Roshawn Jeramaine Crookshank v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1, 2023
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-21-00748-CR
ROSHAWN JERAMAINE CROOKSHANK, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 56th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 19-CR-2247
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Roshawn Jeramaine Crookshank appeals his conviction of
murder. In one issue he contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting
the testimony of a witness. We affirm.
COMPETENCY DETERMINATION
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting the testimony of a witness because she was incompetent to
testify at the time of trial. Appellant further contends that he was harmed by the
testimony because this was the only witness who placed appellant at the scene of
the murder and who testified that appellant was chasing the complainant with a
gun. Appellant argues that without this witness’s testimony, the chances of
appellant being convicted “was far less.”
A. General Legal Principles
We review a trial court’s determination of competency for an abuse of
discretion. Rodriguez v. State, 772 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 1989, pet. ref’d). In reviewing a trial court’s competency determination, we
consider the entire record, including the witness’s trial testimony. Hernandez v.
State, 643 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). The party raising
incompetency has the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, pet.
ref’d).
There is a presumption that a person is competent to testify. Tex. R. Evid.
601(a). Any person “whom the court examines and finds lacks sufficient intellect
to testify concerning the matter in issue” is an incompetent witness. Id. The trial
court must consider the witness’s ability “to observe intelligently the events in
question at the time of their occurrence, plus [she] must have the capacity of
recollection and narration.” Rodriguez, 772 S.W.2d at 170 “The capacity to
narrate involves the ability to understand questions posed and to frame intelligent
answers, and to understand the moral responsibility to tell the truth.” Id. “If a
person afflicted with a physical or mental disability possesses sufficient
intelligence to receive correct impressions of events he sees, retains clear
recollection of them and is able to communicate them through some means, there
2
is no reason for rejecting his testimony.” Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867, 870
(Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
B. Background
At trial and outside of the presence of the jury, appellant requested to take
the witness on voir dire and asked the trial court to conduct a competency
determination. On voir dire, appellant asked the witness whether she understood
why she was there, whether she would testify truthfully, and whether she was able
to understand and answer questions correctly. The witness responded, “Yes, sir,”
to each inquiry. Appellant asked no further questions. The court then conducted
its examination:
The Court: Okay, so the issues in determining competency of a
witness to testify include the witness’s ability to perceive, recall and
recount accurately the event in question. Let me just ask you, you
know they’re going to ask you some question - -
The Witness: I know how to answer the question back.
The Court: And do you remember the event?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And will you be able to tell us about that event?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Okay, then it’s the Court’s opinion that the witness is able
to testify in this case, is competent to testify.
During her testimony before the jury, the witness testified that she was
testifying because she had “seen something that happened.” She recalled talking to
a detective, but not the detective’s name. She recalled that she was on “Avenue K”
where she saw the complainant on the day of the murder. She testified that she
knew the complainant. The witness’s narrative testimony was disjointed and
confusing, recalling that she had purchased a “rock” and had seen the “Mexican
3
guy, the crippled one in a wheelchair.” She testified that she purchased a “rock”
from the complainant and left to get a coke from a nearby store.
[State]: And before you left that area did you see anything happen to
[the complainant]?
[Witness]: Hell no. You call me crazy. No, I did not, ma’am. Because
he just gave me my rock. And I walked towards something here.
The witness testified that the “Mexican” told her that the complainant was
killed over a girl. She testified that she saw a suburban driving on Avenue K that
day driven by “a pedestrian.” In an attempt to clarify the witness’s answer, the
State asked, again, who was driving:
[Witness]: A pedestrian, because [the complainant] was like this here,
comes around the car, okay? Next thing I know, I seen [the
complainant] get on the ground or walking - - because I’ve told y’all
I’m just trying to help [the complainant], huh? I’m telling you I’m
telling the truth here. Everybody I told them that this is not helping
[the complainant] here. But all I know - -
[State]: So you saw [complainant] fall on the ground?
[Witness: I didn’t see - - I seen him in the car like this here talking to
somebody. Next thing I know [the complainant] was running behind
the house here.
[State]: He was running behind the house?
