## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 1373- 09
R O N N I E D U A N E M A SO N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S EVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

POTTER CO UNTY M E YE RS , J ., de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h P RI CE , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . W OMACK , J. , f i l e d a c o n c u r r in g o p in io n . K ELL ER , P .J ., c o n c u r r e d . J OHNS ON , J. , di s s e nt e d. O P I N I O N A ppel l ant , R onni e D uane M as on, w as convi ct ed of c api t al m ur derand s ent ence d to li fe im p ri so n m en t. A t a pre tr ial h ea ri n g , d ef en se c o u n sel req u ested the g ran d jury test im o n yo f A n tho n yR icha rds, A p p ell an t’ s co u sin. U p o n rec eivin g the testi m o n ym o re t han a y earl at er , defe ns e couns el s aw t hatunaut hor i zed pe r s ons had ques t i oned R i char ds d u rin g th e g ra n d ju ryp ro c e e d in g s. A p p e llan t f iled a m o tio n to q u a sh th e in d ictm e n t,Mason–Pag e 2

Ric ha rd s f a lse ly identi fi e d h ims e lf

and Ap pe lla nt t o th e re sp on din gof

fi c e rs . 1 w hi ch t he j udge overrul ed. T he cour tof appe al s r ever s ed t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm entaft er concl udi ng t hatt he St at e’ s unaut hor i zed que s t i oni ng caus ed harm ful er r or . W e gr ant ed
rev iew to d eterm ine th e p rop er h arm an aly sis fo r rev iew ing the o v erru li n g o f A p p ell an t’ s m ot i on t o quas h. W e w i l l r ever s e. I. F a cts O n t he morni ng of J une 28, 2004, offi cer s r es ponded t o a ca l l t hata babyw as not br eathi ng. T he chi l d, ei ght
- m ont h- ol d I vey onna D ur l ey , had bee n l eftw i t h A ppel l antand R i char ds w hen herm ot herw entt o w or k t hatday . U pon ar r i vi ng att he apa r t m ent , t he offi cer s found I vey onna w i t houta pul s e. R i char ds expl ai ned t o t he off i cer s t hathe chec ked on t he babyaft erhear i ng hers cr eam and found t hats he had r ol l ed off t he bed and had hi therhead. H e s ai d t hathe t hen ca l l ed A ppel l ant , w ho ar r i ved att he apa r t m ent
w ith K re sh a R y a n . R ich a rd s re p e a ted th is s to ryin su b se q u e n t sta tem e n ts, b u t ev e n tu a lly 1 id e n tif ie d A p p e lla n t a s th e c h ild ’s k ille r. R i char ds s ai d t hatA ppel l anthi tI vey onna w i t h hi s fi s tt w o ort hr ee t i m es w hi l e s he
w a s o n th e liv in g ro o m c o u c h . A t th a t p o in t, R ich a rd s to o k th e b a b yf ro m th e c o u c h to herm ot her ’ s bed. I n t he bedr oom , A ppel l antki cked I vey onna and s t ruck herw i t h a mop
orbr oom . T hen, A ppel l antl eftt he apa r t m entt o pi ck up K r es ha, and R i char ds br ought t he babyback t o t he couc h i n t he l i vi ng r oom . B efor e A ppel l antl eft , he and Ri char ds di s cus s ed t hat , i f author i t i es ques t i oned t he s t at e of the chi l d, t heyw oul d r epor tt hats heMason–Pag e 3

As a re sult of Iveyonna’s de ath, Richards w as cha rg ed with injury

to a child by

omission. 2 The date of this hearing w as Jul y 6, 2006, but several reque sts weremade f or the grand 3 jury testimony

over thecourseof approx imately two year s. In June of 2005, de fensecounsel filed a motion for discovery of grand jury

transcripts. Then, on August 10, 2007, defensecounsel fi le d a motion fo r disc los ur e and

pr e se rv atio n o f gra

nd jur y mate ri a ls, fo llo we d b y

themotion

to quash the indictment on August 17. fe ll o ff the b ed . W h en A p p ell an t and K resh a re turn ed to the ap artm en t fi v e m inu tes l ater, I vey onna w as col d and notbr eathi ng. K r es ha ca l l ed 911. T he aut ops ydet er m i ned t he
cause o f dea t h to be m ult i ple bl un tforce i njur i es. 2 I I . P roce dural hi s t ory A ta hea r i ng overa y earbefor e t he t r i al began, A ppel l ant ’ s couns el r eques t ed a copyof t he gr and j ur yt es t i m onyt o l earn w hi ch of Ri char ds ’ s var i ous expl anat i ons he had p re se n ted to th e g ra n d ju ry . D e f e n se c o u n se l f

