Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-29-2020

Case Style:

James Dale Mourning v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 02-19-00168-CR

Judge: Elizabeth Kerr

Court: Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph W. Spence
Helena Foret Faulkner

Defendant's Attorney:


Free National Lawyer Directory


OR


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.



Description:

Fort Worth, TX - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant Rodney Dain Doster charged with assault-by-strangulations.



I. Joannie and James’s volatile relationship
Joannie and James shared a tumultuous, drug-and-alcohol-fueled relationship
since the early nineties, including two marriages. After their first divorce in 2000,
Joannie became sober, held down a good job, and was close with her two adult sons,
her daughter-in-law, and her grandchildren.
Unfortunately, Joannie’s life again took a turn for the worse when she and James
reconnected in 2015 and remarried in 2016. At trial, she described how controlling
James became—Joannie was required to work outside the home to pay for their rent,
while James stayed home, did drugs, and invited mistresses over for the day while
Joannie was at work. According to Joannie, this led to arguments over “[d]rugs and
girls,” with James cursing at her and calling her profane names; Joannie told the jury, “I
kind of thought I should have changed my name on my birth certificate to B****.”
Eventually, the abuse became physical. Joannie described the first time James
choked her, testifying, “He came up to me, I was in the kitchen, and he put his hand
3
right here and lifted me up right next to the kitchen counter, the cabinets of the kitchen
and was yelling at me.” Another time, he slapped her when she lent her car to his son,
Jamie; she recalled that the slap was so strong it knocked her to the floor. Joannie
described how James used her car as a means of control: he would often take the car
when she got home and leave her alone at the house, and he would take away her keys
and her phone when they argued.
Joannie recalled finding James with another woman in the mother-in-law cottage
behind their house early one morning. After she confronted James, he kicked her coffee
out of her hand and then followed her into the main house, yelling, “B****, I said get
to work.” James slapped her again—so hard that, according to Joannie, “everything
went black.” Photos of Joannie with a black eye purportedly left by the slap were
admitted and shown to the jury.
The incident giving rise to this prosecution took place in the early morning hours
of July 29, 2017. According to Joannie, James became upset with Joannie after she
attempted to confront one of his mistresses. They argued, and at some point when
James left, Joannie went outside and rummaged through his motorcycle saddlebags
looking for her cell phone; in the process, she took out a couple of his shirts and threw
them on the ground. When she later refused to pick up the shirts, James became
incensed and choked her in their kitchen:
His face was red, and he came up to me - - he came - - I don’t know how
he got there so fast. He came from that point to where I was, and he had
4
his hands up. And when I saw a hand - - his hands, I knew what he was
going to do. And he started choking me.
So I started fighting back. And he had me in a headlock. He got me
down to the ground. And every time I’d try to get up, he’d - - he’d kick
me or put his foot on my chest and say, B****, I said stay down, or, C***,
stay down.
Joannie could not recall how long he choked her or if she lost consciousness, but
she did remember urinating on herself. When she started to get up, James kicked her in
her ribs and put his foot on her chest; when she tried again, he punched her in the nose,
causing an audible pop and a gush of blood. Joannie was also bleeding from a “gash”
on her leg by that point. She remembered that James was more concerned with the
blood on the floor than her well-being and that he told her, “B****, get in there and
wipe your face. Get that blood off your face.”
Joannie averred that James forced her to wash her face before he left her alone,
at which point she took pictures of her injuries because “it was so horrible” and she
“wanted him to see what he did.” The photos, which were admitted and shown to the
jury, show a bruise and cut across the bridge of her nose, a bloody cut on her leg,
bruising on her arms, and the blood-stained tank top and shorts she was wearing during
the fight. Joannie did not call the police that night because she did not want James to
get in trouble and she was not ready to be on her own.
The next evening, Joannie attended her grandchild’s birthday party and told her
son Michael about the previous night’s fight. Michael convinced her to speak to his
longtime friend Fort Worth Police Detective Ryan Nichols, who was also at the party.
5
Detective Nichols recalled at trial that Joannie had a visible black eye, bruising on her
forearms, and “a cut or very severe abrasion” on one leg. He described her as appearing
embarrassed and ashamed and staring at the ground during their conversation,
demeanor he described, based on his experience, as consistent with that of a domesticviolence victim. He encouraged her to file a police report but noted that she “seemed
scared” of retaliation when he described the reporting process because “[s]he had
already [been] told that she would have been hurt if she called the police and filed a
report.”
In the next several days, concerned family and friends requested two welfare
checks on Joannie, but both times Joannie told the responding officers that nothing
was wrong. At trial, she explained that she did so out of fear of retribution by James.
Joannie finally reported the July 29 choking incident on August 8. She met
