Thieleman v. State
Decision Date | 14 December 2005 |
Docket Number | No. PD-1743-04.,PD-1743-04. |
Citation | 187 S.W.3d 455 |
Parties | Roger Merritt THIELEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jeff Kearney, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Charles M. Mallin, Asst. Crim. Atty., Fort Worth, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for state.
Before the court en banc.
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence. Thieleman v. State, No. 2-03-141-CR, 2004 WL 2201773 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, delivered September 30, 2004)(unpublished). We granted review of appellant's second issue.
During the guilt phase of trial, appellant moved for a mistrial because of a purportedly sleeping juror.
On appeal, appellant raised a point of error asking if the trial court had "abuse[d] its discretion by denying [his] requested mistrial where the uncontroverted evidence in the record established that a juror had `slept continuously throughout the trial'?"1 The court of appeals concluded that the trial judge was unaware of which juror defense counsel alleged was sleeping, or whether the juror was actually asleep, and that the only item before the trial court on the mistrial motion was the statement of counsel. Thieleman, supra, slip op. at 4. It then held that argument of counsel is not evidence and that "[a]ppellant's trial counsel's statement that a juror was sleeping presents no evidence of the matter." Id. It also pointed out that no testimony was developed or requested on this issue and that nothing further was proffered; appellant neither proffered the name of the juror nor called as a witness that juror or anyone else who had been present in the courtroom to testify that the juror had, in fact, been asleep. Id., slip op. at 4-5. It also stated, "It was incumbent upon [a]ppellant's trial counsel to develop the record for the trial court in order to clarify which specific juror counsel was referencing, and to determine if that juror was sleeping." Id. The court of appeals ultimately overruled that point of error because it held that the error was not properly preserved for appellate review. Id., slip op. at 5.
We granted review of appellant's second ground; "Are uncontroverted un-objected to statements of counsel about occurrences in the courtroom `evidence' of those occurrences which can be considered on appeal?" We find that such statements may be some evidence that the event occurred and may, under some circumstances, establish that the event occurred.2
In the context of Batson challenges at trial, we have determined that undisputed observations and uncontradicted statements of trial counsel can provide support in the record for assertions relative to the Batson claim. See, e.g., Yarborough v. State, 947 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Emerson v. State, 820 S.W.2d 802 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). In the context of the characterization of an exhibit as a written judicial confession, we have said, "This Court accepts as true factual assertions made by counsel which are not disputed by opposing counsel." Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In Hayden v. State, 66 S.W.3d 269, 273 (Tex. Crim.App.2001), we said that, because a defendant had neither disputed the state's claim before the trial court that witness statements described all of the extraneous offenses nor attempted to have the witness statements placed in the record, "We assume, therefore, that the witness statements are as the State represented them to be." In Resanovich v. State, 906 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), in which the defendant failed to dispute the state's submission regarding a prior murder sentence, we said, "Because there were no objections made to the State's undisputed observations, we hold that those observations constitute valid proof in support of the State's submission."
The state acknowledges that "Appellant correctly points out that a long line of cases hold that assertions of counsel should be taken as true." After citing a number of published opinions from this Court that "have applied this principle allowing appellate courts to accept as fact assertions from both prosecutors and defense attorneys[,]" the state also quite candidly concedes, "Appellant correctly points out that this long-standing line of cases applies to the statements made to the trial court by defense counsel at trial." Appellant's brief likewise cites several opinions of this Court and from courts of appeals. Among other cases, both parties cite Yarborough v. State, 947 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. Crim.App.1997).
A counsel's statement about an occurrence in the courtroom, which was made for the purposes of the record, recorded by the court reporter, undisputed by the opposing counsel, and unquestioned and unqualified by the judge in whose presence the statement was made, establishes the occurrence for purposes of the appellate record.
Id. at 895, citing Hicks v. State, 525 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Crim.App.1975).
The parties thus acknowledge that we have on several occasions held that a trial counsel's undisputed statements may be accepted as both true and sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Castillo v. Stephens
...court, or some other procedural maneuver reasonably calculated to alert the trial court to the situation. See Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (defense counsel's statement on the record in open court regarding an allegedly sleeping juror sufficient to furnish s......
-
Davis v. Fisk Elec. Co.
...12. ___ U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008). 13. 827 S.W.2d 860, 869 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 14. Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455, 458 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). 15. 187 S.W.3d 570, 584. 16. See Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 499, 110 S.Ct. 803, 107 L.Ed.2d 905 (1990) (Marsha......
-
Saenz v. State
...sleeping during court proceedings “it is incumbent upon the objecting party to make a contemporaneous objection.” Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455, 458 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). Error is preserved if the objecting party objects to the presence of the sleeping juror on the jury, moves for a mis......
-
Saenz v. State
...sleeping during court proceedings "it is incumbent upon the objecting party to make a contemporaneous objection." Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455, 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Error is preserved if the objecting party objects to the presence of the sleeping juror on the jury, moves for a ......
-
Preservation of Error
...assertion; and, the assertion will be accepted as both true and sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review. Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). §19:42 The Objection Must Be Timely Counsel must object at the earliest opportunity that the ground for objection ......
-
Preservation of Error
...OF E RROR §19:44 assertion will be accepted as both true and sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review. Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). §19:42 The Objection Must Be Timely Counsel must object at the earliest opportunity that the ground for objection bec......
-
Preservation of Error
...ඈൿ Eඋඋඈඋ §19:44 assertion will be accepted as both true and sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review. Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). §19:42 The Objection Must Be Timely Counsel must object at the earliest opportunity that the ground for objection beco......
-
Preservation of Error
...assertion; and, the assertion will be accepted as both true and sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review. Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). §19:42 The Objection Must Be Timely Counsel must object at the earliest opportunity that the ground for objection ......