Judges of the Texas 7th Court of Appeals have upheld a Lubbock jury’s much-discussed 70-year sentence imposed in April 2023 on a violent repeat offender who spat on police officers who arrested him in connection with a domestic violence investigation.
The opinion was issued May 15 and was one of two Lubbock County cases involving lengthy prison sentences ruled by the appeals court this year.
Lawyers for Larry Pearson argued that the trial judge allowed prosecutors to present evidence during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, biasing the jury against him.
Pearson was charged with two counts of intimidation of a public official stemming from an April 2, 2022, arrest in which he spit on multiple police officers who responded to the scene, according to court records. However, the indictment only listed two officers as victims.
The police response came after a Lubbock police officer driving in the 200 block of Zenith Avenue stopped a vehicle after it swerved in front of him.
Pearson’s then-girlfriend was the driver and the officer described her as “visibly distraught.” She was crying and hurt.
She told the officer that Pearson was armed. Officers later found a weapon that turned out to be an air pistol.
The officer called for help and Pearson refused to follow orders to exit the vehicle. Nearly a dozen officers arrived on scene to pull Pearson from the vehicle, restrained him and placed him in a patrol vehicle.
Pearson was in the vehicle for about an hour and repeatedly complained about the tightness of his seat belts. His frustration boiled over and he began kicking the windows of the patrol vehicles, leading to another fight with officers, with Pearson spitting and swearing at them.
One of the accused victims was spat at three times and punched in the face.
Another officer on whom Pearson spat was hit in the eye and lip. The officer told jurors that after she was struck, Pearson told her, “*****, that’s what you deserve.”
Officers eventually detained Pearson by a board, placed him in a paddy wagon and he was taken to the provincial jail.
Court records show Pearson’s spitting was so persistent that officers placed a spit hood on him.
However, during the trip to the jail, Pearson managed to loosen the spitting hood and immediately resumed spitting when officers opened the paddy wagon doors.
Pearson’s girlfriend was ordered to testify at the trial by subpoena, but did not appear.
Presenting video evidence at trial
However, prosecutors, over the defense’s objections, presented some of the footage from a responding officer’s body-worn camera, which showed jurors that the domestic assault was the reason for the police response.
Defense attorneys objected to the evidence during the trial, saying it violated Pearson’s right to confront witnesses since the alleged assault victim did not testify.
District Judge Douglas Freitag of the 140th District Court admitted the video evidence, although he made it clear to jurors that the weapon found on Pearson was not a firearm.
Evidence of the suspect’s prior crimes or other bad acts is normally inadmissible during the guilt-innocence phase of a trial. However, a court may admit the evidence if prosecutors want to use it to provide context to explain why a suspect has been charged or arrested.
Appellate attorneys argued that the video evidence met the context exception to the rule.
“Criminal offenses do not happen in a vacuum,” the state states. “The jury had a right to know why law enforcement approached (Pearson) in the first place. Avoiding the nature of the call would likely have left the jury with more questions than answers. And that was clear from the state’s argument for admission of the evidence that the purpose of the testimony was to provide context to the jury, not for the purpose of character conformity.
The judges agreed, saying the video evidence was admitted to provide context for the encounter with police.
“Without this contextual evidence, jurors would have no information whatsoever about why (Pearson) had any interaction with police officers, why the vehicle in which (Pearson) was a passenger was parked in the middle of the street and why police immediately responded to the scene with weapons drawn “, said the opinion, written by Judge Larry Doss. “There is therefore no abuse of discretion.”
A long prison sentence
Pearson’s attorneys also argued that the lengthy prison sentence was grossly disproportionate and therefore violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Intimidation of a public servant is a crime of the third degree, normally punishable by a prison sentence of two to 10 years.
Pearson’s criminal history, which included two prison sentences, increased his sentence range from 25 years to life in prison. His prior convictions also disqualified him from probation.