in a llyre c e iv e d th e tes tim o n yju st p rio r to 3 t he comm ence m entof voi rdi r e. T he vi deot ape of R i char ds ’ s t es t i m onyr evea l ed t hat Ser geant s C r andel l and D ockeryas ked s ever al ques t i ons of t he w i t nes s . B ot h offi cer s had been di s pat ched on the morni ng of I vey onna’ s death. Ser geantC r andel l w as one of the offi cer s t o ar r i ve att he apa r t m entt hatm or ni ng, w hi l e Ser geantD ockeryw as s entt o t he h o sp it al t o interview fa m il ym em b ers. U p o n learn ing o f th e o ff icers’ g ran d jury par t i ci pat i on, defe ns e couns el fi l ed a mot i on t o quas h t he i ndi ct m ent , as s er t i ng t hatt he S ta te h a d v io la te d A rt ic le s 2 0 .0 1 1 a n d 2 0 .0 4 o f th e C o d e o f

C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t s . 20. 011 and 20. 04. T he t r i al cour tover rul ed A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on, butacknow l edged that“t he s t atut e i s cr y s t al cl ear ” and thati thad bee n vi ol at ed dur i ngMason–Pag e 4

The State waived the death penalty , so the court a utomatically

imposed a life se ntence . 4 Statutory ambiguity

makes this a diffic ult question to answer. We do not know whe ther 5 “ wi tne sse s”re fers on ly

to w itn e sse s who a

pp e a r b e fo rethegra

nd jur y , o r whe ther t

hete rm a lso includes witnesses who a ppear later, at trial. The distinction is critical bec ause while we know that Serg eants Cra

ndell and Doc kery

were witnesses at trial, we do not know whe ther they were also witnesses duringgrand jury proce eding s. It seems unlikely that Article 20.011 w ould refe r to trial witnesses as the w itnesses permitted to assist the State’s attorne y duringgrand jury proc e e din g s. Suc h a

n inte rp re tatio n w ou ld m e an th at a pe rs on ’s ro lea s a

wi tne ss at tria l c ou ld retroa ctively

rende r his grand jury

prese nce “ authorized.” In this case, the of fice rs were t he gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs . T he j ur yfound A ppel l antgui l t yof ca pi t al m ur der , and t he
cour ts ent ence d A ppel l antt o l i fe i n pr i s on. 4 I I I . C ode of

C ri m i nal P roce dure A rt i cl es 20. 011 and 20. 04 A r t i cl e 20. 011 l i s t s t hos e w ho m aybe pr es enti n a gr and j ur yr oom w hi l e t he gr and j uryi s cond ucti ng proceed i ng s: (1 ) g ra n d ju ro rs; (2 ) b a ili f f s; (3 ) th e a tto rn e yre p re se n tin g th e [ S ]ta te; ( 4) w i t nes s es w hi l e bei ng exami ned orw hen nec es s ar yt o as s i s tt he at t or ney r epr es ent i ng t he [S] t at e i n exami ni ng ot herw i t nes s es orpr es ent i ng evi dence t o t h e g r a n d j u r y; ( 5) i nt erpr et er s , i f nec es s ar y ; and ( 6) a s t enogr apherorper s on oper at i ng an el ectr oni c r ecor di ng devi ce, as pr ovi ded byA r t i cl e 20. 012. C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 2 0 .0 1 1 . T h e S tate c o n c e d e s th a t itm a yh a v e v io late d A rticle 20. 011. D et er m i ni ng w het hert he St at e i n fac tvi ol at ed t hi s s t atut e hi nges on w het hert he p re s e n c e o f

th e o f f ic e rs f a lls u n d e r s u b s e c tio n (4 ); th a t is , d o th e yq u a lif ya s “ w itn e s s e s . .

