Court Opinion

ID: 9370359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 09:09:58.294378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:20.992280
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-21-00215-CR
     ___________________________

NELSON CHRISTOPHER HEAD, Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 78th District Court
        Wichita County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 59,481-B

   Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Walker, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

       In December 2021, a jury convicted Appellant Nelson Christopher Head of

two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The jury assessed his punishment

at confinement for life on each count, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly.1

On appeal, Head argues in a single issue that he suffered a violation of his right

against self-incrimination when a witness commented on his pre-arrest silence. We

affirm.

                                  I. BACKGROUND

       In 2017, Head lived in an apartment with his girlfriend (Mother) and her ten-

year-old son Jared.2 Mother regularly left Jared alone with Head during the day while

she worked. Head was in charge of home-schooling Jared, and Jared referred to Head

as “Dad.”

       In September 2017, Jared made an outcry of sexual abuse against Head. After

an investigation, the police obtained a warrant for Head’s arrest.         A grand jury

indicted Head for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Head pleaded

not guilty.

       During the State’s case-in-chief, Head’s attorney asked police detective Todd

Henderson on cross-examination whether, as part of his investigation, he had

       1
          The trial court ordered that these sentences would run consecutively.

      To protect the child’s sensitive data, we use an alias to refer to him. See Tex.
       2

R. App. P. 9.10(a)(3).

                                             2
attempted to speak with Head concerning Jared’s allegations. Detective Henderson

responded, “Yes sir. I contacted him and requested . . . that he come in for an

interview, which he declined.” Neither side objected to Head’s attorney’s question or

to Detective Henderson’s answer.

         After the State rested, Head testified in his own defense, alleging that Jared was

a troubled child who had suffered from mental psychosis and had fabricated the

sexual assault allegations. Mother also testified in Head’s defense, characterizing

Jared’s allegations of sexual abuse as “absolutely not true” and stating that “[her] son

lied.”

         After hearing all of the evidence and arguments, the jury found Head guilty of

both counts. After hearing additional evidence and arguments regarding punishment,

the jury assessed Head’s punishment at confinement for life on each count. The trial

court sentenced him accordingly and ordered that the sentences would run

consecutively. This appeal followed.

                                    II. DISCUSSION

         In his sole issue on appeal, Head argues that his right against self-incrimination

under both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,

Section 10 of the Texas Constitution was violated when Detective Henderson

commented on the fact that, prior to his arrest, Head had declined Detective

Henderson’s request for an interview. This argument lacks merit.

                                             3
      First, Head has forfeited his appellate complaint by failing to raise an objection

at trial. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that a

specific and timely objection was made to the trial judge and that the judge ruled on

the objection. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2009); Smith v. State, 256 S.W.3d 341, 343 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no

pet.). “This is true even though the error may concern a constitutional right of the

defendant.” Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Indeed, the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has specifically held that complaints regarding

comments on a defendant’s silence must be preserved by a contemporaneous

objection.   See Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004);

Wheatfall v. State, 882 S.W.2d 829, 836 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Here, Head’s counsel

did not object to—and actually elicited—the complained-of testimony. Accordingly,

Head has forfeited his sole appellate issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Heidelberg,

144 S.W.3d at 537; Wheatfall, 882 S.W.2d at 836.

      Moreover, even if Head had preserved his sole issue, we still must overrule his

constitutional argument on the merits. Texas courts, including the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals, have consistently held that a defendant’s right against self-

incrimination is not violated by the admission of evidence concerning his pre-arrest

silence. See Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.3d 176, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (holding “that

pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Fifth Amendment right against

compelled self-incrimination”), aff’d 570 U.S. 178 (2013); Valmana v. State, 605 S.W.3d

                                           4
490, 511 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, pet. ref’d) (“[T]he Fifth Amendment only

protects a defendant against compulsory self-incrimination after a defendant has been

arrested or when he is the subject of custodial interrogation. The Fifth Amendment

does not prohibit the State from introducing evidence of a defendant’s pre-arrest, pre-

Miranda silence.” (citation omitted)); Buentello v. State, 512 S.W.3d 508, 521 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d) (citing Salinas and holding that because

appellant’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence was not protected by the Fifth Amendment,

“the prosecutor was permitted to comment at trial on that silence”); see also Cisneros v.

State, 692 S.W.2d 78, 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (holding that “prosecutor’s questions

to the appellant as to his pre[-]arrest silence” did not violate the United States

Constitution and stating, “[W]e do not conclude that Article I, §§ 10 and 19, Texas

Constitution, call for a different result in Texas as to pre[-]arrest silence . . . .”); Atchley

v. State, No. 06-15-00215-CR, 2016 WL 6885854, at *3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

Nov. 23, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Pre-arrest and

pre-Miranda silence can be used for impeachment under both the United States and

Texas Constitutions.”). Because we are bound by the decisions of the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals, Sell v. State, 488 S.W.3d 397, 399 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016,

pet. ref’d), we must decline Head’s invitation to expand the scope of the Fifth

Amendment to cover pre-arrest silence.

       We overrule Head’s sole issue.

                                               5
                               III. CONCLUSION

      Having overruled Head’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                                     /s/ Brian Walker

                                                     Brian Walker
                                                     Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 9, 2023

                                          6