Eaton, Jordan Alexander

6/25/26

PD-0053-26

State’s Grounds

  1. “Did Eaton’s objection preserve error under Rule 403 or under Due Process?”
  2. “Did the court of appeals err by concluding that the trial court should be reversed because of a single question that violated Crawford and because the trial court admitted a six second video of Eaton in restraints?”

On the Court’s Own Motion

“Whether the court of appeals erred by failing to afford appropriate deference to the trial court on the admissibility of the evidence.” 

Eaton fired at a woman who attempted to pet his dog, and her husband was shot and killed in an ensuing struggle over Eaton’s gun. A neighbor recorded the events on his cell phone and later testified that Eaton was the aggressor. Eaton was indicted for murder and aggravated assault. At trial, the State offered a 6-second video of Eaton, captured on the night of his arrest, in which a reporter asked, “Why’d you shoot him?” and Eaton responded, “self-defense.” In the video, Eaton was in jail attire and handcuffed behind his back. The defense objected, arguing it was “hearsay because they’ve got a ton of reporters [asking him questions,] bombarding him, in all white like he’s already been convicted. I mean, that’s going to be extremely prejudicial.” The prosecutor and trial court treated this as a Rule 403 objection, and Eaton did not correct them. The video was admitted. Later, over Eaton’s Confrontation Clause objection, a detective testified that he had been told Eaton pulled a gun on a man because his dog charged Eaton. Eaton was ultimately convicted.  

On appeal, the court of appeals characterized Eaton’s trial and appeal complaints about the video as a claim of unfair prejudice but did not expressly address preservation. It held that the trial court erred in admitting the video and permitting hearsay without confrontation, and that both errors were harmful under the constitutional harm standard. 

The State argues Eaton forfeited constitutional error in relation to the video by not articulating a constitutional basis for his objection at trial. It contends that the error was not harmful given that the prosecutor did not draw attention to Eaton’s restraints or the fact that he was under arrest, and the audio portion of the video was admissible. Further, it contends that neither the brief video nor the single question about an extraneous incident warranted reversal, given that the State’s version of events was captured on video and corroborated by the wife’s and neighbor’s testimony and by a portion of Eaton’s.