NO. 07-08 -029 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y29, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ LUD W IN G D . C AN ALES, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 6-41 4,4 94; HON. CECIL G. PURY EAR, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Ludw ing D . C anal es appeal s h is tw o c onv ict io n s fo r ag g ra v ated ass aul t w it h a dea dly w eap on. He conten ds, vi a three issues, tha t the trial court co m mitt ed reversible
er ro r in faili ng to order that a transc ri pti on be prepared of t est imony admitted p ri or to the grant ing of

a m istrial and in failing to g rant a co ntinu ance so thatsuch a tran script could be prepared. W e rev erse the j udg ments.2

Back gr ound On Au gust 20, 20 06, a num ber of person s atte nd e d a party at a to w nho use in Lubboc k. Laura C ox

and Jes si ca Vi nson li v ed in the area. At some poi nt, Kev in Bake r and Aust in Star ns, w ho w ere attendi ng the par ty , saw Cox in her dr iv ew ay

apparentl y

arg uin g w it h ap p e l l a n t

. B a k e r o b s e r v e d a p p e l l a n t s w i n g a g o l f c l u b a t C o x a n d s t r i k e h er . After that, both Bak er

and Star ns approache d appell ant and attempted to t ake the g olf c lub from him . Other pe rsons f rom th e party also appe ared and atte mp ted to stop app ellant . Th is
re sul ted i n at le a st one more person bei ng st ru ck w it h the g olf c lub

. At s ome poi nt, appel lan t retur ned t o hi s n ear by resi denc e , re tr iev ed tw o l arg e k niv es, beg an s w ing ing them atthos e present , and st abbed a t l eastone person. The Stat e ev entual ly

i ndi cte d app e lla nt on four count s o f agg ra v ated ass aul t w it h a deadl y w eapon, and tw o of thos e four count s w ere set for tri al. The tw o counts set for trial invo lve d a p pellan t’s use of the golf club, as op pose d to th e knives, to strike othe rs. Dur ing the firs t day

of tes ti mony , the State cal led f iv e w it ness es. After the cul minat ion of the f irst day, one of

the ju ro rs s u f

fered an injury and w as un able to cont inue . Becau se app ellantopte d no t to proce ed so lely w ith the re m a in in g e leven jurors, the trial court decl ared a mis tr ial

. By then , app ell ant h ad al re ady moved f o r a c o n ti nuanc e and a transc ri pti on of the firs t day ’s tes ti mony . He arg ued t hat the tran sc ri pti on w as needed for imp each me nt pu rpose s during the new trial. T he State said nothin g in respon se, th at is, it did notatte mp t to sho w thatth e t ra n s c ri p tion was unne cessary or oth erw ise of little impor t t o the defense. N or

di d it attempt to show

that av enues other than the p ro v is ion of a transc ri pt w ere av ail abl e to appel lan t t o reach the s ame end.3

The tr ial co urt s ummari ly denied b o th m oti ons, bec ause itco uld not see how the testim ony that ha d be en rece iv ed co uld be used for im pea chm entp urpo ses and beca use itthou g ht c ounse l shoul d be able to re cal l w hat w as sai d the prev iou s d ay . A new j ur y then
w as em pan eled , and it proceed ed to hea r testimo ny f rom th e w itnesse s. Motion s for Transcript and Continu ance As prev iou sl y

menti oned, appel lan t at t a c k s the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to deny hi m both
a con tinua nce and a transcriptio n of the prior testim ony. W e f ind th is troubleso me beca use an i ndi g ent d efendant, s uch a s a p pel lan t, has a c onst it uti onal r ig ht t o a t ra nsc ri pti on of testim ony receiv ed d uring a prior tr ial if th ere exists a need for it and no altern atives ex ist that fulfill the same funct ion as i f a transc ri pt w as av ail abl e. Br itt v . Nor th C ar oli na, 404 U. S. 2 26, 2 27- 28, 9 2 S. Ct . 431 , 433 -3 4, 30 L.E d.2d 400, 403- 04 ( 1971) ( n o ti ng thatthe ri g ht ar is es from the Eq ual Protecti on C lau se of the U .S. Con sti tuti on)

