Background
Miguel Enrique Najar pleaded guilty to attempted deadly conduct and received three years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. The State later petitioned to adjudicate him, alleging that he had injured a nine-month-old child while the child was in his care and had also violated several technical supervision conditions involving community-service hours, court costs, and reporting requirements. Najar pleaded not true to the allegations.
At the revocation hearing, Najar invoked Texas Rule of Evidence 614, which requires the exclusion of witnesses so they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Community-supervision officer Doug Jones nevertheless sat through testimony from a responding police officer and the child’s mother before the violation was discovered. The trial court then excluded Jones from the courtroom but allowed him to testify later, principally about Najar’s supervision records. The court found the drug-testing allegations not true, found the remaining allegations true, adjudicated Najar guilty, and sentenced him to 24 months in state jail.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that Jones violated Rule 614 by hearing other witnesses testify, but the record did not show that admitting his testimony prejudiced Najar or affected his substantial rights. Jones did not corroborate the earlier witnesses’ personal-knowledge testimony about how the child was injured or Najar’s responsibility for those injuries.
Jones’s reference to the injury allegation merely recited from supervision records that Najar had been arrested and charged, along with the alleged offense and date. The court explained that an arrest or charge is not evidence of guilt and noted that other witnesses, whom Jones did not hear, independently established the offense and date. Jones otherwise testified about technical supervision violations, and nothing indicated that the testimony he heard influenced his account. Najar also did not identify any specifically tainted testimony when invited by the trial court to do so.
Key Takeaways
- A violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 614 does not automatically require exclusion of the witness’s testimony or reversal.
- To establish prejudice, an appellant must show that the witness heard another witness and then gave influenced testimony that contradicted the opposing side or corroborated the same side on a fact bearing on guilt or innocence.
- The State presented ample evidence supporting the injury allegations even without the community-supervision officer’s testimony and records, and only one proven violation was required to support revocation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that witness-sequestration errors are reviewed for actual prejudice, not merely technical noncompliance. A defendant challenging testimony admitted after a Rule 614 violation should identify how the witness’s presence shaped testimony on a material issue and should renew or specify the objection when the allegedly tainted testimony is offered.
For revocation proceedings, the opinion also reinforces the State’s relatively limited burden: proof of a single alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to sustain revocation.