Charles Edward West v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Charles Edward West v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 1, 2013·No. 01-12-00482-CR·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 1, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-12-00482-CR ——————————— CHARLES EDWARD WEST, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1328522

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Charles Edward West, was charged with capital murder of an

individual under six years of age.1 A jury convicted him of the lesser-included

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.02(b)(1), 19.03(a)(8) (Vernon 2011 & Supp. 2012). offense of serious bodily injury to a child 2 and assessed his punishment at fifty-five

years’ confinement. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court

abused its discretion in “admitting autopsy photographs over objection when the

photos were gruesome and the probative value nominal.”

We affirm.

Background

The complainant, J.W., was the two-year-old son of appellant’s girlfriend,

Tiffany Williams. On December 14, 2010, paramedics arrived at the apartment

appellant and Williams shared to discover J.W. unconscious. He was transported

to a local hospital and declared dead, and an autopsy was performed the next day.

The autopsy revealed that J.W. had suffered numerous bruises and rib fractures and

that his death was caused by multiple blunt force trauma.

The police interviewed Williams following the autopsy, and she told officers

that appellant, after being alone with J.W. for several minutes, came out of the

bedroom and told her that he “hit the baby too hard.” Subsequently, appellant

made a statement to police that he and J.W. were playing rough, but he did not

intentionally hurt J.W. Appellant later admitted to wrestling with J.W. and stated

that he might have fallen on J.W. or hit him too hard, but he again insisted that he

never intentionally hurt J.W.

2 See id. § 22.04(a) (Vernon Supp. 2012). 2 At trial, Williams testified that she had observed previous incidents of

appellant abusing J.W. She stated that appellant would punch J.W. in the chest to

make him stop crying and that, on one occasion, appellant struck J.W. with a

wooden paddle hard enough to draw blood.

The medical examiner, Dr. Darshan Phatak, testified that he found multiple

recent contusions and abrasions on J.W.’s body, including twenty-nine bruises on

his torso alone, and that several of the bruises on J.W.’s face and torso were

consistent with being “repeatedly punched.” Dr. Phatak determined that two of the

injuries discovered during the autopsy were capable of causing J.W.’s death. J.W.

sustained a laceration to his liver that caused severe blood loss, and he had a head

injury that resulted in a subdural hemorrhage. Regarding the head injury, Dr.

Phatak testified that “you don’t get a good idea of how hard the force is that

impacts the body until you see what might have been damaged inside.” He further

testified that he observed hemorrhaging under J.W.’s scalp and on his brain, and

that observing the injuries below the surface of the scalp is a better indicator of the

strength of the blow.

The State offered exhibits 90 and 91—eight-by-ten inch colored photographs

of J.W.’s scalp and brain taken during the autopsy—as demonstrating the injuries

Dr. Phatak observed “in [his] determination of the strength of the blow as well as

whether this was an accident or not.” Appellant objected that the photographs had

3 no probative value and that any probative value was “outweighed by the damage of

the photographs.” The trial court overruled the objection, stating, “The Court, after

a 403 balancing test, determined that the probative value of the jury understanding

the nature of the injury and whatever force was necessary outweighs the prejudicial

value and they are admitted.”

Dr. Phatak went on to testify that the hemorrhages demonstrated in the

photographs indicated “strong” force was used to strike J.W. He testified that the

bruising was not consistent with an accidental fall or with a grown man falling on

top of J.W. He stated that the force required to cause the laceration to J.W.’s liver

was the equivalent of a boxer throwing a punch. Dr. Phatak stated that the degree

of trauma demonstrated by the brain injury and liver injury did not indicate

accidental and unintentional injury, but instead indicated that J.W. had been beaten

to death. The State admitted a total of twenty-six photographs of J.W. taken during

the medical examiner’s autopsy, which Dr. Phatak used to testify about the

multiple injuries J.W. sustained at or near the time of his death.

Admission of Autopsy Photographs

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in

admitting the two autopsy photographs depicting J.W.’s skull and brain. He argues

that the photographs were “particularly gruesome” and that the “gruesomeness of

the photographs far outweigh[s] any possible probative value the photographs may

4 have.” Thus, he argues that they should have been excluded under Rule of

Evidence 403. Appellant also argues that the photographs were “cumulative and

bolstering of the medical examiner’s testimony.

We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse

of discretion. Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see

also Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757, 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“The

admissibility of a photograph is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless the ruling falls outside the zone

of reasonable disagreement. Torres, 71 S.W.3d at 760. We will not disturb a trial

court’s evidentiary ruling if it is correct on any theory of law applicable to that

ruling. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. TEX. R. EVID. 401. Evidence

is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than

it would be without the evidence.” Id. Generally, a photograph is admissible if

verbal testimony as to matters depicted in the photograph is also admissible.

Gallo, 239 S.W.3d at 762 (holding that fact that jury also heard testimony

regarding matter depicted in photograph “does not reduce the relevance of the

visual depiction”).

5 Rule of Evidence 403 provides that evidence, although relevant, “may be

excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of

undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” TEX. R. EVID. 403.

Rule 403 “favors the admission of relevant evidence and carries a presumption that

relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial.” Gallo, 239 S.W.3d at

762. A proper Rule 403 analysis includes, but is not limited to, the following

factors: (1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the potential to impress the jury

in some irrational, yet indelible way; (3) the time needed to develop the evidence;

and (4) the proponent’s need for the evidence. Prible v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI