Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-25-2021
Case Style:
Marcus Demond Parrish v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 10-20-00084-CR
Judge: JOHN E. NEILL
Court: IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Sterling A. Harmon
Barry N. Johnson
Gabriel Price
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Waco, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Marcus Demond Parrish with an Assault charge.
In his first issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred by excusing a State’s
witness from “the Rule” because the State did not establish that the witness’s presence
was essential. We disagree.
A. Applicable Law
Texas Rule of Evidence 614, otherwise referred to as “the Rule,” provides for the
exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom during trial. See id. The purpose of Rule 614
is to prevent the testimony of one witness from influencing the testimony of another.
Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Once Rule 614 is invoked,
witnesses are instructed by the trial court that they cannot converse with one another or
with any other person about the case, except with permission from the trial court, and
the trial court must exclude witnesses from the courtroom during the testimony of other
witnesses. TEX. R. EVID. 614; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.06.
However, Rule 614 does not authorize the exclusion of certain witnesses. See TEX.
R. EVID. 614. In criminal cases, those witnesses are,
(1) a defendant who is a natural person, the representative of a defendant who
is not a natural person, (2) a person whose presence a party shows to be
essential to the presentation of the party’s case, and (3) a victim if the court
does not determine that the victim’s testimony would be materially affected
by hearing other testimony.
Parrish v. State Page 3
Russell, 155 S.W.3d at 180 (citing TEX. R. EVID. 614). In particular, the Court of Criminal
Appeals has held that a trial court is vested with discretion and may permit expert
witnesses to be exempt from “the Rule,” so they may hear other witnesses testify and
then base their opinions on such testimony. Lewis v. State, 486 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1972); see Martinez v. State, 867 S.W.2d 30, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Caron v. State,
162 S.W.3d 614, 618 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). “Under Rule 614, a
party has the burden to show that its witness is one of those whose exclusion from the
courtroom is not authorized by that Rule.” Russell, 155 S.W.3d at 180 (citing Moore v.
State, 882 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)).
B. Discussion
Prior to appellant’s testimony during the guilt-innocence phase of trial, appellant
objected to the presence of Detective Michelle Starr of the Waco Police Department in the
courtroom during his testimony, arguing that she is a fact witness in the case because she
was the detective on the case, and because she drafted and signed the arrest-warrant
affidavit. The State responded that Detective Starr had been designated as an expert in
Assault Family Violence and that her presence was necessary to “observe the way
[appellant] answers the questions and—and the way he behaves in the courtroom to be
able to testify to that,” especially with regard to relationships between “assault family
violence victims and perpetrators.”
Parrish v. State Page 4
As noted above, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the trial court is
vested with discretion and may permit expert witnesses to be exempt from “the Rule” so
they may hear other witnesses testify and then base their opinions on such testimony. See
Martinez, 867 S.W.2d at 40; Lewis, 486 S.W.2d at 106; see also Caron, 162 S.W.3d at 618.
Therefore, in line with these cases, we find no abuse of discretion.1
The purpose
articulated by the State regarding Detective Starr’s testimony—allowing a domestic
violence expert to take appellant’s testimony into account when offering her opinion—
falls within the exemptions provided for in the rule. See TEX.R.EVID. 614; see also Martinez,
867 S.W.2d at 39-40; Lewis, 486 S.W.2d at 106; Caron, 162 S.W.3d at 618; see also Garcia v.
State, No. 01-17-00171-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1184, at **15-16 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Feb. 13, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)2
; Gonzales v.
1 We also note that appellant seeks to reverse his conviction based on this issue; however, the record
reflects that the State never called Detective Starr as a rebuttal witness. Rather, Detective Starr was called
to testify at punishment. Therefore, even if the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Detective Starr
to remain in the courtroom over appellant’s invocation of “the Rule,” the relief sought could not be granted
based on this record.
2
In fact, the fact scenario in this case is substantially similar to that in Garcia v. State, No. 01-17-
00171-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1184, at **15-16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 13, 2018, pet. ref’d)
(mem. op., not designated for publication), where the First Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion
where the State argued the following regarding appellant’s attempt to exclude a State’s witness from the
courtroom under Rule 614:
Your Honor, the State’s here to put on the record that we would like to have our expert
witness, Kapriva Hutchinson, present during the complainant’s testimony. She is
testifying as an expert in domestic violence, and we just ask that she be able to be present
to listen to the testimony so that it can—she can take that into consideration when she puts
forth her expert testimony.
