S. P. GOENKA v. STEPHEN L. BAXTER--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » S. P. GOENKA v. STEPHEN L. BAXTER--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 13-07-00361-CV

Case Date: 12/20/2007

Plaintiff: TERRY HACKLER

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS (Original)

Preview:TERRY HACKLER v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (Original)
ORIGINAL | CONCURRING | DISSENTING Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Close This Window
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. PD-1400-06 TERRY HACKLER, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS COOKE COUNTY Johnson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which Price, Womack, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., joined. Keasler, J.,
filed a concurring opinion in which Keller, P.J., and Hervey and Cocharn, JJ., joined. Meyers, J., filed a dissenting O P I N I O N
Appellant Terry Hackler pled guilty to intoxication manslaughter. A jury assessed punishment at fourteen years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
The victim, Dawn McFarland, was married with two children. During the punishment phase, Dawn's husband, Brad McFarland, testified about how his wife's death had affected him and their children, Colton and Ashleigh. Dawn's mother-in-law, Betty McFarland, also testified in the same respect. During the mother-in-law's testimony, and over appellant's objection, the trial court admitted state's exhibit 48, a videotape of Ashleigh's 4th birthday party, into evidence. On appeal, appellant complained, inter alia, that the videotape was erroneously admitted. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. See Hackler v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 4995 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006). Appellant petitioned for discretionary review, which we granted.
Appellant raises a single ground for review: "The court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's admission into evidence of a videotape of the 4th birthday party of the deceased's daughter." Appellant argues that affirming the judgment of the trial court was improper because the trial court erred in two ways: overruling appellant's objection to admission of the videotape based on Texas Rules of Evidence 401 (1) and 402; (2) and overruling appellant's objection to admission of the videotape based on Texas Rule of Evidence 403. (3)
The state responds that the videotape was admissible to assist the jury in determining appropriate punishment. The state also asserts that, although there was other evidence that Dawn McFarland had been a good mother and enjoyed a happy family life, the video depicted the loss that was peculiar to Ashleigh, a permissible consideration at the sentencing phase.
To determine whether a trial court erred in admitting evidence, we review the court's ruling under a standard of abuse of discretion. Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 101-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 379-80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). A reviewing court should not reverse a trial judge whose ruling was within the "zone of reasonable disagreement." Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 391.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The court of appeals stated that "[b]ecause three of the four Salazar (4) factors weighed in favor of admitting the video, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the video in this case." (5) Hackler v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 4995, at *4-5. It held that: (1) the probative value was high because it provided a "quick glimpse" into Dawn's family life and had some bearing on appellant's personal responsibility; (2) that although the videotape likely evoked sympathy, it did not impress the jury in some irrational, but nevertheless indelible, way; and
(3) that the time needed to develop the evidence was slight. Id. at *6. The court did, however, hold that the fourth factor weighed against the videotape's admission; the state presented testimony from at least two witnesses, Dawn's husband and mother, to show that Dawn had been a good mother and enjoyed a happy family life. Id. at *7. Thus the court of appeals concluded that the videotape was cumulative of other evidence and that the state had little need of it.
Relevance: Rules 401 and 402
Appellant asserts that the videotape has no relevance. The state responds that the videotape "demonstrated a circumstance of the offense or another matter relevant to sentencing" and "would enable the jury to understand [Dawn's] death in terms of her worth to Ashleigh."
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07,

Download 16477.pdf