William David Tompkins v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2004 » William David Tompkins v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-04-00040-CR

Case Date: 08/31/2004

Plaintiff: Roosevelt Young

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

Preview:Roosevelt Young v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County
MAJORITY | MAJORITY Young-R v. State /**/ IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-89-183-CR

ROOSEVELT YOUNG, Appellants v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court # 89-155-C

OPINIONONREMAND

This court affirmed Young's conviction in a published opinion. See Young v. State, 803 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. App. Waco 1990). However, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for a harm analysis under rule 81(b)(2). See Young v. State, No. 268-91, slip op. (Tex. Crim. App. May 6, 1992); Tex. R. App. P. 81(b)(2). We affirm the conviction. THE OFFENSE After receiving a tip that a burglary was in progress at Billy's Bar, three officers discovered that the "burglar bars" covering the front doors, which were usually secured by a padlock and chain, were partially open. The twisted padlock was lying outside of the doors along with several screws that had attached a metal strip to the two front doors. Lying on the floor immediately inside the front doors was a "tire iron" and a metal strip.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6930.html[8/20/2013 7:22:06 PM]

The officers searched the darkened interior of the bar. Finding a door to the men's bathroom locked, they suspected that someone was inside. They identified themselves as officers, told whomever was in the bathroom to come out, but received no reply. Finally, they forced open the door and found Young crouching beside the toilet. He was wearing two gloves on his left hand, pliers were found in his hip pocket, and a screwdriver was lying on the floor nearby. Officers also discovered a plastic garbage bag filled with unopened beer and liquor bottles in a trash can behind the bar's counter. Sitting on top of the counter were a twelve-pack of beer and unopened liquor bottles. Leotia Howard, whose deceased husband owned Billy's Bar when the burglary occurred, testified that Young did not have permission to enter the bar on March 31, 1988, when it was not open to the public. Young did not testify but called John Berry as a witness. Berry testified that in March 1988 he, Young, and another man had remodeled the bar's interior. He claimed that the remodeling was supervised by Henry Harris, who had keys to the bar, and that Young sometimes remained inside the bar when it was closed. Mrs. Howard, who also kept the accounting books for Billy's Bar, further testified that she had reviewed the books, and that no construction work was in progress at the bar on the date of the burglary. Furthermore, she claimed that the records did not reflect that Young was ever hired to do any work at the bar. Young requested to review the records. However, the court erroneously denied his request. It is on this error that we were instructed by the Court of Criminal Appeals to do a harm analysis. HARM ANALYSIS Even though the refusal to allow Young's counsel to examine the records reviewed by Mrs. Howard before she testified resulted in error, no harm occurred. Analysis of harmless error under Rule 81(b)(2) does not require the court to ignore the overwhelming, untainted evidence of the defendant's guilt. In fact, the analytical process requires otherwise: As noted, Rule 81(b)(2) mandates that the appellate court focus upon the error and determine whether it contributed to the conviction or the punishment. Irrespective of the focus of the inquiry, it is impossible to gauge the significance of the error apart from the remaining properly admitted evidence. This approach obviously implicates a review of the evidence, but the concern is solely to trace the impact of the error. The untainted evidence is not to be weighed in its own right, nor is it to be examined to see if it is cumulative with the tainted evidence; it is to be considered only to uncover the potentially damaging ramification of the error. In other words, the impact of the error cannot be properly evaluated without examining its interaction with the other evidence.

Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 585-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Overwhelming evidence of guilt can dissipate an error to the extent that it could not have affected the jury's verdict on guilt or punishment. Id. at 587. Essentially, after isolating the error and viewing it against the backdrop of all of the evidence, the question is whether a rational factfinder might have reached a different result if the error and its effects had not resulted. Id. at 588. Even if the books showed that Young was employed to remodel the bar and that he sometimes stayed at night, could a jury reasonably find him not guilty? To return a not-guilty verdict, the jury would have to totally disregard the overwhelming evidence that is consistent with Young being in the bar illegally. He was locked inside a bathroom in the darkened interior of the bar. Police had to force open the door to arrest him. He was in possession of tools that could have been used to break through the front doors of the bar. Evidence of the entry through the front doors is wholly inconsistent with a legal entry of the building. Moreover, evidence that liquor and beer bottles were in a plastic sack inside a trash can is consistent with police having interrupted a burglary in progress. When placed in the context of the entire record which includes overwhelming evidence that Young was guilty of burglary of the building the assumed error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To conclude otherwise would ignore the reality of the record. Affirmed. BOB L. THOMAS Chief Justice
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6930.html[8/20/2013 7:22:06 PM]

Before Chief Justice Thomas, Justice Cummings, and Justice Vance Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed October 30, 1992 Publish

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6930.html[8/20/2013 7:22:06 PM]

Download 6930.pdf