 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reed v. State8/31/2001
A jury convicted Appellant Barbara Joan Reed of murder, and the trial court assessed her punishment at thirty years' confinement. In a single point on appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court's refusal to admit medical records pertaining to Appellant's mental condition both before and after her arrest and confession. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of Sunday, October 11, 1998, the body of Carl Whisenant was found lying in a cul-de-sac behind a nightclub. His face and head had been wrapped in duct tape. An autopsy revealed that Whisenant died as a result of suffocation. On June 12, 1999, Detective Tommy LeNoir of the Arlington Police Department arrested Appellant, Whisenant's fiancé, for his murder. On the day of her arrest, Appellant gave two statements to LeNoir. In her second statement, Appellant admitted that she killed Whisenant by covering his face with duct tape and smothering him in the backseat of her car. Appellant then emptied Whisenant's pockets so that he could not be identified and dumped his body behind the nightclub.
At trial, LeNoir testified that he knew that Appellant had checked herself into the psychiatric ward of John Peter Smith Hospital in October 1998, and that she had received psychiatric treatment throughout the 1990's. LeNoir also testified that Appellant was on medication at the time she gave her second statement to him, in which she confessed to killing Whisenant. Appellant attempted to introduce into evidence two exhibits, marked defendant's exhibits one and two, consisting of records pertaining to Appellant's psychiatric history. Appellant argued that the records were relevant to the voluntariness of her confession. After hearing arguments from both sides outside the presence of the jury, the trial court refused to admit the exhibits.
DISCUSSION
In her sole point on appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court's refusal to admit defendant's exhibit number two, which contains 149 pages of records from Tarrant County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services. Appellant does not challenge the trial court's decision to exclude defendant's exhibit number one, consisting of 466 pages of medical records from John Peter Smith Hospital. Appellant contends that the medical records contained within defendant's exhibit number two show her ongoing use of antidepressant medication as well as a diagnosis of her mental state at certain relevant times both before and after her confession. Specifically, Appellant argues that the records reflect that she had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders before she confessed to Whisenant's murder and that these same conditions existed after her confession. Accordingly, Appellant insists, these records, coupled with LeNoir's knowledge of Appellant's mental condition at the time she gave her confession, cast doubt on the free and voluntary nature of that confession.
We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. We will not reverse a trial court as long as its ruling was within the "zone of reasonable disagreement." Moreover, if the trial court's ruling with regard to the admission of evidence is correct under any theory of law applicable to the case, it will be sustained, even if the trial court gives the wrong reason for its decision. While it appears from the record that the trial court sustained the State's relevancy objections to defendant's exhibit number one, the trial court's basis for excluding defendant's exhibit number two is not entirely clear. Neither the State nor Appellant directs us to any prosecution objection in the record relating specifically to defendant
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|