Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jesse Chaddock was charged with engaging in organized criminal activity by committing aggravated assault while acting as a member of a criminal street gang. Appellant is a member of the Confederate Hammerskins (CH), a racist skinhead gang. CH members are notorious for engaging in overwhelming, brutal beatings of ethnic minority group members, members of nonracist skinhead gangs and random victims. CH members typically sport a number of racist tattoos, including a distinctive design featuring crossed hammers superimposed upon a Confederate battle flag. Appellant is a follower and close friend of CH’s co-founder and leader, Sean Tarrant. Appellant’s body is covered in racist gang tattoos including a prominent crossed hammers tattoo on his abdomen. Appellant joined CH in 1996 after leaving another racist gang. In 1996, the year he joined CH, appellant and several others beat a Hispanic man. Appellant then stabbed an African-American security guard who attempted to aid the victim. Between Sept. 16, 2000 and June 2, 2004, appellant assaulted four men and threatened two others. In each incident, appellant was accompanied by fellow skinhead gang members, sometimes including Tarrant and Judd Horn. In 2001 and 2002, appellant was overheard identifying himself as “Hammerskins Chaddock.” Appellant was seen wearing a CH T-shirt in October 2003. While threatening one man, appellant lifted his shirt to display his crossed hammers tattoo and asked the victim if the victim knew what the tattoo meant. The offense occurred on the night of July 25, 2004. The complainant, his two daughters and one daughter’s friend attended a concert at the Gypsy Tea Room nightclub. Appellant also attended the concert with three to five associates including Horn, Terry Shanks and Tarrant. Appellant and Tarrant attended the concert for free as guests of club employee Scott Beggs. Edward Whitt, head of security at the nightclub on the night of the offense, testified that appellant had been to the Gypsy Tea Room before and was frequently accompanied by Tarrant and Horn on his visits. Appellant and the others in his group were wearing black T-shirts and displayed visible tattoos on their arms. Appellant’s head was either shaved or close-cropped. After the concert, as the crowd was leaving, the complainant reproached appellant’s group after observing either appellant or Shanks flick a cigarette butt at an African-American patron. Appellant then stepped forward and began exchanging words with the complainant. The complainant attempted to move away, but appellant and his associates crowded around the complainant. Without warning, appellant hit the complainant with either his fist or a beer bottle. Appellant tackled the complainant, causing the complainant to strike his head on the concrete floor and lose consciousness. Appellant then straddled the complainant and repeatedly struck him with appellant’s fist and slammed his head against the floor. Appellant also may have kicked or stomped on the complainant once. As Whitt pushed people through the door, he saw appellant, with clenched fists, an angry demeanor and blood on his forehead, attempting to re-enter the club. Horn picked appellant up and carried him away from the club. After consulting with Tarrant and others, on July 31, 2004, appellant fled to California where he was harbored by Matt Meikle, a singer for a “white power” band. Appellant was ultimately arrested in California. Appellant broke the complainant’s neck in several places. Although initially diagnosed as a quadriplegic, the complainant had regained partial use of his limbs by the time of trial. The complainant’s neurologist testified the complainant would never fully recover, and he would experience pain and muscle spasms for life. Truly Holmes, a detective with the Criminal Intelligence Division of the Dallas Police Department, testified as an expert on skinhead gangs. Holmes told the jury the current offense was a “classic type of assault by a Confederate Hammerskin.” Holmes stated appellant’s association with known gang members, his skinhead tattoos, and his behavior mark him as a current CH member. In formulating his opinion, Holmes relied on police and prosecutor reports, witness interviews, phone records, a radio interview of Tarrant, and his knowledge gleaned from past CH investigations. A jury convicted appellant of the offense and assessed his punishment at 19 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In seven issues, appellant contended the evidence was legally insufficient to support the element that he acted as a member of a criminal street gang and the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence. HOLDING:Affirmed. In concluding the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, the court found that the jury could reasonably conclude appellant committed aggravated assault as a member of a criminal street gang. While appellant presented evidence that he had left the racist gangs, the court found that his evidence did no more than challenge the credibility of the state’s evidence and the jury was free to reject appellant’s evidence. In his second issue, appellant contended that the trial court erred in permitting the state to impeach him during cross-examination with the record of his 1996 aggravated assault for which he successfully completed deferred adjudication community supervision. Appellant argued that presentation of this evidence violated Texas Rule of Evidence 609(b), which limits the use of deferred adjudication status to certain grounds for impeachment. The court noted that the trial court allowed the state to offer evidence about the aggravated assault itself, but the state was not allowed to present evidence establishing appellant had been placed on deferred adjudication. Because no evidence was presented regarding appellant’s deferred adjudication, the court found that Rule 609 was inapplicable. In his third and fourth issues, appellant contended that the trial court erred in overruling his Rule 403 objections and admitting evidence of the 1996 aggravated assault offense as well as other extraneous offenses. Because the evidence, presented in rebuttal of defense cross-examination and testimony, was highly probative and only marginally prejudicial, the court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the extraneous offenses. In his fifth issue, appellant contended that the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce state’s exhibit 75 into evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Exhibit 75 was a transcript of a Dec. 12, 2003 telephone interview Tarrant gave to Byron Calvert for broadcast on a racist Internet radio station. The court agreed with appellant that the evidence was prejudicial, in light of its probative value and appellant’s opening the door by recalling Holmes and casting doubt upon Holmes’ testimony, it could not conclude that the trial court’s decision to admit state’s exhibit 75 was outside a zone of “reasonable disagreement.” In his seventh issue, appellant contended that the trial court erred in permitting the admission of state’s exhibit 74 into evidence because the probative value of the exhibit was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial and inflammatory impact. The state admitted exhibit 74 into evidence while cross-examining defense witness Scott Beggs, who had suggested on direct examination that Tarrant had abandoned the skinheads and his racist beliefs. State’s exhibit 74 consists of the lyrics to two songs by the Bully Boys, a “white power” musical group featuring Tarrant as drummer. The first song described a group excitedly preparing to assault African-Americans. The second song advocated the mass extermination of Jews. Finding that the lyrics of the first song were highly inflammatory and prejudicial, the court concluded the probative value of the lyrics was sufficient to support the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in admitting the lyrics into evidence. The court also concluded that the admission of the second song into evidence, even if erroneous, was harmless. OPINION:Francis, J.; FitzGerald, Francis and Lang-Miers, J.J.

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.