Jackie Russell Keeter v. State of Texas

Jackie Russell Keeter v. State of Texas






IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-00-169-CR


     JACKIE RUSSELL KEETER,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.


     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                         Appellee


From the 220th District Court

Hamilton County, Texas

Trial Court # 6978

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

DISSENTING OPINION

                                                                                                                


      The relationship between the victim and her step-mother over the two years between the victim’s outcry of sexual assault and the time of trial had apparently not been particularly good. Within days after the trial, the victim’s step-mother told the victim’s father that either the victim must leave their home or the step-mother would. The eight year old victim, now ten, chose to return to live with her mother, the household in which she had been assaulted. Keeter was not living there at the time she returned to live with her mother.

      On the day the victim returned to her mother’s house, she told her mother that she had lied about what Keeter, her step-father, had done to her. After she said that she had lied about what Keeter had done, Keeter’s father, who had lived with the victim at the time of the assault, was nice to her. Keeter’s father had been told to leave the court-house during the trial because he threatened to take the victim’s father away from her, just like she had taken Keeter away from his children, the victim’s half-siblings.

      The trial judge, who observed all the witnesses during trial, was presented with this and other testimony in determining if the recantation of the victim’s statement was credible. The trial court determined that the recantation was not credible. Finding no abuse of discretion in that determination, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial. Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.


                                                                         TOM GRAY

                                                                         Justice


Dissenting opinion delivered and filed April 4, 2001

Publish