. n e c e s s a r yt o a s s i s tt h e a t t o r n e y. . . i n e x a mi n i n g o t h e rwi t n e s s e s ” ? C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 2 0 .0 1 1 . B u t a d e ter m in a tio n o n th is p o in t is n o t n e c e ss a rya s w e k n o w w ith 5Mason–Pag e 5

witnesses at trial morethan two year s after the grand jury

proce eding s; so to say

that the role the y s e r v e d at tri a l i n Au gu s t o f 2 0 0 7 a uth o ri z e d th e i r p r e s e n c e i n f r o nt o f th e gr an d j ur

y i n J anu ar

y of 2005 seems absurd. I f “w itnesses” in this context refer s exclusively to witnesses testifying before the grand jury, and if the of fice rs were witnesses only at trial, then the State violate d Article 20.011. The c ourt of appe als conduc ted its analysis on the premise that the State ha d conce ded 6 violating both statutes. Howe ver, in its briefs to both the c ourt of appe als and this Court, the State admitted to violating only Article 20.04. TheState’s conc essions reg ardingArticle 20.011 aremore va gue. While the State may have violate d Article 20.011, w e ca nnot be ce rtain. There fore , we will re fer

to the State’s “violation,” though the cour t of appe als believe d therehad cer t ai nt yt hatt he off

i cer s ’ ques t i oni ng vi ol at ed anothers t atut e, A r t i cl e 20. 04. A r t i cl e 20. 04 s t r i ct l ydefi nes t hos e w ho m ayques t i on a w i t nes s befor e t he gr and j u r y: T he at t or neyr epr es ent i ng t he St at e mayexami ne t he w i t nes s es befor e t he g r a n d j u r ya n d s h a l l a d v i s e a s t o t h e p r o p e rmo d e o f i n t e r r o g a t i n g t h e m. No per s on ot hert han t he at t or neyr epr es ent i ng t he St at e ora gr and j ur orm ay ques t i on a w i t nes s befor e t he gr and j ur y . N o per s on m ayaddr es s t he gr and j ur yabouta mat t erbefor e t he gr and j ur yot hert han t he at t or ney r epr es ent i ng t he St at e, a w i t nes s , ort he ac cus ed ors us pect ed per s on ort he att o rne yfo r t h e a cc u sed o r sus p ec ted p erso n if ap p rov ed b ythe S tat e’s a t t o r n e y. C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 2 0 .0 4 . T h e S ta te c o n c e d e s th a t it d id v io la te A rt ic le 2 0 .0 4 . IV . C o u r t o f a p p e a ls O n ap p ea l, A p p ell an t argu ed that the v iolati o n s o f A rt icl es 2 0 . 0 1 1 an d 2 0 . 0 4 w ere n o t h a rm le s s . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a g re e d . M

a so n v . S ta te , 290 S. W . 3d 498 ( T ex. A pp. –A m ar i l l o 2009, pet . gr ant ed) . T he cour tconduct ed a ha r m anal y s i s t o “det er m i ne w h e th e r th e v io latio n s o f a rticle s 2 0 .0 1 1 a n d 2 0 .0 4 ” a f f e c ted th e g ra n d ju ry ’s d e c isio n to in d ict A p p e llan t. Id
. at506. B eca us e t her e w as “evi dence t hatt he St at e’ s vi ol at i ons 6Mason–Pag e 6

be e n tw o s tatut or

y vio latio ns . Th is C ourt

gra nte d r e view o n th e fo llo wi ngtw o gro un ds : 7 (1 ) Thec ourt

of a pp e a ls e mpl oye d a

n in c or re c t ha rm ana lysis in re viewi ngtheState ’s e rror in allowingunauthorized persons to question a w itness beforethe grand jury ; the focus should have be e n o n whe ther t

hee rror a ff e c te d App e lla

nt’ s su bs tanti a l rights , rather t

ha n whe ther i t contributed to the grand jury ’s cha rg ing de cision. (2) In reve rsinga convic tion for the avow ed purposeof dete rringthe State’s futureviolation of grand jury

proce dural statutes, notwithstandingthe har mlessness of the violation involved, the court of a ppeals improperly

assumed a supe rvisory

role. l i kel yexer t ed a s ubs t ant i al i nfl uence on t he [g] r and [j ] ur y ’ s deci s i on, ” and be caus e t he
cour tcoul d nots ayt hatt he dec i s i on t o i ndi ctw as fr ee f r om t he s ubs t ant i al i nfl uence of th e v io latio n s, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls d e ter m in e d th a t th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g A p p e lla n t’ s m o tio n . Id
. at509- 10. I n i t s Pet i t i on forD i s cr et i onar yR evi ew t o t hi s C our t , t he St at e ar gued t hatt he
cour tof appe al s m i s di r ect ed t he foc us of i t s har m anal y s i s bycons i der i ng how t he err or affected t he ch argi ng decis i on i nst ead o f ho w i taffected t he v erdi ct . T he S t at e al so a ss e rte d th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls im p ro p e rlya ss u m e d a su p e rv iso ryro le. W e w ill 7 d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls p ro p e rl ye v a lu a te d th e e f f e c ts o f th e S ta te ’s e rr o r. V . R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 4 4 .2 R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 4 .2 a d d re ss e s th e tre a tm e n t o f re v e rsib le e rro r in cri m i nal cas es. (a) C o n s titu tio n a l E r r o r . If th e a p p e llate re c o rd in a c rim in a l ca se re v e a ls cons t i tut i onal er r ort hati s s ubj ectt o har m l es s er r orr evi ew , t he cour tof appea l s m us tr ever s e a j udgm entof convi ct i on orpuni s hm entunl es s t he c o u rt d e ter m in e s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e e rro r d id n o t co n trib u te to th e c o n v ictio n o r p u n ish m e n t.Mason–Pag e 7

(b) O th e rE r r o rs . A nyot herer r or , defe ct , i r r egul ar i t y , orvar i ance t hatdoes notaff ects ubs t ant i al r i ght s m us tbe di s r egar ded. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 2. A s t atut or yvi ol at i on att he gr and j ur ys t age i s notcons t i tut i onal
e rr o r, a n d th e re f

o re R u le 4 4 .2 (b ) a p p lie s in th is c a s e . See Bank of N ova Scot i a v. U

ni t ed St at es , 4 8 7 U .S . 2 5 0 , 2 5 4 -5 5 (1 9 8 8 ); U n itedS ta tes v . Me c h a n ik , 475 U . S. 66, 71 ( 1986) ( W hen eva l uat i ng pr os ecut or i al m i s conducti nvol vi ng t he pr es ence of t w o l aw enfor cementagent s ata gr and j ur ypr ocee di ng, t he C our tappl i ed t he fe der al equi val entof R u le 44 . 2 (b), Fe d era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 5 2 (a). T h at rule states, “A n yerro r, defe ct , i r r egul ar i t y , orvar i ance t hatdoes notaff ects ubs t ant i al r i ght s m us tbe d isr eg ard ed . ”) U nderR ul e 44. 2( b) , a s ubs t ant i al r i ghti s aff ect ed w hen t he err orhas a s ubs t ant i al
a n d in ju ri o u s e f

f e c t o r i n f lu e n c e . S e e T

a y lo r v . S ta te , 2 6 8 S . W . 3 d 5 7 1 , 5 9 2 ( Te x . Cr i m. A pp. 2008) . T he i s s ue pr es ent ed i n t hi s cas e i s w hats houl d be exa m i ned forevi dence of
an ef fe ct or inf

luen ce ? S h o u ld the su b ject of o u r ha rm an aly sis be the g ran d jury ’s d e c isio n to in d ict o r th e p e titju ry ’s g u iltyv e rd ict? T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls c h o se to d ire c t it s at t ent i on t o t he pr oductof t he gr and j ur ypr ocee di ngs , w hi l e t he St at e as s er t s t hatt he h a rm a n a ly sis sh o u ld f

o c u s s o lelyu p o n th e v e rd ict. V I . U n itedS ta tes v . Me c h a n ik A s i m i l ari s s ue w as befor e t he Supr eme C our ti n Me c h a n ik . Me c h a n ik , 475 U . S. at 67. T hatcas e i nvol ved a vi ol at i on of Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 6( d) , w hi ch lim its th o s e w h o m a yb e p re s e n t a t a g ra n d ju ry p ro c e e d in g . F ED . R. C R IM . P. 6( d) . T heMason–Pag e 8

