Jermaine Damon Davis v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-19-00168-CR
JERMAINE DAMON DAVIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 6th District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 28001
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A Lamar County jury found Jermaine Damon Davis guilty of murder. 1 After enhancing
punishment by a previous felony conviction, the trial court sentenced Davis to imprisonment for
life, to be served concurrently with other sentences imposed at the same time. 2 This case was tried
with two companion cases, which are the subject of other appeals pending before this Court. In
this appeal, Davis contends (1) that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated because
he was absent when the jury was called, seated, and instructed by the trial court, (2) that the trial
court erred by placing him in leg restraints during the trial, and (3) that trial court erred by
admitting two written confessions.
The argument raised in Davis’s first issue is based exclusively on the argument brought
before this Court in the companion appeal styled Davis v. State, cause number 06-19-00167-CR.
In our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that this issue was without merit.
For the reasons set out in that opinion, we overrule Davis’s first issue as it applies to this appeal.
The argument raised in Davis’s second issue is based exclusively on the argument brought
before this Court in the companion appeal styled Davis v. State, cause number 06-19-00167-CR.
In our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that although the trial court erred,
any error did not affect Davis’s substantial rights. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we
overrule Davis’s second issue as it applies to this appeal.
1
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(a), (b)(4).
2
In cases that had been consolidated for trial with this case, Davis was also convicted of unlawful possession of a
firearm and possession of marihuana. Those convictions have also been appealed to this Court and are addressed in
opinions released on the same date as this opinion.
2
In his third issue, Davis asserts that the trial court erred in admitting two documents in
which he allegedly confessed to the murder charge. Davis argues that the confessions were
inadmissible because they were given while Davis was in custody but without the benefit of
Miranda warnings.
Generally, statements made in response to custodial interrogation are not admissible into
evidence if the defendant has not been advised of certain warnings, including his right to remain
silent and his right to counsel. State v. Cruz, 461 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (citing
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 466–71 (1966)). “In the Miranda context, ‘interrogation’
means ‘any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably
likely to elicit an incriminating response.’” Id. (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300–
01 (1980)).
However, a complaint that evidence obtained in violation of Miranda was erroneously
admitted by the trial court must be preserved for appellate review, and it may be forfeited. See
Webb v. State, 557 S.W.3d 690, 697–98 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, pet. ref’d). To preserve a
complaint for appellate review, a party must first present to the trial court a timely request,
objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the desired ruling if not apparent from the
context and obtain a ruling from the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). Error preservation also
requires that the party “must object each and every time [allegedly] inadmissible evidence is
offered.” Smith v. State, 494 S.W.3d 243, 255 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (quoting
Long v. State, 10 S.W.3d 389, 399 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref’d) (citing Ethington v.
3
State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991))). As explained by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals:
[T]o preserve error in admitting evidence, a party must make a proper objection
and get a ruling on that objection. In addition, a party must object each time the
inadmissible evidence is offered or obtain a running objection. An error [if any] in
the admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere
without objection.
Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (second alternation in original)
(quoting Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). This rule applies whether
the same evidence was admitted “without objection . . . before or after the complained-of ruling.”
Id. (quoting Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)).
In this case, the State offered State’s Exhibit 460, which was a copy of a grievance form
that Davis had requested from Mason Brandenburg, a detention officer at the Lamar County Jail.
When Davis returned the form to Brandenburg, he had written a statement on it that said, “I am
guilty on the murder charge take me to Court I’m tired.” When the State offered Exhibit 460,
Davis objected to that document based on hearsay and because Davis was in jail when it was
written with no indication that he was given Miranda warnings before giving the statement. The
trial court overruled the objection and admitted Exhibit 460 into evidence, which was then
published to the jury. The State then asked Brandenburg to read what Davis had written on the
form, which he did without objection.
The State then offered State’s Exhibit 461, which was a copy of a Criminal Investigation
Division form, on which Davis wrote, in relevant part, “I am guilty on the murder charge [and]
want to go to court ASAP.” Davis objected to the admission of Exhibit 461 on the same bases.
4
The objection was overruled, and Exhibit 461 was admitted into evidence and published to the
jury. Then Brandenburg was asked what Davis had written on Exhibit 461, and he testified
verbatim to what Davis had written, again without objection.
Thus, although Davis objected to the admission of Exhibits 460 and 461 into evidence and
obtained the trial court’s ruling, he did not obtain a running objection to the statements contained
in the exhibits, and he did not object when these statements came into evidence through
Brandenburg’s testimony. Consequently, Davis has not preserved his complaint regarding the
admission of the evidence, and any error in admitting Exhibits 460 and 461 was cured by
Brandenburg’s unobjected-to testimony. See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 193; Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d
500, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We overrule Davis’s third issue.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: April 3, 2020
Date Decided: April 6, 2020
Do Not Publish
5