Officer Thomas Shelton and his partner in a Walmart parking lot, where they took her
written statement and photos of her injuries. Officer Shelton described Joannie as “not
really calm, . . . still fearful” and “hesitant and kind of reluctant.” This did not surprise
Officer Shelton, who described family-violence victims as often being reluctant to speak
with police because they are afraid of what will happen and are afraid to leave their
abuser. Officer Shelton noted that Joannie’s descriptions of the assault to him, to his
partner, and in writing were consistent and included details that led him to find her
credible. He noted her injuries in his report and photos: bruising on her forearms and
6
her hand, a scratch on the bridge of her nose, and a cut and bruising on her left shin.
The photos were admitted and shown to the jury.
II. The arrest and trial
James was arrested and charged with third-degree-felony family-violence assault
by impeding Joannie’s breathing or circulation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 22.01(b)(2)(B). At trial, his defensive strategy was to question Joannie’s credibility by
emphasizing her reunification with James after his arrest, her delay in reporting to
police, and her lack of any visible bruising on her neck despite taking blood thinners
for an unrelated medical condition.
Though they were divorced by the time of trial, Joannie did reunite with James
after his arrest. At trial, she admitted violating a protective order by visiting him in jail,
accepting his calls from jail, and writing him love letters. James persuaded Joannie to
execute an affidavit of nonprosecution in which she recanted her accusations of abuse
and alleged that she had been under the influence of antidepressants and alcohol at the
time of the incident, distorting her memory of what had happened. At trial, she clarified
that this was untrue and that she “knew exactly what was going on” despite being on
antidepressants and illegal drugs. She testified that she filed the affidavit of
nonprosecution because she just wanted him to “straighten up and be the old person
that [she] knew he could be.” She later broke up with James and got sober again in
October 2018.
7
To rebut James’s arguments attacking Joannie’s credibility, such as her reluctance
to report and her affidavit of nonprosecution, the State offered expert testimony by
Kathryn Jacob, an executive at SafeHaven, a local family-violence center. Jacob
described the cycle of abuse and the use of power, control, intimidation, isolation, and
emotional abuse to control the victim. She said it was “very common” for victims to
become withdrawn from their family and reluctant to attend family events, due to a
combination of fear of confrontation, embarrassment, and shame about their abusive
relationship, and she acknowledged that it is “not easy” for victims to speak up about
the abuse.
In Jacob’s experience, most victims did not want the relationship to end—they
just wanted the abuse to stop—and this made them reluctant to report the abuse.
Wanting to keep their partners out of trouble, victims may also be disinclined to reach
out to law enforcement. If victims still love their partners or fear a backlash, they may
keep quiet. They may lie to police to keep themselves safe and hide the abuse. And once
they do report abuse, it is “very common” for victims to bail their abusers out of jail,
reunite with their abusers, and even to execute nonprosecution affidavits. In fact, Jacob
averred that it “takes six to nine attempts for a victim to end the relationship
permanently.”
James also attempted to weaken Joannie’s credibility by pointing to her use of
blood thinners to explain the severity of the bruises on her arms and to undermine her
choking allegation, which, he argues, should have left telltale signs of bruising on her
8
neck. But Joannie testified that the blood thinners caused bruising mostly on her arms
and hands. And Officer Shelton, Detective Nichols, and Nurse Maryann Contreras of
John Peter Smith Hospital testified that an absence of neck bruising is not uncommon
in strangulation cases. Officer Shelton and Detective Nichols both testified to their
direct experience and their knowledge of case studies indicating that choking victims,
even in fatal incidents, do not always sustain visible injuries or bruising to their necks.
This testimony was echoed by Nurse Contreras, who attested to reports in peerreviewed journals that most people do not sustain visible injuries due to strangulations,
even in fatal scenarios.
The jury found James guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years’
incarceration.
Discussion
In his first point, James attacks the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction. In his second, he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing
evidence of his drug-use history as contextual evidence. We disagree with him on both
points.
I. Sufficiency of the evidence
In his argument that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction,
James’s focus is selective: he refers us only to the evidence that he believes undermines
Joannie’s story of the choking incident. But he applies the wrong standard. In our
evidentiary-sufficiency review, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to
9
the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found the crime’s
essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App.
2017).
Applying this standard, the evidence showed that James choked Joannie with his
hands during their July 29 argument, impeding her breath. Joannie’s testimony detailed
the fight, and the jury saw photos of her injuries taken immediately afterward and more
than a week later when she reported the assault. Detective Nichols described seeing her
