Robert Anderson Ryan v. State of Texas--Appeal from 18th District Court of Johnson County

Annotate this Case
Robert Anderson Ryan v. State /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-01-177-CR

 

ROBERT ANDERSON RYAN,

Appellant

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # F34372

O P I N I O N

Robert Anderson Ryan was charged with five counts of injury to a child. Judy was Ryan s girlfriend. The victims were Judy s two daughters: Jennifer, age 5 and Sheila, age 9. The jury found him guilty of two counts of intentionally causing bodily injury to Jennifer and one count of recklessly causing bodily injury to Sheila. Punishment was assessed at eight years in prison and a $1,000 fine for each count against Jennifer. The jury assessed punishment at two years in a state jail facility and a $500 fine for the offense against Sheila. Ryan now appeals his conviction. We affirm.

Background

Ryan lived with Judy and her four children. Ryan stayed with the children while Judy worked. One evening, the youngest child, Jennifer, was vomiting and having seizures. Judy took Jennifer and the other children over to Jennifer s grandmother s house. Jennifer s grandmother took them all to the hospital. Jennifer was admitted to the hospital with multiple bruises to her brain and bruising all over her body. The most severe external bruising appeared on her buttocks. Investigators questioned Ryan about Jennifer s injuries. He admitted to spanking Jennifer with a flip-flop and to throwing her onto the bed where she bumped her head. Later, the other children were taken to the Advocacy Center and interviewed. During the interviews, similar external bruising was found on Sheila, Jennifer s 9 year old sister.

Voluntariness of Confession

In his first issue, Ryan contends that the trial court erred in admitting his written confession and videotaped statement because he was mentally coerced by investigators with the Johnson County Sheriff s Office.

An accused must give his confession voluntarily before it can be used against him. Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Sendejo v. State, 953 S.W.2d 443, 447-48 (Tex. App. Waco 1997, pet. ref d). Once the accused contests the admission of his statement on the ground of involuntariness, the due process guarantee requires the trial court to hold a hearing on the admissibility of the statement outside the presence of the jury. Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (citing Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 380, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964)). See also Tex. Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 6 (Vernon 1979). At the hearing, the trial court is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, and the court s findings may not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Alvarado, 912 S.W.2d at 211.

Ryan contends on appeal that his confession was involuntary because he was mentally coerced into signing it. Involuntary confessions offend due process when they flow from the improper conduct of law enforcement officials. Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Mental compulsion is a subtle force associated with offering a defendant two choices, one of which results in a penalty, punishment, or detriment from which the defendant is entitled to be free. Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (consent to breath test); see also Flemming v. State, 949 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (citing Thomas, supra). The voluntariness of a confession is determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances. Creager v. State, 952 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Prior to trial, the trial court held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of Ryan s written and videotaped statements. At the hearing, Ryan admitted that he accompanied a police officer to the Johnson County Law Enforcement Center for questioning about the injuries to Jennifer. He knew he was not under arrest. He was read his Miranda warnings prior to any questioning. Ryan testified that he understood those rights and decided to talk to the investigators anyway. He stated that he knew he could be arrested for what he told them. His complaint, however, was that he felt he was threatened to admit to throwing Jennifer on the bed where she then hit her head on the bed post or Judy would be arrested and all her children taken away from her. By the end of his testimony, Ryan admitted that the investigators did not tell him that they would arrest Judy if he did not sign a statement.

Detective Michael Gaudet testified at the hearing that he conducted an interview of Ryan which was videotaped. He denied ever threatening Ryan with Judy s arrest. He also denied implying that Judy would be arrested unless Ryan admitted to causing Jennifer s head injury. Detective Allan Gilreath also interviewed Ryan. He watched Gaudet conduct his interview from an observation room. Gilreath stated that he did not hear Gaudet threaten Ryan with Judy s arrest if he did not give a full confession. When Gaudet completed his interview, Gilreath testified that he then conducted an interview of Ryan. He stated that at no time did he threaten Ryan with Judy s arrest unless Ryan confessed. Gilreath also watched from a different room when Lieutenant Troy Fuller interviewed Ryan. He did not observe Fuller threaten Ryan with Judy s arrest if Ryan did not confess.

After Ryan gave a statement, Fuller spoke with him. Fuller testified to the same statements made by Detectives Gaudet and Gilreath: that no one threatened Ryan with the arrest of Judy if Ryan did not confess.

The videotape of Ryan s interview was admitted into evidence. It corroborates the investigators testimony. The trial court reviewed the video after the hearing. In findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court stated, among other things, that Ryan was not coerced or threatened to make his statement; that he was made no promise of help or leniency to either himself or Judy to induce Ryan to make his statement; and that he was never threatened with the possibility of Judy being arrested to induce Ryan to make a statement. The trial court concluded that the written and recorded statements were freely and voluntarily given and signed by Ryan and were admissible in evidence.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Ryan s confession to be voluntary and in admitting Ryan s written confession and videotaped statement. His first issue is overruled.

Photographs

In his second issue, Ryan contends that the trial court erred in admitting 20 photographs of the injuries his two victims received because they created an unfair prejudice which outweighed any probative value they may have had. The Texas Rules of Evidence provide that although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Tex. R. Evid. 403.

The admissibility of a photograph is within the discretion of the trial court and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Kelley v. State, 22 S.W.3d 642, 644 (Tex. App. Waco 2000, no pet.). We will not find error in a trial court s evidentiary ruling unless it falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

In response to a Rule 403 objection to a photograph, the trial court must decide whether the probative value of the photograph is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Najar v. State, 74 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Tex. App. Waco 2002, no pet.); Tex. R. App. P. 403. When making this determination, the trial court should consider the number of photographs, the size of the photograph, whether it is in color or black and white, the detail shown in the photograph, whether the photograph is gruesome, whether the body is naked or clothed, and whether the body has been altered since the crime in some way that might enhance the gruesomeness of the photograph to the [defendant s] detriment. Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Najar, 74 S.W.3d at 89.

Ryan was charged with injuring two children. Eleven of the photographs were of Jennifer. Nine were of Sheila. The photos were normal-sized, 4 inch by 6 inch. As presented to this court, they were black and white xeroxed copies. No one testified as to whether the photos were originally color or black and white. Jennifer was the most severely beaten of the two girls. The photos of her show the various bruises all over her body: the front of her shoulder, the back of her shoulder, the side of her face, the backs of her legs, and the severe bruising on her buttocks. However, they are not gruesome. The photos depict Jennifer as unclothed but only to the extent necessary to show the bruises. As for Sheila, the photographs also depict the bruising apparent on the various parts of her body. She, too, is unclothed in the photos but again, only to the extent necessary to show her injuries. Nor are these photos gruesome.

The probative value of these photographs, that is depiction of the children s injuries, was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these photographs. Ryan s second issue is overruled.

Conclusion

Having overruled Ryan s two issues on appeal, the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

 

TOM GRAY

Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 30, 2002

Do not publish

[CR25]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.