Richardson v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 693-88,694-88,s. 693-88 |
| Citation | 786 S.W.2d 335 |
| Parties | Charles Mitchell RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Allen C. Isbell, on appeal only, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty. & Carol M. Cameron, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant, Charles Mitchell Richardson, was indicted for the aggravated felony offense of possession of marihuana weighing greater than 50 pounds and less than 200 pounds, enhanced with two prior felony convictions. By separate indictment, appellant was charged with possession of more than 28 grams and less than 400 grams of cocaine. The indictments were consolidated at trial. After trial by jury, appellant was found guilty of the possession of cocaine and marihuana charges. The trial court found "true" both enhancement allegations and subsequently assessed punishment at life confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The Court of Appeals for the First Supreme Judicial District reversed appellant's conviction, holding that the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury a requested limiting instruction regarding impeachment evidence. Richardson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in reaching that conclusion. We will reverse.
The record reflects that an informant contacted the Pasadena Police Department regarding drug activity at appellant's residence. After surveillance, the police department, armed with a search warrant, forced their way through the barricaded back door to the house. Appellant and a co-defendant tried to flee, but were caught. Appellant's framed birth certificate decorated the wall of a bedroom in which the police found 186 grams of cocaine and 56 pounds of marihuana. The police recovered additional cocaine and approximately 97 pounds of marihuana from other parts of the residence. A baggie containing an additional 1.15 grams of cocaine was found in appellant's pants pockets.
Co-defendant Capps pleaded guilty but testified for appellant at trial. Capps stated that after his testimony in a pretrial hearing on appellant's case, Capps was arrested for perjury. Nonetheless, Capps stated he was willing to again testify for appellant. Capps did so, alleging that, to Capps' knowledge, appellant did not possess any cocaine or marihuana. However, Capps' plea papers contained a prior inconsistent statement that "I committed the offense along with Harold Kelly and [appellant]." On cross-examination, the prosecutor attempted to impeach Capps with that prior inconsistent statement. The following exchange took place:
Q. Mr. Capps, the next to the last question [Defense counsel] just asked you was whether you testified last time in a substantially similar way to the way you testified this time. Do you remember that question?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Your answer was "yes," wasn't it?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. In fact, there is major [sic] difference in the way you testified so far and the way you testified last time?
A. There is some left out.
Q. You left out something that you said last time, didn't you?
A. I wasn't asked.
Q. And that something that you said last time that you didn't say this time is what got you charged with perjury?
A. I really don't know.
Q. You're telling the jury you don't know why you were charged with perjury?
A. I am telling you my ignorance of the law has nothing to do with it.
Q. You remember pleading guilty to your two cases, don't you?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. In fact, you pled guilty in front of this Judge right here, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And at the time that you pled guilty, portions of the paper work that you pled guilty to and signed said, "I committed this offense along with Harold Kelly and [appellant]," did they not?
A. Repeat that?
Q. At the time you entered your pleas of guilty, the papers that you signed and executed said, among other things, "I committed this offense along with Harold Kelly and [appellant]," did they not?
A. I couldn't testify they was [sic] there, no, ma'am.
Q. In fact, last time you claimed that writing was not there, didn't you?
A. I didn't see it.
Q. What you said last time was that it was not there, didn't you.
A. That's right.
Q. And it was that statement that got you indicted for aggravated perjury, wasn't it?
A. If you say so, yes, ma'am.
When the testimony was elicited, appellant neither objected nor requested that Capps' prior inconsistent statements be limited to impeachment purposes. 1 However, before submission of the charge at the guilt/innocence phase, appellant requested the following charge:
You are instructed that a witness may be impeached by showing that he or she has made other and different statements out of court from those made before you on the trial. Such impeachment evidence may be considered by you to aid you in determining (if it does so) the weight, if any, to be given the testimony of the witness at trial and his or her credibility; but such impeaching evidence, if any, is not to be considered as tending to establish the alleged guilt of the defendant in such case.
The trial court denied the requested instruction. The Court of Appeals found this omission to be error, concluding that Richardson, 751 S.W.2d at 666.
We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine if the Court of Appeals erred in the following three respects: 1) in finding that the trial court erred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. State
...817 S.W.2d 344 (1991); Richardson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 786 S.W.2d 335 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 972, 112 S.Ct. 448, 116 L.Ed.2d 466 (1991); see also Deshong v. State, 625 S.W.2d 327, 329 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1......
-
Lewis v. State
...it was admitted or when the evidence may properly be considered on any issue in the case to which it is relevant. Richardson v. State, 786 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84, 95 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). In such event, there is typically no danger that rational jur......
-
Cabrales v. State
...817 S.W.2d 344 (1991); Richardson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 786 S.W.2d 335 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 972, 112 S.Ct. 448, 116 L.Ed.2d 466 In the present case, Officer James Pruitt, an experienced narcotics officer with th......
-
Iglesias v. State
...issue in the case to which it is relevant. Lewis v. State, 815 S.W.2d 560, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Richardson v. State, 786 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)). In such event, there is typically no danger that ratio......
-
Trial Motions
...impeachment purposes only. Rodriguez v. State , 968 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet. ). See Richardson v. State , 786 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. Cr.App. 1990) for an example of a case where evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes only. An instruction limiting the use o......
-
Trial motions
...impeachment purposes only. Rodriguez v. State , 968 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet. ). See Richardson v. State , 786 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) for an example of a case where evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes only. An instruction limiting the us......
-
Table of cases
...297 (1980), Form 5-20, 6-3 Richardson v. State , 744 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987), §13:110 A-19 TABLE OF CASES Richardson v. State , 786 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990), §15:156 Riney v. State , 28 S.W.3d 561 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000), §12:31 Rios v. State , 122 S.W.3d 194(Tex.Cr.App. 2003), Form 14......