injuries. Officer Shelton noted the consistency of her verbal and written statements and
believed that she was credible.
James asserts that Joannie’s reluctance to report and her later recantation, her
possible drug and alcohol use on the day of the incident, and her lack of bruising all
undermine her credibility, but it was the jury’s responsibility as the factfinder, not his as
the accused, to resolve any such conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and
to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Queeman, 520 S.W.3d at 622. Nor may we re-evaluate
the evidence’s weight and credibility and substitute our judgment for the factfinder’s.
Queeman, 520 S.W.3d at 622. The jury was free to believe Joannie and to consider
Jacob’s, Officer Shelton’s, Detective Nichols’s, and Nurse Contreras’s additional
10
testimony about how victims respond to domestic violence and about how choking
victims may not exhibit any bruising.
Having evaluated the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and
finding it sufficient to support the conviction, we overrule James’s first point.
II. Evidence of James’s drug use
James argues that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his Rule
404(b) and Article 38.371 objections to evidence of his history of drug abuse. We will
review this complaint for an abuse of discretion and will disturb the trial court’s ruling
only if it is outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. See Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d
457, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). A trial court’s Rule 404(b) ruling admitting an
extraneous transaction is generally within this zone if it is relevant to a material,
nonpropensity issue. Id. (citing Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App.
2001)). We will uphold the trial court’s ruling if it is correct on any applicable legal
theory, even if the trial judge gave the wrong reason for its ruling. Id. (citing Sewell v.
State, 629 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)).
In a pretrial hearing, James’s counsel objected to testimony about his “drug use
and drug history” as “improper 404(b) and character evidence and that [his] drug use
or drug habits do[ not] fall under the Article 38.371 [exception], going to the nature of
the relationship, having anything to do with certain offenses involving family violence.”
The State countered that drug-use evidence was relevant because it was
“contemporaneous to the violent and bad acts committed against [Joannie]”; was
11
evidence of motive, mental state, and the nature of their arguments; and was “almost
contextual to his bad acts and a lot of the problems that were in the home leading up
to the violent acts.” The trial court overruled James’s objection and permitted the State
“to put on evidence of drug use that is contextual to the extraneous crimes or bad acts
committed against [Joannie].”
On appeal, James argues that evidence of his drug history was impermissible
character-conformity evidence and that it was not contextual to the charged offense.
The State argues that James forfeited his complaint because it does not comport with
his objections at trial that the evidence is inadmissible under Rule 404(b) or Article
38.371. We disagree with the State because it misconstrues James’s argument and the
nature of contextual evidence as an exception to Rule 404(b)’s prohibition of
extraneous-offense evidence.
Article 38.371 allows evidence of “all relevant facts and circumstances” that may
assist a trier of fact in a family-violence prosecution, including evidence “regarding the
nature of the relationship between the actor and the alleged victim.” Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 38.371(b). But it does not allow the admission of “character evidence
that would otherwise be inadmissible” under the evidentiary rules. Id. art. 38.371(c). In
turn, Rule 404(b) precludes the admission of evidence of a crime, wrong, or act to prove
a person’s character in order to show the person acted in conformity with that character
on a particular occasion, but it does allow for such evidence to be admitted for “another
purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
12
identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). This list of
examples is not exclusive; for instance, another such exception is “same-transaction
contextual evidence.” Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79, 86–87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Such
evidence is so intertwined with the State’s proof of the charged crime that avoiding
reference to it would make the State’s case incomplete or difficult to understand. See
Devoe, 354 S.W.3d at 470.
Bringing us full circle, Article 38.371(b) provides another such exception by
expressly allowing evidence “regarding the nature of the relationship between the actor
and the alleged victim.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.371(b). James’s history of
drug use—and Joannie’s—gave the jury insight into the nature of their volatile
relationship. As Joannie testified, most of their arguments and issues were a result of
their drug use—she testified that their “drug friends” staying at their home caused
problems, that James was abusing drugs and alcohol when he first assaulted her, that
she did not call the police because there were drugs in the home, and that Joannie was
mad at James on the night of the charged assault in part because of “the drugs.” The
trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by allowing the evidence of James’s
drug abuse as it was relevant to explaining the nature of their relationship. We overrule
James’s second point.

Outcome: Having overruled both of James’s points, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: