Dimitrius A. George v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 1, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-00420-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00420-CR

DIMITRIUS A. GEORGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180^th District Court

Harris  County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1079958

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant, Dimitrius A. George, guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced him to ten years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 22.02 (Vernon 2003).  In appellant=s sole issue, he argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not object to hearsay statements as testimonial under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).  We disagree.

Factual and Procedural Background

The jury in appellant=s trial heard the testimony of multiple witnesses regarding the alleged aggravated assault occurring on August 2, 2006 at a Mobil gas station in Houston, Texas.  Of particular importance to this appeal is the testimony of Houston Police Officer Michael Thacker.  Officer Thacker was the first police officer to respond to 9-1-1 telephone calls made by the complainant, Edna Jacobs. Officer Thacker=s testimony relayed witness Mark Prince=s statements about the circumstances at the scene of the alleged offense.  Mark Prince did not testify at trial.   

 The complainant, Edna Jacobs, testified that her daughter, Dominique Jacobs, and appellant had been dating for approximately five or six years and have a two-year-old daughter together.  The complainant told the jury that she and appellant did not have an amicable relationship due to the way appellant treated her daughter, Dominique.  On August 1, 2006, the day before the events in question, appellant and Dominique engaged in an argument where appellant allegedly hit Dominique, giving her a black eye.  The next morning, August 2, 2006, Dominique and her mother, the complainant, went to the police station to press charges against appellant for assaulting Dominique.

After returning from the police station, Dominique and the complainant stopped by the local neighborhood Mobil gas station to refill the complainant=s car with gas.  When the complainant walked inside to pay for the gas, she saw appellant in the store.  Appellant demanded to know whether the complainant or Dominique had filed charges against him for his actions the night before.  After appellant noticed Dominique standing outside the store, appellant charged towards Dominique and began yelling at her and asking her whether she had pressed charges against him.  The complainant followed appellant outside the store and told appellant that Dominique had pressed charges against him.  Appellant and complainant got into a heated argument.  The complainant attempted to call 9-1-1 from her cellular phone.  While waiting for the 9-1-1 operator to answer, the complainant asked other patrons of the Mobil station if they knew the station=s address, so she could inform the 9-1-1 operator.  Eventually, Mark Prince told complainant the address.  Appellant, apparently angered by Prince=s assistance, punched Prince in the eye.  Appellant and the complainant continued to argue, until appellant became so enraged that he threw his bicycle through Prince=s car windshield.  There is some conflicting testimony, but after throwing the bicycle, appellant allegedly ran around the corner of the Mobil station.  Prince told Officer Thacker that he chased appellant around the corner and appellant pulled out a weapon and shot several times in the air.  The complainant testified that appellant ran around the corner of the store, came back a few minutes later, and began shooting a firearm in her direction.  Soon after the gunshots were fired, appellant fled the scene and Officer Thacker arrived. 

When Officer Thacker arrived at the Mobil station he immediately noticed that Prince was bleeding.  Prince told Officer Thacker that while he was at the Mobil station, the complainant had come running up to him asking for directions to the Mobil station.  Prince told Officer Thacker that after responding to complainant with the address, appellant punched Prince in the eye and threw a bicycle into Prince=s car windshield.  Prince told Officer Thacker that he chased after appellant, and that appellant pulled out a weapon and shot several times in the air. 

At trial, Officer Thacker testified to what Prince told him.  Appellant=s counsel objected to Officer Thacker=s testimony as hearsay.  The trial court sustained counsel=s initial objection to hearsay.  The State responded by arguing it had laid the foundation for the excited utterance exception to hearsay.  The trial court agreed with the State and allowed Officer Thacker to tell the jury Prince=s version of the events. 

The jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault and assessed punishment at ten years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.  This appeal followed.