[Witness]: Yes, ma’am. Yes ma’am. Yes, ma’am.
[State]: Who was chasing him?
[Witness]: Chasing him? I don’t know, man. All I know is what I told
you. I was trying to help because I had enough. I bought a 10-dollar
rock from [the complainant]. (Mumbling).
At this point, the State requested that the trial court dismiss the jury so the witness
could refresh her memory and review the statement she made to a detective after
the murder.
4
After reviewing the statement, the trial court brought in the jury and the
witness continued to testify. The witness testified that she remembered giving the
statement to the detective and that she remembered telling the detective that she
saw the complainant get hit by a suburban. She denied telling the detective that the
person inside the suburban was appellant and denied that she ever said appellant
was holding a gun. She testified that:
the man tried to get out of the car to help that man. . . I seen [the
complainant] get up, try to get up, and [appellant] tried to help [the
complainant] get up. I didn’t say nothing about no gun. Don’t put
that [expletive] in my conversation. Don’t give me no trouble, home
girl. (Mumbling) Who are you? (Mumbling).
The State requested that they be allowed to play the video of the witness’s
prior inconsistent statement for the jury. Appellant objected to the witness’s
competency again. The trial court commented that it did not believe that her
“recount” was there and allowed the State to show the witness the video of the
statement she previously made to a detective.
When asked questions the witness either admitted or denied that she spoke
to the detective or that she previously made certain statements. She also continued
to provide narrative commentary about what she believed was going on. The
witness denied her prior statement, and the trial court allowed the State to play a
portion of her prior statement to the jury. After playing the video of the prior
statement for the jury, the State passed the witness.
Appellant asked the witness the following questions:
[Appellant]: You didn’t see [appellant] with a gun, correct?
[Witness]: No. She had - - Brittany had told them Ro.
[Appellant]: And my next question is Brittany told you it was
[appellant]?
5
[Witness]: Yes, Sir. They didn’t find no girl or lady.
[Appellant]: No further questions.
THE WITNESS: Brittany told them Ro. Brittany told them Ro.
[Appellant]: No further questions.
THE COURT: Anything else?
THE WITNESS: Brittany told them Ro.
[State]: No, You Honor.
THE WITNESS: Brittany told them Ro.
C. Analysis
The witness’s narrative testimony was disjointed and difficult to understand
at times. 1 In responding to direct questions, the witness gave direct answers. On
voir dire the witness gave no indication that she did not understand or would not
answer questions truthfully. In the court’s examination, the witness indicated she
remembered the event and would answer questions. There was no indication that
the witness could not testify competently from either voir dire or the trial court’s
examination. See Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 1982, pet. ref’d) (concluding trial court did not err in finding witness
competent despite psychologist’s report declaring him incompetent where
witness’s testimony showed recollection, understanding, and ability to frame
“intelligent answers;” party raising competency challenge has burden of proof).
During trial, the witness recalled what she witnessed on the day of the
murder, albeit adding in additional unnecessary details—like the fact that she
bought a “10-dollar rock” from the complainant. However, this testimony does not
render the witness incompetent, but instead is a matter of witness credibility. See
Hogan v. State, 440 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet.
1
We assume without deciding that this issue is preserved on appeal.
6
ref’d) (“Although some of complainant’s responses were confusing and
inconsistent, a witness is not rendered incompetent merely because there are
inconsistencies in her testimony.”); Torres v. State, 424 S.W.3d 245, 255 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (although witness’s responses
showed “some conflict and confusion” the “overall testimony indicated sufficient
accuracy” of recollection; such inconsistencies go to credibility, not competency).
The witness recalled the events on the day of the murder and recounted them to the
jury. The only issue she denied was whether she saw appellant in the suburban,
saw appellant chase the complainant with a gun, or whether she saw appellant with
a gun. Her testimony demonstrated that she possessed the ability to observe the
events in question and recall those events. Though she was confronted with a prior
inconsistent statement, this goes to the credibility of the witness. See Hogan, 440
S.W.3d at 217; Torres, 424 S.W.3d at 255.
We cannot say on this record that the trial court abused its discretion in
finding the witness competent to testify. 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/ Ken Wise
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
7