Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
After learning in 2022 that her adult son, Shawn Lee McFarlane, was living behind a dumpster, Margaret McFarlane allowed him to live rent-free in her garage apartment. Their relationship deteriorated, and Margaret eventually told him to move out. According to her testimony, McFarlane then strangled and punched her, restrained her hands with zip ties, obtained her debit-card PIN, and left with her wallet, debit card, and car keys. Margaret suffered severe bruising, bilateral rib fractures, and a collapsed lung.
A jury convicted McFarlane of aggravated kidnapping causing bodily injury, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault of a family member with a deadly weapon, and family-violence assault. The jury assessed sentences of 60 years, 50 years, life, and 20 years, respectively. The sentences were to run concurrently. On appeal, McFarlane challenged testimony about where he had been living before moving into Margaret’s apartment and argued that punishing him for both aggravated robbery and aggravated assault violated double-jeopardy protections.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Margaret’s testimony that McFarlane had been living behind a dumpster. Article 38.371 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permits relevant evidence about the relationship between a defendant and a family or household victim. The court rejected McFarlane’s argument that temporal remoteness made the testimony irrelevant, explaining that remoteness may bear on a Rule 403 analysis but does not itself eliminate relevance. McFarlane had not preserved or presented a Rule 403 challenge.
The court agreed with McFarlane and the State that the aggravated-robbery and aggravated-assault convictions imposed multiple punishments for the same offense. Although the statutes contain different elements, the indictment predicated both counts on the same alleged conduct: causing Margaret bodily injury by striking her with his hands or pushing her into or against a hard surface. Because the aggravated-assault conviction carried the more serious sentence—life imprisonment—the court retained that conviction, reversed the aggravated-robbery conviction, and rendered an acquittal on that count. It affirmed the other three convictions.
Key Takeaways
- Convictions under statutes with different elements may still violate double jeopardy when, under the indictment’s allegations, the same facts prove both offenses.
- The proper remedy for a multiple-punishment violation is to retain the conviction carrying the more serious punishment and vacate the other conviction.
- Temporal remoteness alone does not make evidence irrelevant, and a relevance objection does not preserve a separate Rule 403 complaint.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the importance of applying Texas’s cognate-pleadings approach to multiple-punishment claims. Courts must examine not only the statutory elements but also how the State alleged the offenses in the indictment.
It also distinguishes relevance from unfair-prejudice analysis: evidence does not become irrelevant merely because it concerns an earlier event, while objections based on remoteness-related prejudice must be preserved under Rule 403.