Discussion

In appellant=s sole issue on appeal, he argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Specifically, appellant argues his trial counsel should have objected to Officer Thacker=s hearsay statements under the ACrawford line of cases@ as being testimonial.^[1]  Appellant notes counsel did object to the testimony as inadmissible hearsay, but that the trial court overruled his objection under the excited utterance exception.^[2]  Appellant argues counsel should have made a second objection under Crawford.  The relevant part of the record reads as follows:

THE STATE:                   When you arrived [at the Mobil station], were there any people there to meet you?

OFFICER THACKER:      Yes, ma=am.

THE STATE:                   And who were those people?

OFFICER THACKER:      The complainant that got hit and then two witnesses.^[3]

THE STATE:                   And who are B what are those people=s names?

OFFICER THACKER:      The complainant was Mark Prince and the witness was Dominique Jacobs and Edna Jacobs.

THE STATE:                   And did you see all of those people there when you got there?

THE STATE:                   Can you describe to the jury what those people looked like when you got there?

OFFICER THACKER:      Well, the male, Mark Prince, he had a cut on his eye.  And he was walking around telling that B you know, somebody B

DEFENSE COUNSEL:     Objection, hearsay.

THE STATE:                   You can=t say what anybody said.

OFFICER THACKER:      Okay.

THE STATE:                   Just what did they look like?  He had a cut on his eye?

OFFICER THACKER:      He had a cut on his eye and he was bleeding.

THE STATE:                   Was he calm or was he upset?

OFFICER THACKER:      He was excited.

THE STATE:                   And from what you understood, did you understand that the incident had just occurred?

THE STATE:                   And so he was excited and when you went up to him, what did he tell you?

DEFENSE COUNSEL:     Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE STATE:                   Judge, we have laid the predicate for the excited utterance.

THE COURT:                  I will allow it.

OFFICER THACKER:      He just stated to me that female came up to him in the parking lot asking directions and then all of a sudden, this young male come running up, started yelling, screaming, hit him in the eye, picked up a bicycle, threw it into his windshield and took off running around the store.

THE STATE:                   Okay. Did you see a bicycle there?

OFFICER THACKER:      Yes, ma=am, there was one there.

THE STATE:                  And where B did you see his windshield?

THE STATE:                   Had it been damaged?

THE STATE:                   Did he tell you that he saw anything else that day at the Mobil station?

OFFICER THACKER:      He said B

THE COURT:                  Sustained.

THE STATE:                   When he was continuing to talk to you, was he still upset?

THE STATE:                   Was this all in the same conversation when he told you what else had happened?

THE STATE:                   Okay.  And he was still excited?

THE STATE:                   And then what did he tell you?

OFFICER THACKER:      He stated to me that he started to chase after the suspect and as he went around the corner of the store, the suspect pulled a weapon and shot several times in the air.  And he stopped, went back and called the police.

Appellant contends his trial counsel should have made further objections to Officer Thacker=s testimony and that his failure to do so resulted in appellant being deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective representation. 

I.        Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Before this court may conclude counsel was ineffective for failure to make an objection, appellant must show the trial court would have erred in overruling the objection.  See Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Jagaroo v. State,180 S.W.3d 793, 800 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref=d) (trial counsel=s failure to object did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel where objection would have been futile); Edmond v. State, 116 S.W.3d 110, 115 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref=d) (trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to make a frivolous objection); Cooper v. State, 707 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref=d) (failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance of counsel).  In this case, the trial court would have erred in overruling appellant=s objection under Crawford if Officer Thacker=s hearsay statements were testimonial.  However, if the statements were not testimonial, the trial court would not have erred in overruling an objection under Crawford and appellant cannot show counsel=s performance was deficient.  Therefore, we must address whether the hearsay statements were testimonial under Crawford.

We review a constitutional legal ruling, i.e. whether a statement is testimonial or nontestimonial, de novo.  Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  This is particularly so because the legal ruling of whether a statement is testimonial under Crawford is determined by the standard of an objectively reasonable declarant standing in the shoes of the actual declarant.  Id. 