. Fur ther more, our Court of Cri min a l A p p eals ackn owl edged the existence of such a con stitutio nal right in W hite v . St ate , 823 S.W .2d 296 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1992) , Ar m our v. Sta te , 606 S.W .2d 8 91 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1980) , and Bi ll ie v. State , 605 S.W .2d 558 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 0). More impor tantl y , i t hel d i n W

hite th at th e de fen da nt ’ s ne ed for th e tran s c r i pt w as an d is presumed. W

hite v . St ate , 823 S.W .2d a t 298

. Of course, the Stat e may rebut the presumpt ion , id. at 29 9 ( impos ing upon the S tate the b urden t o show lac k o f need); Ar m our
v. State , 606 S.W .2d at 893 (holding the sam e), or show tha t accep tab le alterna tiv es exist in li eu o f p ro v idi ng a t ra nsc ri pt. Br itt v . Nor th C ar oli na, 404 U .S. at 23 0, 92 S.C t. at 43 5T he St at e op t s not t o con t end t hat ade quat e al t er nat i v es t o t he pr ov i si on ofa t r anscr i pt exi st ed h er e. 1

T h e S ta te a rg u e s i n i ts b rie f t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d n o n e e d o f a tra n s c rip t b e c a u s e th e tw o c o m p l a i n a n ts 2 had not y et t est i f i ed a t t he t i m e a m i st r i al was de cl ar ed, and t he wi t nesses who had t est i f i ed o nl y descr i bed ev e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e a t t a c k o n t h e c o m p l a i n a n t s . Ho we v e r , w e n o t e t h a t o n e o ft h e t e s t i f y i ng w i tn e s s e s s ta te d t h a t h e o b s e rv e d a p p e l l a n t s tri k e C o x w i th th e g o l f c l u b

. T h e re w e re a l s o s o m e c o n fli c ts b e tw e e n th e w itn e s s e s a n d e v id e n c e th a t w a s r e le v a n t t o a p p e lla n t’s d e f e n s iv e th e o r y o fs e lf
- d e fe n s e . 4 (n oti ng thatthe defendant i s n ot respon si ble for n eg ati ng the ex is tenc e of suffici ent altern atives). 1 From the re cord before us, w e see that upon the d ecl arati on of a mi str ial , app ell ant immedi atel y

so ug ht a cont inu ance and t he transc ri pt. F u rt h er more, the Stat e offered
ne i th er proo f no r arg um en t to th e tr i al c ou rt i n effor t to s at i s fy i ts bu rden und er Br itt and Ar m our or to sw ay thatco urt i nto d eny ing the moti ons. Nor w as effort made to s how that 2 adeq uate alt er nati v es to t he trans cr iptex is ted. And, that the tri al cour t beli ev ed appe ll ant shoul d hav e been abl e to si mply recal l the test imony

f ro m the prev iou s d ay

does not fill the
v oid created by

the missin g t ra n sc ri pt. See B ri tt v. Nor th C ar oli na, 404 U .S. at 22 9, 92 S.C t. at 43 4 ( sta ti ng that couns el is not re q uired to hav e a per fect memory ). N or

does the fact that the amount of

testi mony

inv olv ed encompass ed only one day ’s w orth of tes ti mony alo ne rel iev e the tri al cour t f ro m compl y ing w it h the co nst it uti onal mandate

. See W hite v. State, 823 S.W .2d at 299- 300 (fin din g re v ersi ble er ro r in faili ng to g ra nt a cont inu ance for p re p a ra t io n o f

a t ra n s c ri p te ve n t h o u gh o n ly two h o u rs o f t e s t im o n y p re s e n t e d fo u r d a ys ear li er w as inv olv ed)

. Rat her , i t w oul d s eem thatthe q uantum i nv olv ed w oul d hav e made iteas ier to compl y

w it h t h e c o n stitu ti onal mandate

. Si mply put, the les s i nformati on nee ding t ranscription m ean s t he less tim e an d po ten tial disruptio n involv ed. Giv en th ese5

ci rc umstan ces , w e ca n n o t b u t hol d tha t t he tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing appel lan t t he
re q uest ed transc ri pt an d the ti me to sec ure i t. Harm Our hav ing found er ro r nor mall y does not automati cal ly enti tl e an a p p e llantto a re v ersal

. Ins tead, w e must als o ass ess w hether the er ro r caus ed har m. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( a) ; Cai

n v . St ate , 947 S.W .2d 2 62, 2 64 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997)

. Y et, that is not alw ays true. For instan ce, if the error is structu ral in natu re, w het her it resulted in harm is immater ial

. Jor

dan v . St ate , 256 S.W .3d 286 , 290 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08); Cai n v . St ate , 947 S. W .2d a t 264

. Si mil ar ly , t he Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls hel d, pr ior to Cain , t hat har m is presumed in si tuati ons li ke that before u s. W hite v . St ate , 82 3 S. W .2 d at3 00