In his appeal, Pearson’s attorney argued that the 70-year prison sentence, while within legal limits, was grossly disproportionate and unconstitutionally high compared to similar cases.
In this case, none of the officers were permanently injured by Pearson’s actions or required medical intervention, according to Pearson’s appeal.
During the trial, Pearson’s attorney told jurors in his closing argument that the officers failed to de-escalate the situation that prompted his client to act as he did.
“Police officers routinely encounter individuals and situations that could be perceived as intimidating,” Pearson’s appeal said. “While this is an unfortunate reality for our law enforcement, it is also the nature of the occupation. If every person who assaulted a police officer spent 70 years in prison, the already minimal amount of prison space in this state would be completely wiped out. The Court must therefore conclude that the sentence imposed is largely disproportionate to the criminal offenses committed.”
The brief included a list of harassment of a public servant cases filed in Lubbock County since 2008 that resulted in sentences ranging from probation to 15 days in jail to 10 years in prison.
“No sentence in the data comes close to the 70 years (Pearson) received for this crime,” the letter said.
Judge Larry Doss, who wrote the opinion, stated that the justices could not rule on the issue as Pearson’s trial attorney did not maintain the issue because he did not object to it at the time.
However, the Lubbock County Prosecutor’s Office argued that, had the issue been saved for appeal, the record shows that Pearson’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate.
The public prosecutor’s lawyer argued in her statement that the scope of criminal cases extends beyond the crime for which the suspects were tried.
In Texas, jury trials are split into two phases: the guilt-innocence phase and the penalty phase, which typically take place one after the other.
In the second phase, prosecutors often tell jurors that they are punishing suspects, especially repeat offenders, not only for the offense charged, but also for their character, prior convictions, and offenses that demonstrate a propensity to commit crimes. Punishments include deterring future crimes, promoting respect for the law and protecting society.
In Pearson’s case, jurors were shown his criminal history, including convictions for domestic violence, a Class A misdemeanor, from 2014 to 2018. Class A misdemeanors carry a penalty of up to one year in prison.
In 2010, he pleaded guilty in Lubbock County to a first-degree felony charge of aggravated robbery and was given a 10-year deferred adjudication. However, he was sentenced to five years in prison after his probation was revoked.
In 2019, he was convicted of persistent domestic violence and sentenced to two years in prison.
Court records show that while Pearson was in jail on a charge of assaulting a police officer, a protective order was issued that prohibited him from contacting his girlfriend or coming within 200 feet of her home.
Pearson violated that protective order by calling her from jail and then going to her house and fighting her about two weeks after he was released on bail. He was arrested and committed to prison where he remained until his trial.
The plaintiff’s attorney argued that Pearson’s conduct during the arrest, his criminal history, and his conduct during the trial and in prison were serious enough to warrant the unusually long prison sentence.
“Here, the victims, two law enforcement officers, did nothing other than attempt to detain (Pearson) to investigate an ongoing disturbance,” the state’s appeal letter said. “In return, Pearson verbally harassed officers, attempted to damage police property and repeatedly spat at officers. This was behavior that the jury was not willing to accept as acceptable.”
Further appeal is pending
Meanwhile, Pearson also made multiple outbursts during the trial, including hurling expletives at a prosecutor as she delivered her closing argument and telling her to “keep my name out of your mouth (expletive).”
Court records show that in the year he waited for trial, Pearson filed about 30 disciplinary reports, including charges that he was uncooperative and hostile to prison staff, exposed himself to prison guards and possessed contraband.
“The jury was tasked with assessing the appropriate punishment not only for the conduct of intimidation of a public servant, but also for a habitual offender with multiple prior convictions,” the state’s appeal letter said. “Given appellant’s history, the jury’s verdict was not a sentence outside the statutory range and was based on the informed normative judgment of sentencing.”
Pearson’s attorney has asked the Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest court in criminal cases, to review the case.
This article originally appeared in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Long prison sentences upheld in two Lubbock County cases
