Watkins v. State

• Decision Date: 03 March 2021
• Docket Number: NO. PD-1015-18,PD-1015-18
• Parties: Ralph Dewayne WATKINS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

619 S.W.3d 265

Ralph Dewayne WATKINS, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas

NO. PD-1015-18

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Filed: March 3, 2021

Rehearing Denied April 14, 2021

Jason Niehaus, Denton, for Appellant.

Robert Koehl, for State.

Newell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which Hervey, Richardson, Keel, Walker, Slaughter and Mcclure, JJ., joined.

This case concerns the admission of 33 of 34 exhibits during the punishment phase of Appellant's trial for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The exhibits are a collection of booking records, pen packets, and judgments of prior convictions that were used to prove two prior convictions for enhancement and other extraneous offenses that Appellant had committed. Prior to trial, Appellant's attorney timely requested disclosure of "any other tangible things not otherwise privileged that constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case" pursuant to Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecutor provided notice of the State's intent to introduce evidence of these prior convictions and extraneous offenses at punishment. The prosecutor didn't disclose copies of the exhibits themselves until it was time to introduce them.

So did the trial court err to admit these exhibits over Appellant's objection? The answer to that question turns upon whether these exhibits "constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action." That requires this Court to construe the phrase "material to any matter involved in the action" as it appears in Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court of appeals relied upon precedent in which this Court engaged in a due-process materiality analysis for violations of the previous version of Article 39.14.

Though the same phrase "material to any matter involved in the action" appears in the amended version of Article 39.14, this Court's interpretation of the previous version of Article 39.14 has focused upon whether a trial court is required to order disclosure, not the meaning of the statutory phrase at issue. Given this confusion, we cannot presume that the Legislature relied upon our precedent interpreting Article 39.14 when maintaining the phrase "material to any matter involved in the action" in the current version of the statute.

Under these circumstances, we construe the amended statute as adopting the ordinary definition of "material." Evidence is "material" if it has "some logical connection to a consequential fact." Whether evidence is "material" is therefore determined by evaluating its relation to a particular subject matter rather than its impact upon the overall determination of guilt or punishment in light of the evidence introduced at trial. In this case, the exhibits at issue were "material" because they had a logical connection to subsidiary punishment facts. We reverse the court of appeals and remand the case so that the court of appeals may analyze whether Appellant was harmed by the lack of disclosure.

Facts

The State charged Appellant with first-degree felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The State also alleged in the indictment that Appellant had previously been convicted of two prior and sequential felony offenses, namely aggravated assault and retaliation. Appellant requested a court-appointed lawyer.

Appellant's trial counsel sent a discovery request pursuant to Article 39.14. He asked for, among other things, "any other tangible things not otherwise privileged that constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case."¹ He also requested notice of the State's intent to offer any extraneous offenses, which the prosecution provided. A jury convicted Appellant of the lesser-included offense of second-degree possession of a controlled substance.²

During the punishment phase of the trial, the State sought to introduce 34 exhibits consisting of booking records, pen packets, and judgments and sentences. The State intended to use these exhibits to prove up the two felony convictions alleged in the enhancement paragraphs, as well as a number of different extraneous offenses. Trial counsel objected on the ground that these exhibits had not been disclosed to the defense despite a discovery request.³ The prosecutor responded that he had provided notice of the State's intent to introduce evidence of prior convictions. However, the prosecutor acknowledged that he had not provided access to the exhibits because he did not believe Article 39.14 applied to punishment, particularly when the previous offenses occurred prior to the passage of the Michael Morton Act.⁴ The trial court initially sustained Appellant's objection, but later reversed its decision allowing the evidence to be admitted.

Appeal

Appellant argued to the court of appeals that Article 39.14 was not limited to case-in-chief evidence. Appellant also argued that the statute required disclosure because the word "material" in the statute does not modify "offense reports" or "any designated documents, papers, written or recorded statements of the defendant or a witness, including witness statements of law enforcement officers but not including the work product of counsel for the state in the case and their investigators and their notes or report." The State conceded on appeal that Article 39.14 applies to punishment evidence but nevertheless argued that the exhibits involved proof of extraneous offenses so they were not "material to any matter involved in the case." Appellant replied that the evidence at issue was material because it affected Appellant's punishment.

The State Prosecuting Attorney's Office (SPA) filed an amicus brief setting out, as Appellant did in his brief, the lack of clarity in this Court's precedent construing the definition of "material" in previous versions of Article 39.14(a). The SPA noted, as Appellant did, that this Court's precedent often conflated the inquiry into whether evidence was "material" with statutory requirements of a court order and a showing of "good cause" for disclosure (statutory requirements that no longer exist). The Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association (TCDLA) also filed an amicus brief, arguing that the legislative history behind the Michael Morton Act suggested no limitations on the type of evidence that must be disclosed.

The court of appeals assumed that any item requested for disclosure under Article 39.14(a) must also be "material" and addressed the exhibits at issue.⁵ According to the court of appeals, it would have construed "material to any matter involved in the action" as including any evidence that the State intends to use as an exhibit to prove its case to the fact-finder in both the guilt and punishment phases at trial, but it was required to apply this Court's precedent.⁶ The court of appeals noted that "what is ‘material’ has been subject to substantial judicial interpretation prior to the debate and passage of the Michael Morton Act."⁷ Consequently, the court of appeals concluded, "Material for purposes of Article 39.14(a) means that ‘there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different.’ "⁸ Based upon this understanding, the court of appeals held that the exhibits at issue were not material, and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled they were admissible despite the lack of disclosure.⁹

Discretionary Review

In his petition for review to this Court, Appellant raised one ground: "While reviewing a violation of the Michael Morton Act, the Court of Appeals erred in its materiality analysis." According to Appellant, the changes to the statute render the Legislature's use of the word "material" in Article 39.14(a) ambiguous. And, given that ambiguity, resort to extra-textual factors reveals that we should interpret the word "material" as synonymous with "relevant."

The State argues in response that the plain meaning of the statute is unambiguous. According to the State, we should apply the "Prior Construction Canon" to presume that our Legislature intended to apply this Court's previous interpretation of the phrase "material to any matter involved in the action." Under this approach, we should hold that our Legislature intended the definition of "material" to be outcome determinative.

However, the State posits that prior to the enactment of the Michael Morton Act, this Court had provided two definitions of "material." For exculpatory, impeaching, or mitigating evidence, this Court defined "material" to mean "a reasonable probability that disclosure would lead to a different outcome." For inculpatory evidence, this Court defined "material" as "indispensable to the State's case." According to the State, we should adopt this latter definition of the word "material" rather than the definition relied upon by the court of appeals. Significantly, the State argues in a post-submission brief that the court of appeals’ reliance upon the definition of "material" associated with exculpatory evidence erroneously converts the two-step process of determining error and harm into a one-step process by conflating the two concepts.

The TCDLA filed an amicus brief in support of Appellant's position. According to the TCDLA, the amended Article 39.14 is a wholly new statutory scheme. As such, prior interpretations of the term "material" should not apply. Instead, this Court should recognize that the term "material" is ambiguous and should interpret the Michael Morton Act as creating a statutory "open file policy." This interpretation would require disclosure of evidence regardless of the prosecution's view of the value or impact of the evidence on the rest of the available evidence.

The SPA filed an amicus brief as well, acknowledging that the court of appeals inaccurately described this Court's precedent regarding the term "material" as it relates to Article 39.14(a). Nevertheless, the SPA...