magee and that she had a reasonable belief that Magee would carry out the threats he made. The trial court, however, sustained the State's objection and barred the admission of the evidence of Magee's assault on appellant.

The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Austin Court stated that the authority relied upon by appellant was distinguishable from the instant case. See Miller v. State, No. 03-99-00040-CR, slip op. at 6 (Tex.App-- Austin Sept. 10, 1999)(not designated for publication).

II.

The U.S. Constitution ensures that criminal defendants will have "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 343 (1993); Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986); California v. Trambetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984). The Supreme Court described the different ways a defendant can avail himself of this opportunity in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967):

The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.

Id., at 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920. This principle has been invoked in cases where trial courts have intimidated defense witnesses into silence, see e.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972), and where trial courts have excluded evidence. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. at 693; Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).

In Chambers, the trial court applied the hearsay rule to bar the admission of evidence by the defendant in support of his defense that another man, McDonald, admitted that he committed the crimes. 410 U.S. at 287. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court, explaining that "the right of an accused to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against state accusations. [The right] to call witnesses in one's own behalf [has] long been recognized as essential to due process." Id. at 294. Furthermore, Justice Black has described the right to present evidence in one's own defense as a critical component of our criminal justice system:

A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his own defense - - a right to his day in court - - are basic in our system of jurisprudence, and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948).⁴

The dispute in the instant case arises from appellant's testimony in support of her defense of duress and her attempt to testify about Magee's assault on her after the delivery. A defendant has a fundamental right to present evidence of a defense as long as the evidence is relevant and is not excluded by an established evidentiary rule. See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. at 302; New Mexico v. Duncan, 830 P.2d 554, 558 (New Mexico Ct. App. 1990); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Greene, 366 A.2d 234, 237 (Penn.S.Ct. 1976). We will review the trial court's decision to bar the admission of evidence of Magee's assault on appellant under an abuse of discretion standard. See Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Head v. State, 4 S.W.3d 258, 262 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 390-91 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990).

Evidence must satisfy two requirements to be considered relevant: first, materiality, and second, probativeness. For evidence to be material it "must be shown to be addressed to the proof of a material proposition, i.e., 'any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.' 'If the evidence is offered to help prove a proposition which is not a matter in issue, the evidence is immaterial.'" 1 Steven Goode et al., Texas Practice: Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidence: Civil and Criminal § 401.1 (2d ed. 1993 & Supp. 1995). If the proponent establishes that the proffered evidence is material, Rule 401 also requires that the proponent establish the evidence is probative, i.e., the proffered evidence must tend to make the existence of the fact "more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Id. The proffered evidence is relevant if it has been shown to be material to a fact in issue and if it makes that fact more probable than it would be without the evidence.

In the instant case, the trial court concluded that appellant raised the affirmative defense of duress, and it instructed the jury on that affirmative defense.⁵ Under the instructions in the instant cause, therefore, resolution of whether appellant acted under duress would affect whether appellant was convicted or acquitted. The dispute arises over the issue of the probativeness of Magee's assault on appellant - would it have "any tendency" to make it more probable that appellant reasonably believed she was compelled to deliver the cocaine by the threat of serious bodily injury or death, or at least more probable than it would have been without the evidence of the assault, even though the assault occurred after the delivery? See id., at § 401.3. There is no purely legal test to determine whether evidence will tend to prove or disprove a proposition - it is a test of logic and common sense. See id. In the instant cause, is it logical to conclude from the fact that Magee assaulted appellant with...