^5g«/5

No. 09-14-00179-CR

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

NINTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ORIGINAL

ELGIA JERODE GRIFFIN,Appellant

STATE OF TEXAS/Appellee RECEIVED IH

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

M 19 2015

Abe! Acosta,Clerk

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 19 2015

Abe! Acosta, Clerk

ORAL ARGUEMENT WAIVED

Elgia Jerode Griffin

TDCJ # 1258732

Michaels Unit

2664 FM 2054

Tennessee Colony ,Texas,75886

ProSe

John D. Kimbrough

District Attorney

Orange County Courthouse

801 Division Street

Orange,Texas,77630
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 38.2

the following is a list of all parties to the appellate court's

judgment from which discretionary review is sought:

PARTIES

1. Elgia Jerode Griffin,Appellant

TDCJ# 1924366

Michaels Unit

2664 FM 2054

Tennessee Colony,Texas,75886

ProSe

2 The State of Texas

COUNSEL:

1_.?- Michael Marion, Counsel for Appellant at Trial

1271 N.Main

Vidor,Texas,77662

2. David BArlow,Counsel for Appellant on Appeal

[ Note above counsel does not represent Appellant on

discretionary review ]

550 Fannin.Ste 710

Beaumont,Texas,77701

3. Phillip C. Smith,Jr.,Counsel for the State of Texas

at Trial and on Appeal

Assistant District Attorney

Orange County Courthouse

801 Division Street

Orange ,Texas,77630
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Identity of Parties .

2. Table of Contents •••A-i

3. Index of Authorities .B-i-ii

4. Statement of Oral Arguement C-i

5. Statement of Case. .. • D-i-ii

6. Procedural History E-i

7. Gounds for Review F-i-ii

8. Arguement 1-13

GROUND (a) 1-8

GROUND (b) 9-13

9. Prayer 14

10. Certificate of Service 15 j

11. Appendix 16

( Opinion 1 copy only )

A i
TABLE OF CITES / STATUTES

1. Barnett v. State 771 S.W.2d.654 Tex.Crim.App.1989 ....p.11

2. Borton v. State 605 S.W.2d.605 Tex.Crim.App.1980 p.11

3. Brojan v. State 787 S.W.2d.53 Tex.Crim.App.1990 p.6

4. Cain v. State 258 S.W.404 Tex .Crim. App .1997 p.7

5. Carrol v. State 916 S.W.2d 494 Tex.Crim.App.1996 p.4

6. Clewis v. State 992 S.W.2d.l26 Tex.Crim.App..1999. p.8

7. Crivens v. Roth 172 F.3d.991 7th Cir.1999 p.7

8. Davis v. Alaska 415 U.S.308,94 S.CT.1431,1974 p.4

9. Dotey v. State 630 S.W.2d.343 App.3rd.Dist.1982 p.13

10. Everett v. State 707 S.W.2d.638 Tex.Crim.App.1986 .... p.6

11. Harvey v. State 135 S.W.3d.712 Tex.Crim.App.2003 ..p.5

12. Hoyas v. State 980 S.W.2d.419 Tex.Crim.App.1995 p.2,9

13. farr v. State 519 S.W.2d.876 Tex.crim.App.1975 .......p.13

14. Jones v. State 936 S.W.2d.678 Tex.App.Dallas 1996...p.7

15. Kitteson v.Dretke 426 F.3d.5th Cir.2005 p.5

16. Little v. Johnson 162 F.3d.855 5th Cir.1998 ...p.4

17. Lopez v. State 18 S.W.3d 220 Tex.crim App.2000 p.4

18. Lund v. State 336 S.W.3d 848 Tex.Crim.App.-texarkana

3013 p.2,9

19. Montgomery v. State 810 S.W.2d.372 Tex.crim.App.1990..p.2,9

20. Oursburn v. State 259 S.W.3d 159 Tex.crim.App.2008 ...p.11

21. Pointer v. State 85 S .CT .1065 ,1965 p.4

22. Poitier v. State 68 S.W.3d.657 Tex .Crim. App .2002 p:2?9

23. Ramos v. State 245 S.W.3d.410 Tex.crim.App.2008 p.1,9

24. Rivera v. Quarterman 505-F.3d.344 5th Cir.2007 p.5,10

25. Rodriquez v. State 2005 Tex.App.Lexis 7942 @8 Sept.12,2005

...p.7

26. Sandoval v. State 52 S.W.3d 851 Tex.App Houston 1st Dist.

2001. . . '. • • P-6

A i
D. STATEMENT OF CASE

the presented case poses a quandry for the court to decide

between protecting a victims rights versus a fundamental right to

a fair trial with all the facts before the jury.The court musr

further decide if society will no longer accept coercive ,deceptive

tactics from police that leads to false statements being used to

obtain a conviction.Additionally,the trial court's decision to

exclude testimony—that brings into question a complaining witnesses

veracity and the motive,confDDmity and circumstances for that *.:..•

witnesses history for making false:^allegations should not have been

excluded under any ground or procedural bar,regardless of the nature

of the evidence.Thus the court in doing so created a fundamental

error by violating the due process and confrontation clauses

of the United States and Texas Constitutions.The ability to present

before a jury evidence that rebuts the states contention that a

compalining witness is credible and lacks bias or motive to make

false allegations,while at the same time the court allowed the

prosecution to bolster the credibility offthe compalining witness

through the use of 'outcry statements5 and the prosecutions opening

and closing remarks.The court has attempted to justify the exclusions

of the evidence under Texas Rules of Evidence 412 by claiming the

evidence is hearsay,despite having available direct testimony.Further

the Court determ'iiffied that because the evidence referred to the witnesses

sexual promiscuity it was inadmissaDle.However,it was the reactions

of the witness after the sexual promiscuity occured that is probative.

Additionally the Court has incorrectly substituted their

trial strategy by determining thattne appellant could only use the

rebuttal evidence in cross-examination/when in fact the appellant

has the right to call all parties in its case in chief under direct

D i