No. 03-13-0804 - CR

IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

=============================================



## KAITLYN RITCHERSON

Appellant

v.



## THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee

============================================= Appeal from Convictions in Cause Numbers D-1-DC -302663

in the 331 District Court of Travis County, Texas,

ST

Hon. Robert Perkins, Visiting Judge Presiding

=============================================

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

=============================================

Respectfully submitted,

Law Office of Alexander L. Calhoun

State Bar No.: 00787187

4301 W. William Cannon Dr., Ste. B-150, # 260

Austin, TX 78749

Tele: 512/ 420 - 8850

Fax: 512/ 233- 5946

Cell: 512/731-3159

Email: alcalhoun@earthlink.net

Oral Argument is Requested ACCEPTED

03-13-00804-CR

3822347

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/20/2015 10:43:03 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKSTATE MENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT

Co un se l b el ie ve s o ral arg um en t wou ld be be ne fic ia l to ad dr es s or cl ari fy th e

is su es rai se d i n t hi s ca se

.

i K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RTABLE OF CONTENT S

STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

CERTIFI CATE OF PARTIES.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii i

INDEX OF AUT HORITIES.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

STATEMENT OF TH E CASE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ISSUE PRESENTED.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SUMM ARY OF THE ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

POINT OF ERROR NUMB ER ONE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

POINT OF ERROR NUMB ER TW O.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

POINT OF ERROR NUMB ER THREE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

POINT OF ERROR NUMB ER FOUR.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

CERTIFI CATE OF COMPLIANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

ii K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RCERTI FICATE OF PARTIES

Pu rs ua nt to Ru le 38 .1(a ), Tex.R .App . Pro ., App el la nt pre se nt s t he fol lo win g

pe rs on s wh o a re p art ie s t o, o r ha ve an in te res t i n t he fin al jud gm en t i n t hi s ca us e,

so th at th e Co ur t m ay

de te rm in e whe th er i ts m em be rs are d is qu al ifi ed or s ho ul d

recu se th em se lv es :

Ms . Kait lyn Ri tc he rs on , TDCJ # 01 90 55 31 Tex as Depa rtment o f Cri m in al

Ju st ic e - Mo un ta in View Un it

Mr. Al ex an de r L. Calh ou n, Ap pe ll at e Att y 43 01 W . W il li am Can no n Dr.,

St e. B-1 50 , # 2 60 , Aus ti n, TX

78 74 9

Mr. Ch arl es F. Bai rd , Trial Att or ne y 23 12 W es te rn Trail s B lv d.,

Aus ti n, TX 78 74 5

Ms . Am be r Farr el ly, Ass t. Tri al Att y 23 12 W es te rn Trail s B lv d.,

Aus ti n, TX 78 74 5

Ms . Ros em ary Leh m

be rg , Dist . Att y Bl ack well -Thu rm an Cri m in al

Ju st ic e Co m

pl ex , 50 9 W. 11 th

St , Aus ti n, TX 78 70 1

Mr. Gary Cob b, & Bl ack well -Thu rm an Cri m in al

Ms . Meg McGee , Ass t. Di st . Att y s Ju st ic e Co m pl ex , 50 9 W. 11 th

St , Aus ti n, TX 78 70 1

Ju dg e Ro be rt P erk in s, Vi si ti ng Ju dg e 11 04 Nuec es , # 2 03 , Aus ti n

TX 78 70 1

iii K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RINDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es :

Alma nz a v . St at e , 68 6 S .W .2d 15 7 (Te x.C r.App . 19 84 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Apo li na r v. S ta te , 15 5 S .W .3d 18 4 (Te x.C r.App . 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 49 , 50

Arl in e v. S ta te , 72 1 S .W .2d 34 8 (Te x.C r.App . 19 86 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Bag he ri v. St at e , 11 9 S .W .3d 75 5 (Te x.C r.App . 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Ban da v. St at e , 89 0 S .W .2d 42 (Tex . Cr.App . 19 94 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Bar le y v. S ta te , 01 -1 2- 01 00 2- CR

(Tex .App .- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 10 -2 9- 20 13 ) (n ot pu bl is he d)

. . . . . . . . . . . 35

Bar sh aw v. St at e , 34 2 S .W .3d 91 (Tex.C r.App . 20 11 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 , 44 , 52

Bell v. St at e , 69 3 S .W .2d 43 4 (Tex .Cr.Ap p.1 98 5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Big na ll v. St at e , 88 7 S .W .2d 21 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 1 99 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 20

Bri ta in v. St at e , 41 2 S .W .3d 51 8 (Te x.C r.App . 20 13 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Bro wn v. St at e , 29 6 S .W .3d 37 1 (Te x. Ap p.- B eau m on t 2 00 9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Bou nd er an t v. S ta te , 95 6 S .W .2d 76 2 (Te x.Ap p. – Fo rt Wort h 1 99 7)

. . . . . . . . . . 50

Ca va zo s v. S ta te , 38 2 S .W .3d 37 7 (Tex .Cr.Ap p.2 01 2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 18 , 19 , 22

Ch av ar ri ga v. St at e, 15 6 S .W .3d 64 2 (Tex .App . - Ty le r 20 04 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cr aw fo rd v. W as hi ng to n , 54 1 U.S. 3 6 (2 00 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Dar by v. St at e , 14 5 S .W .3d 71 4 (Te x. Ap p. -F or t Wort h 2 00 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Edmo nd so n v . St at e , 39 9 S .W .3d 60 7 (Te x.Ap p. - Eas tl an d 2 01 3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 31

iv K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C REng lu nd

v. St at e , 94 6 S .W .2d 64 (Tex.C r.App . 19 97 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Era zo v. St at e , 14 4 S .W .3d 48 7 (Te x. Cr . App . 20 04 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Flo re s v. S ta te , 24 5 S .W .3d 43 2 (Te x.C r.App . 20 08 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Gar ci a v . St at e , 12 6 S .W .3d 92 1 (Te x.C r. App . 20 04 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 , 44 , 51

Glo ver v. St at e , 10 2 S .W .3d 75 4 (Tex .App . - Texa rk an a 2 00 2)

. . . . . . . . . . . 50 , 51

Her na nd ez v. St at e , 81 9 S .W .2d 80 6 (Te x.C r.App . 19 91 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Hug he s v. S ta te , 12 8 S .W .3d 24 7 (Tex .App . – Ty le r 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Hoo pe r v. S ta te , 21 4 S .W .3d 9 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 2 00 7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Hug he s v. S ta te , 12 8 S .W .3d 24 7 (Tex .App . – Ty le r 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Hun t v. S ta te , 90 4 S .W .2d 81 3 (Tex .App . - For t Wort h 1 99 5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Jes so p v . St at e , 36 8 S .W .3d 65 3 (Te x.Ap p.-Au st in 20 12 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 , 39

Ju re k v. Co uc h- Ju re k, 29 6 S .W .3d 86 4 (Te x.Ap p. - El Pas o 2 00 9)

. . . . . . . . . . . 42

Ki ng v. St at e , 95 3 S .W .2d 26 6 (Te x.C r.App . 19 97 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 , 44

La gu na s v. S ta te , 18 7 S .W .3d 50 3 (Te x.Ap p. - Au st in 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Mar ti ne z v. S ta te , 17 8 S .W .3d 80 6 (Te x. Cr . App . 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

McCa rt y v. S ta te , 25 7 S .W .3d 23 8 (Te x.C r.App . 20 08 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 32

McMa ho n v . St at e , 58 2 S .W .2d 78 6 (Te x.C r.App . 19 78 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Mir an da v. Ari

zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 (19 66 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Mon tg ome ry v. St at e , 81 0 S .W .2d 37 2 (Te x.C r.App . 19 91 )..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 , 39

Mon tg ome ry v. St at e , 19 8 S .W .3d 67 (Tex .App . - Ft. Wort h 2 00 6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 23

v K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RMor en o v . St at e , 22 S.W .3d 48 2 (Te x.C r.App . 19 99 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Mot il la v. St at e , 78 S.W .3d 35 2 (Te x.C r.App . 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 , 44 , 51

Ott in g v . St at e , 8 S.W.3d 6 81 (Tex .App . - Aus ti n 1 99 9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 , 24 , 25

Paw la k v. S ta te , 42 0 S .W .3d 80 7 (Te x.C r.App . 20 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Peo pl e v. All en , 15 8 M ic h. Ap p. 4 72 , 40 4 N.W.2d 2 66 (19 87 ).

. . . . . . . . . . 41 , 42

Peo pl e v. Van ho es en , 3 A.D.3d 78 7,

77 1 N.Y.S.2 d 7 30 (N.Y. 3d Dept . 20 04 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Peo pl e v. W at ts , 16 5 P .3d 70 7 (C ol o.Ap p. 2 00 6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Pere z v. S ta te , 11 3 S .W .3d 81 9 (Te x.Ap p. - Au st in 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Rees e v. S ta te , 33 S.W .3d 23 8 (Te x.C r.App . 20 00 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Sa la za r v. S ta te , 38 S.W .3d 14 1 (Te x.C r. App . 20 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Sa nd ov al v. St at e , 40 9 S .W .3d 25 9 (Te x.Ap p. - Au st in 20 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 28 , 31

Sa nd er s v. S ta te , 42 2 S .W .3d 80 9 (Te x.Ap p.-F t. Wort h 2 01 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Sa un de rs v. St at e , 91 3 S .W .2d 56 4 (Te x.C r.App . 19 95 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Sc hr oe de r v. S ta te , 12 3 S .W .3d 39 8 (Te x.C r.App .20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

So to v. St at e , 13 -1 0- 01 3- CR (Tex .App . - Co rp us Ch ris ti 10 -2 0- 20 11 ).

. . . . . . . . 35

St at e v. Bau er ly , 52 0 N.W.2d 7 60 (Mi nn .App . 19 94 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

St at e v. Co ns ta nt in e , 58 8 A.2 d 2 94 (Me. 1 99 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

To ll et t v. Ci ty of

Kema h , 28 5 F .3d 35 7 (5 th Cir . 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Th oma s v. S ta te , 69 9 S .W .2d 84 5 (Te x.C r.App . 19 85 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

vi K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RTu rp in v. Ka ss ul ke , 26 F.3d 13 92 (6t h C ir. 1 99 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Uni te d S ta te s v. C ly mor e , 24 5 F .3d 11 95 (10 th Cir . 20 01 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Uni te d S ta te s v. Tr ef

f , 92 4 F .2d 97 5 (1 0t h C ir. 1 99 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

W al ker v. Lo ckh ar t , 76 3 F .2d 94 2 (8 th Cir . 19 85 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Vol ks wa ge n o

f Amer ic a, In c. v. Rami re z , 15 9 S .W .3d 89 7 (Te x. 2 00 5)

. . . . . . . . 49

Zu li an i v. S ta te , 97 S.W .3d 58 9 (Te x. Cr . App . 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 32 , 49

St at ut es an d R

ul es

Tex .Co de Cri m .Pro . Art. 3 7.0 9.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 18

Tex .Co de Cri m .Pro . Art. 3 8.2 2.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Tex . Pen al Co de § 1 9.0 2 (b )(1 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 1 4, 1 6, 1 7

Tex . Pen al Co de § 1 9.0 2 (b )(2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 1 4, 1 6, 1 7

Tex .R.App .Pro . Rul e 4 4.2 (b ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 , 44

Tex .R.Evi d. Ru e 4 03

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 , 38 , 44

Tex .R.Evi d. Ru le 61 3( a).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Tex .R.Evi d R

ul e 8 01 (a).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Tex .R.Evi d. Ru le 80 3( 2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 , 29 , 49

Mi sc el la ne ou s Au th or it ie s

Ann ot ., Adm is si bi li ty of Evi de nc e Co nc ern in g Word s

Sp ok en W hi le Decl aran t Was As le ep or

Unc on sc io us , 14 A.L.R.4t h 8 02 (19 82 & Su pp . 19 89 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

vii K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RTex as Ru le s o f Evi de nc e Han db oo k, 9 88 (20 11 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6 Wig m or e, Evi de nc e in Trial s at Co m m on Law

§ 1 74 7 (J am es H. Chad bo ur n re v. 1 97 6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

viii K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RTO TH E HO NORABLE JUDGE S OF THE COURT OF APPEALS :

COMES NOW, be fo re t he Co ur t, Ap pe ll an t, b y an d t hr ou gh hi s at to rn ey of

reco rd , and pu rs ua nt to Ru le 38 .1, Tex .R.App .Pro ., fil es th is bri ef o n a pp eal , and

wou ld sh ow t he Co ur t as fol lo ws:

STATE MENT OF TH E CASE

App el la nt was ch arg ed by in di ct m en t wit h m ur de r, in vi ol at io n of Tex

. Pen al

Co de § 19 .02 (b )(1 ) & (2 ). [Cl erk ’s Rec or d (“ C.R.”): 20

- 21 ]. Her fir st tri al en de d

in a m is tri al at th e gu il t-i nn oc en ce ph as e afer th e jury dead lo ck ed . [19 Rep or te r’s

Rec or d (“ R.R.”): 5]. On re-t ria l, th e jury co nv ic te d he r of th e of fen se as ch arg ed in

th e in di ct m en t. [C.R.: 29 5, 30 6, 30 7

- 30 8]. Fo ll owi ng th e pu ni sh m en t ph as e, th e

jury as se ss ed a se nt en ce of 25 y ears in carc erat io n in th e Tex as Dep art m en t of

Cri m in al Ju st ic e – In st it ut io na l Div is io n. [C.R.: 30 5, 30 6, 30 7

- 30 8]. App el la nt

fil ed a m ot io n an d am en de d m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

, whi ch th e tri a l c o u r t d e n ie d

fo ll owi ng se ve ral ev id en ti ary he ari ng s. [C

. R

. : 31 3

- 31 9, 34 7]. App el la nt ti m el y

fil ed a no ti ce o f ap pe al . [C.R.: 3 20 , 35 5].

IS SUES PRESE NTED

G R O U N D F O R R E LIE F N U M B E R O N E :

T H E T R IA L C O U R T P R E J U D IC IA LLY E R R E D B Y D E N Y IN G A P P E LLA N T ’ S

S PEC IAL R EQ U ESTED I N STR U C T IO N O N T H E L E S S E R -I N C LU D E D O FFEN SE

O F M A N S LA U G H T E R

.

G R O U N D F O R R E LIE F N U M B E R T W O :

1 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RT H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D B Y E X C LU D IN G A V ID E O R E C O R D IN G O F

A P P E LLA N T ’ S E M O T IO N A L O U T B U R S T U P O N L E A R N IN G T H A T T H E

D E C E D E N T W O U LD D IE F R O M H E R I N J U R IE S

.

G R O U N D F O R R E LIE F N U M B E R T H R E E :

T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D IN R E F U S IN G A PPELLA N T T O A D M IT D E F E N S E

E X H IB IT 13 2 A T T H E P U N IS H M E N T P H A S E O F T R IA L IN O R D E R T O

D E M O N S T R A T E A P P E LLA N T ’ S R E M O R S E

.

G R O U N D F O R R E LIE F N U M B E R F O U R :

T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D IN A D M IT T IN G H E A R S A Y S T A T E M E N T S B Y

P A T R IC IA A N D D O N A LD R IT C H E R S O N U N D ER TH E E X C ITED U T T E R A N C E

E X C E P T IO N W IT H O U T A S U F F IC IE N T P R E D IC A T E S H O W IN G T H A T T H E

W IT N E S S W A S U

N A B LE T O R E F LE C T U P O N H IS S T A T E M E N T A T T H E

T IM E IT W A S M A D E

STATE MENT OF FACTS

The in st an t cas e aro us e fro m a co nf ro nt at io n ou ts id e of Rep ub li c Liv e, a ni gh t

cl ub in th e do wnt own en te rta in m en t di st ric t of Aus ti n, sh or tl y aft er cl os in g ho ur s on

Decem be r 4, 20 11

. The de ced en t, Fat im a Barr ie

, rece iv ed a st ab wou nd to th e ch es t

an d was tra ns po rte d to Brac ke nr id ge Hos pi ta l bu t ul ti m at el y di ed of he r in juri es on

Decem be r 21

, 20 11

. [2 5 R

. R

. : 2 1 6 ]. App el la nt rece iv ed a se lf- in fli ct ed st ab

wou nd to he r th ig h an d was ta ke n by he r fri en ds to Set on So ut h W es t Hos pi ta l whe re

sh e was lo cat ed by the po li ce, i nt erro ga te d, an d s ub se qu en tl y arre st ed

.

The acco un ts of th e co nf

ro nt at ion be tw ee n A

ppe lla nt and th e de ced en t, Fat im a

Barr ie , var ie d wi de ly at tri al

.

