Ukwuachu v. State

Ukwuachu v. State

Opinion

Appellant Samuel Ukwuachu was charged with and convicted of sexual assault. At trial, the State introduced into evidence some text messages between the victim and her friend that were sent around the time of the assault. Appellant's trial counsel sought to introduce into evidence earlier text messages from that same night between the victim and her friend, and the trial court held an in camera hearing pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 412, which governs evidence of previous sexual conduct in criminal cases. At the hearing, the parties and their arguments at the hearing focused entirely on Rule 107, the Rule of Optional Completeness.¹ The trial court excluded the text messages that Appellant wanted to introduce into evidence.

The court of appeals reversed, finding that the messages were admissible under both Rule 412 and Rule 107 and the trial court abused its discretion [*2]  by excluding them. After reviewing the relevant portions of the record, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the court of appeals erred in holding otherwise. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

Preservation of Error

Preservation of error is a systemic requirement, and appellate courts, including this one, can and should consider the issue, regardless of whether the issue is raised by either of the parties. Darcy v. State, 488 S.W.3d 325, 327-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). If an issue has not been properly preserved for appeal, neither the court of appeals nor this court should address the merits of that issue. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Indeed, it is the duty of the appellate courts to ensure that a claim is preserved in the trial court before addressing its merits. Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). To preserve a complaint that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that an appellant sought to introduce into evidence, the appellant must have articulated, in response to the opposing party's objection, the reason why he believed the evidence was admissible. Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). On appeal, the appellant must then comport his appellate ground with the reason he argued to the trial court that the evidence should have come in, and if the grounds do not comport with each other, [*3]  the issue is not preserved for review. See id. at 179.

In this case, during what was initially supposed to be a Rule 412 hearing, the parties focused exclusively on whether the text messages were part of the same conversation or constituted different conversations, and, accordingly, whether they fell within Rule 107. Indeed, the parties specifically cited Rule 107 by number and by name.² At no point during the hearing did the parties discuss the requirements of Rule 412 or whether the evidence at issue fell within any of Rule 412's exceptions. Finally, other than a brief, single reference at the beginning of the hearing, the trial court never discussed Rule 412, and it considered the evidence only in terms of Rule 107.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.