# ^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 

# RECEIVEDIH 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS M 192015 

# Abe!Acosta,Clerk PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW



## FILEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

## JUN192015 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,77630IDENTITY 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 fromwhich 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 forAppellant atTrial 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,77630TABLE 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 iTABLE OF CITES / STATUTES


### 1. Barnett v. State 771 S.W.2d.654Tex.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.crimApp.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 2005Tex.App.Lexis 7942 @8Sept.12,2005 ...p.7 

### 26. Sandoval v. State 52 S.W.3d 851 Tex.App Houston 1st Dist. 2001. . .'. • • P-6
A iD. STATEMENT OF CASE the presented case poses a quandry for the court to decide 

### betweenprotecting avictims rights versus a fundamental right to 

### a fair trial with all the facts before the jury.The courtmusr 

### further decide ifsocietywill 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 acomplainingwitnesses veracity and the motive,confDDmityand circumstances for that *.:..• witnesses history formaking false:^allegations shouldnot have been excluded under any ground or procedural bar,regardless of thenature 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 topresent 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 credibilityoffthe compalining witness 

### through the use of 'outcrystatements5 and theprosecutions 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 onlyuse 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