The majority

hints that the analysis would be different “ha d the matter be en called to [ the 8 district court’s] attention beforethe commenc ement of thetrial.” Me c ha nik , 475 U.S. at 69-70. As it was, the def

endants in that ca se did not acquirethe grand jury transcript revealing the unauthorized prese nce of two law enf

orce ment ag ents “until the second w eek of trial.” Id. at 70. In Appellant’s c ase, thetrial court did re ceivenotice of theproblem bef ore thetrial commenc ed. ru le a llo w s th e p re se n c e o f “ th e w itn e ss ,” a n d so th e f a c t th a t tw o law e n f

o rc e m e n t ag e n ts
w er e “s w or n t oget herand ques t i oned i n t andem” gave the def endant s gr ounds t o m ove f o r d is m is s a l o f

th e in d ic tm e n t. Me c h a n ik , 4 7 5 U .S . a t 6 7 -6 8 . I n t he maj or i t yopi ni on, w r i t t en byJ us t i ce Rehnqui s t , t he ver di ctr es ol ved t he i s s ue: W e bel i eve thatt he pet i tj ur y ’ s ver di ctof gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt dem on st rat es a fo rtio ri t hatt her e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o char ge t he defe ndant s w i t h t he off ens es forw hi ch t heyw er e convi ct ed. T her efor e, t he convi ct i ons m us ts t and des pi t e t he rul e vi ol at i on. Id
. at67. M i s s i ng fr om t he maj or i t yopi ni on i s a det ai l ed harm anal y s i s . I ns t ead of i ns pect i ng foreff

ect s of t he rul e vi ol at i on, t he C our thel d t hat“t he pet i tj ur y ’ s ver di ct
r ender ed harm l es s anyconce i vabl e err ori n the cha r gi ng deci s i on t hatm i ghthave f l ow ed f ro m th e v io la tio n .” Id
. at73. 8 I n herconcurr i ng opi ni on, J us t i ce O ’ C onnordi r ect ed at t ent i on t o t he cha r gi ng d e c isio n , ins tea d o f

th e v e rd ict, sta tin g : A R ul e 6( d) vi ol at i on i s one af fec t i ng t he gr and j ur ypr ocee di ng and i s not i n an ysense a t ri al err or. A ccordi ng l y , t he logi cal focu s of t he h arm l ess er r ori nqui r yi s an exa m i nat i on of t he i nfl uence of t he err oron the cha r gi ng d e c is io n . Me c h a n ik , 4 7 5 U .S . at 7 6 (O ’C o n n o r, J., co n c u rrin g ) (ita lics o m itt e d ). In a d d iti o n toMason–Pag e 9

advoca t i ng a di ffe r entfocus , J us t i ce O ’ C onnoral s o pr es ent ed a di ffe r entanal y t i cal appr oach. I n cont r as tt o t he maj or i t y ’ s deci s i on, w hi ch s he cha r act er i zed a s “a pers e ru le bas ed on t he ul t i m at e ver di ctatt r i al , ” J us t i ce O ’ C onnorcompl et ed a ha r m anal y s i s as ki ng if “the v iolati o n su b stan ti all yinf luen ce d the g ran d jury ’s de cisi o n to ind ict , o r i f th ere [w a] s gr ave doubtas t o w het heri thad s uch ef fec t . ” I d. at77- 78. A ft err evi ew i ng t he d e tails o f th e v io latio n a n d c o n sid e rin g h o w th e p ro c e e d in g s m ig h t h a v e e n d e d d if f e re n tly had t he vi ol at i on notoccurr ed, J us t i ce O ’ C onnorconcl uded, as di d t he maj or i t y , t hatt he
c o n v ic tio n s s h o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n s e t a s id e . Id
. at79. L at er , i n B a n k

o f N o v a S c o tia , t he Supr eme C our tadopt ed “the s t andar d ar t i cul at ed byJ us t i ce O ’ C onnori n herconcurr i ng opi ni on i n U n itedS ta tes v . Me c h a n ik” as “t he
s t andar d of pr ej udi ce thatcour t s s houl d appl y ” w hen “a cour ti s as ked t o di s m i s s an in d ic tm e n t p ri o r t o th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e tr ia l” f

o r n o n c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r. B ank of N ova S c o tia , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 2 5 6 . B ank of N ova Scot i a endor s ed J us t i ce O ’ C onnor ’ s focus on t he
c h a rg in g d e c is io n a s w e ll a s h e r c o m p le tio n o f a h a rm a n a lysis . T he pr ej udi ci al i nqui r ym us tfocus on w het heranyvi ol at i ons had an e ffe ct o n th e g ra n d ju ry ’s d e c isio n to in d ict. If v io latio n s d id su b sta n tially i nfl uence t hi s deci s i on, ori f t her e i s gr ave doubtt hatt he dec i s i on t o i ndi ct w as fr ee f

r om s uch s ubs t ant i al i nfl uence , t he vi ol at i ons cannotbe dee m ed harm l ess. I d. a t 2 6 3 . V II . A n a ly sis B as ed upon t hi s pr ece dent , w e agr ee w i t h t he cour tof appe al s t hatw henMason–Pag e 10

