1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00177-CR

__________________

WALTER STEVENS JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-29020

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Walter Stevens Jones of murder and assessed 

punishment at thirty years of confinement and a $10,000 fine. In his sole appellate 

issue, Jones argues that the trial court erred by permitting a witness to testify in 

violation of Rule 614 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 614.We 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.
2

BACKGROUND

James Bradford Jr. testified that on March 15, 2018, he witnessed an argument 

at Avery Trace Apartments (hereinafter “the complex”). Bradford explained that the 

argument lasted for about two hours. According to Bradford, Jones was arguing with 

the victim about Jones “slapping a girl.” Bradford testified that the next day, he heard 

gunshots, and after stepping outside, he saw Jones “walking away from the man that 

was on the ground.” Bradford explained that he heard Jones angrily say, “I told youall that I ain’t the one to be played with.” Bradford told the authorities that the 

perpetrator was a black male with dreadlocks, and he identified Jones in a 

photographic lineup. 

Thirteen-year-old S.G. testified that on March 16, 2018, he was living at the 

complex, and he heard men arguing. S.G. explained that he then “heard a couple of 

gunshots[,]” and he looked out the window and saw a man dying on the floor. S.G. 

explained that he told his mother that a man was dead outside, and he then returned 

to the window and saw a man in a white shirt running to a car from the breezeway. 

S.G. explained that the man he saw running had dreadlocks, but S.G. did not believe 

he could identify the man if he saw him again because he did not get a good look at 

the man’s face. According to S.G., the man got into a vehicle and left the complex. 

S.G. went to the police station with his mother and gave a statement. During crossexamination, S.G. agreed that when he viewed a photo lineup, at one point he was 
3

one hundred percent certain that a person other than Jones was the shooter. S.G. 

testified, “All I saw was dreads[,]” and he explained that he was nervous at the time. 

Mary Ann Madison testified that on March 16, 2018, she was with her 

daughter Kristen who lives at the complex. Madison explained that they were 

returning to her daughter’s apartment after going to the grocery store, and while 

Madison was walking up the stairs, she heard two men arguing. Madison explained 

that she turned around and saw two men “having words[,]” and she recognized the 

victim, who lived in the complex. Madison testified that she had seen Jones at the 

complex before, and she described Jones as having dreadlocks and identified him in 

court. According to Madison, the victim was walking away from Jones when the 

shooting occurred. Madison testified that Jones said to the victim, “Hey, n-----, don’t 

walk away from me[,]” and as the victim started to turn around, Jones started 

shooting the victim. Madison testified that she was nervous when she spoke to the 

authorities, but she explained that she is certain Jones is the person who shot the 

victim. During cross-examination, Madison testified that she had picked another 

individual during a photographic lineup.

Kristen Madison (“Kristen”) testified that while her mother went to put the 

groceries into Kristen’s apartment, she sat in the car. Kristen testified that she heard 

two men arguing, and she stated that the men were “a guy with dreads” and the 

victim. Kristen identified Jones as the man with dreadlocks. Kristen heard Jones say 
4

“N-----, don’t walk away from me.” According to Kristen, before the victim could 

fully turn around, Jones shot him. Kristen testified that the victim dropped to the 

ground, and the victim never raised his arm or tried to reach for a weapon. Kristen 

explained that shortly after the shooting, Jones got into a car and left.

Officer Ileana Jaquez of the Port Arthur Police Department testified that on 

the date in question, she was dispatched to respond to a “shots fired” call at the 

complex. Jaquez explained that when she arrived at the scene, she saw a black male 

on the ground and people gathered, another officer was present, and “they were 

doing CPR.” Jacquez testified that the victim appeared to be dead when she arrived. 

The video from Jaquez’s body camera was admitted into evidence and published to 

the jury. Jaquez testified that shell casings were recovered at the scene. According 

to Jaquez, the first officer on the scene told her that a gun was found on the victim. 

A body camera video from Officer Tony Legnon, who also responded to the scene 

and testified, was admitted into evidence and published to the jury.

Detective Terry Cater of the Port Arthur Police Department testified that on 

March 16, 2018, he was dispatched to the complex in reference to a shooting. Cater 

testified that three or four detectives were on the scene, and one detective went to 

the hospital. According to Cater, he located three witnesses (S.G., Bradford, and 

Kristen) and scheduled them to provide statements at the station. Cater explained 

that he later learned that Madison was also a witness. Cater testified that after 
5

Bradford said the shooter was the same black male he had previously seen at the 

complex, Cater developed Jones as the suspect, and he included Jones’s photograph

when preparing a photo array. According to Cater, another individual who was 

identified from the photo array by two individuals was eliminated as a suspect 

because he had an alibi. 

Forensic pathologist Dr. John Wayne testified that he performed an autopsy 

of the victim. Photographs from the autopsy were offered and admitted into 

evidence. According to Wayne, the victim sustained four gunshot wounds, and the 

cause of the victim’s death was a perforating gunshot wound to the torso. 

After the State rested, the defense called Franchell Attaway to testify. Attaway 

testified that Jones was with her at her home when the shooting occurred. Attaway 

explained that on March 16, 2018, her mother, who lives at the complex, called to 

tell her that a shooting had occurred at the complex, and Jones was still in Attaway’s 

home when she received the call. The defense rested after Attaway’s testimony. 

The State called Shondrelle Eckford as a rebuttal witness, and defense counsel 

objected. The trial judge overruled the objection. Eckford testified that the victim is 

her cousin. According to Eckford, on the day of the shooting, the victim met her at 

work, and then she and the victim went to her home at the complex. Eckford testified 

that on the way to her apartment, she saw Jones, who she had seen before at the 

complex. During cross-examination, Eckford testified that she had sat with the 
6

victim’s family throughout the trial. Eckford testified, “I’m here in support of my 

aunt.”

ISSUE ONE

In his sole appellate issue, Jones contends the trial court erred by permitting 

Eckford to testify in violation of Rule 614 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. See Tex. 

R. Evid. 614. At the beginning of the trial, after the reading of the indictment, 

defense counsel invoked the Rule, and the trial judge explained that defense counsel 

had invoked the rule of sequestration and instructed witnesses to remain outside 

while other witnesses testify and not to discuss their testimony with each other.

We review a trial court’s ruling admitting evidence for an abuse of discretion. 

Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 417-18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We will uphold 

the trial court’s ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under 

any applicable theory of law. Id. at 418. Rule 614 of the Texas Rules of Evidence 

requires trial courts to exclude witnesses from the courtroom when other witnesses 

testify. See Tex. R. Evid. 614 (“At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses 

excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony.”). Violations of Rule 

614 are non-constitutional error, so we must disregard such an error unless it affected 

Jones’s substantial rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 

176, 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Wilson v. State, 179 S.W.3d 240, 248 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). If we have fair assurance that the error did not 
7

influence the jury or had but slight effect, a party’s substantial right is not affected. 

Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Allen v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 815, 824 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d).

Assuming without deciding that permitting Eckford to testify constituted 

error, we have fair assurance that Eckford’s testimony did not influence the jury or 

had but slight effect. See Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at 365; Allen, 436 S.W.3d at 824. We 

therefore conclude that the admission of Eckford’s testimony did not affect Jones’s 

substantial rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); Russell, 155 S.W.3d at 181; Wilson, 

179 S.W.3d at 248. Accordingly, we overrule issue one and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

AFFIRMED.

________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on May 18, 2020

Opinion Delivered December 30, 2020

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.