Henry Lee Givens v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 17, 2005
• Docket: 06-04-00143-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-04-00143-CR

HENRY LEE GIVENS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 31709-B

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            When Henry Lee Givens struck his common-law wife, Detosha Cox, in the mouth during an argument, it was not the first time he had hit her or some other woman. Having previously been convicted for assaulting Cox, Givens stood trial for third-degree felony assault causing bodily injury to a family member. After a Gregg County jury convicted Givens and recommended a sentence of ten years' confinement, the trial court sentenced him accordingly.

            On appeal, Givens asserts that the trial court's charge to the jury erroneously contained an instruction that the jury could consider extraneous offenses for the purpose of determining Givens' intent and that the trial court egregiously harmed him in responding to a jury note during jury deliberations on Givens' punishment. We hold (1) the trial court's charge was proper, and (2) the trial court's response to the jury note was not egregiously harmful. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

(1) The Trial Court's Charge Was Proper

            During trial, evidence was introduced that Givens had assaulted Cox on numerous other occasions and that she had obtained a protective order against him. Cox also testified that Givens had written "kill" in fingernail polish on her mirror and that he had stuck a knife in her coffee table holding a note saying he was not playing.

            The trial court charged the jury that it could consider evidence of extraneous offenses only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that Givens had committed the offenses and, if so, could consider that evidence only to determine Givens' intent. Givens did not object to the charge. Because no objection was made to the charge, no error was preserved. Therefore, we are to reverse only if there was error in the charge that resulted in egregious harm. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d at 172.

            We first examine the record to determine whether any error occurred. Here, the instruction was a proper statement of law. See Ex parte Varelas, 45 S.W.3d 627, 631–32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Evidence of Givens' other bad acts was admitted in trial; and, to prove the offense charged, the State had to show he caused injury to Cox intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01 (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005). The instruction was not erroneous.

            Even if the instruction had been erroneous, we do not see how a proper statement of law could deny Givens a "fair and impartial trial," "go to the very basis of the case," "deprive the defendant of a 'valuable right,'" or "vitally affect his defensive theory." See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172. We overrule Givens' first point of error.

(2) The Trial Court's Response to the Jury Note Was Not Egregiously Harmful

            While deliberating on Givens' punishment, the jury sent a note to the trial court asking, "What happens if he is fined and he can't pay?" The trial court wrote beneath the jurors' question, "NOTHING!"

            Givens argues that the trial court's answer "essentially told the jury to disregard one-half of the range of punishment" and amounted to an improper judicial comment on the weight of the evidence. According to Givens, the trial court's "emphatic" answer to the jury's note "conveyed the trial court's feelings on punishment." By using all capital letters and the exclamation point, the trial court unnecessarily emphasized its response and may have communicated more than the word "nothing," alone, would communicate.

            Conduct by a trial court constitutes a comment on the weight of the evidence if the comment is reasonably calculated to either benefit the State or to prejudice the rights of the defendant. Marks v. State, 617 S.W.2d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). While the trial court's emphatic response could have been meant to communicate frustration with the jury question itself, it could also be understood to disfavor a fine and thus favor imprisonment, the two main options available to the jury in assessing Givens' punishment. Therefore, we will review it as error.

            The reporter's record contains no contemporaneous discussion concerning the jury's note, the trial court's answer to it, or any objection to the answer. Therefore, we will presume that the trial court's response to the note was in open court, in Givens' presence, and that he had an opportunity to object. See Green v. State, 912 S.W.2d 189, 192–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

            Where the trial court responds substantively to a jury question during deliberations, that communication essentially amounts to an additional or supplemental jury instruction. Brooks v. State, 967 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). Stating that "nothing" would happen to Givens if a fine were not paid is essentially a statement of law and thus an instruction to the jury. Even if such is the case and even if it is error, such judicial statement must be met with a timely objection by the defendant. Id. Where not objected to, an appellant's claim of error in the jury charge must demonstrate egregious harm. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172; Brooks, 967 S.W.2d at 950 (citing Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532, 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). Both parties address this issue as one that calls for an Almanza egregious-harm analysis. We agree and, therefore, consider whether the trial court's response denied Givens a "fair and impartial trial," went "to the very basis of the case," "deprive[d him] of a 'valuable right,'" or "vitally affect[ed] his defensive theory." See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172. We hold it did not.

            Givens testified at the punishment phase that he had previously pled guilty to another assault, a family violence charge involving another girlfriend, and that he had made his living selling drugs. Cox testified Givens had not had a job in the five years she had known him, and Givens himself testified that he made his living selling crack cocaine. The record contains evidence of numerous prior offenses admitted to by Givens on the stand and the testimony of Cox regarding Givens' beating her on more than twenty occasions. 

            Givens was not eligible for community supervision. Evidence was admitted of his 1996 conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. He does not claim, and we see no record, that he filed an application for community supervision or an affidavit that he was eligible for such. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 4(e) (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005). Therefore, on Givens' conviction, some period of incarceration was required. Evidence was also adduced of his seven other misdemeanor convictions. Evidence was introduced of his unruly behavior in the county jail including spitting on jailers, his combative nature which required restraints, trying to hang himself with a shoe lace, and possession of marihuana in jail.

            In closing arguments, neither counsel for Givens nor the State made any mention of imposing a fine as part of Givens' punishment. Givens' attorney did elicit testimony from Cox, during the punishment trial, that she did not want Givens to go to prison and that she was not afraid of him. To the jury, however, Givens' counsel asked for a sentence of four years, the State, ten.

            The trial court's response to the jury's note did not cause Givens egregious harm: the court's response did not vitally affect his defensive theory or go to the basis of the punishment trial. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171. As a fine was never addressed by Givens, the trial court's answer did not directly affect the essential dispute in the case, or disturb the basis of the defense theory. See Brooks, 967 S.W.2d 950. Givens was not egregiously harmed.

            We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          June 28, 2005

Date Decided:             August 18, 2005

Do Not Publish