John Donald Graves v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 336th District Court of Fannin County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 6th District Court of Appeals » 2003 » John Donald Graves v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 336th District Court of Fannin County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-02-00150-CR

Case Date: 09/05/2003

Plaintiff: Rodney Collins

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County

Preview:John Donald Graves v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
336th District Court of Fannin County
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-02-00150-CR
JOHN DONALD GRAVES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court
Fannin County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20026
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Donald Graves appeals from his conviction by a jury of aggravated kidnapping. The jury found two enhancement
paragraphs true and assessed his punishment at life imprisonment.
Graves contends on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from several different witnesses over his
hearsay objection and his objections based on Article 38.22, and that these errors require reversal for a new trial. See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 (Vernon 1979 & Supp. 2003).
The evidence shows that Graves, who is described as having paranoid tendencies, took his live-in girlfriend, Teresa
Burrhus, at knifepoint with him on a mission to blow up his sister and brother-in-law because Graves thought they
were conspiring against him. He told her he had a bomb in the pickup truck. When they reached Greenville, they ran
short of gasoline and stopped at a gasoline station. When Graves went inside to pay, Burrhus took a spare set of keys
and drove to a nearby convenience store, where she hid in the bathroom and asked the workers to call the police. They
did, and Graves was arrested. A bomb squad defused the device.
Graves contends in a joint argument that testimony by four individuals, three police officers and a store clerk, about
what they were told by Burrhus was hearsay and therefore improperly admitted. The State argues the testimony was
admissible as excited utterances. See Tex. R. Evid. 803(2). The admission of evidence is reviewed only for an abuse of
discretion. Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 153 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The trial court's decision will be affirmed if it
is within "the zone of reasonable disagreement." Id.
An excited utterance is defined as "[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was
under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." Tex. R. Evid. 803(2). To apply, (1) the statement
must be a product of a startling occurrence that produces a state of nervous excitement in the declarant and renders the
utterance spontaneous and unreflecting, (2) the state of excitement must still so dominate the declarant's mind that
there is no time or opportunity to contrive or misrepresent, and (3) the statement must relate to the circumstances of
the occurrence preceding it. Sellers v. State, 588 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
We do not examine each requirement independently, but focus instead on whether their combined effect shows the
statement to be sufficiently reliable. Id. In discussing the application of this exception, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals recently reiterated that:
It is not dispositive that the statement is an answer to a question or that it was separated by a period of time from the
startling event; these are simply factors to consider in determining whether the statement is admissible under the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6814.html[8/20/2013 7:21:52 PM]

excited utterance hearsay exception. The critical determination is "whether the declarant was still dominated by the
emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the event" or condition at the time of the statement.
Salazar, 38 S.W.3d at 154 (citations omitted); Glover v. State, 102 S.W.3d 754, 763 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, pet.
ref'd).
Officer Michael Johnston, the first to arrive at the convenience store, testified that Burrhus was so scared she was
incoherent and that it took him fifteen to twenty minutes to calm her down sufficiently to find out what was wrong.
The convenience store clerk testified Burrhus was terrified and had attempted to barricade herself inside the women's
restroom before the clerk convinced Burrhus to go to the store office. Officer Billy Joe Rasco testified Burrhus was
very upset and scared, and Officer Kelley Baker Warren, apparently the last to arrive, testified Burrhus was upset and
distraught when Warren talked to her. All four testified, generally, that Burrhus had told them of the events recounted
above. Burrhus also testified to the same events.
The amount of time that elapsed is unclear. Johnson, the clerk, and Rasco appeared to have talked to Burrhus within a
very short time after she escaped, sometime in the neighborhood of 7:00 p.m. Warren evidently talked to her somewhat
later, but on that same afternoon. Each of them testified about her extreme fear and described the bare bones of her
assertions that she had been kidnapped at knifepoint, and that Graves had a bomb and was heading to kill his sister and
brother-in-law. Burrhus testified about the details of the incident as described by the other witnesses, along with
testimony that at one point he had stopped the vehicle and leaned over her with the knife, and that she thought she was
alive only because a child on a four-wheeler had driven by their parked vehicle.
Under these circumstances, and considering the obvious extreme impact on the declarant of being kidnapped and
driven at knifepoint by a person with a homemade bomb to a prospective bombing of his own relatives, we cannot find
in this situation the trial court abused its discretion by determining the testimony was admissible. The contentions of
error are overruled.
Graves also contends the trial court erred by admitting an oral statement made by the defendant after he was taken into
custody, but before being read his Miranda rights. (1) He contends this is a violation of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 38.22, 3, 5 (Supp. 2003 & Vernon 1979). Oral confessions of guilt, or oral admissions against interest, made by a
suspect who is in custody, are not admissible evidence unless made in compliance with the provisions of Article 38.22
of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Shiflet v. State, 732 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
Unlike many of the cases that discuss this type of situation, in this case there is no doubt Graves was in custody. At the
time he spoke to the officer, it was several hours after Graves had been caught in Queen City on his sister's doorstep,
and after a bomb squad had defused the bomb. Carl Woods, a deputy sheriff for the Cass County Sheriff's Department,
testified that a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agent wanted to talk to Graves and that they went to the jail
at approximately 1:00 a.m. so that he could ask Graves some questions.
Woods testified (over objection) that, when they sat down together, and before they could advise him of his rights,
Graves said, "You don't understand. You can arrest me, you can put me in jail, whatever you want to do. When I get
out, I'm going to kill all of them."
Because Graves had been taken into custody, no custodial interrogation could occur until he was read his Miranda
rights. However, "Interrogation" under Miranda refers to express questioning that the police should know is reasonably
likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301-02 (1980);
Castleberry v. State, 100 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.). The testimony reflects the statement was
not a result of a question asked by the police. Accordingly, that rationale does not prevent Graves' statement from
being admitted into evidence.
Similarly, Article 38.22, Section 3 is directed at the question of the admissibility of an oral statement made as a result
of custodial interrogation. The only evidence presented to the court was that this statement was volunteered and
therefore not the result of questioning by police. The statute does not apply on its face. No error has been shown.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6814.html[8/20/2013 7:21:52 PM]

We affirm the judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: September 4, 2003
Date Decided: September 5, 2003
Do Not Publish
1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6814.html[8/20/2013 7:21:52 PM]

Download 6814.pdf