addr es s i ng a gr and j ur ys t atut or yvi ol at i on, t he pr opers ubj ectof a ha r m anal y s i s i s t he pr oductof t hos e pr ocee di ngs : t he cha r gi ng deci s i on. W e w i l l cons i derw het her A ppel l ant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s w er e af fec t ed byt he vi ol at i on and w het hert he unauthor i zed ques t i oni ng had a s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff ectori nfl uence on t he gr and j ur y ’ s deci s i on to in d ic t. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 2( b) . I f t he r ecor d does nots how t hatt he vi ol at i on i nfl uence d t he gr and j ur y , ori f w e det ectj us ta “s l i ghteff ect , ” t hen t he t r i al cour tw as c o rr e c t to d e n yA p p e lla n t’ s m o tio n to q u a s h . See Taylor , 2 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 2 . In th is
a n a lysis , w e w ill e x a m in e th e re c o rd a s a w h o le . V a n n o rtr ickv . S ta te , 227 S. W . 3d 706, 7 0 9 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). D ur i ng A nt honyR i char ds ’ s gr and j ur yt es t i m ony , t he St at e’ s at t or ney , J . Pat r i ck M urphy , conduct ed mostof t he ques t i oni ng. M urphy ’ s ques t i ons cover ed t he det ai l s of A ppel l ant ’ s phy s i cal as s aul ton I vey onna. T he ques t i ons pos ed bySer geant s D ockeryand C r andel l addr es s ed fur t herdet ai l s of t he as s aul t( “A tanyt i m e di d y ou s ee a nybl ood on t he baby ?”) , R i char ds ’ s confl i ct i ng s t at ement s ( “So every t hi ng y ou t ol d m e, pr et t ym uch, i s a l i e?”) , hi s act i ons on t he dayof I vey onna’ s death ( “Y ou di d change herdi aper ?”) , and hi s i nact i on dur i ng t he eve nt s w hi ch l ed t o herdeath ( “D o y ou fee l l i ke y ou s houl d have done more t o hel p t hatbaby ?”) . Ser geantD ockerycl os ed hi s par t i ci pat i on bys t at i ng: “A l l I can s ayi s I do appr eci at e t he fa cty ou di d come and t al k t o us , and I appr eci at e t he f a c t y o u ste p p e d f

o rw a rd a n d talk e d to u s. H o p e f u llyy o u a re tellin g u s th e tru th . A n d a ll I c a n s a yis g o o d lu c k to y o u .”Mason–Pag e 11

I f w e we ree va luatin gRic ha rd s’ s te sti mony

a s a wh ole , th e n w e wo uld

mos t c e rt a inly 9 detec t influenceupon the jurors; but, importantly , we a re e x clusively

concerned w ith the inf or matio n s oli c ite d b y

theof fi c e rs . The c ourt of appe als relied upon the Ha rri sfac tors in rea chingits conclusion that the 10 State’s violations influenced thegrand jury ’s dec ision. Ha rri s v . S tate , 790 S.W .2d 568, 587-88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). The fa ctors include thesourceof the e rror and to what e x tent it was emphasized by

the State. Id. The a

naly sis in Ha rri

s was g overne d by

the antec edent to Rule of Appellate Proc edure44.2(a) “Constituti onal Error,” f ormer Rule of

Appellate Proc edure 8 1 (b ) ( 2 ) ; an d

th e r e f o r e , w e d o n o tb e l i e v e th e s e f a c t o r s t o b e h e lp f

u l i nR u l e 4 4 . 2 (b ) an a l y s e s . In particula r, the fa ctor of “whether

decla ringthe er

ror ha rmless would enc ourag e the State to repeat it with impunity ,” is misplaced when addre ssing nonc onstitut ional error under Rule 44.2(b). Id. W e a ckn o wl ed ge th atth e c o urto f ap p ea l s i s n o tal o n e i nb el i ev i n g Ha rri s to be useful in 44.2(b) harm a naly ses. Se eSm ith v . S

tate , 3 6 S. W.3 d 1 34 (T e x. Ap p. –H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 00 , p e t. re f’ d) . And , at ti me s, thi s Co ur t ha s invo ke d s e le c t f

