Texas Court of Appeals Finds Sergeant Improperly Opined on Defendant’s Guilt
Can a witness testify that he believes the defendant is guilty? For example, consider the following testimony by a sergeant at the trial of Charles Reedy for the murder of Glen Burford:
Q. Have you had training and experience in classes to follow—to run an investigation, to collect evidence, and to be guided where that evidence takes you?A. Yes, sir. I’ve gone through many trainings on things as simple as interview interrogation to crime scene investigations. I do advanced homicide investigations.Q. Did you follow those protocols in this case?A. Yes, sir.Q. And when you looked at all the evidence that you reviewed—have you reviewed it multiple times, the evidence?A. Yes, sir.Q. Do you have any doubts in—[Defense counsel]: Your Honor, I’m going to object that it’s the jury’s job to determine what the facts reveal and not the detective[‘]s.The Court: It is the purview of the jury to decide what the evidence shows and to make a finding in this case[;] however, that does not prevent a witness from giving an opinion in the case. So you may give your opinion, ma’am.Q. So in your opinion, based on your training and experience, do you believe you know who committed the murder of Mr. Burford?A. Yes, sir.Q. Who is that?A. Mr. Charles Reedy.
In Reedy v. State, Charles Reedy appealed after he was convicted in part based on this testimony. In response, the court noted that
On the merits, the parties raise competing lines of authority. Reedy relies on longstanding authority forbidding all witnesses, whether expert or lay and including law enforcement, from opining about guilt or innocence….The State relies on longstanding authority allowing admission of opinion testimony even when it “embraces an ultimate issue.” Tex. R. Evid. 704.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Boyde v. State
resolves any conflict between the competing lines of authority as applied here. The Court in Boyde treated the rule forbidding opinion testimony about guilt like an exception to the rule forbidding exclusion of testimony just because it embraces an ultimate issue:
While this Court has recognized for all practical purposes, the invasion of the province of the jury rule is and has been long dead, it should be noted that the expression of guilt or innocence in this case was a conclusion to be reached by the jury based upon the instruction given them in the court’s charge, coupled with the evidence admitted by the judge through the course of the trial. Thus, no witness was competent to voice an opinion as to guilt or innocence.
That said, the court found that the admission of the sergeant’s testimony was harmless error and upheld the conviction.
-CM