Opinion
05-23-00278-CR
06-20-2024
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 230278F.U05
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 21-10703-86-F
Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARICELA BREEDLOVE JUSTICE
Appellant Charles Franklin Turner was convicted of murder after a jury trial and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. In two issues, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting State's Exhibit 16, a Ring video depicting appellant and the victim at the scene of the murder; and (2) overruling defense counsel's objections to the admission of hearsay extraneous offense evidence. We conclude the trial court did not err in admitting the complained-of evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
On July 24, 2021, appellant and his wife Lashunda Turner drove from Louisiana to Forney, Texas, to stay overnight with Lashunda's childhood friend, Nathalie Terry, and her husband, Chinkino. At some point during the evening, the Terrys asked the Turners to leave because they were arguing. Appellant and his wife left but returned about an hour later. According to footage from a neighbor's Ring video, the Turners were still arguing when they returned.
Nathalie was awakened by Lashunda knocking on her door and ringing her doorbell. She was frantic and scared and told Nathalie, "Charles is out here beating on me." Nathalie told Lashunda to come inside and call the police, and woke her husband up and told him what was happening. Chinkino went out to attempt to calm appellant down, but appellant had already driven away. He returned in about ten minutes, and the women came outside. At one point, Lashunda told appellant, "Put that damn knife up; ain't nobody going to shoot you."
Chinkino came outside while Lashunda and appellant were still arguing. He got into appellant's car, but a minute later both men exited the car and argued. They parted, but then Chinkino walked back toward appellant, and, as the men began arguing again, appellant fatally stabbed Chinkino.
Chinkino sustained multiple stab wounds as deep as 4 3/8 inches. He was stabbed with appellant's knife which he kept in a sheath on his belt. Lashunda asked appellant why he had stabbed Chinkino, and appellant replied, "He pushed me." Appellant also suffered injuries, including to his lower lip, as well as apparent knife cuts across his right palm, right fingers, and near his left thumb. At trial, appellant argued self-defense and testified that those were defensive wounds. Appellant testified that Chinkino attacked him, grabbing the knife out of his sheath and attempting to stab appellant while appellant put his hands up to defend himself. Appellant testified that he was able to get his knife back from Chinkino and stabbed him.
Appellant was charged with murder. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(2). The case was tried to a jury, who found appellant guilty. Appellant pled true to two enhancement paragraphs, and the jury assessed punishment at 40 years in prison. Appellant filed a Motion for New Trial, which was denied. This appeal followed.
Standard of Review
Appellant challenges the trial court's decisions to admit evidence in both issues. We review the trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Cameron v. State, 241 S.W.3d 15, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). An appellate court will not reverse if the decision to admit is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Tillman v. State¸ 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The erroneous admission of evidence is non-constitutional error. Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). We may not reverse for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as a whole, we have fair assurance the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Id. Where the challenged evidence is cumulative of other evidence that was properly admitted, any error in admission is harmless. Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Infante v. State, 404 S.W.3d 656, 663-64 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).
Discussion
Issue 1: Admission of Ring Video
We first address the trial court's admission of State's Exhibit 16, a Ring video depicting the events leading up to Chinkino's murder. Appellant argues that the State did not produce sufficient evidence necessary to authenticate the video. The State argues in response that this issue is not preserved for our review because appellant's objection before the trial court does not comport with appellant's issue on appeal.
To preserve error for appeal, a party must present a timely and specific objection to the trial court and obtain the court's ruling on that objection. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1. Furthermore, the complaint on appeal must comport with the objection at trial. Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). On appeal appellant argues that State's Exhibit 16 should have been excluded because it was not properly authenticated. At trial, appellant's counsel objected to the video on multiple fronts, including speculation, hearsay, relevance, lack of personal knowledge, and undue prejudice. Appellant does not object to the video on authentication grounds. Therefore, appellant has waived this issue on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. We overrule appellant's first issue.
Issue 2: Admission of Extraneous Offense Evidence
Having concluded that appellant's first issue was not properly preserved, we turn to appellant's second issue. In this issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting a hearsay statement made by appellant's wife, Lashunda Turner, to the deceased's wife, Nathalie Terry. Terry testified at trial that less than half an hour before the murder, Turner told her that "Charles is beating on me." Appellant argues that this statement was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, inadmissible hearsay and violates the Confrontation Clause.
Assuming without deciding the trial court erred by admitting the complained-of statement, we conclude any error is harmless. The erroneous admission of evidence is non-constitutional error. Foster v. State, 525 S.W.3d 898, 909 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2017, pet. ref'd) (citing Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). Accordingly, any error must be disregarded unless it affected appellant's substantial rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b). Substantial rights are not affected if, after examining the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect. Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 909 (citing Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)).
In assessing the likelihood the jury's decision was adversely affected by the error, we consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury's consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, and how the error might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case. Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 909 (citing Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444-45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). We examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence. Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 909 (citing Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280).
We have examined the record and have a "fair assurance" the admission of the complained-of evidence did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect. Appellant complains the admission of this evidence might have "bolstered the State's case that appellant was an 'unjustified aggressor.'" But, as appellant implicitly concedes in his brief, the State presented other properly admitted evidence supporting its theory that appellant was an unjustified aggressor, including testimony and video evidence of appellant acting aggressively toward his wife earlier in the evening coupled with the number and depth of the victim's wounds. Because this evidence was cumulative of other evidence properly admitted, any error in admitting the statement was harmless. See Brooks, 990 S.W.2d at 287; Infante, 404 S.W.3d at 663-64. Accordingly, we conclude any error did not affect the jury or had but slight effect on its verdict. We overrule appellant's second issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.