Kelv in Jo ne s wen t to a cl ub

, Rep ub li c Li v e a l on g wit h so m e fri en ds on

2 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RDecem

be r 3

- 4, 20 09

. [2 2 R.R.: 11

- 14 ]. His fia nc ee, Ja m i e H o pk in s, an d he r

cl as sm at e Fat im a Barr ie al so wen t to Rep ub li c Liv e, bu t se pa rat e l y f r o m hi m

. [2 2

R.R.: 11

, 14

, 15 ]. A ve rb al arg um en t be twee n hi s fri en d, Ro na ld Pace

, an d an ot he r

i n d i v i d u a l, Ch ris Cars on

, oc cu rred in si de th e cl ub an d co nt in ue d ou ts id e aft er th e

cl ub cl os ed an d e m

pt ie d o ut si de on to th e si de walk

. [2 2 R.R.:1 4, 16

- 24

, 57

, 59 ].

Jo ne s ov erh eard a gi rl m ak e a pr ov oc at iv e co m m en t an d he de ci de d to ge t th e gi rls

an d le av e be fo re th e si tu at io n es cal at ed

. [2 2 R.R.: 26

, 68

- 69 ]. Jo ne s pi ck ed up

Ja m ie Hop ki ns an d tu rn ed he r aro un d s o th ey co ul d m ak e th ei r way fro m th e

di sp ut an ts

. He di d th e sa m e fo r Barr ie who ha d be en st an di ng ne xt to Hop ki ns

. [2 2

R.R.: 26

, 28

, 29

, 71 - 72 ]. Barri e h ad be en swi ng in g at a gi rl in a red dr es s whe n

Hop ki ns gr ab be d an d mo v e d h e r. [2 2 R.R. 92

- 93

, 95

, 11 4]. The th ree st art ed

walk in g do wn th e st reet

, bu t aft er fiv e or te n st ep s, Barr ie co ll ap se d to th e si de walk

an d Jo ne s no ti ced sh e was bl eed in g. [2 2 R.R.: 25

- 29

, 30

- 31

, 71

- 72 ]. Jo ne s ha d

no t se en whe n Barr ie was st ab be d. [2 2 R.R.: 18

, 31 ]. Nor ha d he se en th e gi rl who

Barr ie ha d a tt ack ed ho ld in g a kn ife du rin g t he co nf ro nt at io n. [2 2 R .R.: 9 5].

Ja im e Hop ki ns

, Barr ie ’s fri en d te st ifi ed th at sh e an d Barr ie were le av in g an

en d- of -th e-s em es te r cel eb rat io n at Rep ub li c Liv e in th e earl y m or ni ng on Decem be r

4 whe n th ey en co un te red a gr ou p of in di vi du al s arg ui ng ou ts id e th e cl ub

. [2 1 R.R.:

16 4

- 17 6]. Two gi rls ap pr oa ch ed Hop ki ns an d Barr ie ; Hop ki ns fel t th reat en ed an d

st art ed to walk away. [2 1 R.R.: 17 8

- 1 8 4 ]. A s t h ey walk ed away th ro ug h th e

3 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rcro wd, s om eo ne pu ll ed Hop ki ns ’ ha ir. [2 1 R .R.: 1 86 - 18 9 (1 95 )]. Her fi an cee,

Kelv in Jo ne s, who ha d at te nd ed th e cl ub wit h hi s own fri en ds

, ap pe ared an d m ov ed

he r to th e si de to av oi d th e cro wd. [2 1 R.R.: 18 9

- 19 2]. As Jo ne s m ov ed he r as id e,

sh e ob se rv ed App el la nt be hi nd he r waiv in g a li tt le kn ife in th e ai r. [2 1 R.R.: 19 2

-

19 3, 21 9 - 22 0, 26 1]. Kelv in al so pi ck ed up Barr ie

, m ov ed he r ov er, and th e th ree

st art ed walk in g a way

th ro ug h t he cro wd. [21 R.R.: 19 4]. They walk ed a few s te ps

an d Barr ie st um

bl ed an d co ll ap se d to th e si de walk

. [2 1 R.R.: 1 9 6 ]. The

pa ram ed ic s arri ve d an d te nd ed to Barr ie

, tra ns po rti ng he r to th e ho sp it al

. [2 1 R.R.:

19 7]. Hop ki ns d i d n o t se e Barr ie ge t st ab be d. Sh e in si st ed th at ne it he r sh e no r

Barr ie ha d bee n agg res si ve to ward th e gi rls who ha d app ro ach ed th em

. [2 1 R.R.:

20 4, 21 1, 23 0, 25 5, 26 2]. Sh e di d no t se e Barr ie swi ng at or st rik e App el la nt

. [2 1

R.R.: 21 0, 2 31 ].

Ogh en eb ro hi en “ Sh erm ay ” Uwahl og ho

, a ph ot og r a p h er wor ki ng th at ni gh t

at Rep ub li c Liv e, te st ifi ed th at aft er th e cl ub ha d cl os ed

, sh e no ti ced two gr ou ps of

pe op le ou ts id e arg ui ng ba ck an d fo rth . [22 R.R.: 2 11 , 21 6, 2 17 - 21 8]. At so m e

po in t du rin g th e arg um en t, sh e ob se rv ed App el la nt in th e cro wd, wit h a kn ife rai se d,

bu t lo wer it aft er Ry an Mo or e res tra in ed he r an d cal m ed he r do wn. App el la nt th en

di sa pp eare d from he r si gh t. [2 2 R.R.: 21 8 - 22 0, 22 9, 23 9, 26 3, 26 6 - 26 7]. Sh e

th e n sa w App el la nt m ov e aro un d Mo or e an d di sa pp ear fro m he r si gh t [2 2 R.R.:

22 0, 25 9. Sh e di d no t se e a ph y si cal co nf ro nt at io n wit h Barr ie no r di d sh e wit ne ss

4 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RApp el la nt st ab Barr ie

. [2 2 R.R.: 22 2, 24 2, 26 4]. W hi le walk in g to he r car, ho wev er,

sh e sa w Barr ie

, bl oo di ed

, an d lying on th e si de walk

. [2 2 R.R.: 21 8

- 22 0, 24 2, 26 7].

St efn e Hen de rs on te st ifi ed in App el la nt ’s fir st tri al

, bu t was u na va il ab le fo r

th e re-t ria l; he r pr ev io us t e s t i mo n y was read to th e jury. [2 3 R.R.: 7

- 8].

Hen de rs on an d a fri en d ha d at te nd ed an en d- of -s em es te r pa rty at Rep ub li c Liv e an d

were wait in g aft er th e cl ub cl os ed to bo ard a pa rty bu s pa rk ed ou ts id e in th e st reet

.

[2 3 R.R.: 14

, 18 ]. Sh e no t i c e d t h a t App el la nt was am on g a gr ou p of ot he r

in d i v i d u a ls

, in cl ud in g Ch ris Cars on an d Ry an Mo or e, who were arg ui ng lo ud ly

al on g wit h an ot he r gr ou p of in di vi du al s. [2 3 R.R.: 20

- 25

, 73

, 75

, 80 ]. App el la nt

st art ed arg ui ng wit h so m e wom en wit h th e ot he r gr ou p, m ov in g fro m on e wom an to

arg ue wit h Barri e. [2 3 R.R.: 85

, 86

, 89

- 90 ]. The two m ov ed cl os er towa rd each

ot he r. [2 3 R.R.: 32 ]. Barr ie st op pe d arg ui ng

, tu rn ed away, an d st art ed to walk of f.

[23 R.R.: 4 4]. As

Barr ie walk ed away, App el la nt rai se d a kn ife in to th e ai r, an d st ab be d Barr ie in th e

ch es t by reac hi ng aro un d or ov er Barr ie ’s rig ht sh ou ld er. [2 3 R.R.: 47

- 48

, 52

, 94

- 95

, 97

- 98

, 10 0, 12 4

- 12 5, 13 5]. Barr ie ha d no t to uc he d App el la nt pr io r to be in g

st ab be d. [2 3 R .R.: 10 1, 12 1]. Barr ie walk ed a few st ep s an d th en fel l to th e

gr ou nd

. [2 3 R.R.: 50 , 1 01 ]. Hen de rs on o b s e rv ed Ry an Mo or e gr ab App el la nt ’s

wris t an d g et he r to dro p t he kn ife . App el la nt th en walk ed off th ro ug h t he cro wd.

5 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C R[2 3 R.R.: 50

- 51

, 10 1

- 10 4]. Mo or e ap pe ared to ha ve in jure d hi s ha nd on th e kn ife

be cau se he rip pe d h is sh irt an d wra pp ed hi s h an d. [2 3 R .R.: 5 2, 5 4, 1 15 ].

Ash le y Yor k te st ifi ed in th e pr ev io us tri al , b ut was “ un av ai la bl e” fo r th e retri al ; he r pr ev io us te st im on y was ad m it te d in li eu of l i v e t es ti m on y

. Yor k ha d

be en a cl os e a fri en d of App el la nt

. [2 3 R.R.: 14 6

- 14 7]. Ash le y an d se ve ral fri en ds

ha d pl an s to go to Rep ub li c Liv e on th e ev en in g of Decem be r 3. [2 3 R.R.: 14 8].

App el la nt ha d a da te th at ev en in g an d di d no t in it ia ll y go to th e cl ub bu t was cal le d

ov er la te r in th e ev en in g aft er on e of th e gr ou p be cam e in to xi cat ed an d was eject ed

fro m th e cl ub

. [2 3 R.R.: 14 8

- 14 9, 15 2

- 15 3, 15 4]. App el la nt wait ed ou ts id e th e

cl ub un ti l it cl os ed an d m et up wit h Yor k ou ts id e. [2 3 R.R.: 15 6

- 15 7, 23 9]. Yor k

ob se rv ed th at he r fri en d Ch ris Cars on was arg ui ng wit h an ot he r gr ou p of p e o p l e

ou ts id e. [2 3 R.R.: 15 9, 29 4]. So m e gi rls wit h th e ot he r gr ou p, in cl ud in g Barr ie

,

joi ne d t he co nf

ro nt at io n, an d Ap pe ll an t was dra wn i nt o t he arg um en t wi th Barr ie

.

[2 3 R.R.: 16 1

- 16 4, 16 7, 22 3, 27 8, 29 4, 29 5]. As th e arg um en t pr og res se d, Yor k

tri ed to res tra in App el la nt

, bu t sh e pu ll ed fo rward to ward th e ot he r gr ou p of arg ui ng

gi rls

. [2 3 R.R.: 16 8, 17 5, 17 8, 17 9, 22 8]. Yor k no ti ced th at App el la nt ha d a kn ife

in he r ha nd

. [2 3 R.R.: 17 6 - 17 7, 17 9, 19 1, 22 8, 30 3]. Yor k beg an to walk away

an d ob se rv ed Barr ie ab ru pt ly lu ng e to ward App e l l an t an d st ru ck he r in th e he ad

wit h her cel l ph on e. [2 3 R.R.: 16 4 - 16 6, 17 0, 18 4, 18 8 - 18 9, 22 4, 22 9, 24 0, 24 3,

6 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C R25 1

- 25 2, 27 8, 28 2, 28 9]. Yor k di d no t st ay to watc h th e co nf ro nt at io n bu t walk ed

to App el la nt ’s car pa rk ed in a ne arb y lo t. A pp el la nt sh or tl y cau gh t up wit h he r,

di sp la y in g a bl oo d on he r ha nd

, an d rev eal in g th at sh e ha d a st a b w o u n d o n h er

th ig h. [2 3 R.R.: 19 2

- 19 4, 19 5

- 19 6, 19 9, 23 0, 28 2, 29 1]. Sh e al so ha d a kn ot

o n he r fo reh ead fro m be in g st ru ck

. [2 3 R.R.: 28 3, 29 0]. Yor k d i d n o t s e e

App el la nt st ab Barr ie aft er Ba rri e st ru ck he r. [23 R.R.: 2 40 ].

Ch ris Cars on

, a fri en d of Ash l e y Y o r k ’s fia nc ee, Ry an Mo or e, wen t to

Rep ub li c Liv e wit h Mo or e on Decem be r 3. [2 5 R.R. 22 7

- 22 9]. Aft e r c l os in g,

Cars on go t in to an arg um en t ou ts id e th e cl ub wit h an ot he r cl ub -g oe r, Ro na ld Pace

,

wit h who m he ha d ba d hi st or y

. [2 5 R.R.: 23 3

- 24 0]. The co nf ro nt at io n gr ew

te ns e an d Cars on an ti ci pa te d a fig ht br eak in g ou t. [2 5 R..R.: 23 7

, 24 0]. W hi le

arg ui ng wit h Pace

, Cars on sa w Barr i e s u dd en ly ap pr oa ch wit h he r arm rai se d an d

ho ld in g an ob

ject whi ch ap pe ared to be a hi gh he el ed sh oe

, bu t cro ss hi s pat h and

st rik e App el la nt in th e he ad

. [2 5 R.R.: 24 1

- 24 2, 27 2

- 27 6]. Afte r st rik in g

App el la nt

, Barr ie ap pe ared to sl ip on th e gr ou nd

, bu t reco ve r an d ve ry qu ic kl y Barr ie

an d App el la nt “ cras h[ ed ] in to each ot he r.” [2 5 R .R.: 2 43

- 24 4, 27 8, 28 0]. Barr ie

ag ai n ha d he r arm rai se d, ho ld in g a hi gh he el ed sh oe as sh e ap pr oa ch ed App el la nt

a se co nd ti m e. [25 R.R.: 28 0]. Cars on di d no t se e App el la nt wit h a kn ife as sh e

en ga ge d Barr ie

– sh e was no t waiv in g it ov er h er h ead . [25 R.R.: 28 0]. Afte r th e

7 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rtwo cras he d in to each ot he r, t h e c r o w d su rg ed aro un d th e two

, bl oc ki ng Cars on ’s

vi ew of th e ev en ts

. [2 5 R.R.: 24 4

- 24 5, 28 1]. Cars on an d R ya n Mo or e le ft,

ret ur ni ng to Mo or e’s ho m e. [2 5 R.R.: 24 6, 28 9]. Mo or e di d no t ta ke a kn ife fro m

App el la nt , no r ha d h e b een in jure d t ha t ev en in g. [2 5 R .R.: 2 47 , 28 3, 2 86 ].

Bri tn ey Cars on

, Ch ris Cars on ’s y ou ng er si st er al so wen t to Rep ub li c Liv e on

Decem be r, se pa rat el y fro m he r br ot he r. [2 6 R.R.: 29 9, 30 4, 30 6; 27 R.R.: 23 ]. Sh e

le ft th e cl ub at cl os in g ti m e an d sa w App el la nt an d Ash le y Yor k st an di ng ou ts id e in

th e st reet

. [2 6 R.R.: 30 8

- 3 0 9 ]. Y o r k w a s arg ui ng wit h a gr ou p of gi rls whi le

App el la nt st oo d by. [ 2 6 R

. R .: 30 9

- 31 0; 27 R.R.: 31 ]. Su dd en ly, se ve ral gi rls

lu n g e d t o ward Yor k an d App el la nt

. [2 6 R.R.: 31 1]. Sh e sa w Barr ie

, who was

am on g t he gro up

, st ru ck App el la nt in th e fo reh ead wit h her cel l ph on e. [2 6 R.R.

31 1

- 31 2; 27 R.R.: 45

- 46

, 49

- 51 ]. Barr ie lo st he r ba la nc e aft er st rik in g

App el la nt

, st um

bl ed ba ck ward

, an d fel l, bu t th en reg ai ne d he r feet

. [2 6 R.R.: 31 2

-

31 3; 27 R.R.: 53

, 10 4]. Afte r Barr ie reco ve red he r feet

, Bri tn ey ob se rv ed th at

App el la nt ha d a kn ife in he r rig ht ha nd an d a fri gh te ne d ex pr es si on on he r face

. [2 6

R.R.: 31 4; 27 R.R.: 55 , 5 6, 59 , 1 03 ]. Barr ie th reat en ed App el la nt , a nd gro up of

gi rls ag ai n m ov ed to ward App el la nt an d Yor k. [2 6 R.R.: 31 4 - 31 5; 27 R.R.: 61

-

62 , 63 , 10 6]. Barr ie st il l ha d her cel l ph on e in he r ha nd

, rai se d as a weap on

. [27

R.R.: 64 ]. Afte r th e cro wd of pe op le ru sh ed to ge th er, Bri tn ey co ul d no lo ng er se e

8 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RApp el la nt . [25 R.R.: 3 15 ; 2 7 R .R.: 6 5 - 6 6, 1 08 ]. She lef t t o g o s earc h fo r br ot he r

in th e cro wd bu t was su cces sf ul

. [2 6 R.R.: 31 6; 27 R.R.: 68

- 69

, 12 3]. As sh e

walk ed ba ck al on g th e si de walk

, sh e sa w Barr ie si tt in g on th e cu rb

, at te nd ed by he r

fri en ds . [26 R.R.: 3 17 - 31 8; 27 R.R.: 7 0].

Ry an Mo or e, Ash le y Yor k’s fia nc ee, te st ifi ed as a St at e’s reb ut ta l witn es s.

He, Ch ris Cars on an d an ot he r fri en d wen t to Rep ub li c Liv e on Decem be r 3

- 4. [2 7

R.R.: 13 7, 14 6

- 14 7]. Car s o n h a d an arg um en t wit h so m eo ne in si de th e cl ub

whi ch co nt in ue d ou ts id e aft er cl os in g. [27 R.R.: 1 49 - 15 3, 1 57 ]. B arri e an d he r

fri en d were st an di ng wit h th e in di vi du al wit h who m Cars on was arg ui ng ; Yor k an d

App el la nt were sta nd in g aro un d Cars on an d Moo re. [2 7 R.R.: 153 , 16 1]. Barr ie

an d he r fri en d joi ne d th e arg um en t an d st art ed to co nf ro nt Yor k an d App el la nt

. [2 7

R.R.: 16 1, 21 2

- 21 3]. Dur in g th e co nf ro nt at io n, Barr ie su dd en ly rem ov ed he r

sh oe s an d lu ng ed at App el la nt

, bu t he r fri en d res tra in ed he r f r o m c o m pl et in g th e

at ta ck

. [2 7 R.R.: 16 4, 16 6, 16 8, 20 0, 21 8]. Barr ie lu ng ed a se co nd ti m e, th is ti m e

st rik in g App el la nt in th e fo reh ead wit h an ob ject, ei th er a sh oe or a cel l ph on e. [2 7

R.R.: 16 5, 17 0

- 17 1, 17 2, 17 3, 17 4

- 17 5, 20 1

- 20 2, 21 9, 24 5]. Afte r be in g st ru ck

,

App el la nt swu ng ba ck

at B arri e. [27 R.R.: 1 73 , 17 6, 2 19 ]. Mo or e ch arac te riz ed

he r res po ns e as refl ex iv e or reac ti ve to Barr ie ’s as sa u lt

. [2 7 R.R.: 22 4]. Mo or e

gr ab be d App el la nt aft er sh e swu ng at Barr ie

, di sc ov eri ng th at sh e ha d be en ho ld in g

9 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Ra kn ife in he r ha nd

, an d th at Barr ie ha d be en st a b b e d

. [ 2 7 R .R.: 17 6

- 17 7, 21 9,

22 1

- 22 2, 23 1, 23 3]. He f o r c e d th e kn ife ou t of App el la nt ’s h an d, an d he ki ck ed

it away aft er it dr op pe d to th e gr ou nd

. [2 7 R.R.: 17 8, 18 0, 18 5

, 2 2 2

, 2 3 9 ].

App e l l a nt ap pe ared “ sh oc ke d or co nf us ed ” by wha t ha d jus t oc cu rred

, an d th en

walk ed of

f in Ash le y Yor k’s di rect io n. [2 7 R.R.: 18 1

- 18 2, 22 2]. Mo or e was no t

in jure d whe n di sa rm in g App el la nt an d di d no t rem ov e hi s sh irt or wrap hi s ha nd

. [2 7

R.R.: 18 5, 2 23 ].

Aus ti n p o l i c e l oc at ed App el la nt in Set on So ut hwe st Hos pi ta l la te r th at

m or ni n g a n d qu es ti on ed he r. App el la nt ex pl ai ne d th at sh e ha d be en do wnt own

whe n a fig ht eru pt ed

. Sh e fel t a p in ch in he r le g a nd di sc ov ered th at sh e ha d bee n

st ab be d. [2 4 R.R.: 26 6

- 26 7, 26 8, 28 5; St at e’s Exh ib it 40 A]

. Sh e was tra ns po rte d

fro m th e ho sp it al to po li ce he ad qu art ers do wnt own whe re sh e was in te rro ga te d by

a ho m ic id e de te ct iv e. [2 4 R.R.: 27 8

- 2 79 ; 25 R.R.: 22 1, 22 3]. App el la nt to ld

Nels on th at sh e ha d be en do wnt own ne a r R e p u bl ic Liv e whe n a fig ht br ok e ou t.

Dur in g t ha t ra uc ou s s he was s ta bb ed in th e le g b y an un kn own pe rs on [25 R.R.:

22 4

- 22 8]. App el la nt ad m it te d du rin g he r in te rro ga ti on th at sh e ha d pa rti ci pa te d in

a ve rb al al te rcat io n wit h an ot he r gi rl. [2 5 R.R.: 23 0

- 23 1, 24 2; St at e’s Exh ib it 79 ].

Dur i n g t h e a l t e r cat io n, th e gi rl cam e at he r an d st ru ck he r. [2 5 R.R.: 23 9, 24 9

-

2 5 0 ]. S h e was al so st ab be d, an d he ard so m eo ne al ert th e cro wd ab ou t so m eo ne

10 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rha vi ng a kn ife . [25 R.R.: 2 39 - 24 0].

Barr ie was tra ns po rte d to Brac ke nr id ge Hos pi ta l fo r he r in juri es

. Dr. Ch arl ie

Ro ss

, a th or aci c su rg eo n in th e Brac ke nr id ge em er g en cy ro om

, at te nd ed to he r,

tre at in g her fo r pe ne tra ti ng wou nd to th e ch es t co ns is te nt wit h a st ab wou nd

. [2 2

R.R.: 12 3, 12 5, 14 2]. Treat ed th e de ced en t fo r a st ab bi ng /p en et rat in g wou nd to th e

ch es t. [2 2 R .R.: 12 5]. The wou nd ha d p ie rced Barr ie ’s pu lm on ary art ery, cau si ng

th e pe ric ard ia l sa ck to fil l wit h bl oo d, de pr iv in g he r he ar to bl oo d. [2 2 R.R.: 13 0,

14 8

- 14 9]. Dr. Ro ss pe rfo rm ed a n e mer ge nc y th or act om y in an ti ci pa ti on of a

th or aci c su rg eo n to rep ai r th e da m ag e. [2 2 R.R.: 13 0]. Ba r rie ’s m ed ic al reco rd s

refl ect ed th at sh e ha d ex pe rie nc ed an ox ic da m ag e fro m th e b l o od lo ss - a la ck of

ox y ge n to he r br ai n. [2 2 R.R.: 12 6, 13 5

- 13 6, 14 0]. Sh e was de cl ared br ai n de ad

on Decem

be r 21 , 20 11 . [22 R.R. 14 1]

Dr. Ro ss ag reed th at st ab bi ng a pe rs on in th e ch es t wit h a sh arp ob ject was an

act whi ch was cl earl y da ng ero us to hu m an li fe. [2 2 R.R

. : 1 4 2

- 1 4 3 ]. The ob ject

us ed to in fli ct th e in

jury was cap ab le of cau si ng de at h or se rio us bo di ly in jury. [2 2

R.R.: 14 3].

Dr. St ep he n Dewan

, a card io th or ac ic su rg eo n on cal l at Brac ke nr id ge Hos pi ta l

pe rfo rm ed th e rep arat iv e su rg ery to th e in jury to Barr ie ’s pu lm on ary art ery. [2 2 R.R.:

15 7, 16 0 16 2, 16 8, 17 0]. Dr. Dewan es ti m at ed th e de pt h of th e in jury was

11 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rap pr ox im at el y 2 1⁄2 in ch es d e ep

. [2 2 R.R.: 17 3, 18 9]. It was a sm al l en tra nc e

wou nd

, 2 1⁄2 cen ti m et ers to a 0.5 cen ti m et er la cera ti on of th e pu lm on ary art ery. [2 2

R.R.: 17 4

- 17 5, 17 8]. The in jury was co ns is te nt wit h ha vi ng be en cau se d by kn ife

.

[22 R.R.: 1 75 ].

Que st io ne d ab ou t th e in

jury, Dr. D e w a n a d mitt ed th at th e st ab was no t th e

id eal m an ne r fo r a pe rs on in te nd in g to st ab an ot he r in th e pu lm on ary art ery. The

op ti m al po si ti on wou ld ha ve be en fo r th e reci pi en t to be lying do wn, rat he r th an

st an di ng up

. [2 2 R.R.: 18 7]. Dewan wou ld wan t th e reci pi en t to be st at io na ry rat he r

th an m ov in g. [2 2 R.R.: 18 7

- 18 8]. It wou ld ha ve be en op ti m al to st ab a pe rs on in

a li gh te d en vi ro nm en t, no t in th e da rk

. [2 RR.: 18 9]. And

, if th e go al were to hi t

th e pu lm on ary art ery wit h on e st ab

, th en it wou ld be m or e pr ob ab le if th e reci pi en t

of th e st ab were n ot weari ng clo th es . [22 R.R.: 1 90 ].

The fo r e n s i c pa th ol og is t, Trav is Co un ty Dep ut y Med ic al Exa m in er Vik ie

Wi l l ou gh by co nd uc te d th e au to ps y an d co nc lu de d Barr ie ha d di ed aft er rece iv i n g

“ sh arp f or ce in jury”

– a st ab wou nd to th e ch es t. [2 4 R.R.: 20 8, 21 9]. The st ab

w o u n d was rece iv ed to he r pr ox im al pu lm on ary art ery whi ch cau se d bl oo d lo ss to

t h e b r a i n

. [2 4 R.R.: 20 9, 21 4, 22 5]. The in jury wen t fro m le ss th an 2 cen ti m et e r s

d o w n to 0.5 cen ti m et ers

. [2 4 R.R.: 20 8, 23 1]. Dr. W il lo ug hb y co ul d no t

de te rm in e th e si ze of th e k n ife us ed to in fli ct th e in jury du e to th e el as ti ci ty of th e

12 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rhu m an bo dy. [2 4 R.R.: 23 0, 23 3]. Sh e ag reed th at th e act of st ab bi ng a pe rs on in

th e ch es t wit h a sh arp ob

ject was “ an act th at ’s cl earl y da ng ero us to hu m an li fe.” [2 4

R.R.: 21 9, 22 0

- 22 1]. Sh e co ul d no t co nc lu de

, ho wev er, whe th er th e ho m ic id e was

in te nt io na l. [2 4 R .R.: 2 21 ].

The kn ife us ed to in fli ct th e in jury was no t reco ve red an d acco un ts of it s si ze

al so va rie d. [2 1 R.R.: 96 ]. One wit ne ss

, Sh erm ay Uwahl og ho de sc rib ed th e kn ife

as ha vi ng a 4 in ch bl ad e. [2 2 R.R. 20 0, 20 2, 2 0 4 ]. J am ie Hop ki ns te st ifi ed th e

kn ife ha d a 2 1⁄2 in ch bl ad e. [2 1 R.R.: 23 2]. St efn e Hen de rs on de sc rib ed th e kn ife

ha s “ hu ge ” an d ha vi ng a 6 in ch bl ad e [2 3 R.R.: 96

, 12 5

- 12 6]. Br i t n e y Cars on

ch arac te riz ed th e k ni fe as a “ sm al l kn ife ”wit h abo ut a 2 1⁄2 in ch bl ad e. [2 7 R .R. 99

,

10 6]. Ry an Mo or e ch arac te riz ed th e kn ife h a s a “ li tt le kn ife ,” po ss ib ly 4 1⁄2 to 5

in ch es fro m

ha nd le to bl ad e ti p. [2 7 R .R.: 1 78 - 17 9, 2 28 ].

DNA te s t in g refl ect ed th at th e Barr ie ’s DNA was de te ct ed in sa m pl es

ob ta in ed fro m App el la nt ’s rig ht sh oe

, pa nt s, an d jack et [2 5 R.R.: 15 1

- 15 2, 15 5, 16 0

- 16 1, 1 62 - 16 3, 1 84 ].

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUME NT

1. The tri al co ur t erre d in de nyin g App el la nt ’s req ue st ed in st ru ct io n on th e

le ss er-i nc lu d e d o f

f e n s e of m an sl au gh te r in th e jury ch arg e. As a m at te r of la w,

m an sl au gh te r m ay be a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se o f mu rd er un de r bo th Tex .Pen al

13 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RCo de § 1 9.0 2( b) (1 ), in te nt io na l m ur de r, an d § 19 .02 (b )(2 ), co m m is si on of an act

cl earl y da ng ero us to hu m an li fe. Und er th e sp eci fic fact s of th e pr es en t cas e, th ere

was at le as t a sc in ti ll a of ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s co nc lu si on th at App el la nt ’s

ha vi ng st ab be d Fat im a Bar rie was a reck le ss act s, su pp or ti ng th e in cl us io n of th e

le ss er ch arg e. The co ur t’s om is si on of th e req ue st ed in st ru ct io n cau se d so m e ha rm

be cau se th e ev id e n c e b ot h st ro ng ly su pp or te d a fin di ng of m an sl au gh te r, an d

App el la nt s p eci fic al ly arg ue d th at th e st ab bi ng was a reck le ss act

. The la ck of an

in st ru ct io n c au se d s om e h arm to th e d efen se

.

2. The tri al co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g fro m th e gu i l t

- i n n oc en ce ph as e a

vi de o of App el la nt m ak in g ex cu lp at or y st at em en ts in a hi gh ly di st rau gh t st at e aft er

ha vi ng be en pr ov ok ed in to em ot io na l d is tre ss by th e ne ws of Barr ie ’s im pe nd in g

de at h. The co ur t ex cl ud ed th e reco rd in g on th e ba si s th at th e em ot io na l ou tb ur st di d

no t con st it ut e a “ st at em en t” be cau se th e of fic er wh o p ro vo ke d t he ou tb ur st lef t th e

ro om

. Thi s defi ni ti on of a st at em en t was inc or rect as a m at te r of law. Fu rth er, t he

co ur t erre d in fai li ng to fin d at th e ti m e of th e vi d e o ’s ad m is si on th at it was

ad m is si bl e as an ex ci te d ut te ran ce un de r Tex .R.Evi d. 80 3( 2)

. The om is si on of th e

vi de o ha d a su bs ta nt ia l an d in juri ou s effe ct up on th e ve r d i c t

, b o th by ex cl ud in g

hi gh ly pr ob at iv e ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce of A pp el la nt ’s cu lp ab le m en ta l s ta te , a well

as de pr iv in g he r of ev id en ce whi ch wou ld ha ve warra nt ed a le ss er-i nc lu de d ch arg e

14 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rof

m an sl au gh te r.

3. The tri al co ur

t al so er re d in pr ev en ti ng App el la nt fro m pl ay in g th e vi de o

ta pe du rin g th e pu ni sh m en t ph as e of tri al

– al th ou gh pe rm it ti ng a wit ne ss to de sc rib e

App el la nt ’s di st rau gh t st at e – un de r Tex .R.Evi d. Ru e 40 3. The vi de o it se lf was th e

“ be st ev id en ce” of App el la nt ’s di st res s an d co ul d no t be m ean in gf ul ly or effe ct iv el y

co nv ey ed th ro ug h a wit ne ss es ’ he ars a y d e s cri pt io n of App el la nt ’s st at em en ts an d

em ot io na l st at e. The pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce far ou twei gh ed an y un fa ir

pr ejud ic ia l effe ct whi ch m ig ht h av e pr om pt ed th e vi de o’s ex cl us io n as ev id en ce.

The om is si on of th e vi de o ha d a su bs ta nt ia l an d in juri ou s effe ct up on th e pu ni sh m en t

ve rd ic t by ex cl ud in g hi gh l y pr ob at iv e ev id en ce of App el la nt s’ rem or se

, a fact or

whi ch th e jury woul d h av e co ns id ered in ass es si ng sen te nc e.

4. The tri al co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng un de r th e ex ci te d ut te ran ce ex cep ti on

of th e Hears ay Ru le st at em en ts by App el la nt ’s m ot he r an d b r o t h e r rel at in g to an

u n a dju di cat ed ex tra ne ou s act in whi ch App el la nt at te m pt ed to st ab he r br ot h e r

du rin g a fam il y di sp ut e. The reco rd di d no t es ta bl is h on it s face th at th e de cl aran ts

m et th e th res ho ld req ui red to ad m it ev id en ce as an ex ci te d ut t e r a nc e. The

ad m is si on of th e he ars ay st at em en ts ha d a su bs ta nt ia l an d in juri ou s effe ct up on th e

pu ni sh m en t ve rd ic t by in tro du ci ng

, fo r it s su bs ta nt iv e m eri t, an ex tra ne ou s of fen se

,

si m il ar to th e of

fen se fo r whi ch App el la nt ha d be en fo un d gu il ty, an d whi ch refl ect ed

15 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rsh e was ha bi tu al ly ass au lt iv e.

GROUNDS FOR REVI EW

GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER ONE:

T H E T R IA L C O U R T P R E J U D IC IA LLY E R R E D B Y D E N Y IN G A P P E LLA N T ’ S

S P E C IA L R E Q U ESTED I N STR U C TION O N TH E L ESSER -I N C LU D E D O F F E N S E

O F M A N S LA U G H T E R

.

A. Fact s o n wh ic h c la im rel ie s

App el la nt was ch arg ed wit h m ur de r un de r two al te rn at iv e th e o r i e s

,

in te nt io na ll y an d kn owi n g l y ha vi ng cau se d de at h, un de r § 19 .02 (b )(1 ) an d

co m m it ti ng an act cl earl y da ng ero us to hu m an li fe un de r § 19 .01 (b )(2 ). [C.R. 20

-

21 ]. Dur in g th e ch arg e co nf eren ce, App el la nt su bm it te d a sp eci al r e q u es te d

in st ru ct io n on th e le ss er-i nc lu de d o ffen se of M an sl au gh te r. [2 7 R .R.: 25 5 - 25 7].

Th e jud ge de ni ed th e in st ru ct io n an d th e jury was au th or iz ed to ei th er co nv i c t

App el la nt of th e of

fen se of m

ur de r, or to acq ui t he r ou tri gh t. [C.R.: 28 6

- 29 6]. The

jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t of gu il ty to m ur de r, as al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t [C.R.: 29 5].

B. Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s

The tri al co ur t erre d by de nyin g App el la nt ’s sp eci al req ue st ed in st ru ct io n fo r

an in st ru ct io n on m an sl au gh te r. A de fen da nt is e n t i t l e d t o a jury ch arg e on a

le ss er-i nc lu d e d o f

f e n s e if two req ui rem en ts are m et : fir st

, th e de fen da nt m us t

req ue st an in st ru ct io n on a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen s e o f t h e ch arg ed of

fen se whi ch

16 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rco ns ti tu te s a le ss er-i nc l u d e d of fen se un de r Tex .Co de Cri m .Pro

. Art. 37 .09

, an d

se co nd

, th ere m

us t be "s om e ev id en ce" th at , if t he de fen da nt is gu il ty, he is gu il ty

on ly of th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se

. Ca va zo s v. S t a t e

, 3 8 2 S.W .3d 37 7, 38 2

(Tex .Cr.Ap p.2 01 2) ; an d

, Flo re s v. St at e

, 24 5 S.W .3d 43 2, 43 9 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 20 08 ).

To be en ti tl ed to a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se in st ru ct io n th ere m

us t be so m e affi rm at iv e

ev id en ce whi ch bo th rai se s th e le ss er-i nc lu de d, an d reb ut s or ne ga te s an el em en t of

th e gr eat er of

fen se

. Ca va zo s

, 38 2 S.W .3d at 38 5. Evi de nc e to su pp or t th e in cl us io n

of a le ss er-i nc lu de d of

fen se m ay co m e fro m an y so ur ce an d m ay be st ro ng or weak

,

im pe ach ed or co nt rad ic te d. Bell v. St at e

, 69 3 S.W .2d 43 4, 44 2 (Tex .Cr.Ap p.1 98 5)

.

"An y th in g m or e th an a sc in ti ll a o f ev id en ce i s s uf fic ie nt to en ti tl e a d efen da nt to a

le ss er ch arg e." Big na ll v. St at e

, 88 7 S.W .2d 21

, 23 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 94 ). The co ur t

d oe s no t co ns id er th e cred ib il it y of th e ev id en ce in su pp or t of a le ss er-i n c l u d e d

of fen se

. Ban da v. St at e , 89 0 S .W .2d 42 , 60 (Tex . Cr.App . 19 94 ).

I. In vo lu nt ary Man sl au gh te r is a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of Mu rd er un de r

§§ 19 .02 (b )(1 ) an d (b )(2 ).

Lik e m ur de r, m an sl au gh te r is a res ul t-o rie nt ed of fen se

. Se e Bri ta in v. St at e

,

41 2 S.W .3d 51 8, 52 0 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Sc hr oe de r v. St at e

, 12 3 S.W .3d

39 8, 4 00 -0 1 (Te x.C r.App .20 03 )). Bu t i n d is ti nc ti on to m ur de r, whi ch req ui res th e

sp eci fic in te nt to cau se de at h, in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r in vo lv es a cu lp ab le m en ta l

st at e of reck le ss ne ss ab ou t whe th er de at h m ay res ul t fro m th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t:

17 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RTo pr ov e m an sl au gh te r, th e ev id en ce must pr ov e th at th e de fen da nt

reck le ss ly cau se d th e de at h o f a n i nd iv id ua l. A p ers on act s reck le ss ly

. . . whe n he is aware of b u t c o n sc io us ly di sr eg ard s a su bs ta nt ia l an d

un jus ti fia bl e ris k.

. . . The ris k m us t be of su ch a na tu re an d de gr ee th at

it s di sr eg ard co ns ti tu te s a gr os s de vi at io n fro m th e st an da rd of care th at

an or di na ry pe rs o n wou ld ex erci se un de r al l th e ci rcu m st an ces as

vi ewed fro m

th e act or 's s ta nd po in t.

Bri ta in , 41 2 S .W .3d at 5 20 (fo ot no te s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

The Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s, as well as lo wer co ur ts ha ve reco gn iz ed th at

man sl au gh te r – reck le ss ly cau si ng th e de at h of an in di vi du al is a le ss er-i nc lu de d

of fen se of m

ur de r un de r Art. 37 .09

. Ca va zo s

, 38 2 S.W .3d at 38 6 (m an sl au gh te r can

be a le ss er-i nc lu de d of

fen se to mu rd er un de r § 19 .02 (b )(2 ) m ur de r); Th oma s v.

St at e

, 69 9 S.W .2d 84 5, 85 2 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 85 ); Bro wn v. St at e

, 29 6 S.W .3d 37 1,

38 4 (Tex

. App

.- Bea um on t 20 09 ); an di

, Ch av ar ri ga v. St at e, 1 5 6 S

. W. 3 d 64 2,

64 8 (Tex .App . - Ty le r 20 04 ).

In Ca va zo s

, th e Co ur t of App eal s s p e c ifi cal ly ad dr es se d m an sl au gh te r as a

le ss er-i nc lu de d offe ns e to m ur de r un de r § 1 9.0 2( b) (2 ) – c om m it ti ng an act cl earl y

da ng ero us to hu m an li fe. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at m an sl au gh te r co ul d be a le ss erin cl ud ed of

fen se to § 19 .02 (b )(2 ) m

ur de r be cau se th e fu nc ti on al di ffer en ce be twee n

a m ur de r an d m an sl au gh te r la y in th e di ffer en ce of th e cu lp ab le m en ta l st at e, in te nt

ve rs us reck le ss ne ss

, a di ffer en ce whi ch m et th e cri te ria fo r a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se

un de r Art. 3 7.0 9( 3) :

18 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RThe di ffer en ces he re are th e fo ll owi ng : Mu rd er as al le ge d in th e

in di ct m en t in cl ud ed th e in te nt to cau se se rio us bo di l y in jury an d th e

co m m is si on of an act cl earl y da ng ero us to hu m an li fe (s ho ot in g wit h a

fir earm ) whe reas m an sl au gh te r in cl ud es reck le ss ne ss

, whi ch is a

co ns ci ou s di sr eg ard of a su bs ta nt ia l an d un jus ti fi a b l e ris k reg ard in g

ci rcu m st an ces or res ul ts su rro un di ng th e co nd uc t. Th e co m m is si on of

an act cle arl y

da ng ero us to hu m an li fe, sh oo ti ng wit h a fir earm , is th e

ci rcu m st an ce su rro un di ng th e co nd uc t, whi ch wou ld be th e sa m e un de r

ei th er m ur de r or m an sl au gh te r. Thi s le av es us wit h th e on ly di ffer en ce

be in g i nt en t v ers us reck le ss ne ss

.

W e di sa gr ee wit h th e co ur t of ap pe al s's co nt en ti on th at th e

m ur de r ch arg ed in th is cas e do es no t req ui re a cu lp ab le m en ta l st at e fo r

cau si ng an ot he r's de at h.

. . . Here, th e in di ct m en t s p e c i f i ed th at

App el la nt sh ot th e vi ct im wit h a de ad ly w eap on

, so it can be in ferr ed

th at he ha d th e in te nt to cau se th e vi c t i m 's de at h. Alt ho ug h th e on ly

m en s rea sp eci fie d in Sect io n 19 .02 (b )(2 ) is th e in te nt to cau se se rio us

bo di ly in jury an d th e st at ut e do es no t ad d a cu lp ab le m en ta l st at e to th e

co nd uc t th at cau se d th e de a t h

, m ur de r un de r Sect io n 19 .02 (b )(2 ) is a

"re su lt " cri m e.

. . . . And

, be cau se th e de fi ni ti on of reck le ss ne ss is

di sr eg ard in g a ris k th at ci rcu m st an ces ex is t or th e res ul t wil l oc cu r, th e

reck le ss m en s re a fo r m an -s la ug ht er app li es to ei th er the na tu re of the

co nd uc t o r th e res ul t o f th e co nd uc t.

W e co nc lu de th at cau si ng de at h whi le co ns ci ou sl y di sr eg ard in g

a ris k th at de at h wil l oc cu r di ff e r s f r om in te nd in g to cau se se rio us

bo di ly in jury wit h a res ul ti ng de a t h o n l y in th e res pe ct th at a le ss

cu lp ab le m en ta l st at e es ta bl is he s it s co m m is si on

. See TEX.CODE

CRIM . PROC. ANN. art. 3 7.0 9( 3)

.

Id ., at 3 84 (fo ot no te an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

Acco rd in gl y

, m an sl au gh te r is a le ss er-i n c l u d e d of fen se of m

ur de r al le ge d

un de r bo th (b) (1 ) an d (b )(2 ).

ii

. The re was su ffi ci en t evi de nc e at tri al to su pp or t th e su bm is si on of th e

19 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rle ss er-i nc lu de d i ns tru ct io n.

The ev id en ce to su pp or t th e su bm is si on of a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se ne ed on ly

be m or e th an a sc in ti ll a. Big na ll

, 88 7 S.W .2d at 23

. Fu r t h e r

, i n e v al ua ti ng

ev id en ce, as fact -fi nd ers

, juro rs are en ti tl ed to m ak e reas on ab le in f eren ces an d

in te rp ret at io ns fro m wha t th ey ha ve he ard

. Hoo

pe r v. S ta te , 21 4 S .W .3d 9, 13

, 14

(Tex .Cr.Ap p. 2 00 7)

.

The re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce b efo re t he tri al co ur t t o m eet th e fac tu al ba si s

to su bm it a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se in st ru ct io n on m an sl au gh te r. The t e s t im on y

whi ch refl ect ed App el la nt ’s sp eci fic in te nt to ki ll was li m it ed to St efn e Hen de rs on

,

who cl ai m ed th a t App el la nt ru sh ed Barr ie fro m be hi nd

, reac he d ov er he r rig ht

sh ou ld er, an d st ab be d he r wit h a “ hu ge ” kn ife

. [2 3 R.R.: 47

- 4 8

, 5 2

, 94

- 95 , 9 6,

97

- 98

, 10 0, 12 4

- 12 6, 13 5]. The au to ps y refu te d t h i s a c c o u nt

. Alt ho ug h

App el la nt was ta ll er th an Barr ie

, 23 R.R.: 33

, 49

, 12 5, th ere was no ap pr eci ab le

do wnwar d wou nd tra ck

. [2 4 R.R.: 21 1]. Mo reo ve r, th e wou nd tra ck wen t fro m le ft

to rig ht

, 24 R.R.: 21 0, rat he r th an th e rig ht to le ft tra ck th at on e wou ld ex pe ct fro m

an at ta ck ov er Barr ie ’s rig ht sh ou ld er an d acro ss he r ch es t. The juro rs co ul d ha ve

reas on ab ly acc ep te d th e m ed ic al tes ti m on y ov er Hen de rs on ’s a cco un t to reject he r

acco un t o f th e st ab bi ng

.

Oth er m ed ic al te st im on y

, th a t b y D r

. Dewan

, cas t do ub t up on whe th er th e

20 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rin

jury, un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch it was in fli ct e d

, was on e whi ch an

in di vi d u a l w o ul d ha ve sp eci fic al ly in te nd ed to ta rg et an d st rik e th e he art

. The

an gl e of at ta ck was no t op ti m al to reac h th e ta rg et

, it was da rk an d th e reci pi en t of

th e st ab was m ov in g, as well as c lo th ed . [22 R.R.: 1 87 - 19 0]. Ju ro rs c oul d ha

ve

acce pt ed th e t en or of th e qu es ti on in g an d res po ns es to cas t do ub t on whe th er

App el la nt ha d i nt en de d t o t arg et Barr ie ’s hea rt o r in fli ct a fat al wou nd

.

Fu rth er, whi le th e med i cal ex pe rts ag reed th at th e act of st ab bi ng an

in di vi du al in th e ch es t was on e whi ch was cl earl y da ng ero us to hu m an li fe, 22 R.R.:

14 2

- 14 3, 17 5; 24 R.R.: 21 9, 22 0

- 22 1, no ne of th em ve nt ur ed to st at ed th at th e

act de m on st rat ed th e in te nt to ki ll . The p at ho lo gi st sp eci fic al ly test ifi ed th at sh e

co ul d no t co n c l u d e th at ho m ic id e ha d be en in te nt io na l. [2 4 R.R.: 22 1]. Ju ro rs

co ul d hav e co nc lu de d th at whi le th e act of st ab bi ng an in di vi du al in th e ch es t was

da ng ero us

, it di d no t co nc lu si ve ly pr ov e th e in te n t to ki ll as op po se d to reck le ss

be ha vi or

. Dr. W il lo ug hb y ’s co nc es si on th at sh e co ul d no t co nc lu de th e ho m ic id e

was “ in te nt io na l” m erel y r e i n f o r c ed th e op en qu es ti on of App el la nt ’s cu lp ab le

m en ta l s ta te

.

Mo reo ve r, th e va ry in g acco un ts of th e kn ife fu rt he r m ili ta te to ward th e le ss erin cl ud ed ch arg e by refu ti ng an im pl ic at io n th at App el la nt ha d th e sp eci fic in te nt to

ki ll when sh e st ab be d B arri e. W hi le Hend ers on ch arac te riz ed th e k ni fe as ha vi ng

21 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Ra si x -in ch bl ad e, 23 R.R. 96

, 11 25

- 12 6, ot he r wit ne s s e s

, B r i t n ey Cars on an d

ev en Barr ie ’s fri en d, Ja m ie Hop ki ns es ti m at ed th e bl ad e to ha ve be en ap pr ox im at el y

2 1⁄2 in ch es

. [2 1 R.R.: 23 2; 27 R.R.: 99

, 10 6]. Ju ro rs co ul d ha ve reas on a b l y

co nc lu de d th at an in di vi du al us in g a sm al l pe n kn ife

, as op po se d to a la rg e carv in g

kn ife

, wou ld no t ne ces sa ril y ha ve sp eci fic a l l y in te nd ed to ki ll an ot he r pe rs on

, as

op po se d t o m erel y

in te nd in g t o i nju re h er.

Fi na ll y

, y et m os t im

po rta nt ly, Ry an Mo or e’s te st im on y su p p o r t e d a

co nc lu si on th at App el la nt la ck ed a sp eci fic in te nt whe n sh e st ru ck Barr ie in

res po ns e to th e pr ev io us as sa ul t. He ch arac te riz ed App el la nt ’s res po ns e to Barr ie

as “ refl ex iv e ” o r “ reac ti ve .” [2 7 R.R.: 22 4]. Afte r st rik in g Barr ie

, App el la nt

ap pe ared “ sh oc ke d or co nf us ed ” by wha t ha d ha pp en ed

. [2 7 R.R.: 18 1

- 18 2, 22 2].

Ju ro rs gi vi ng cred en ce to Mo or e co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d App el la nt la ck ed a sp eci fic

in te nt

, bu t in he r st rik in g ou t ag ai ns t Barr ie wit h a kn ife in res po ns e to th e as sa ul t,

ha d d is reg ard ed th e d an ge ro us ne ss of h er ac ti on s.

Th e ev id en ce be fo re th e tri al co ur t am ou nt ed to m or e th an a sc in ti ll a t o

su pp or t th e su bm is si on of th e le ss er-i nc lu de d ch arg e of m an sl au gh te r. In li gh t of

Ca va zo s

, th e juro rs co ul d ha ve reg ard ed t h e fact s be fo re th em as refl ect iv e of

reck le ss di sr eg ard to th e li ke li ho od th at de at h wou ld res ul t fro m st rik in g Barr ie wit h

a k ni fe. The t ria l co ur t er red in de nyin g t he req ue st ed in st ru ct io n.

22 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rii i. The de ni al of a le ss er-i nc lu de d i ns tru ct io n on m an sl au gh te r

res ul te d in “ so m e ha rm ” to th e de fen se s and co m pe ls rev ers al

.

The de ni al of a req ue st ed jury in st ru ct io n is m eas ur ed fo r “ so m e ha rm .”

Alma nz a v . St at e , 68 6 S .W .2d 15 7, 1 71 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 1 98 4) ; Arl in e v. S ta te , 72 1

S.W .2d 34 8, 35 1 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 86 ); an d

, Ott i n g v. St at e

, 8 S.W .3d 68 1, 68 8

(Tex .App

. - Aus ti n 19 99 ). The ha rm m us t be act ua l, rat he r th an th eo ret ic al

.

Arl in e

, 72 1 S.W .2d at 35 1. Bu t if th e de ni al of th e in st ru ct io n ha d an y pr ejud ic ia l

im pa ct up on th e de fen se , th en a co nv ic ti on m us t b e rev ers ed

. Arl in e

, 72 1 S.W .2d

at 35 1; an d

, Ott in g

, 8 S.W .3d at 68 8 (“ Erro r pr op erl y pr es erv ed by an ob jecti on

w i l l r e q u i re rev ers al as lo ng as th e erro r is no t ha rm le ss

. . . . Thi s ha s be en

in te rp ret ed to m ean an y ha rm reg ard le ss of de gr ee.”) (In te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

If th e ab se nc e of in st ru ct io ns on th e le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se s req ue st ed

an d to whi ch th e de fen da nt is en t i t l e d, le av es th e jury wit h th e so le

op ti on ei th er to co nv ic t th e de fe n d a n t of th e ch arg ed of fen se or to

acq ui t hi m

, a fin di ng of ha rm is es se nt ia ll y au to m at ic be cau se th e jury

was de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to co nv ic t hi m of th e le ss er in cl ud ed

of fen se s. Thi s is tru e be cau se th e jury, be li ev in g th e accu se d to ha ve

co m m it te d so m e cri m e bu t gi ve n th e op ti on on ly to co nv ic t hi m of th e

g r eat er of

fen se

, m ay ch oo se to co nv ic t hi m of th e gr eat er of fe n s e

,

rat he r th an acq ui t al to ge th er, ev en th ou gh it ha d a reas on ab le do ub t he

real ly com m it te d t he gre at er o ffen se

.

Ott in g

, 8 S.W .3d at 68 9 (ci ti ng Sa un de rs v. St at e

, 91 3 S

. W. 2 d 56 4, 57 1

(Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 95 )). Se e al so

, Mon tg ome ry v. St at e

, 19 8 S.W .3d 67

, 94

(Tex .App . - Ft. Wort h 2 00 6) (ci ti ng Ott in g ).

23 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RApp el la nt was ha rm ed by th e tri al co ur t’s de ni al of th e le ss er-i nc lu de d ch arg e

on m an sl au gh te r be cau se it pl aced th e jury in to an un te na bl e “ ei th er-o r” po si ti on

in de li be rat in g ov er m

ud dl ed fact s rel at in g to a ho m ic id e. The ev id en ce as a who le

refl ect ed th at App el la nt cau se d Barr ie ’s de at h, bu t did no t cl earl y an d un eq ui vo cal ly

r e f l e c t it was m

ur de r un de r § 19 .02

. The le ng th of th e jury’ s de li be ra t i o n

– 9 1⁄2

ho ur s, 28 R.R.: 12 4

– be li es an y co nc lu si on th at th e ev id en ce was ov erwh el m in g.

W hi le th e ev id en ce refl ect ed App el la n t ha d cau se d Barr ie ’s de at h, it was

ne ve rth el es s equ iv oc al as to he r cu lp ab le m en ta l sta te

. The m ed ic al ev id en ce did

no t pr ov e it to ha ve be en an in te nt io na l ho m ic id e – at m os t, th e e x p e r t s co ul d

co nc lu de th at it ha d be en a d a n g e r ou s act to st ab Barr ie in th e ch es t

– an d th e

te st im on y by Hen de rs on

, th e on ly di rect wit ne ss to th e st ab bi ng

, was la rg el y of fs et

b y t h e med ic al ev id en ce. The jury was pe rm it te d on ly two op ti on s, ho we v e r

,

co nv ic t fo r m

ur de r or ou tri gh t ac qu it ta l. App el la nt ack no wled ge d th is li m it at io n

to th e jury

– th at if th ey be li ev ed App el la nt ha d act ed r e c k l es sl y

, an d th us be en

gu il ty on ly of m an sl au gh te r, th ey wou ld ha ve to acq ui t he r. [2 8 R.R.: 78 ]. In th e

ab se nc e of an op ti on of m an sl au gh te r, App el la nt ’s at te m pt to em ph as iz e in cl os in g

arg um en t th at App el la nt ’s co nd uc t ha d be en on ly be en reck le ss

, 28 R.R.: 78

- 79

,

was ren de red in effe ct ua l. The ha rm to App el la nt was pr eci se ly th at ha rm whi ch

th is Co ur t reco gn iz ed in Ott in g

, th at th e ju r y, “ be li ev in g [Ap pe ll an t] to ha ve

24 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rco m

m it te d so m e cri m e bu t g i v e n th e op ti on on ly to co nv ic t [h er] of th e gr eat er

of fen se , [wou ld ] ch oo se to co nv ic t [h er] of t he gre at er o ffen se , rat he r th an acq ui t

al to ge th er, ev en th ou gh it ha d a reas on ab le do ub t [s he ] real ly co m m it te d th e gr eat er

of fen se .” Ott in g , 8 S.W.3d at 6 89

.

Acco rd in gl y

, th is Co ur t sh ou ld ho ld th e tri al co ur t erre d in de nyin g App el la nt

an in st ru ct io n on th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of m an sl au gh te r, an d th at th e de ni al of

th is in st ru ct io n cau se d act ua l ha rm to App el la nt ’s cas e. Her co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be

rev ers ed an d t he cas e rem an de d t o t he tri al co ur t.

§ § §

25 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RGROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER TWO :

T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D B Y E X C LU D IN G A V ID E O R E C O R D IN G O F

A P P E LLA N T ’ S E M O T IO N A L O U T B U R S T U P O N L E A R N IN G T H A T T H E

D E C E D E N T W O U LD D IE F R O M H E R I N J U R IE S

.

A. Fact s i n S up po rt o f Cl ai m

D ur ing th e gu il t-i nn oc en ce ph as e of tri al

, th e St at e pr es en te d te st im on y by the

le ad Dete ct iv e, Ant ho ny Nels on ab ou t hi s in te rv ie ws of App el la nt fo l l o win g th e

Barr ie ’s st ab bi ng

. Nels on f i r s t m et wit h App el la nt in th e m or ni ng ho ur s of

Decem be r 4 aft er sh e was br ou gh t to po li ce he ad qu art ers fro m th e ho sp i t a l

. [2 5

R.R.: 22 2

- 22 4]. Nels on ’s in te rv ie w of App el la nt was reco rd ed an d th e vi de o was

bo th pu bl is he d to th e jury an d ad m it te d in to ev i d e nc e as St at e’s Exh ib it 79

. [2 5

R.R.: 23 5

- 23 7, 24 4

- 24 5, 24 7, 24 8, 24 9, 25 0, 25 2, 25 4]. Nels on al so di sc us se d

App el la nt ’s st at em en ts to hi m ab ou t th e ev en ts o f t h e e v e n in g. [2 5 R.R.: 22 4

-

25 6].

Nels on a g a i n m et wit h App el la nt on Decem be r 6, aft er sh e vo lu nt ari ly

ap pe ared at th e po li ce st at io n. [2 6 R.R.: 11 5]. Dur in g th e in te rv i e w

, N e ls on

in fo rm ed App el la nt th at Barr ie was ex pe ct ed to di e fro m he r in juri es

. In res po ns e

to th is ne ws, App el la nt im m ed ia te ly lo st he r co m po su re, “ be cam e em ot io na l, [an d]

cr i e d

. ” [2 6 R.R.: 11 5, 11 6]. Nels on le ft th e ro om

, bu t la te r pe rm it te d

App el la nt ’s m ot he r to vi si t he r. [Def Ex. 13 2]. The hi dd en cam eras rem ai ne d

26 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Ract iv at ed in th e ro om

, ho wev er, an d App el la nt ’s co nv ers at io n wit h he r m ot he r were

reco rd ed . [26 R.R.: 1 31 - 13 2].

App el la nt so ug ht to in tro du ce th e reco rd in gs of App el la nt ’s reac ti on to ne ws

th at Barr ie wou ld di e, bu t th e tri al co ur t su st ai ne d t he St at e’s he ars ay ob jecti on

.

[2 6 R.R.: 11 9

- 12 8]. In a he ari ng ou ts id e th e jury’ s p res en ce, Nel so n ex pl ai ne d

th at he m et wit h A p p e l l an t on Octo be r 4 an d st art ed read in g he r th e Mir an da

warn in gs when sh e ad vi se d h im th at sh e h ad an at to rn ey . [26 R.R.: 1 21 - 12 2].

He pl aced he r un de r arre st an d ad vi se d he r th at Barr ie was go in g to di e f r o m h e r

in juri es

. [2 6 R.R.: 12 2]. App el la nt st art ed to cry an d Nels o n l e f t t h e r oo m

. [2 6

R.R.: 12 3]. Out si de th e in te rv ie w ro om

, he en co un te red App el la nt ’s m ot he r an d

de ci de d to le t he r sp eak wit h A p p e l l a n t i n th e in te rv ie w r oo m

. [2 6 R.R.: 12 3].

Her ret ur ne d aft er App el la nt s’ m ot he r kn oc ke d on th e do or an d st at ed App el la nt ha d

w a n t e d t o s p e ak wit h Barr ie ’s m ot he r. [2 6 R.R.: 12 3

- 12 4]. He di d no t res um e

qu es ti on in g Ap pe ll an t. [2 6 R .R. 12 4].

The co ur t co nc lu de d App el la nt ’s st at em en ts on th e vi de o were no t ex c i te d

ut te ran ces be cau se th ey

were n ot act ua ll y

m ad e to Dete ct iv e Nel so n:

th ere’s no t an y st at em en t act ua ll y m ad e to th is wit ne ss ot he r th an he r

crying

. . . .

. . .

. . . th e ru le ba si cal ly sa y s a st at em en t rel at in g to a st art li ng ev en t or

27 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rco nd it io n.

. . . no st at em en ts th at I kn ow of were act ua ll y m ad e to th is

wit ne ss ot he r th an se ei ng he r st art crying

. So I’m go in g to su st ai n th e

St at e’s ob jecti on

.

[2 6 R .R.: 1 25 ].

The reco rd in g, Defen se Exh ib it 13 2 was ad m it te d in to th e reco rd in a bi ll of

ex cep ti on . [26 R.R.: 1 20 , 12 7 - 1 28 ].

B. Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s

The tri al co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g D e fen se Exh ib it 13 2 on th e ba si s th at

App el la nt ’s exc it ed ut te ran ces ha d n ot be en to Dete ct iv e Nel so n.

A co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it or ex cl ud e ev id en ce is rev ie wed fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Mon tg ome ry v. St at e

, 81 0 S.W .2d 37 2, 39 0 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 91 ); an d

,

Sa nd ov al v. St at e

, 40 9 S.W .3d 25 9, 2 9 7 ( Te x

. A pp

. - Aus ti n 20 13 ). A co ur t’s

ex erci se of di sc ret io n wil l be su st ai ne d if it fal ls wit hi n th e zo ne of reas on ab le

di sa gr eem en t. Sa nd ov al

, 40 9 S.W .3d at 29 7. A co ur t ne ces sa ril y ab us es it s

di sc ret io n, ho wev er, if it ba se s it s de ci si on up on a m is un de rs ta nd in g of th e la w, or

a m is ap pr eh en si on of th e fact s. Mor en o v. St at e

, 22 S.W .3d 48 2, 48 9 (Tex .Cr.Ap p.

19 99 ). Co m

p a r e

, To ll et t v. Ci ty of Kema h

, 28 5 F.3 d 35 7, 36 3 (5 th Ci r. 20 02 )

(“ An ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rs whe re th e ‘ruli ng is ba se d on an erro ne ou s vi ew of

th e la w or on a cl earl y erro ne ou s as se ss m en t of th e ev id en ce’.”); an d

, Uni te d St at es

v. Cl ymo re

, 24 5 F.3 d 11 95

, 11 98 (1 0t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( “the di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s

28 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rdi sc ret io n i n re lying on a m is ta ke of f act on whi ch to ba se [it s ru li ng ]. ”).

The t r i a l co ur t ex cl ud ed Defen se Exh ib it 13 2 on th e gr ou nd th at he r

co m m en ts ha d no t be en di rect ed to ward Dete ct iv e N e l s o n : “ no st at em en ts th at I

kn ow of were act ua ll y m ad e to th is wit ne ss ot he r th an se ei ng he r st art crying

. So

I’m go in g to ex pl ai n th e St at e’s ob jecti on .” [2 6 R.R.: 12 5]. The co ur t di d no t

ta ke is su e wit h th e co nt e nt io n th at App el la nt was em ot io na ll y di st rau gh t up on

l earn in g Barr ie wou ld di e, an d so App el la nt ta ke s th e po si ti on th at i t i s n o t

ne ces sa ry th e br ie f th e is su e of whe th er Nels on ’s co m m en ts st at em en ts were

su ffi ci en t to pl ace A p p e l la nt “ th e st res s of ex ci te m en t cau se d by th e ev en t.

. . ”

Tex .R.Evi d. Ru le 80 3( 2)

. Th is pr ed ic at e sh owi ng

, th at App el la nt was un de r th e

st res s of Nels on ’s st at em en ts reg a rd in g Barr ie ’s co nd it io n an d he r own arre st

ap pe ars to ha ve be en acce pt ed by the co ur t.

I. The tri al co ur t con fla te d t he is su e o f App el la nt ’s st at em en t u nd er the

Ru le s of Evi de nc e wit h whe th er th ey were a st at em e n t f o r t he

pu rp os es of a cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on

.

The tri al co ur t’s ru li ng is ba se d on it s m is un de rs ta nd in g of wha t co ns ti tu te s

a “ st at em en t” un de r th e Ru le s of Evi de nc e an d co nf la ti ng th at wit h th e co nc ep t of

a “ st at em en t” fo r pr oc ed ur al ad m is si bi li ty ru le s un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on an d Co de of

Cri m in al Pro ced ur e. The he ars ay ru le de fin es a “ st at em en t” as an y or al or writ te n

ve rb al ex pr es si on

, or no n ve rb al co nd uc t whi ch su bs ti tu te s fo r a ve rb al ex pr es si on

.

29 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RTex .R.Evi d 80 1( a). Thi s de fin it io n di ffer s fro m th e “ te st im on ia l st at e men t” or

in te rro ga ti on -rel at ed st at em en ts

. Se e ge ne ra ll y

, Cr aw fo rd v. W as hi ng to n

, 54 1 U.S.

36 , 5 1

- 52 (2 00 4) (d is cu ss in g te st im o n i a l s ta te m en ts ); Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 3 84

U.S. 43 6 (1 96 6) (ad dr es si ng cu st od ia l st a te m en ts ); an d

, Tex .Co de Cri m .Pro

. Art.

38 .22

. The se co nc ep ts of a st at em en t fo r he ars ay pu rp os es

, an d a “ st at em en t” fo r

pr oc ed ur al pu rp os es are di st in ct

. “ St at em en t” in th e co nt ex t of Mir an da an d

cu st od ia l in te rro ga ti on s co nn ot es a two -way ex ch an ge of in fo rm at io n f or la w

en fo rcem en t pu rp os es

. The re i s a s pe ak er an d t he re i s a li st en er. A “ st at em en t”

un de r th e Ru le s of Evi de nc e co nt ai ns no su ch de fin it io na l li m it at io n th at it m e m ad e

to an y pa rti cu la r in di vi du al

, or ev en to an ot he r in di vi du al

. The re is no req ui rem en t

un de r th e Hears ay Ru le th at a “ st at em en t” mu s t res ul t fro m a qu es ti on

. Pri va te

di ary en tri es co ns ti t u t e “s t a t em en ts ” un de r th e he ars ay ru le

. Se e Tu rp in v.

Ka ss ul ke

, 26 F.3 d 13 92

, 1 4 0 1 (6 th Ci r. 19 94 ); Uni te d St at es v. Tr ef f

, 92 4 F.2 d

97 5, 98 3 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 91 ); an d

, W a l k e r v. Lo ckh ar t

, 76 3 F.2 d 94 2, 95 1 (8 th Ci r.

19 85 ). Ass ert io ns m ad e by a pe rs on i n h er sl eep an d ov erh eard by ot he rs m ay

co ns ti tu te “s t a t e ment s,” al th ou gh th ei r ad m is si bi li ty is du bi ou s Se e Ann ot

.,

Adm is si bi li ty of Evi de nc e Co nc ern ing W or ds Sp ok en W hi le Decl aran t W as Asl eep

o r U n c o ns ci ou s, 14 A.L.R.4t h 80 2, 80 4 (1 98 2 & Su pp . 1 98 9)

. App el la nt ’s o wn

so li lo qu y pl ai nl y m et th e de fin it io n of a “ st at e men t ” un de r th e Hears ay Ru le

30 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rr e g ard le ss of whe th er it was di rect ed to Dete ct iv e Nels on

, to an ot he r pe r s o n

, o r

m erel y ex pr es si ng he r th ou gh ts alo ud

.

ii

. App el la nt ’s co m

m en ts in th e in te rro ga ti on ro om were m ad e whi le st il l

un de r th e st res s of le arn in g th at he r co nd uc t wou ld res ul t in Barr ie ’s

de at h.

Nels on te st ifi ed th at aft er co nf ro nt in g App el la nt th at Barr ie was ex pe ct ed to

di e an d th at App el la nt wou ld be arre st ed , Ap pe ll an t st art ed to cry a n d h e l e f t t h e

ro om

. [2 6 R.R.: 11 5

- 11 6, 12 2

- 12 3]. Defen se Exh ib i t 1 3 2, th e vi de o it se lf,

refl ect s Nels on do wnp la y ed th e ex te nt of App el la nt ’s em ot io na l res po ns e i n t h e

in te rro ga ti on ro om : sh e is pl ai nl y ov erwro ug ht

, au di bl y wail in g, an d

hyperv en ti la ti ng

. [Def Ex. 13 2]. Eve n aft er he r m ot he r en te red th e in te rro ga ti on

ro om , App el la nt was v is ib ly dis tra ug ht whi le di sc us si ng th e in ci de nt

.

A he ars ay st at em en t un de r th e ex ci te d ut te ran ce ex cep ti on ne ed no t

im m ed ia te ly fo ll ow fro m th e in ci de nt bu t m ay ari se a t a la te r ti m e if a su ffi ci en t

tri gg eri ng ev en t pr om

pt s an ov erwh el m in g em ot io na l res po ns e. McCa rt y v. St at e

,

25 7 S.W .3d 23 8, 2 4 0 ( Te x.C r.App

. 20 08 ); Apo li na r v. St at e

, 15 5 S.W .3d 18 4

(Tex .Cr.Ap p. 20 05 ); a n d

, Zu li an i v. St at e

, 97 S.W .3d 58 9, 59 6 (Tex

. Cr. App

.

20 03 ). “ The st art li ng ev en t ne ed no t be th e or ig in al of fen se bu t can be a su bs eq ue nt

ev en t, so lo ng as it is it se lf st art li ng or sh oc ki ng .” Sa nd ov al

, 40 9 S.W .3d at 28 5;

Edmo nd so n v. St at e

, 39 9 S.W .3d 60 7, 61 4 (Tex .App

. - East la nd 20 13 ); an d

, Hun t

31 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rv. St at e

, 90 4 S.W .2d 81 3, 81 5 (Tex .App

. - F o r t W or th 19 95 ). The de cl aran t’s

em ot io na l st at e ne ed no t be co nt in ua l as lo ng as th e tri gg eri ng in ci de nt is su ffi ci en t

to pr od uc e a su ffi ci en t em ot io na l st at e to pr ecl ud in g th e de cl aran t’s ab il it y to refl ect

up on he r st at em en ts

. McCa rt y

, 25 7 S.W. 3 d a t 2 4 0

. Se e al so

, Zu li an i

, 97

S.W .3d at 59 5

- 59 6. The co nt ro ll in g in qu iry u n d e r i s w he th er th e de cl aran t is

cap ab le of co ns ci ou s refl ect io n de sp it e he r em ot io na l st at e or whe t h e r s h e is

su ffi ci en tl y do min at ed by he r em ot io na l reac ti on to th e tri gg eri ng in ci de nt as to

pr ecl ud e co ns ci ou s re fle ct io n u po n h er s ta te m en ts

. Zu li an i, 97 S.W .3d at 5 96

.

App el la nt ’s s ta te m en ts oc cu rred w i t h i n m in ut es of Nels on arre st ed he r an d

ad vi se d he r th at Barr ie wou ld di e fro m he r in juri es

. Her de m ean or on vi de o refl ect s

th e ex te nt to whi ch sh e was in flu en ced by Nels on ’s st at em en t. Eve n af t e r

App el la nt s’ m ot he r en te red th e in te rro ga ti on ro om to co m fo rt he r, th e vi de o st il l

refl ect s App el la n t was st il l do m in at ed by he r arre st an d th e ne ws of Barr ie ’s

im pe nd in g de at h. All o f A pp el la nt ’s ex cu lp at or y st at em en ts oc cu r wit hi n

ap pr ox im at el y

on e h al f ho ur of l earn in g o f th e d eat h.

Not ab ly, th e co ur t rev ers ed it s’ ru li ng at th e co nc lu si on o f t h e p un is hm en t

ph as e of tri al

, ack no wled gi ng th at App el la nt ’s st at em en ts in th e in te rro ga ti on ro om

ha d b een ex ci te d u tt eran ces :

I do th in k t h a t we sh ou ld ha ve he r te st ify as to in it ia l st at em en ts th at

th e da ug ht er m ad e to he r th ere. I do th in k th ey are ex ci te d ut te ran ces

32 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Ras to he r fin di ng ou t th at [Bar r i e ’s ] g o in g to di e, th at th e vi ct im is

go in g to di e. I do th in k t h at th ey are ex ci te d ut te ran ces

. And th e

on es th at sh e – t he st at em en ts th at sh e m ak es to he r m om , I th in k are

ad m is si bl e o n t ha t s ub

ject.

[2 9 R .R.: 1 99 ].

Thi s la te r ru li ng

, th ro ug h c le arl y su pp or te d by th e fact s, cam e se ve ral da y s

la te an d m or e th an a do ll ar sh or t; by th e ti m e it reco gn iz ed th e a d mi s s ib il it y of

App el la nt ’s s ta te m en t as an ex ci te d ut te r a n c e , i ts rel ev an ce to th e gu il t ph as e ha d

pa ss ed

. Fo r th is reas on

, th e tri al co ur t erre d in in it ia ll y ex c l u d in g App el la nt ’s

st at em en ts up on le arn in g of Barr ie ’s im pe nd in g de at h. To th e ex te nt th at th e tri al

c o u r t ex cl ud ed th e ev id en ce un de r th e be li ef th at App el la nt ’s as se rti on s di d no t

co ns ti tu te a “ st at em en t,” it res te d up on an in co rrec t ev al ua ti on of th e la w. And to

th e ex te nt th at th e co ur t be li ev ed th e st at em en t di d no t co ns ti tu te a n e x it ed

ut te ran ce, i ts ex pl an at io n o n t he reco rd pl ai nl y de m on st rat es it was i nc or rect

.

ii i. The e xc lu si on of th e vi de o ha d a su bs ta nt ia l an d in juri ou s effe ct on

App el la nt ’s cas e by de pr iv in g he r of di rect ly rel ev an t ev id en ce of he r

la ck of sp eci fic in te nt to ki ll

, or cau se se rio us bo di ly in jury to Barr ie

.

The erro ne ou s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce is rev ie wed fo r whe th er th e e rro r ha d

a su bs ta nt ia l an d in

juri ou s effe ct up on t h e ju r y ’s ve rd ic t. Ki ng v. St at e

, 95 3

S.W .2d 26 6, 27 1 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 97 ); an d

, Tex .R.App .Pro

. Ru le 44 .2(b ). Thi s

rev ie w is no t th e eq ui va le nt to a m ere in qu iry in to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce.

W hi le th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce is a co ns id erat io n of whe th er th e erro r ha d a

33 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rsu bs ta nt ia l an d in juri ou s effe ct on ve rd ic t, th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce as a who le

is no t de te rm in at iv e. Bag he ri v. St at e

, 11 9 S.W .3d 75 5, 76 3 (Tex.C r.App

. 20 03 ).

Unl es s th e co ur t ha s a fai r as su ran ce th at th e erro r di d n o t h a v e a su bs ta nt ia l an d

in juri ou s effe ct up on th e v erd ic t, i t m us t re ve rs e th e ve rd ic t. Gar ci a v. St at e , 1 26

S.W .3d 92 1, 92 7 (Te x.C r. App . 20 04 ); an d

, Mot il la v. St at e , 78 S.W .3d 35 2, 3 55

(Tex .Cr.Ap p. 2 00 2)

. If th e co ur t ha s a do ub t ab ou t whe th er t he erro r m ig ht ha ve

in flu en ced th e ve rd ic t, th en it m us t pr es um e t h a t t h e e rro r ha d an effe ct

. Se e

,

Bar sh aw v. St at e , 34 2 S .W .3d 91 , 94 (Tex.C r.App . 20 11 ).

The ex cl us io n of th e vi de o was hi gh ly da m ag in g to App el la nt s de f e ns e

be cau se it de pr iv ed he r of po te nt ia ll y pro ba ti ve ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce, in es se nc e,

an an ti -co nf

es si on

. The vi de o of App el la nt ’s em ot io na l reac ti on up on le arn in g of

Barr ie ’s im

pe nd in g de at h was rel ev an t be cau se it co nt ai ne d ex pr es s ex cu lp a t o ry

s t a t em en ts pr ob at iv e to ward he r in te nt io ns to ward Barr ie on th e ni gh t of th e

co nf ro nt at io n. At se ve ral po in ts

, a di st rau gh t App el la nt ex cl ai m ed th at sh e ha d

“ no t m ean t t o d o i t,” o r ha ve “ m ean t” to ha ve cau se d Barri e’s de at h. [De f Ex. 1 32

(co un te r at 42 :0 0, 46 :5 4, an d 54 :5 4) ]. The se st at em en ts w e r e r el ev an t an d

p r o b at iv e to ward he r cu lp ab le m en ta l st at e; ha d th e jury be li ev ed by th e jury, i t

co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at he ha d la ck ed th e req ui si te cu lp ab le m en ta l st at e to

co m m it m ur de r. Her ge ne ral di st res s fro m le arn in g of Barr ie ’s im pe nd in g de at h,

34 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rex pr es se d th ro ug h he r rem or se co ul d ha ve be en in te rp ret ed by th e jury to ne ga te th e

c u l p a b l e m en ta l st at e to ki ll or cau se in juri es th at res ul te d in Barr ie ’s d eat h. S e e 1

an d co mpa re

, Dar by v. St at e

, 14 5 S.W .3d 71 4, 72 1 (Tex

. App

. -Fo rt W or th 20 04 )

(ci ti ng Her na nd ez v. St at e

, 81 9 S.W .2d 80 6, 81 0 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 91 ) (h ol di ng th at

la ck of rem or se is ev id en ce fro m whi ch jury c a n in fer in te nt ). Se e al so

, Bar le y v.

St at e

, 01 -1 2- 01 00 2- CR, sl ip op

. at 13 (Tex .App

.- Hou st on [1 st Dis t.] 10 -2 9- 20 13 )

(n ot pu bl is he d) (“ A jury m ay c o n si de r a de fen da nt 's at ti tu de du rin g hi s po li ce

in te rv ie w

. . . whe n as se ss in g gu i lt

. Fu rth er, an in te nt io n to co m m it m ur de r

reas on ab ly can be in ferr ed whe n a d e f e n d a nt is ho st il e an d sh ows no em pa th y or

rem or se du rin g hi s po li ce in te rv ie w.”); an d

, So to v. St at e

, 13 -1 0- 01 3- CR, sl ip op

.

at 18 (Tex .App

. - Co rp us Ch ris ti 1 0

- 2 0

- 2 0 1 1) (n ot pu bl is he d)

. Thi s te st im on y

carr ie d a st ro ng pr ob at iv e va lu e to th e is su e of App e l l a n t ’s c ul pa bl e m en ta l st at e

on th e ni gh t of th e in ci de nt

. Mo reo ve r, th e cred ib il it y of he r st at em en ts co ul d on ly

be en ha nc ed by th e fact t h a t h e r st at em en ts were m ad e wit ho ut an y on e be in g

pr es en t, u nd ers co rin g t he tru th of h er s ta te m en ts

.

Fu rth er, th e ex cl us io n of th e ev id en ce al so de pr iv ed A p p e l l a n t of a cl ear

fa ct ua l ba si s to su pp or t th e su bm is si on of a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fense of m an sla

ught er

.

An i ndi vidual who h ad i nte nde d t o ca use dea th or ser iou s bo dil y inj ury woul d ar guably not 1

have ex pre sse d r emorse upon le ar nin g that th e c om pla ina nt was li kely to di e f rom the as sau lt . W hy

woul d sh e i f s he h ad int end ed t o ca use th e very in j uri es she had j ust le ar ned had occ urr ed ? By cont ra st

, the re m ors e r eac ti on e nta il s t he d ef end ant had not in te nde d, no r a nti ci pat ed t hat th e i nj ury woul d ha ve

occ urr ed i n l ight o f h er con duc t.

35 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RIt is reas on ab ly li ke ly th at ha d th e ev id en ce be en ad m it te d, it wou ld ha ve pr om pt ed

th e tri al co ur t to su bm it th e req ue st ed in st r u c t i o n ( o r, in th e al te rn at iv e, to

st ren gt he n App el la nt ’s po in t of erro r on ap pe al ) to th e jury, pe rm it ti ng App el la nt to

pr es en t a r eas on ab le op ti on to th e jury.

The tri al co ur t’s ex cl us io n of Defen se Exh ib it 13 2 ha d a de fin it e an d

su bs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic ia l effe ct up on th e de fen se an d co m pe ls rev ers al of App el la nt ’s

co nv ic ti on

.

§ § §

36 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RGROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER THREE:

T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D IN R E F U S IN G A P P E LLA N T T O A D M IT

D E F E N S E E X H IB IT 13 2 A T T H E P U N IS H M E N T P H A S E O F T R IA L IN O R D E R

T O D E M O N S T R A T E A P P E LLA N T ’ S R E M O R S E

.

A. Fact s i n s up po rt o f cl ai m

Pat ric ia Ri tc he rs on

, App el la nt ’s m ot he r te st ifi ed du rin g t h e de fen se ’s

pu n i s h men t c as e-i n- ch ie f as on e of two wit ne ss es

. [2 9 R.R.: 16 1

- 19 2, 20 1

-

20 6]. Ri tc he rs on st at ed th at he r da ug ht er vo lu nt ari ly wen t to th e po li ce st at io n on

Decem be r 6 an d was arre st ed

. [2 9 R.R. 17 5]. Ri tc he rs on wen t do wn to th e st at io n

an d was pe rm it te d to m eet wit h App el la nt

. [2 9 R.R.: 18 1]. App el la nt was “ vi si bl y

up se t” an d was crying ab ou t wan ti ng to se e he r [d ecea se d] fat he r. [2 9 R.R.: 17 6].

In a be nc h co nf

eren ce, App el la nt ad vi se d th e co ur t th at sh e wan te d to sh ow Defen se

Exh ib it 13 2 as ev id en ce of he r rem or se

. [2 9 R.R.: 17 8

- 17 9]. Afte r co ns id eri ng th e

i s s u e th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at App el la nt ’s st at em en ts to he r m ot he r wer e ex ci te d

ut te ran ces

, an d pe rm it te d th e de fen se to cal l Ri tc he rs o n t o r e la te he r da ug ht er’s

st at em en ts to he r. [2 9 R .R.: 2 00 - 20 1].

App el la nt req ue st ed to “ of fer th e vi de o it se lf as be st ev i d e n ce of wha t

act ua ll y oc cu rred th ere be twee n Ms

. Ri tc he rs on an d he r d a u g h t er, Kait lyn.” [2 9

R.R.: 20 1]. The co ur t de ni ed th e req ue st “ on Ru le 40 3" gr ou nd s. [2 9 R.R.: 20 1]. 2

Wh il e t he c our t d id not spe ci fy it s pr eci se bas is fo r e xcl udi ng the video, it s c om m ent s du ri ng 2

the ben ch c onf

er enc e r ef le ct th e c our t wa nte d t o co ncl ude th e t ri al by 5:00 o’ cl ock: “ Als o, i t’ s 20 ti ll

37 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RRi tc he rs on su bs eq ue nt ly te st ifi e d t h a t sh e was pe rm it te d to m eet wit h he r

da ug ht er aft er sh e ha d be en arre st ed

. [2 9 R.R.: 20 2]. App el la nt was crying an d sa id

th at sh e wan te d to “m e e t he r fat he r.” App el la nt ’s fat he r was de ceas ed an d

Ri tc he rs on in te rp ret ed he r da ug ht er’s st at em en ts to m ean th at sh e wan t e d t o d i e.

[2 9 R.R.: 20 2]. App el la nt al so to ld he r th at sh e ha d be en fri gh te ne d th e ev en in g

of th e in ci de nt wit h Barr ie an d th at sh e ha d no t in te nd ed to ha rm Barr ie

. [2 9 R.R.:

20 3, 2 04 ].

B. Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s

The tri al co ur t erre d by de nyin g App el la nt ’s req ue st to p u b li sh Defen se

Exh ib it 13 2 a n d l i miti ng th e ev id en ce of App el la nt ’s rem or se to a he ars ay reci ta l

th ro ug h he r m ot he r, Pat ric ia Ri tc he rs on

. Th e c o u r t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n un de r

Ru le 40 3 by e x c l u d i ng th e vi de o, whi ch co ns ti tu te d th e be st

, m os t pr ob at iv e

ev id en ce of App el la nt ’s rem or se

, in fav or of t h e s e co nd -h an d reci ta ti on of

App el la nt ’s st at em en ts

.

I. The Tr i al Co ur t’s ex cl us io n of th e ev id en ce un de r Tex as Ru le of

Evi de nc e Ru le 40 3 was un reas on ab le be cau se it th wart ed th e po li cy

of ad m it ti ng rel ev an t an d pr ob at iv e ev id en ce whi le la ck in g an y

ov erwh el m in g ju st ifi cat io n s et ou t b y th e Ru le

.

The Ru le s of Evid en ce carry th e pr es um pt io n th at rel ev an t ev id en ce wil l be

ad m is si bl e. Paw la k v. St at e

, 42 0 S.W .3d 80 7, 80 9 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 20 13 ); an d

, Jes so p

5:0 0 an d we n eed to wra p t his th ing up.” [ 29 R.R.: 200

- 201 ].

