Court Opinion

ID: 9893717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 09:54:21.98982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:39.648017
License: Public Domain

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

          No. 02-23-00034-CR
     ___________________________

      BYRON COCHRAN, Appellant

                      V.

          THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 371st District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 1633543D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       After Appellant Byron Cochran pleaded guilty to the felony offense of online

solicitation of a minor in November 2021, the trial court found him guilty, sentenced

him to eight years in prison, suspended his sentence, and placed him on community

supervision for eight years. One of his community supervision terms was to commit

no new criminal offenses. In December 2022, the State moved to revoke Cochran’s

community supervision, alleging that he had violated this term by committing family-

violence assaults against his two sisters. After a revocation hearing, the trial court

found the allegations true, revoked Cochran’s community supervision, and sentenced

him to eight years’ confinement. In a single issue on appeal, Cochran argues that the

trial court reversibly erred by admitting into evidence a recording of the 911 call made

by one of his sisters. We will affirm.

                                 I. BACKGROUND

       At the revocation hearing, Cochran stood mute, so the trial court entered a plea

of “not true” to the allegations on his behalf. Officer Krosby De Lapp of the Fort

Worth Police Department testified concerning her investigation of the assaults. She

explained that the complainants were Cochran’s sisters, Rosalyn and Rena. Rosalyn

had called 911 and alleged that Cochran had assaulted the sisters at their home. De

Lapp testified that, upon arriving at the scene, she found Rosalyn in an “emotional”

and “fearful” state, with visible injuries on her forehead.

                                            2
      A portion of De Lapp’s body-camera footage from the scene was admitted into

evidence. In the footage, Rosalyn explained to De Lapp and another officer that

Cochran had become angry “over some f***ing milk,” had attacked her and Rena, and

had damaged various pieces of personal property. Cochran then told the officers that

his sisters had been the initial aggressors who punched and bit him after an argument

about milk that Rosalyn had purchased for their father.

      Rosalyn testified to a “tumultuous” relationship with Cochran. She said that

the altercation involved a container of whole milk that Rosalyn had told Cochran was

to be consumed only by their father for dietary reasons. She said that Cochran

attempted to drink the milk anyway, and she had tried to prevent him from doing so.

A scuffle ensued, during which Cochran struck and subdued both Rosalyn and Rena

on the floor. Rosalyn eventually bit Cochran, which gave her the upper hand and

caused him to release Rena. Roslyn then immediately called 911 because she was

afraid that he might “do something else.”1

      The State then sought to introduce the 911 call into evidence.            Cochran

objected, arguing that the proper predicate had not been laid to admit the call and that

it constituted inadmissible hearsay. On voir dire, Rosalyn acknowledged that she had

listened to the State’s exhibit containing the 911 call and that it contained a recording

of the 911 call as she remembered it. But she could not testify as to the record-

      1
      Rena also testified, confirming that the altercation had started after Rosalyn
and Cochran argued about the milk and that Cochran then attacked the sisters.

                                             3
keeping procedures within the Fort Worth Police Department.              The trial court

overruled the objections, and the 911 call was admitted into evidence.

      The 911 call is less than three minutes long and contains the voices of Rosalyn

and the 911 dispatcher. Rosalyn told the dispatcher that Cochran had “just attacked”

her and her sister and that he had punched Rosalyn in the head. She described pain to

her face and back but was unsure if anyone needed medical attention. She said that

the altercation started when Cochran went to the kitchen “to mess with something I

paid for and I told him ‘no,’” and then Cochran knocked an item off of the wall.

Rosalyn also identified Cochran to the dispatcher, described his clothing and current

location in the home, stated that no weapons were used during the altercation, and

implored the dispatcher to “hurry, please” in sending an officer to the home.

                                 II. DISCUSSION

      In his sole issue, Cochran complains that the trial court reversibly erred in

overruling his improper predicate and hearsay objections and admitting the 911 call

into evidence. The State argues that the trial court did not err because Rosalyn

properly authenticated the call and because the present-sense-impression and excited-

utterance hearsay exceptions applied. Further, says the State, any error was harmless

because the 911 call evidence was cumulative of other testimony from the revocation

hearing.

      Assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in admitting the 911 call,

we hold that any such error was harmless. See McCurley v. State, 653 S.W.3d 477, 493

                                          4
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2022, pet. ref’d) (assuming error without deciding and

holding that any assumed error was harmless). Error in the admission of evidence is

subject to a Rule 44.2(b) harm analysis. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); Matz v. State,

21 S.W.3d 911, 912 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d). Rule 44.2(b) requires

that we disregard the error unless it affects a substantial right. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).

To determine whether an error implicated a substantial right in a nonjury proceeding,

courts consider “whether a party had a right to that which the error denied.” Johnson

v. State, 72 S.W.3d 346, 348–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

       “It is well-established that the improper admission of evidence does not

constitute reversible error if the same facts are proved by other properly admitted

evidence.” Matz, 21 S.W.3d at 912 (citing Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 287 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1999). Here, the facts from the 911 call were also proved by other

properly admitted evidence at the revocation hearing. In the call, Rosalyn told the

dispatcher that (1) Cochran had attacked her and Rena, (2) the assault had started

when Rosalyn told Cochran not to “mess with something” that Rosalyn had paid for,

(3) Cochran had knocked an item from the wall, and (4) she was distraught and

wanted the authorities to quickly respond to the scene. All of these facts were also

properly admitted through De Lapp’s, Rosalyn’s, and Rena’s testimony and De Lapp’s

body-camera footage.

                                            5
                               III. CONCLUSION

      Accordingly, we hold that the 911 call was cumulative of other properly

admitted evidence, rendering any assumed error harmless. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).

We overrule Cochran’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                     /s/ Brian Walker

                                                     Brian Walker
                                                     Justice

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

Delivered: October 26, 2023

                                          6