. To date, the hig h court has y et t o ov er ru le W hite . But see Cor

nis h v . St ate , N o. 04 -9 5- 0631- CR , 199 6 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 1836 at *7- 9 (Tex . App.–San Anton io Ma y 8,19 96, n o pet .) ( not designat ed for pub lication) (app ly ing a harm an alysi s in a similar situation ). So, beca use W hite has not been ov er ru led , w e too presume that appel lan t w as h a rm e d bythe tr ial
cour t’ s d eci si on to w it hhol d f ro m him a trans cr iptof the pr ior tri al. Indeed, it seems ra ther
unreason abl e to hol d oth er w ise

. T h is i s s o bec ause the t estus ed i n as ses si ng w hether the t ri al cour

t er re d al re ady h a s w it hin i t an ele ment of har m. The p arti cul ar el ement
re lat es to t he req uirement that the defendant s how a ne ed for the t ra nsc ri pt. If suc h a
nee d exists, then logic sugg ests th at de nying ac c e s s t o it or i ts reason able equiv alen t is harm f ul. So, since nee d w as and is presu me d here giv en tha t the S tate failed to estab lish other w is e at tr ial , s ome measu re of har m must als o be presumed.6

A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f Cain d o e s re q u i re a h a r m a n a l y s i s , d e s p i t e t h e h o l d i n g o f W hite , we ag a i n c o n c l u d e t h a t re v e rs a l i s j u s t i fi e d

. A s p re v i o u s l y me n t i o n e d , t h e n e e d fo r the informa tion w as presu me d. Ind eed , the State ackno w ledged in its ap pellat e brief thatthere
w ere i ncons is tenc ies i n the tes ti mony of thos e w ho had te st if ied before mis tr ial w as g ra nted

. Thus, a t ra nsc ri pt of tha t pr ior tes ti mony

arg uabl y

co uld hav e been used to hig hli g ht t he i ncons is tenc ies o r a ff ectthe credi bil ity of the w it ness es w ho te sti fied atthe later tria l. Mo re o ver, w e f ind disingen uou s the St ate ’s arg um entthatbeca use th e six
w it n e ss e s i nv olv ed di d notse e the ac tual as saul t for w hic h appel lan t w as conv ic ted, the infor mati on they

impart ed w as of mini mal w orth. If their testi mony

w as so unimpor

tant, one is l eft to w onder

w hy the Stat e prof

f e re d i t in the firs t pl ace. The record prov ide s t hat
answ er for t he te sti mony

i ncl uded no t onl y

a desc ri pti on of t he ci rc umstan ces before a nd after the a ss aul ts for w hic h appel lan t w as conv ic ted bu t a lso m u lt ipl e as saul ts he commi tted w it h the g olf c lub ( inc lud ing thatupon v ic ti m Co x ). Ital so desc ri bed app ell ant ent ering his ho u s e a ft e r t he golf club w as take n f rom h im, retu rning w ith large kniv es in hand, “r unni ng at any body he saw ” w it h thos e kni v es, and ev entual ly cu tti ng an i ndi v idu al named M ic key

. That i s h ardly i rrele v ant e v ide nce. W e al so note that the number of w it ness es inv olv ed w as not on e or tw o, bu t rather si x . Those s ix

w ere s li g htl y les s than hal f of the fourteen the Stat e ul ti matel y ca ll ed dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase of the tr ial

. This too ind ic ates that the t est imony w it hhel d from appel lan t w as more than inc ide ntal

. T hatthe quan tum of

ev iden ce w arrantin g conviction w as not sma ll is also an indicia to c onsi der

. Y et, italone i s n ot de ter minat iv e. Scott v . St ate , 2 2 7 S

. W

. 3 d 6 7 0 , 6 9 0 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 7 )

. N o r s h o u l d i t b e . C o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s e x i s t t o p ro t e c t n ot s impl ythe7

inno cent . Th ose guilty are ent itled to partake o f them as w ell. Inde ed, it may be those
ev entual ly

found g uil ty

w ho are to benefit the m ostf ro m them sin ce thei r obser v ance g oes far in assurin g a la wf ul v erdict. So, w hile it ma y w ell be tha t a pleth ora of ev iden ce ind ic ati v e of g uil t app ears o f rec ord, w e nonet h e le ss m u st tak e c auti on to av oid pl aci ng mo re impo rtance on the end s to be gained byconviction than the m ean s byw hich conviction is se cured

. T his is e specia lly so h ere since the violation co uld have bee n ea sily
av oid ed. W hether the er ro r affect ed th e i nteg ri ty of the p ro ces s i s w hat w e hav e to ask and
answ er . Scott v

. St ate , 227 S .W .3d a t 690

. I t is d if f icult for us to con clude here th at it did not. C onseq uentl y , w e rev erse the j udg ments and remand th e c ause to t he tr ial co urt.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice

Publ is h.