Griffin, Elgia Jerode ( 2015 )

^5g«/5
No. 09-14-00179-CR
IN THE ORIGINAL
COURT OF APPEALS
NINTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ELGIA JERODE GRIFFIN,Appellant
STATE OF TEXAS/Appellee RECEIVED IH
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
M 19 2015
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Abe! Acosta, Clerk
Elgia Jerode Griffin
FILED IN TDCJ # 1258732
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Michaels Unit
2664 FM 2054
JUN 19 2015
Tennessee Colony ,Texas,75886
Abe! Acosta, Clerk ProSe
John D. Kimbrough
District Attorney
Orange County Courthouse
801 Division Street
Orange,Texas,77630
ORAL ARGUEMENT WAIVED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 38.2
the following is a list of all parties to the appellate court's
judgment from which discretionary review is sought:
PARTIES
1. Elgia Jerode Griffin,Appellant
TDCJ# 1924366
Michaels Unit
2664 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony,Texas,75886
ProSe
2 The State of Texas
COUNSEL:
1_.?- Michael Marion, Counsel for Appellant at Trial
1271 N.Main
Vidor,Texas,77662
2. David BArlow,Counsel for Appellant on Appeal
[ Note above counsel does not represent Appellant on
discretionary review ]
550 Fannin.Ste 710
Beaumont,Texas,77701
3. Phillip C. Smith,Jr.,Counsel for the State of Texas
at Trial and on Appeal
Assistant District Attorney
Orange County Courthouse
801 Division Street
Orange ,Texas,77630
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Identity of Parties .
2. Table of Contents • ••A-i
3. Index of Authorities .B-i-ii
4. Statement of Oral Arguement C-i
5. Statement of Case. .. • D-i-ii
6. Procedural History E-i
7. Gounds for Review F-i-ii
8. Arguement 1-13
GROUND (a) 1-8
GROUND (b) 9-13
9. Prayer 14
10. Certificate of Service 15
j
11. Appendix 16
( Opinion 1 copy only )
A i
TABLE OF CITES / STATUTES
1. Barnett v. State 771 S.W.2d.654 Tex.Crim.App.1989 ....p.11
2. Borton v. State 605 S.W.2d.605 Tex.Crim.App.1980 p.11
3. Brojan v. State 787 S.W.2d.53 Tex.Crim.App.1990 p.6
4. Cain v. State 258 S.W.404 Tex .Crim. App .1997 p.7
5. Carrol v. State 916 S.W.2d 494 Tex.Crim.App.1996 p.4
6. Clewis v. State 992 S.W.2d.l26 Tex.Crim.App..1999. p.8
7. Crivens v. Roth 172 F.3d.991 7th Cir.1999 p.7
8. Davis v. Alaska 415 U.S.308,94 S.CT.1431,1974 p.4
9. Dotey v. State 630 S.W.2d.343 App.3rd.Dist.1982 p.13
10. Everett v. State 707 S.W.2d.638 Tex.Crim.App.1986 .... p.6
11. Harvey v. State 135 S.W.3d.712 Tex.Crim.App.2003 ..p.5
12. Hoyas v. State 980 S.W.2d.419 Tex.Crim.App.1995 p.2,9
13. farr v. State 519 S.W.2d.876 Tex.crim.App.1975 .......p.13
14. Jones v. State 936 S.W.2d.678 Tex.App.Dallas 1996...p.7
15. Kitteson v.Dretke 426 F.3d.5th Cir.2005 p.5
16. Little v. Johnson 162 F.3d.855 5th Cir.1998 ...p.4
17. Lopez v. State 18 S.W.3d 220 Tex.crim App.2000 p.4
18. Lund v. State 336 S.W.3d 848 Tex.Crim.App.-texarkana
3013 p.2,9
19. Montgomery v. State 810 S.W.2d.372 Tex.crim.App.1990..p.2,9
20. Oursburn v. State 259 S.W.3d 159 Tex.crim.App.2008 ...p.11
21. Pointer v. State 85 S .CT .1065 ,1965 p.4
22. Poitier v. State 68 S.W.3d.657 Tex .Crim. App .2002 p:2?9
23. Ramos v. State 245 S.W.3d.410 Tex.crim.App.2008 p.1,9
24. Rivera v. Quarterman 505-F.3d.344 5th Cir.2007 p.5,10
25. Rodriquez v. State 2005 Tex.App.Lexis 7942 @8 Sept.12,2005
...p.7
26. Sandoval v. State 52 S.W.3d 851 Tex.App Houston 1st Dist.
2001. . . '. • • P-6
A i
D. STATEMENT OF CASE
the presented case poses a quandry for the court to decide
between protecting a victims rights versus a fundamental right to
a fair trial with all the facts before the jury.The court musr
further decide if society will no longer accept coercive ,deceptive
tactics from police that leads to false statements being used to
obtain a conviction.Additionally,the trial court's decision to
exclude testimony—that brings into question a complaining witnesses
veracity and the motive,confDDmity and circumstances for that *.:..•
witnesses history for making false:^allegations should not have been
excluded under any ground or procedural bar,regardless of the nature
of the evidence.Thus the court in doing so created a fundamental
error by violating the due process and confrontation clauses
of the United States and Texas Constitutions.The ability to present
before a jury evidence that rebuts the states contention that a
compalining witness is credible and lacks bias or motive to make
false allegations,while at the same time the court allowed the
prosecution to bolster the credibility offthe compalining witness
through the use of 'outcry statements5 and the prosecutions opening
and closing remarks.The court has attempted to justify the exclusions
of the evidence under Texas Rules of Evidence 412 by claiming the
evidence is hearsay,despite having available direct testimony.Further
the Court determ'iiffied that because the evidence referred to the witnesses
sexual promiscuity it was inadmissaDle.However,it was the reactions
of the witness after the sexual promiscuity occured that is probative.
Additionally the Court has incorrectly substituted their
trial strategy by determining thattne appellant could only use the
rebuttal evidence in cross-examination/when in fact the appellant
has the right to call all parties in its case in chief under direct
D i