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees that, A[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.@  U.S. Const. amend. VI.  In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause Awould not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross examination.@  Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53B54.  In the instant case, appellant did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine Prince.  The Crawford Court declined to define the term Atestimonial@ but indicated that, at a minimum, the term encompasses certain categories of statements, including those Ataken by police officers in the course of interrogations.@  Id. at 52.  However, two years after Crawford the Supreme Court held that some statements that result from police interrogation are nevertheless nontestimonial.  Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2006).  The Court expounded on this idea as follows:

Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.  They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. 

Id. at 822.  Thus, we must determine whether circumstances were present when Prince spoke with Officer Thacker that would objectively indicate the existence of an ongoing emergency.  See Vinson v. State, 252 S.W.3d 336, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).  In deciding this question, we review the totality of the circumstances and may consider several non-exclusive factors, including:

(1) whether the event was still ongoing;

(2) whether the questions sought to determine what was presently happening, as opposed to what had happened in the past;

(3) whether the primary purpose of the questioning was to render aid, and not simply memorialize a possible crime;

(4) whether the questioning was conducted in an environment that was tranquil and safe; and

(5) whether the events were deliberately retold in a step-by-step fashion. 

Id. at 339 (citing Davis, 547 U.S. at 827); Dixon v. State, 244 S.W.3d 472, 482 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref=d). 

II.       Analysis

Officer Thacker was the first police officer to arrive at the scene.  There is testimony from the complainant that Officer Thacker arrived approximately three or four minutes after the gun shots were fired.  At the time Officer Thacker arrived, appellant=s whereabouts were unknown to Prince or Officer Thacker.  The record reflects appellant was likely traveling by footBhis former mode of transportation, namely his bicycle, had been thrown through Prince=s car windshield.  Prince=s eye was bleeding and he appeared upset.  Officer Thacker testified that he understood the incident had just taken place.  There is nothing in the record reflecting that Officer Thacker probed or pushed Prince for details about the incident.  In Vinson, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that statements made before the appellant had been secured by the police were nontestimonial because the police officer was  still assessing the situation and therefore an emergency situation was ongoing.  Vinson, 252 S.W.3d at 339B40.  However, statements made after the appellant had been secured were held testimonial.  Id. at 341B42.  In Dixon, we held statements were nontestimonial where the hearsay statements were elicited by a 9-1-1 operator trying to determine whether the declarant was in need of medical assistance or was in danger of a continuing threat.  Dixon, 244 S.W.3d at 485.  The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held where an officer=s preliminary questions were motivated by a need to secure the scene, the declarant=s response was nontestimonial.  Martinez v. State, 236 S.W.3d 361, 375 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2007, pet. dism=d).

In the case at bar, Prince=s statements to Officer Thacker were made to inform Officer Thacker about the status of the incident.  Neither Prince nor any  other witnesse knew where appellant was, but they were aware he had a loaded firearm.  Because appellant had destroyed his mode of transportation, it was likely he had not gone far and could still be in the immediate area, posing a threat to the safety of everyone at the Mobil station.  Officer Thacker was not questioning Prince about specifics of the crime.  Rather, he was  listening to determine what needed to be done to secure the scene.  Accordingly, we hold Prince=s statements to Officer Thacker were nontestimonial in nature. 

Because the hearsay statements admitted at trial were nontestimonial, an objection under Crawford would not have been successful.  We cannot conclude counsel was ineffective for failing to make an objection where appellant has failed to show the trial court would have erred in overruling the objection.  See Jagaroo, 180 S.W.3d at 800.  Accordingly, we overrule appellant=s sole issue on appeal.  

Conclusion

Having overruled appellant=s sole issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

/s/      John S. Anderson

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Guzman, and Boyce.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]  In Crawford, the Supreme Court held that Atestimonial@ hearsay statements are inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable and there has been an opportunity for cross-examination.  Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53B54.

^[2]  See Tex. R. Evid. 803(2), which reads, AA statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition@ is not excluded by the hearsay rule, regardless of whether the declarant testifies as a witness. 

^[3]  Although Officer Thacker refers to Mark Prince as the complainant, the actual complainant in this case is Edna Jacobs.  Mark Prince was a witness to the events in question and his statements to Officer Thacker are the basis of this appeal.