PD-0850-15 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
EX PARTE SCOTT § RECEIVED M ^ ,i, § case no. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FILED IN § COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS . JUL 10 2015 JUL 10 2015 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW Abel Acosta, Clerk Abel Acosta, Clerk COMES NOW JOHNNY QALVIN SCOTT (-HEREAFTER "PETITIONER")... MOVING FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW...AND WOULD SHOW AS FOLLOWS...
I
PETITIONER PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND MAINTAINS HIS INNOCENCE
TO THIS DAY.PETITION MOVED FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT A SELF-
DEFENSE INSTRUCTION JURY OHARGE WAS DENIED IN OBVIOUS ERROR BY THE TRIAL COURT. . -LEAVING PETITIONER WITHOUT HIS DEFENSE CAUSING HIS HARM, V. STATE,686 SW.2d 157 (TEX .CRIM .APP .1985') ... AND. .. REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL.TEXAS COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT AN ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON EVERY DEFENSIVE ISSUE RAISED BY THE EVIDENCE...
HAYES V. STATE,728 SW.2d 804,807-08 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 1987) MOON V. STATE,607 SW. 2d 569 (TEX.CRIM.APP.1980) GARCIA V., STATE ,605 SW.2d 565,566 (TEX .CRIM .APP .1980) JOHNSON V. STATE,571 SW.2d 170,173 (TEX.CRIM.APP.1978) WARREN V. STATE,565 SW.2d 931,933-34 (TEX.CRIM.APP 1978) ESPARZA V. STATE, 520 SW.2d 891,892 (TEX .CRIM. APP .1979)/
IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG OR WEAK...OR
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT BELIEVES IT OR NOT...IF THE EVIDENCE WAS
PRESENT IN THE TRIAL,THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO HAVE IT SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY FOR ITS DECISION...
SHAW V. STATE,510 SW.2d 926 (TEX.CRIM.APP.1974) CARTER V. STATE,515 SW.2d 668 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 1974) SEE ALSO: 'HAYES' and 'WARREN' supra PETITIONER DID NOT TESTIFY... YET AND STILL HIS (3) HOUR INTERROGATION (BY POLICE DETECTIVES) VIDEO WAS PLAYED FOR THIS JURY. THIS VIDEO DISC WAS EDITTED AND REDACTED BY THE STATE TO MAKE THE
(1) PETITIONER LOOK GUILTY.THE POLICE REPEATEDLY MAKE DAMAGING AND
CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT FACTUAL BASIS.THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL
REPEATEDLY OBJECTED AS POLICE/PROSECUTION VIOLATED TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE 801 and 802...STATEMENTS WERE BLATANT HEARSAY AND WERE IN
ADMISSIBLE. ACCORDING TO THOSE RULES,THE STATEMENTS WERE JUST THE
UNBRIDLED OPINIONS OF THE POLICE RELATING TO WHAT EVIDENCE THEY
EITHER DID OR DID NOT HAVE WHAT THEY THOUGHT IT SHOWED... WHETHER
THEY THOUGHT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS BEING TRUTHFUL (OR NOT)...AND
EVEN STOOPED TO CALLING HIM. .."A COLD-BLOODED KILLER... WHICH SEVERELY
PREJUDICED THE JURY AND HARMED THIS PETITIONER.
POLICE..."WITNESS IS NOT COMPETENT TO EXPRESS AN OPINION AS
TO TRUTH OR FALSITY OF OTHER. TESTIMONY IN THE CASE.."
BLACK V. STATE,634 SW.2d 356,357-58 (TEX.APP^DALLAS 1982)
..."OFFICERS MAY NOT TESTIFY THAT [THEYJ DID NOT BELIEVE THE EXPLANATION THE ACCUSED GAVE,,,"
TAYLOR V. STATE,774 SW.2d 31-34 (TX.APP.HOUS.14th Dist.1989)
THE OPINIONS OF THE OFFICERS ARE INADMISSIBLE EVEN IF THEY ARE
NOT HEARSAY. BUT...IN THIS CASE...THEIR STATEMENTS WERE CLEARLY .
HEARSAY OPINIONS AND ENTIRELY INADMISSIBLE.
SAID STATEMENTS..-FOR THREE (3) HOURS DRILLED INTO THE JURORS HEADS AND HEARTS PREJUDICED AND TAINTED THAT JURY.THE OFFICERS KEPT
INTIMATING THAT THEY HAD CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
...THAT HE WAS A LIAR...AND A "COLD BLOODED KILLER"