Marcus Rashad Williams v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-24-00028-CR
___________________________
MARCUS RASHAD WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 297th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1795907
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
A jury found that Marcus Rashad Williams, while under a sudden passion,
murdered Lawrence Garcia Jr. by shooting him with a firearm. Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 19.02(b), (d). Williams raises two points on appeal. First, he contends that the trial
court erred by failing to suppress a photo lineup and an in-court identification. We
overrule this point because the identification procedure was not impermissibly
suggestive. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.20. Second, Williams argues that
the trial court erred by denying his challenge for cause against a juror. We overrule
this point because Williams did not show that the juror was so biased against him that
the juror could not carry out his oath and instructions according to the law. See id. art.
35.16. Accordingly, we affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
Shortly before 7:00 p.m. on February 2, 2020, Garcia drove his friend T.C.
home.1 Garcia’s friends A.H., J.C., and R.R. accompanied them. At T.C.’s house, his
aunt, Cristina Watkins, and her boyfriend, Williams, were waiting in the front yard,
along with several other people who lived in the house.
When T.C. got out of the car, Watkins jumped into the back seat and began
pulling A.H.’s hair. Watkins then exited the car. Garcia backed the car out of the
Because most of the people involved in the incident were—or could have
1
been—minors at the time, we identify them by initials only. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.10.
2
driveway and hit Watkins. Garcia drove away from the house, with A.H., J.C., and
R.R. still in the car. Watkins shouted, “Shoot him, Baby,” or words to that effect.
Williams walked out into the street, raised a gun, and fired a single shot into the
departing vehicle. J.C. saw Williams do this, and he also heard a gunshot. The shot
struck Garcia in the back of the head. The car coasted to a stop on a bridge nearby,
where A.H. called 911. Watkins saw Williams running back to the house from the
street and carrying a gun.
Medical technicians transported Garcia to the hospital where he died early the
next morning. Responding officers transported A.H., J.C., and R.R. to a City of Fort
Worth police station to be interviewed and to meet with their parents.
At the police station, J.C. initially misremembered Williams’s first name as
“Marco.” J.C. knew Williams from spending time with T.C. at Watkins’s house while
Williams visited Watkins. J.C. and his mother looked up Williams on social media,
found the correct spelling of his first name and a picture of him, and showed the
picture to police. J.C. or his mother also showed A.H. the photograph. A.H. did not
recognize the photograph. Then, the police presented J.C. with a lineup; he identified
Williams. A.H., who had never seen or met Williams before that night, was shown
three photo lineups, but she was not able to identify Williams until viewing the third
lineup.2
A.H. was not asked to, and did not, identify Williams in the courtroom at trial.
2
3
Before trial, Williams filed a motion to suppress J.C.’s and A.H.’s
identifications. The court took up the motion before trial began, out of the presence
of the jury, and J.C. and A.H. testified on voir dire. The trial court denied the motion
but granted Williams a running objection.
At trial, J.C. testified that he had spent time at Watkins’s house and was familiar
with both Watkins and Williams. He knew Williams as Watkins’s boyfriend. When
he initially testified, J.C. stated that Williams was not in the courtroom. However,
after a break, he asked prosecutors for an opportunity to return to the stand so that he
could identify Williams, stating he had not understood the question initially, but that
he did see Williams in the courtroom. Williams did not object to the State’s recalling
J.C. for this purpose or to his subsequent testimony identifying Williams and did not
reurge his running objection.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Pretrial Identification Procedure Was Not Impermissibly Suggestive
Williams argues that because J.C. and his mother had located a photograph of
him based on their prior knowledge that the shooter was Watkins’s boyfriend, the
pretrial lineup procedure was improperly suggestive. We disagree.
In-court identification evidence must meet the due-process standard of
fairness. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196, 93 S. Ct. 375, 380–81 (1972). A pretrial
identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken
identification that subsequent use of that identification at trial would deny the accused
4
due process of law. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S. Ct. 967, 971
(1968); Barley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27, 32–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). An in-court
identification is inadmissible when it has been tainted by an impermissibly suggestive
pretrial photographic identification. Luna v. State, 268 S.W.3d 594, 605 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008); Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Whether a pretrial identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive is a
mixed question of law and fact that does not turn on an evaluation of credibility or
demeanor; therefore, we apply a de novo standard of review. Gamboa v. State, 296
S.W.3d 574, 581–82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
Williams states that this case involves a unique fact scenario because the
witness was shown a photo lineup that the witness helped create. However, our sister
court addressed a very similar situation in Malley v. State, No. 01-19-00127-CR, 2020
WL 4006439, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 16, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication). In that case, before the police conducted their
photographic lineup, a witness’s father had shown him a photograph of a suspect that
the father had found on social media after the witness described the suspect from his
prior interactions, including spending a considerable amount of time in the suspect’s
home. Id. Relying on the reasoning in Rogers v. State, a case from the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals in which the photo lineups shown to witnesses included the
defendant’s arrest photograph that the witnesses had seen in a newspaper article the
day before, the First Court of Appeals held that the lineup was not impermissibly
5
suggestive and that the identification was properly admitted. Id. (relying on Rogers v.
State, 774 S.W.2d 247, 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by
Peek v. State, 106 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)).
In Rogers, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that because law enforcement was
not the source of any suggestibility of the lineup’s photographs, a rule of exclusion
based on the lineup’s being impermissibly suggestive does not apply. 774 S.W.2d at
260. Instead, the source of the identification might, at most, affect the weight, and
not the admissibility, of the identification. Id.We apply the same reasoning here. J.C. and his mother located the photograph
that was later included in the lineup based upon J.C.’s personal knowledge of
Williams’s identity and his relationship to Watkins, and not through any acts of law
enforcement. J.C.’s knowledge was based on time spent at Watkins’s home, where he
had seen Williams. No evidence suggests that J.C.’s identification of Williams arose
from improper state action. Because the pretrial identification procedure was not
impermissibly suggestive, we overrule Williams’s first point. See Rogers, 774 S.W.2d at
260; Malley, 2020 WL 4006439, at *3.
B. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Declining to Strike
Veniremember Number One for Cause
In his second point, Williams challenges the trial court’s denial of his challenge
for cause to the veniremember in seat one (V.M. One). Williams properly preserved
6
his complaint for appeal. See Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58, 83 (Tex. Crim. App.
2016).
We give great deference to the trial court’s discretion during voir dire. Curtis v.
State, 205 S.W.3d 656, 659 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d); see Samaripas v.
State, 454 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 879
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that the trial court in jury selection is in the best
position to evaluate a prospective juror’s demeanor and responses). We review the
entire record to determine if the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s
ruling on a challenge for cause. Gonzales v. State, 353 S.W.3d 826, 831 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011). We reverse only for clear abuse of discretion. Hudson v. State, 620 S.W.3d
726, 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
A juror who cannot impartially judge the credibility of the witnesses has a bias
or prejudice in favor of or against the defendant. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
35.16(a)(9); Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (op. on reh’g),
superseded by statute in part, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.071. However, a
venireperson ought not be struck for cause simply because he would slightly favor
certain classes of witnesses, such as police officers and doctors, when deciding
credibility because “[c]omplete impartiality cannot be realized as long as human beings
are called upon to be jurors.” Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex. Crim. App.
1998); see Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Before a potential
juror can be excused for cause, the proponent of the challenge must show that the
7
person expressed an extreme or absolute position on the credibility of witnesses and
was not open-minded and persuadable. Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 747; Jones, 982 S.W.2d
at 389.
Here, one venireperson stated that if an officer took the stand to testify, she
would give the officer more benefit of the doubt when assessing credibility. She said
that to her, the officer’s position would lend more credence initially, depending how
the testimony aligned with the facts, which would temper the credit she gave to the
testimony. The State asked her whether, even if police were initially given respect due
to their position, she would be able to follow the law, to which she answered “yes.”
The State then asked who agreed with these statements, and V.M. One, among
others, raised his hand. When asked about his agreement, V.M. One said,
I think we all –– most of us, at least me, view people in the police and
law enforcement as . . . more well trained on the law and more
understanding of the law than maybe the person walking across the
street from you. But then when you hear them . . . you just have to
weigh what they say as well put and then balance it against the other
evidence that’s been presented. . . . They make mistakes, too.
Williams objected to V.M. One on the basis that he would assume that police
“are more well-trained on the law than someone else, but then you can hear what they
say and judge. So he’s agreeing he is going to start them higher, give them kind of this
automatic credibility, but it’s possible for them to lose it.” The trial court declined to
strike V.M. One for cause, stating that his remarks were directed toward officers’ legal
training being better than most people’s but not specifically toward their credibility.
8
We agree. V.M. One’s statements as a whole reflect that he was persuadable,
was open to questioning police testimony, and did not hold an absolute view on
police officers’ credibility. See Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 747 (finding trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it did not strike a juror who said he would “lean towards”
believing an officer over a lay witness but would delay judgment until after hearing
both witnesses).
Further, before a venireperson can be excused for cause on the basis of bias,
the law must be explained to him, and he must be asked whether he can follow that
law regardless of his personal views. Tracy v. State, 597 S.W.3d 502, 512 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2020). The party challenging a venireperson bears the burden to establish that
the challenge is proper, and he does not meet this burden until he has shown that the
venireperson understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome his
prejudice well enough to follow the law. Id.Williams failed to make such a showing. No one questioned V.M. One further
on whether he could follow the law despite thinking that police officers have better
legal training than civilians. He specifically stated he would weigh officer training
against the rest of the evidence.
Because the statements made by V.M. One do not constitute an extreme or
absolute position or otherwise demonstrate improper bias and because Williams failed
to carry his burden to demonstrate bias, we hold that the trial court’s denial of his
9
challenge for cause was not an abuse of discretion. See id.; Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 747.
We overrule this point.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having overruled both of Williams’s points, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: November 7, 2024
10