38 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rv. St at e

, 36 8 S.W .3d 65 3, 68 4 (Tex .App .-Aus ti n 20 12 ). Und er Ru le 40 3, rel ev an t

ev id en ce sh ou ld be ex cl ud ed on ly if th e pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed

by th e da ng er of un

fa ir pr ejud ic e or ot he r li st ed co ns id erat io ns

. Mon tg ome ry

, 81 0 3

S.W .2d at 38 7. “ Unf

ai r pr ejud ic e' refe rs t o a te nd en cy to su gg es t de ci si on on an

i mp r op er ba si s, co m

m on ly, th ou gh no t ne ces sa ril y

, an em ot io na l on e.” Jes so p

,

36 8 S.W .3d at 68 4 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Tria l co ur ts sh ou ld fav or th e

ad m is si on of in cl os e cas es

. Sa nd er s v. St at e

, 42 2 S.W .3d 80 9, 81 5 (Tex .App .-Ft

.

W or th 20 14 ). “ It is on ly whe n th ere ex is ts a cl ea r di sp ar it y be twee n th e de gr ee of

pr ejud ic e pr od uc ed by th e of fere d ev id en ce an d it s pr ob at iv e va lu e th at Ru le 40 3

is ap pl ic ab le .” Jes so

p , 36 8 S .W .3d at 6 84

.

In rev ie win g whe th er to ad m it ev id en c e un de r Ru le 40 3 th e co ur t sh ou ld

co ns id er, (1 ) th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce; (2 ) th e po te nt ia l to im pr es s th e

jury in so m e irr at io na l, y et in de li bl e, way ; (3 ) th e ti m e ne ed ed to de ve lo p th e

ev id en ce; an d ( 4 ) t h e p ro po ne nt 's ne ed fo r th e ev id en ce. Era zo v. St at e

, 14 4

S.W .3d 48 7, 48 9 ( Te x

. C r

. A pp

. 20 04 ); Rees e v. St at e

, 33 S.W .3d 23 8, 24 0- 41

(Tex .Cr.Ap p. 2 00 0)

.

In th e pr es en t cas e, th e ev id en c e w a s hi gh ly p ro ba ti ve to sh ow App el la nt ’s

T hes e c ons ide ra ti ons ar e: evide nce whi ch c onf use s t he i ssu es, evide nce whi ch misl ead s t he 3

j ury, evide nce whi ch c aus es undu e de la y in t he c our se of tr ia l, o r e videnc e whi ch i s ne edl ess ly

cumulat ive t o ot her evide nce whi ch h as bee n pr ese nte d. T ex.R. Evid. Rul e 40 3.

39 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rrem or se ov er ha vi ng cau se d Barr ie ’s d eat h. A s d i r e ct ev id en ce of he r reac ti on , i t

was di rect ev id en ce of her react io n and th e si nc eri ty of he r be li efs

. The ev id en ce

di d no t po st a th reat of in flu en ci ng t he jury in an ir ra ti on al m an ne r. The ti m e

ne ces sa ry to pr es en t t h e ev id en ce was m in im al in co nt ex t of th e en ti re tri al

. The

po rti on of th e vi de o whi ch de pi ct ed App el la nt was ap pr ox im at el y 40 m in ut es ; of

th is

, ap pr ox im at el y 20

- 30 m in ut es co ns ti tu te d refl ect ed he r em ot io na l ou tb ur st s.

F i n a ll y

, App el la nt ha d a hi gh ne ed fo r th e vi de o si nc e th e qu al it y of he r rem or se

co ul d no t be m ean in gf

ul ly or as pr ob at iv el y pr es en te d th ro ug h an ot he r s o u r c e

.

W hi le App el la nt ’s m ot he r co ul d r e l a te th at he r da ug ht er ha d be en em ot io na l an d

m ad e st at em en ts of rem or se

, he r dr y te st im on y co ul d no t fu ll y co nv ey App el la nt ’s

st at em en ts in th ei r fu ll pro ba ti ve va lu e.

In li gh t of th e fo reg oi ng

, th e fact or s in fav or of pu bl is hi ng th e po rti on of th e

vi de o, Defen se Exh ib it 13 2 to th e jury ins te ad of l im it in g th e de fen se ev id en ce to

Pa tr ic ia Ri tc he rs on’s reci ta ti on of he r da ug ht er’s st at em en ts su bs ta nt ia lly out w ei ghs

th e Ru le 40 3's li st ed co ns id erat io ns :

a. The vi de o wo ul d n ot ha ve un fai rly preju di ced th e St at e;

The re was no th in g in th e vi de o whi ch wou ld ha ve u n f a i r l y pr ejud ic ed th e

St at e si nc e th e vi de o m erel y cap tu red App el la nt ’s em ot io na l reac ti on on hi dd en

cam eras in th e po li ce in te rro ga ti on ro om a f t e r D et ect iv e Nels on ad vi se d he r of

40 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RBarr ie ’s an ti ci pa te d de at h. The St at e i n e f f e c t c reat ed th e ve ry ev id en ce by

pr om pt in g App el la nt ’s em ot io na l reac ti on an d t h e n r e co rd in g th at reac ti on

. It

co ul d ev en be arg ue d th at Dete ct iv e Nels on ’s de ci si on to pe rm it Pat ric ia Ri tc he rs on

to vi si t he r da u g h te r was pr em is ed on hi s ga m bi t th at App el la nt m ig ht m ak e an

in cu lp at or y

ad m is si on to he r m ot he r. Reg ard le ss of th e reas on in g for t he Sta te ’s

reco rd in g App el la nt ’s reac ti on

, “ un fai r” pr ejud ic e in th e co nt ex t of Ru le 40 3 refe rs

on ly to th e te nd en cy of ev id en ce to pr om ot e a de ci si on on an imp ro p e r b a s i s

.

Jes so p

, 36 8 S.W .3d at 68 4. In so far as th e vi de o ob jecti ve ly reco rd ed App el la nt ’s

rem or se for he r act io ns , it was n ot imp ro pe r

.

b. The vi de o wo ul d n ot ha ve co nf us ed th e is su es ;

The vi de o wou ld no t ha ve co nf us ed th e is su es fo r pu ni sh m en t b e c a us e

whe th er a de fen da nt is rem or se fu l fo r he r co nd uc t is an im po rta nt co ns id erat io n in

as se ss in g pu ni sh m en t. Se e McMa ho n v. St at e

, 58 2 S.W .2d 78 6, 79 1 (Tex .Cr.Ap p.

19 78 ); Peo

pl e v. W at ts

, 1 6 5 P

. 3 d 7 0 7, 71 3 (Co lo .App

. 20 06 ); Peo pl e v.

Va n h o e s e n

, 3 A.D.3d 78 7, 77 1 N.Y.S.2d 73 0 (N.Y. 3d Dep t. 20 04 ); St at e v.

Bau er ly

, 52 0 N.W .2d 76 0, 76 2 (Mi nn .App

. 19 94 ); St at e v. Co ns ta nt in e

, 58 8 A.2d

29 4, 29 6 (Me

. 19 91 ); an d

, Peo pl e v. All en

, 15 8 Mi ch

. App

. 47 2, 47 8, 40 4 N.W .2d

26 6 (1 98 7)

.

c. The vi de o wo ul d n ot ha ve m is le ad th e jury;

41 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RThe vi de o was of fere d as pr ob at iv e ev id en ce of A p p e l l an t’s rem or se

. In

res po ns e to th e co ur t’s li m it at io n of th e ev id en ce to Ri tc he rs on ’s acco un t of he r

d au gh te r’s reac ti on

, App el la nt pl ai nl y ob jecte d th at th e vi de o it se lf was th e “b e s t

ev id en ce” av ai la bl e to pr ov e th e is su e. [2 9 R.R.: 20 1]. The “ be st ev id en ce” ru le

is pr em is ed on th e ba si s of “ pr od uc [in g] th e be st ob ta in ab le ev id en ce” fo r th e jury’ s

c on si de rat io n. Ju re k v. Co uc h- Ju re k, 29 6 S.W .3d 86 4, 87 1 (Tex .App

. - El P a s o

20 09 ). “ [T]he ex act wor ds are "o f m or e th an av erag e im po rta nc e pa rti cu la rly in

th e cas e

. . . whe re a sl ig ht va ria ti on of wor ds m ay m ean a gr eat di ffer en ce

. . ..”

Eng lu nd v. St at e

, 94 6 S.W .2d 64

, 67 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 19 97 ). “ [I]f a pa rty ch oo se s to

es ta bl is h th e co nt en t of a co nv ers at io n by of fer i n g a r e c or di ng

, th e be st -ev id en ce

do ct rin e ap pl ie s an d R

ul e 1 00 2 re qu ire s t he in tro du ct io n of the ori gi na l re co rd in g

. . .” Tex as Ru le s of Evi de nc e Han db oo k, 98 8 (2 01 1)

. Pu bl is hi ng th e vi de o it se lf

w o u l d ha ve pe rm it te d th e jury to ev al ua te App el la nt ’s em ot io na l reac ti on

, rat he r

th en rel y up on a li m it ed an d fil te red reci ta ti on of th a t r e a c t i o n by he r m ot he r.

Rat he r th an m is le ad th e jury, de pr iv in g th em of th e vi de o in te rfer ed wit h th ei r ro le

in ev al ua ti ng “ th e si nc eri ty of de fen da nt 's rem or se ” a n i s s u e “ rel ev an t to

se nt en ci ng .” All en

, 15 8 Mi ch

. App

. at 47 8. Ri tc he rs on ’s te st im on y

, rat he r th an th e

vi de o carr ie d a cap aci ty to m is le ad th e jury be cau se he r reci ta ti on la ck ed th e di rect

an d im m ed ia te qu al it y to m ak in g cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns

. The juro rs wou ld

42 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rha ve be en no m or e m is le ad by act ua ll y vi ewin g App el la nt ’s e moti on al res po ns e

th an th ey were whe n vi ewin g he r res po ns es du rin g th e Decem be r 4 in te rro ga ti on

.

d. The vi de o wo ul d n ot ha ve cau se d un du e de la y in th e co ur se of

tri al ;

The co ur t’s co m

m en ts d u r i n g th e be nc h co nf eren ce, th at it wan te d to

co nc lu de th e tri al aro un d 5 p.m

. su gg es ts th at th is was th e pr im ary fact or un de rlyin g

th e co ur t’s d eci si on to li m it th e p res en ta ti on of ev id en ce. [2 9 R .R.: 2 00 - 20 1].

Co nc ed ed ly, th e co ur t ha s a va li d in te res t in m an ag in g it s do ck et

. Bu t th at

co ns id erat io n is no t pa ram ou nt

, an d m us t be ev al ua te d in th e c on te xt

, no t in

ab so lu te s.

App el la nt was co nv ic te d of a fir st de gr ee fel on y

. Sh e was faci ng a se nt en ci ng

ran ge of 5 y ears to li fe im pr is on ment

. Tria l on th e m eri ts ha d la st ed ni ne da y s.

Th e S t at e pr es en te d twen ty-ni ne wit ne ss es ; App el la nt pr es en te d fo ur

. Th e

pu ni sh m en t ph as e la st ed on e da y

. Th e St at e pr es en te d fo ur wit ne ss es ; App el la nt

pr es en te d two

. The ti m e in whi ch App el la nt ap pe ared on vi de o was ap pr ox im at el y

4 0 mi n ut es bu t th e ti m e pe rio d in whi ch App el la nt m ad e th e rel ev an t ex c i t e d

ou tb ur st wa s b e t w e e n 20

- 30 m in ut es

. By li m it in g App el la nt ’s p res en ta ti on of

pr ob at iv e ev id en ce, th e co ur t in jecte d a si gn ifi can t i n eq ui ty of ti m e be twee n th e

St at e an d de fen se ’s pu ni sh m en t ph as e pr es en ta ti on s. The St a t e p r es en te d fo ur

wit ne ss es th ro ug ho ut th e da y to pr ov e a si ng le un ch art ed ex tra ne ou s of fen se

43 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rin vo lv in g App el la nt an d he r br ot he r. App el la nt

, by co nt ras t, pr es en te d on ly two

wit ne ss es

, he r m ot he r, an d h e r p a st or

, th e la tt er who se te st im on y was rel at iv el y

br ie f. The co ur t’s li m it at io n of App el la nt ’s pu ni sh m en t ev id en ce in or de r to ha st en

th e en d of tri al do es no t ap pe ar to ari se fro m App el la nt ha vi ng ta ke n an in or di na te

am ou nt of ti m e in pr es en ti ng hi s pu ni sh m en t cas e. The co ur t’s de si re to co m pl et e

th e tri al by 5 p.m

. by tru nc at in g th e de fen se ’s pr es en ta ti on of 30 m in ut es wor th of

vi de o was un reas on ab le un de r th e eq ui ti es in vo lv ed in th e cas e.

e. The v i d e o was no t ne ed le ss ly cu m ul at iv e wit h ot he r ev id en ce

whi ch ha d b een pre se nt ed

.

Pu bl is hi ng th e vi de o to th e jury wou ld no t ha ve be en ne ed le ss ly cu m ul at iv e

wit h ot he r ev id en ce of App el la nt ’s rem or se fo r th e si m pl e reas on th at th e vi de o was

th e on ly ev id en ce rel at in g to App el la nt ’s rem or se fo r ha vi ng cau se d Barr ie ’s de at h.

Th e fact or s pr om

pt in g ex cl us io n un de r Ru le 40 3 do no t su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh th e pr ob at iv e ev id en ce de mo n s t r a ti ng App el la nt ’s rem or se ov er th e

of fen se

.

ii

. The ex cl us io n of th e vi de o an d li m it at io n of rem or se ev id en c e

pr ejud ic ed App el la nt ’s pu ni sh m en t ph as e pr es en ta ti on an d ve ry li ke ly

affe ct ed th e jury’ s v erd ic t.

The erro ne ou s ex cl us io n of e v id en ce is rev ie wed fo r whe th er th e erro r ha d

a su bs ta nt ia l an d i n

ju r i o u s effe ct up on th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. Ki ng

, 95 3 S.W .2d at

27 1 ; an d Ru le 44 .2(b ). U n l e s s t h e c ou rt ha s a fai r as su ran ce th at th e erro r ha d

44 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rei th er no in f l u e n ce, or on ly a m in or effe ct on th e ve rd ic t, th en it m us t rev ers e th e

ve rd ic t. Gar ci a

, 12 6 S.W .3d at 92 7; an d

, Mot il la

, 78 S.W .3d at 35 5. If th e co ur t

is un su re whe th er th e erro r m ig ht ha ve in flu en ced th e ve rd ic t, th en it m us t pr es um e

th at th e err or

ha d a n p reju di ci al effe ct

. Se e

, Bar sh aw , 34 2 S .W .3d at 9 4.

The co ur t’s ex cl us io n of th e vi de o in fav or of Pat ric ia Ri tc he rs on ’s te st im on y

ha d su bs ta nt ia l effe ct on th e jury by de pr iv in g th e d e f e ns e of th e m os t pr ob at iv e

ev id en ce de m on st rat in g he r rem or se

. The fu ll pr ob at iv e effe ct of th e v i d e o is

refl ect ed in th e well -wo rn sa y in g “ a pi ct ur e is wor th a th ou sa nd wor d s

. ” As

no te d pr ev io us ly, th e vi de o co ns ti tu te d th e be st ev id en ce be cau se it m os t accu rat el y

de pi ct ed App el la nt ’s em ot io na l st at e. The act ua l de pi ct io n po ss es se d a qu al it y th at

co ul d no t be m at ch ed by th e m ere de sc rip ti on of he r reac ti on ; it is ak in to th e

di st in ct io n be twee n s e e i ng a m ov in g pa in ti ng

, sa y

, fo r ex am pl e, Géri cau lt ’s Th e

Raf t of th e Med

us a

, an d read in g a de sc rip ti on o f a pa in ti ng

. Bo th co nv ey

in fo rm at io n – bu t th ey are no t th e sa m e. Unl ik e di rect ly vi ewin g th e vi de o, juro rs

m ig ht reas on ab ly ha ve be en sk ep ti cal of R it ch ers on ’s tes ti m on y of he r da ug ht er’s

reac ti on

. Ju ro rs ha v i n g v ie wed th e vi de o wou ld no t li ke ly ha ve ha rb or ed th es e

do ub ts

.

Mo reo ve r, in th e co nt ex t of ev al ua ti ng ha rm

, it is no te wor th y th at du rin g

cl os in g arg um en t at pu ni sh m en t, th e pr os ecu to r m oc ke d App el la nt ’s em ot io na l

45 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rst at e th ro ug ho ut tri al

, co nt en di ng th at he r te ars in th e co ur tro om ha d be en m ot iv at ed

by se lf- pi ty, rat he r th an rem or se

. [2 9 R.R.: 23 8]. The arg um en t ex pl oi te d th e la ck

of di rect ly pr ob a t i v e e v i de nc e of rem or se fro m th e tri al co ur t’s ex cl us io n of th e

vi de o. The co ur t’s ex cl us io n of th e ev id en ce was no t ha rm le ss

, a nd warra nt s

App el la nt ’s cas e b e rem an de d fo r a n ew se nt en ci ng tri al

.

§ § §

46 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RGROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER FOUR:

T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D IN A D M IT T IN G H E A R S A Y S T A T E M E N T S B Y

P A TR ICIA A ND D O N A L D R ITCH ER SO N U N D ER TH E E X C ITED U TTER A N C E

E X C E P T IO N W I T H O U T A S U F F IC IE N T P R E D IC A T E S H O W IN G T H A T T H E

W I T N E S S W A S U

N A B LE T O R E F LE C T U P O N H IS S T A T E M E N T A T T H E

T IM E IT W A S M A D E

. 4

A. Fact s i n s up po rt o f cl ai m

At th e pu ni sh m en t p h a s e of tri al

, th e St at e so ug ht to ad m it te st im on y of an

un ad jud ic at ed ex tra ne ou s of

fen se in whi ch App el la nt ha d at te m pt ed t o st ab he r

br ot he r, Don al d R it ch ers on du rin g a fam il y arg um en t.

Offi cer Jare d Jen se n tes ti fie d th at he res po nd ed to a fam il y di st ur ba nc e cal l

on May 15

, 20 09 whe re he en co un te red an d sp ok e wit h App el la nt

, he r m ot he r, an d

he r br ot he r, Don al d. [2 9 R.R.: 60

- 63 ]. Ove r ob jecti on , Of

fi c er Je ns en te st ifi ed

th at Don al d ha d in fo rm ed hi m th at he joi ne d a fam il y arg um en t be twee n App el la nt

an d he r m ot he r. Dur in g th e arg um en t, App el la nt “ wen t to t h e k i t c he n an d 5

ret rie ve d a st eak kn ife an d a tt em pt ed to st ab hi m wit h it .” [2 9 R.R.: 63

, 65

, 66 ].

Th e i r moth er in te rv en ed to ke ep Don al d an d App el la nt se pa rat ed an d Don a l d

m an ag ed to di sa rm App el la nt . [ 29 R.R.: 66 ]. Pat ric i a ’s acco un t was “ ba si cal ly ..

Appel la nt bri ngs th e c la im rel at ing to st at ements by both Pat ri ci a a nd h er son Dona ld in one 4

cl ai m bec aus e i n t he c ont ext of th e e videnc e, t he s ta te m ent s a re in te rt wine d an d l ar gely inse par abl e.

Shou ld the cou rt con cl ude th at th e i ssu es ar e multi pli ci tou s, t hen Appe ll ant woul d r equ est th e

oppo rt uni ty to re

- bri ef

th e i ssu e i nto two se par at e c la ims.

Appe ll ant pr ese rved e rr or by timely obj ect ing to th e t est imony and re cei ving a run nin g 5

obj ect ion . [ 29 R.R.: 64]

. 47 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C R. th e sa m e th in g.” [29 R.R.: 6 4, 6 6].

App el la nt to ld Je ns en th at whi le sh e was arg ui ng wit h he r br ot he r, he st ru ck

he r in th e face an d pu ll ed he r ha ir, pr om pt in g he r to ge t a kn ife an d swi ng it at hi m

in ord er t o p ro te ct he rs el f. [29 R.R.: 6 8, 7 1]. Sh e d is pl ay ed a m ark by her eye,

an d J en se n n ot ic ed th at he r ha ir wa s “ a li tt le m es se d u p.” [2 9 R.R.: 67 , 72 - 73 ].

Don al d de ni ed st rik in g hi s si st er, an d co nt en de d th e arg ume n t b ecame

ph y si cal aft er App el la nt at te mp t e d to st ab hi m

. [2 9 R.R.: 68

, 73 ]. Pat ric ia

Ri tc he rs on ad vi se d Je ns en th at he r so n had no t str uc k App el la nt du rin g th ei r fig ht

an d th at App el la nt ’s in

jury ha d li ke ly res ul te d fro m Pat ric ia ’s e ffo rts to ke ep he r

ch il dr en sep arat ed . [29 R.R.: 6 8].

Pat ric ia Ri tc he rs on te st ifi ed th at th ere was fam il y di st ur ba n c e i n th e earl y

m or ni ng ho ur s on May 15 whi ch es cal at ed to pu sh in g an d sh ov in g. [2 9 R.R.: 44

-

45

, 51 ]. At so m e po in t th e arg um en t m ov ed in to th e ki tc he n [2 9 R.R.: 52 ] W hi le

in th e ki tc he n, App el la nt pi ck ed up a kn ife

, bu t Ri tc he rs on di d no t rem em be r

App el la nt swi ng in g it

. [2 9 R.R.: 46

– 47 , 5 2]. Pat ric ia m an ag ed to ge t be twee n

he r ch il dr en . [29 R.R.: 4 6].

Don al d te st ifi ed th at he go t in vo lv e d i n t o an arg um en t be twee n hi s m ot he r

an d A p p e l la nt . [ 29 R.R.: 82 ]. The arg um en t m ov ed in to th e ki tc he n an d at so m e

po in t App el la nt pi ck ed up a kn ife

. [2 9 R.R.: 83 ]. The ir m ot he r go t be twee n th em

48 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Ran d Don al d to ok th e kn ife fro m hi s si st er. [2 9 R.R.: 83 ]. Don al d co ul d no t reca ll

App el la nt act ua ll y swi ng in g th e kn ife an d he di sa rm ed he r aft er gr ab bi ng he r ha ir.

[2 9 R .R.: 8 8 - 8 9, 9 0 - 9 1].

B. Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s

Th e t ria l co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng Don al d Ri tc he rs on ’s he ars ay st at em en ts

th ro ug h Offi cer Je ns en be cau se th e ev id en ce be fo re th e co ur t di d no t es ta bl is h th at

Ri tc he rs on was su ffi ci en tl y ov erwh el m ed by h is co nf ro nt at io n wit h App el l a n t t o

ha ve be en in cap ab le of r efl ect io n.

i. The reco rd la ck ed an y fact ua l ba si s to es ta bl is h t h e pr ed ic at e th at

Pat ric ia an d Don al d Ri tc he rs on were in cap ab le of co ns ci ou s refl ect io n

whe n re la ti ng th e d et ai ls of t he co nf ro nt at io n wi th App el la nt

.

Alt ho ug h st at em en ts “ rel at in g to a s t a r t l i n g ev en t

. . . m ad e whi le th e

de cl aran t was un de r th e st res s or ex ci te m en t c a u s e d b y th e ev en t” are ad m is si bl e

un de r Ru le 80 3( 2)

, th e st at em en t m us t be m ad e un de r ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch th e

de cl aran t ha s no t ha d ina de qua te oppo rtun it y to co ns ci ou sl y refl ect up on th e m at te r.

Apo li na r

, 15 5 S.W .2d at 18 8

- 18 9; an d

, Zu li an i

, 97 S.W .3d at 59 6 (Tex .Cr.Ap p.

20 03 ). To be an ex ci te d ut te ran ce, th e “ ev en t sp eak s th ro ug h th e in di vi du al ” rat he r

th an th e in di vi du al si m

pl y rel at es th e ev en t. Id ., at 5 95

. It is pr eci se ly th e la ck of

op po rtu ni ty to refl ect pr io r to rel at in g an ev en t whi ch is wha t ren de rs th e st at em en ts

su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e to be ad m is si bl e as a h e a r s ay ex cep ti on

. Vol ks wa ge n of

49 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RAmeri ca

, In c. v. Rami re z

, 15 9 S.W .3d 89 7

, 9 0 8 (Tex

. 20 05 ) (ci ti ng 6 W ig m or e,

Evi de nc e in Tria ls at Co m m on Law § 17 47

, at 19 5 (J am es H. Ch ad bo ur n rev

.

19 76 )); Glo ver v. St at e

, 10 2 S.W .3d 75 4, 76 3 ( Te x

. A p p. - Tex ark an a 20 02 );

Bou nd er an t v. St at e

, 95 6 S.W .2d 76 2, 76 5 ( Te x.Ap p. – Fo rt W or th 19 97 ). The

co ur t’s fo cu s th en

, as a pr ed ic at e to ad m it ti ng te st im on y un de r th e ex cep ti on

, m us t

res t o n whe th er th e de cl aran t’s em ot io na l st at e is so ov erwh el m ed by the in ci de nt

t h a t h e i s un ab le to ha ve refl ect ed in a m ean in gf ul m an ne r up on hi s st at em en t.

Apo li na r

, 15 5 S.W .2d at 18 6. It is in su f f i c i e n t mer e l y t h at de cl aran t is in an

“ em ot io na l” st at e, as op po se d to a cal m on e. Mar ti ne z v. St at e

, 17 8 S.W .3d 80 6,

81 4

- 81 5 (Tex

. Cr. App

. 20 05 ); an d

, Hug he s v. St at e

, 12 8 S.W

. 3 d 24 7, 25 2

(Tex .App

. – Ty le r 20 03 ). “ A s ta te m en t t ha t i s s im pl y a na rrat iv e o f pa st act s or

ev en ts is di st in ct fro m an ex ci te d ut te ran ce an d do es no t qu al ify un de r Ru le 80 3( 2)

reg ard le ss of ho w so on aft er th e ev en t it is m ad e.

. . . [ Th e de cl aran t] m ay ha ve

be en up se t, bu t th at do es no t m ak e [h is ] st at em en ts ex ci te d ut te ran ces .” Glo ver v.

St at e

, 10 2 S.W .3d 75 4, 76 5 (Tex .App

. - Tex ark an a 20 02 ). The de cl aran t m us t be

su ffi ci en tl y di st rau gh t by t h e i n c id en t to be in cap ab le of refl ect io n. Sa la za r v.

St at e

, 38 S.W .3d 14 1, 15 4 (Tex .Cr. App

. 20 01 ); an d

, La gu na s v. St at e

, 18 7 S.W .3d

50 3, 51 2 (Tex .App

. - Aus ti n 20 05 ). The bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th at a wit ne ss ’s

em ot io na l st at e m eet s th e cri te ria of an ex ci te d ut te ran ce res t s wit h th e pr op on en t

50 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rof th e ev id en ce. Pere z v

. S t a te

, 11 3 S.W .3d 81 9, 82 7 n. 4 (Tex .App

. - Aus ti n

20 03 ).

The St at e di d no th in g to es ta bl is h th e pr ed ic at e to a d mi t t i ng Don al d

Ri tc he rs on ’s st at em en ts

. Offi cer Ja rred Je ns en si m pl y an swe red “y e s ” t o t he

f o r m ul ai c qu es ti on whe th er Pat ric ia an d Don al d “ ap pe ared to be un de r th e

in flu en ce of a rece nt st art li ng ev en t whi ch was la te r de sc rib ed to y ou ? ” [2 9 R.R.:

63 ]. Thi s was in ad eq ua te to m ak e th e pr ed ic at e sh owi ng un de r Ru e 80 3( 2)

. The

cas es la w be hi nd Ru le 80 3( 2) req ui res m or e th an th is “ m ag ic wor ds ” or in can ta ti on

ap pr oa ch

. Ja rred ’s te st im on y

, ne it he r at th e ti m e of th e co ur ts ru li ng

, or th erea fte r

refl ect ed th at ei th er Patri ci a or Don al d were do min at ed by th e pr ev io us arg um en t,

or ren de red un ab le to refl ect up on th e in ci de nt be fo re rel at in g t h e d e t ai ls of th ei r

co nf ro nt at io n wit h App el la nt

. It was in su ffi ci en t m erel y to co nt en d th at Pat ric ia an d

Don al d were un de r so m e in flu en ce of th e co nf ro nt at io n. G l o v e r , 1 02 S.W .3d at

76 5.

ii

. The erro ne ou s in tro du ct io n of te st im on y th at App el la nt ha d at te m pt ed

to st ab he r br ot he r ha d a li ke ly su bs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ct on th e

jury’ s v erd ic t.

The co ur t m

us t rev ers e th e ve rd ic t un le ss it ha s a fai r as su ran ce fro m it s

rev ie w of th e reco rd th at th e erro r ha d ei th er no in flu en ce, or on ly a m in or effe ct on

th e ve rd ic t. Gar ci a , 1 26 S.W .3d a t 9 2 7; an d

, Mot il la , 7 8 S.W .3d at 35 5. If th e

51 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rco ur t is un su re whe th er th e erro r m ig ht ha ve in flu en ced t h e v e r d i c t, th en it m us t

pr es um e th at th e erro r ha d an pr ejud ic ia l effe ct

. Se e

, Bar sh aw

, 34 2 S.W .3d at 94

.

The 20 09 in ci de nt in w h i c h App el la nt al le ge dl y tri ed to st ab he r br ot he r

li ke ly ha d a hi gh ly pr ejud ic ia l effe ct

. Not on ly was it a cri m e of vi ol en ce, bu t it

m irr or ed th e ch arg ed of

fen se

. Thi s si gn ifi can ce was no t lo st on th e St at e; th e bo th

em ph as iz ed th e in ci de nt du rin g cl os in g arg um en t. [2 9 R.R.: 21 4

- 21 5, 22 0, 23 4

-

23 5]. Obv io us ly, th e pr ob at iv e th ru s t o f th e ev id en ce la y in de m on st rat in g th at

App el la nt read il y res or te d to vi o l e n c e an d th at Barr ie ’s ki ll in g ha d no t be en

id io syncra ti c.

W hi le ex cl ud in g as he ars ay wha t Offi cer’s Je ns en ’s le arn ed fro m Pat ric ia an d

Don al d m ig ht no t ha ve co m pl et el y pr ev en te d th e jury fro m he ari ng th e ev id en ce

–

th ei r st at em en ts m ig h t h a v e be en ad m is si bl e as pr io r in co ns is te nt st at em en ts

,

Tex .R.Evi d. Ru le 61 3( a), th is te st im on y wou ld ha ve be en su bjec t to an in st ru ct io n

li m it in g it s pr ob at iv e va lu e to m e r e i mp e a c hm en t. Se e Ru le 10 5( a). Neit he r

Pat ric ia no r Don al d cl ai m ed at tri al th at App el la nt ha d swu ng th e kn ife

, m uc h le ss

at te m pt ed to st ab he r br ot he r, an d s o t h e li m it ed te st im on y ab ou t th e kn ife wou ld

mer e l y h a v e co nt rib ut ed to a m ud dl ed an d un cl ear in ci de nt

. By co nt ras t, in t h e

pr es en t cas e, th e ev id en ce was ad m it te d fo r it s fu ll pr ob at iv e va lu e. The jury co ul d

co ns id er th e he ars ay st at em en ts as di rect ev id en ce th at App el la nt ha d at te m pt ed to

52 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C Rst ab he r br ot he r an d di sr eg ard th ei r la ck lu st er te st im on y

. Giv en th e im po rta nc e th at

th e pr os ecu ti on pl aced on th e in ci de nt

, th ere is li tt le ch an ce tha t th e jury rem ai ne d

un in flu en ced by th e t e s t i mo n y

. Fo r th is reas on

, th e Co ur t sh ou ld rev ers e

App el la nt ’s sen te nc e an d re m an d t he cas e fo r a n ew se nt en ci ng tri al

.

§ § §

CONCLUSI ON AND PRAY ER

W HEREFORE, PREMI SE S C ONSIDERED, App el la nt res pe ct fu ll y pr ay s

th is Hon or ab le Co ur t rev ers e App el la nt ’s co nv ic ti on s, rem an d th e cas e fo r re-t ria l,

an d t o g ran t an y

ot he r su ch rel ie f to whi ch App el la nt m ay be en ti tl ed

.

Res pe ct fu ll y

su bm it te d,

Law Offic e o f Ale xa nd er L. Cal ho un

43 01 W . W il li am

Can no n Dr., B-15 0, # 2 60

Aus ti n, TX 78 74 9

Tele : 5 12 / 4 20 - 88 50

Fax : 5 12 / 2 33 -5 94 6

Cel l: 51 2/ 73 1- 31 59

Em ai l: al cal ho un @e art hl in k.n et

BY:_ _/ s/

_ 

## A l

e x a n d

e r L

. C

a l h

o u n

__ __ Alex an de r L. Calh ou n

St at e Bar No.: 00 78 71 87

Att or ne y for App el la nt

,

53 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C RCERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

I he reb y cert ify th at a co py of th e ab ov e an d fo reg oi ng App el la nt ’s Bri ef ha s

be en se rv ed up on th e Trav is Co un ty Dis tri ct Att or ne y 's Offi ce, Bl ack well -Thu rm an

Ju st ic e Co m

pl ex

, Aus ti n, TX 78 76 7 on Ja nu a ry 18 20 15 by em ai l to op po si ng

co un se l at th e fo ll owi ng em ai l ad dr es s: s c o tt .tal li afer ro @c o.t rav is .tx .us /

sc ot t.t al li afer ro @t rav is co un tytx.g ov

.

/s/ 

## A l

e x a n d

e r L

. C

a l h

o u n

Alex an de r L. Calh ou n

CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I he reb y cert ify th at th e fo reg oi ng do cu m en t was c r e a t e d i n 14 po in t type,

Tim es New Ro m an fon t, an d c on si st s o f 12 46 4 wor ds

.

/s/ 

## A l

e x a n d

e r L

. C

a l h

o u n

Alex an de r L. Calh ou n

54 K A IT L Y N R IT C H E R S O N V

. S T A T E O F T E X A S : N O

. 0 3

- 1 3

– 0 8 0 4

- C R