Clark v. State
365 S.W.3d 333 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
General evidentiary objections, such as for being argumentative or badgering, are insufficient to preserve a constitutional due process claim for appeal unless the constitutional basis is explicitly stated or is otherwise apparent from the context of the trial record.
Facts:
- Vellar Clark, III, who was married, began a relationship with Gwen Sneed, and they moved in together.
- After the couple had a son who died as a baby, Sneed became pregnant again, which she considered a miracle.
- Clark asked Sneed to abort the child, but she refused.
- On March 26, 2006, Sneed left her home on her motorcycle.
- Later that day, Sneed's body was found in an isolated parking lot next to her motorcycle; she had died from a single gunshot wound behind her left ear.
- Clark initially lied to police about his whereabouts but later admitted he was with Sneed when she died.
- Clark claimed that Sneed became upset, took his gun from his car, and shot herself after he refused to commit to their relationship.
- A police officer testified that due to the weapon's size and the wound's location, it would have been impossible for the right-handed Sneed to have shot herself in that manner.
Procedural Posture:
- Vellar Clark, III was tried for capital murder in a Texas trial court.
- During the prosecutor's cross-examination of Clark, defense counsel made numerous objections on grounds such as 'argumentative,' 'badgering,' and 'sidebar,' which the trial court overruled.
- The jury found Clark guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to life in prison without parole.
- Clark (as Appellant) appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court's rulings on his objections allowed the prosecutor to engage in conduct that denied his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Appellant had waived his due process complaint by failing to make a specific due process objection at trial.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant's petition for discretionary review to address the preservation issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do general evidentiary objections made at trial, such as for being argumentative or badgering the witness, provide sufficient notice to the trial court to preserve a constitutional due process, fair-trial complaint for appellate review?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyers, J.
No. General evidentiary objections do not preserve a constitutional due process claim for appeal unless the constitutional basis is made clear to the trial court. To preserve an error for appellate review, an objection must state the grounds with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint. Here, Appellant's objections for 'badgering,' 'argumentative,' and 'mischaracterization' are not so clearly connected to constitutional due process protections that the trial court could be expected to understand them as such. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the judge or the prosecutor understood the objections to be constitutional in nature. Allowing such general objections to preserve constitutional claims would permit appellants to 'bootstrap a constitutional issue from the most innocuous trial objection.' Because constitutional errors are subject to a stricter harm analysis on appeal, it is critical that the trial court be put on notice when it is being asked to make a constitutional ruling, which did not happen in this case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the requirement for specificity in trial objections to preserve issues for appeal, particularly when constitutional rights are implicated. It clarifies that while 'talismanic words' are not required, the context of the objection must make the constitutional basis clear to the trial court. The ruling places a significant burden on trial counsel to explicitly state the constitutional grounds for an objection, rather than relying on an appellate court to later infer a constitutional dimension from general evidentiary complaints. This holding makes it more difficult for appellate attorneys to reframe trial objections and effectively narrows the 'apparent from the context' exception for preserving error in constitutional claims.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. State