In her testimony, Hutchinson explained that she had met with the complainant three weeks after the
incident and observed the complainant’s trial testimony. Id. at **5-6. Hutchinson then described how
Parrish v. State Page 5
State, Nos. 03-13-00333-CR & 03-13-00334-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5869, at *6 (Tex.
App.—Austin June 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“We
believe the purpose articulated by the State—providing expert testimony based upon
observations of the children’s testimony to explain exhibited behaviors not readily
understood by those not familiar with the dynamics of child sexual abuse—is consistent
with the exception provided for in the Rule.”). As such, we overrule appellant’s first
issue.
II. THE JURY’S REQUESTS FOR TESTIMONY
In his second issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred by providing the
jury with a partial transcript of testimony where the jury did not specifically state they
had a disagreement about the testimony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.28.
A. Applicable Law
Article 36.28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, in relevant part, that:
In the trial of a criminal case in a court of record, if the jury disagrees as to
the statement of any witness they may, upon applying to the court, have
read to them from the court reporter’s notes that part of such witness
testimony or the particular point in dispute. . . .
Id. If the trial court determines that the jury’s request is proper under article 36.28, the
trial court must then interpret the request and decide which portions of the testimony
will best answer the request. Brown v. State, 870 S.W.2d 53, 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
victims of domestic violence may minimize, normalize, or deny the violence to cope with it, which may
serve as an explanation for why the complainant recanted. Id. at *6.
Parrish v. State Page 6
We will not disturb a trial judge’s decision under article 36.28 unless a clear abuse of
discretion and harm are shown. Id.
B. Discussion
In the instant case, the jury sent multiple notes to the trial judge. In one note, the
forewoman of the jury requested, “Transcripts of Susie [the complainant] on the stand.”
Thereafter, the trial judge sent the following instruction:
Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury:
. . .
With reference to your request, you are instructed that the law does
not permit a general re-reading of the testimony of any witness or
witnesses, and in this connection you are instructed that the law in this
regard provides as follows:
In the Trial of any criminal case in any District Court of this State if
the jury disagrees as to the statement of any witness, they may, upon
applying to the Court, have read to them from the court reporter’s notes
that part of such witness’ testimony on the particular point in dispute, and
no other.
Unless the jury has disagreed upon some part of the testimony under
the above law, you are not entitled to have any of the testimony re-read, but
if you have disagreed upon any point or points in the testimony, you will
so state to the Court in writing, and point out in writing the point or points
upon which you have disagreed, then the Court will have the court reporter
read back to you only the testimony on the point or points in dispute, and
no other, as best such testimony can be selected from the recorded
testimony.
In the event you should state to the Court that you have disagreed
as to the testimony of the witness or witnesses referred to above on any
point or points, and request that the testimony be read back on any point
Parrish v. State Page 7
or points, you are instructed that the court reporter will need sufficient time
to examine all of the testimony of the witness or witnesses in order to get
all of the testimony on the point or points concerning your inquiry and it
will take the court report as long to read the testimony back as it did to put
it on, and in the event you ask for such testimony the Court will request
you to be patient, and allow sufficient time for this to be done in order for
you to get the matters you have requested.
In response to the trial court’s instruction, the forewoman of the jury sent another note
requesting: “Transcript from when Suzie [sic] says she was hurt or felt pain.”
As shown above, the jury initially made a general request for the complainant’s
testimony, which, by itself, was insufficient to reflect a dispute. See TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.
ANN. art. 36.28; see also Moore v. State, 874 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (“A
simple request for testimony does not, by itself, reflect disagreement, implicit or express,
and is not a proper request under Art. 36.28.” (internal citations omitted)). However,
after the trial judge instructed the jury that the testimony would be read back only in the
event of a dispute, the jury provided a more specific request. Similar to Robison v. State,
when the jury’s notes are read together with the corresponding instructions from the trial
court, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by inferring a dispute as to
the complainant’s testimony, as this dispute has a basis other than mere speculation. See
Robison v. State, 888 S.W.2d 473, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (holding that the trial court
was “properly cautious in observing the competing concerns of article 36.28 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure” where “there were three separate requests made by the jury
in determining whether a dispute existed, each becoming increasingly narrow in scope”
Parrish v. State Page 8
and the trial court “clearly informed the jury that testimony would be read back only in
the event of a dispute after each request for information”); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 36.28; Howell v. State, 175 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Although a
simple request for testimony is insufficient to reflect a dispute, a trial judge may, in its
discretion, infer a dispute in a given case. The judge’s inference of dispute need only
have some basis other than mere speculation.”). We therefore overrule appellant’s
second issue.
Outcome: We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: