Court Opinion

ID: 9408932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 09:10:26.340876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.861658
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-22-00123-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                           Appellant
v.

ADAM MARK FORD,
                                                           Appellee

                          From the 278th District Court
                             Walker County, Texas
                             Trial Court No. 29551

                                      OPINION

      Adam Mark Ford was charged by grand jury indictment with the third-degree

felony offense of assault upon a person with whom Ford had a dating relationship by

impeding the person’s normal breathing or circulation. A jury found Ford guilty. During

the punishment phase, the trial court found two alleged prior felony convictions true,

assessed Ford’s punishment at twenty-five years in the penitentiary, and sentenced him

accordingly. The State of Texas brings this appeal challenging the trial court’s granting

of Ford’s motion for new trial. We will affirm.
                                        Background

        During Ford’s trial, Deputy Chace Fryar testified about his investigation. Fryar,

on multiple occasions, used his offense report to refresh his memory during his

testimony. In total, Fryar’s report was referenced before the jury on approximately fifteen

separate issues. The record before us does not reflect that Fryar’s report was marked or

offered as an exhibit during the trial. Additionally, during Fryar’s testimony, he was

asked by the State whether he believed the victim was strangled, and he answered in the

affirmative. After the jury began deliberations, the presiding juror sent a note to the trial

court asking to see a copy of Fryar’s report. The trial court responded that Fryar’s report

was not in evidence. The presiding juror also requested Fryar’s testimony regarding

whether the strangulation occurred, and the trial court obliged the read-back request.

        After his sentencing, Ford filed a motion for new trial asserting grounds for relief

under Rule 21.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.3. As relevant

here, Ford argued that a new trial should be granted because:

        (1) the trial court had misdirected the jury regarding the law by denying the jury’s

request to view an offense report that had not been admitted into evidence, see id. R.

21.3(b), and

        (2) “[t]he verdict has been decided by lot or in a manner other than through a fair

expression of the juror’s opinion. Specifically, Defendant would show that the jury

decided the verdict by lot when they decided the case based solely on ‘the belief’ of a

State v. Ford                                                                          Page 2
testifying officer, evidence that was admitted over the objection of counsel.” See id. R.

21.3(c).

        After a hearing on the motion for new trial, the trial court issued a letter ruling

that granted the motion for new trial and made supporting findings. In granting Ford’s

motion for new trial, the trial court first stated that it was making the following ruling:

“The court may grant a new trial when the court has misdirected the jury about the law

or committed some other material error likely to injure the rights of the Defendant[.]

TRAP 21.3(b).” “[W]ith reference to the above,” the trial court then made findings (a)-(f).

Findings (a)-(e) were all related to Ford’s argument that the trial court improperly refused

to allow the jury to review Fryar’s offense report. Finding (f) then stated: “These findings

above are further reinforced due to the fact that the Officer over objection was allowed to

render an opinion as to whether he believed the offense had taken place.”

                                            Issue

        In one issue, the State contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting

Ford’s motion for new trial because the trial court did not misdirect the jury about the

law when it denied the jury’s request, while deliberating, for an offense report that had

not been admitted into evidence. The State does not challenge in its original brief the

finding that “the Officer over objection was allowed to render an opinion as to whether

he believed the offense had taken place,” i.e., Finding (f).

        Ford argues that we should affirm the trial court’s order granting the motion for

new trial because Finding (f) is an unchallenged ground for granting Ford’s motion for

State v. Ford                                                                            Page 3
new trial. The State argues in its reply brief that: (1) it did not have to challenge Finding

(f) because Finding (f) was not an independent basis on which the trial court granted

Ford’s motion for new trial, and (2) even if Finding (f) was an independent basis on which

the trial court granted Ford’s motion for new trial, the trial court erred in granting the

motion on that basis.

        The State contends that Finding (f) is not an independent basis upon which the

trial court based its decision because the trial court stated in Finding (f) that the “findings

above are further reinforced due to the fact that the officer over objection was allowed to

render an opinion as to whether he believed the offense had taken place.” [Emphasis

added.] We disagree. Furthermore, although Ford did not assert such a specific ground

in his motion for new trial, the trial court may have made Finding (f) because the trial

court believed the jury was misdirected about the law or because it believed it had

committed some other material error likely to injure Ford’s rights by allowing the officer

to render an opinion as to whether he believed the offense had taken place under Rule

21.3(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.3(b). But the State did not raise an issue in its original brief

arguing that the trial court granted the new trial on grounds not alleged in Ford’s motion

for new trial. It is in the State’s reply brief that the State first asserts that it was error to

grant a new trial on the finding contained in Finding (f).

        “[C]ourts of appeals can consider arguments and authorities in a reply brief that

are related to the arguments in the original brief”; however, “new issues raised in a reply

State v. Ford                                                                             Page 4
brief should not be considered.” Chambers v. State, 580 S.W.3d 149, 161 (Tex. Crim. App.

2019).

         In its original brief, the State raised one specific issue: “Did the trial court misdirect

the jury about the law by not allowing them to examine the offense report, which was not

admitted as evidence?” As indicated above, the State did not raise any argument in its

original brief about the officer being improperly allowed to render an opinion as to

whether he believed the offense had taken place. Such an argument in the State’s reply

brief would therefore be a new issue that we cannot consider.

                                           Conclusion

         We conclude Finding (f) is an unchallenged independent ground upon which the

trial court granted a new trial. Thus, even if we were to sustain the State’s sole issue

raised in its original brief, Finding (f) remains as an unchallenged ground supporting the

trial court’s grant of a new trial. See State v. Antram, Nos. 11-09-00211-CR, 11-09-00212-

CR, 11-09-00213-CR, 11-09-00214-CR, 2010 WL 1500866, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr.

15, 2010, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

         We therefore affirm the trial court’s order granting Ford’s motion for new trial.

                                                     MATT JOHNSON
                                                     Justice

State v. Ford                                                                               Page 5
Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 12, 2023
Publish
[CRPM]

State v. Ford                               Page 6