Freeman v. State (Unpublished Memo): Nothing unusual in the basics: Freeman appeals on grounds that he didn’t personally hand the drugs to the informant. Instead, the drug dealer sat in the car as his runner delivered the drug at Wal-Mart and Denny’s in Tyler. The informant testified that he called Freeman to set up the transactions. The transactions were videotaped. Freeman didn’t exactly look surprised when the runner left his car with cocaine and came back to him with cash. Freeman “constructively” dealt the cocaine. Conviction affirmed.
The interesting part: “No harm, no foul” applies to inadequate notice of extraneous convictions. Under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b), the State must give the defendant notice of prior bad acts that may be used at trial. If the defendant says he didn’t get adequate notice, the only question at trial is whether the State met the requirements of Rule 404(b). That’s at trial. On appeal, the defendant must do more than show a technical violation of 404(b). He must show that the violation caused him harm.
The Tyler court decides Freeman on the basis of “no harm.” It came down to that because the Tyler court had concerns about the one-sentence notice the State gave Freeman.
Update: This case has drawn the attention of a law professor in Chicago, Colin Miller. If it were up to Professor Miller, he would have reversed.
