X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14. A jury found appellant guilty as charged and assessed punishment at confinement for 15 years. The appellant complains of being required to wear shackles before the jury and the prosecutor’s closing jury argument. HOLDING:Affirmed. All efforts should be made to prevent a jury from seeing a defendant in shackles, unless there has been a showing that there are exceptional circumstances requiring a need for such restraints. Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Under such exceptional circumstances, it is within the discretion of the trial court to require the defendant to be tried in restraints. However, the record must clearly and affirmatively reflect the trial judge’s reasons for placing the defendant in restraints. The fact that a defendant is charged with a serious felony does not provide a basis for shackling that defendant during trial. Likewise, a general concern for security is not sufficient. The reasons must be stated with particularity. There is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant was a security risk or that he had shown any tendency to violent behavior at trial. The trial judge did not attempt to state any reasons to support requiring appellant to be tried in shackles. Rather, he put on the record that the jury could not see those shackles. The court holds that by requiring appellant to be tried in shackles in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, the trial judge abused his discretion. In Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), a case with similar facts to this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, because the judge took measures to prevent the jury from seeing the defendant’s shackles, the judge’s abuse of discretion did not prejudice the defendant. In the present case, there is nothing in the record to show that the jury saw appellant’s shackles. The judge’s statement that the shackles could not be seen by the jury was uncontradicted. “Requiring a criminal defendant to be tried in restraints without adequate reason is repugnant to the spirit of our laws and ideas of justice whether those restraints are visible or unseen. Nevertheless, because this Court is bound by the precedent set by Long, we are constrained to hold that the trial judge’s abuse of discretion was harmless.” The appellant complains that the state made an improper jury argument. The trial judge did not make a ruling on appellant’s objection. He simply said, “Let’s proceed.” The court holds that nothing is preserved for review. OPINION:Nuchia, J.; Nuchia, Keyes and Hanks, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.