a c tor s f ro m Ha rri

s in our 44.2(b) ha

rm analyses. Se eMo tilla v. S tate , 78 S.W .3d 352, 356-57 (Te x . Crim. App. 2002) (endor sing the State’s emphasis of theerror as a fac tor and statingthat “our c onclusion in Ha rri s , that overwhelming e videnceof guilt is a fa ctor to be c onsidered”applies in Rule 44.2(b) a naly ses”) ; King v . S tate , 953 S.W .2d 266, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (that the State did not emphasize the e rror su pp or te d o ur c on c lus ion

that th e a pp e lla nt’ s su bs tanti a l rights we reno t a ff e c te d und e r R

ule 44.2(b)) . Though the Ha rri s fac tors might still be applicablein Rule 44.2(a) a naly ses, they

are unnece ssarily

limit ing when weareto consider the record as a whole. Vannortrick, 227 S.W .3d at 709. A ft err evi ew i ng t he gr and j ur yt r ans cr i pt , w e do notdet ecta s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff

ecton the gr and j ur y ’ s deci s i on t o i ndi ctA ppel l ant . T he det ai l s r egar di ng A p p ell an t’ s co n d u ct on the d ate o f Iv ey o n n a’s d ea th w ere w ell estab li sh ed b yM u rph y ’s ( aut hor i zed) ques t i oni ng, and mem ber s of t he gr and j ur ycoul d i ndi ctA ppel l antw i t hout t he addi t i onal i nfor m at i on s ol i ci t ed bySer geant s D ockeryand C r andel l . T he
un authori zed q uest i on i ng ser ved t o p ai nt a pi ct ure of R i chards’s rol e, no tA pp el l ant’ s. 9 T h ere fo re, w e c an n o t saythat “the v iolati o n su b stan ti all yinf luen ce d the g ran d jury ’s d e c is io n to in d ic t” A p p e lla n t, n o r i s th e re “ g ra v e d o u b t a s to w h e th e r i t h a d s u c h e f f e c t.” 10 Me c h a n ik , 4 7 5 U . S . at 78 (O ’C o n n o r, J. , co n cu rri n g ).Mason–Pag e 12

T h e S tate ’s s e c o n d iss u e to th is C o u rt a ss e rts th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls im p ro p e rly
as s um ed a s uper vi s or yr ol e: “To re ver s e forpurpos es of ens ur i ng t he St at e’ s m or e ca r eful futur e at t ent i on t o t he pr ocedur al s t atut es i s t o as s um e an i m pr opers uper vi s or yfunct i on. ” I f t he cour tof appe al s had r ever s ed t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm ents ol el yfort hi s r eas on, t he S tate ’s a rg u m e n t w o u ld b e c o rre c t. C o u rts m a yn o t in v o k e su p e rv iso ryp o w e r to p re sc rib e “ sta n d a rd s o f

p ro se c u to ria l co n d u c t,” to c irc u m v e n t a h a rm a n a ly sis , o r to
re v e rs e a c o n v ic tio n a f

te r a h a rm a n a lysis d e te rm in e s a n e rr o r t o b e h a rm le s s . U ni t ed S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 0 4 U .S . 3 6 , 4 6 -4 7 (1 9 9 2 ); B a n k o f N o v a S c o tia , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 2 5 4 -5 5 . B utt he St at e’ s ar gum enti gnor es t he cour tof appe al s ’ s compl et i on of a ha r m anal y s i s and its d e tec tio n o f

th e v io latio n ’s e f

f e c ts u p o n th e g ra n d ju ry . T h e c o u rt w a s n o t sim p ly act i ng t o di r ectfutur e conduc t . T o t he contr ar y , t he cour tconcl uded t hatA ppel l antw as pr ej udi ced byt he St at e’ s act i ons and t hen pr ocee ded, w i t h aut hor i t y , t o r ever s e t he t r i al
cour t . T hough w e di s agr ee w i t h t he r es ul t s of t he cour tof appe al s ’ s anal y s i s , w e w i l l not
s a y t h a tt h e c o u r to f

a p p e a l s e x c e e d e d i t s a u t h o r i t y. V I I I . C oncl usi on W e agr ee w i t h t he ana l y t i cal focus chos en byt he cour tof appe al s , butw e do not agr ee w i t h i t s concl us i on t hatt he St at e’ s act i ons caus ed harm ful er r or . B eca us e t he err or here w as not harm ful, w e revers e t he co urtof ap peals . M e y e r s , J . D el i ver ed: O ct ober6, 2010 P ub l i sh