Michael Dewayne Norris v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed April 2, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00273-CR
__________

MICHAEL DEWAYNE NORRIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 91st District Court
Eastland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 26834

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Appellant, Michael Dewayne Norris, of assault of a public
servant, a third-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(1) (West 2026).
The jury found an enhancement allegation to be “true,” and assessed Appellant’s
punishment at imprisonment for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice; the trial court sentenced him accordingly.
PENAL § 12.42(a) (West Supp. 2025).
In a single issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion
when it admitted body camera footage of a jail security video in violation of the best
evidence rule. We affirm.
I. Factual Background
At the time of the assault, Appellant was an inmate in the Eastland County
Jail. Sergeant James Christopher Tighe with the Eastland County Sheriff’s Office
testified that when he opened Appellant’s cell door to deliver some paperwork,
Appellant attacked him and punched him multiple times in the face. Officer Sierra
Fraley with the Eastland County Sheriff’s Office observed the assault and came to
Sergeant Tighe’s aid.
During his investigation of the assault, Deputy Daniel Piper with the Eastland
County Sheriff’s Office went to the jail and observed security footage, which
captured the assault. Deputy Piper recorded the security footage by pointing his
body camera at the monitor that was playing it. At trial, and outside the presence of
the jury, Deputy Piper testified that because the jail’s security system was not
conducive to producing discrete, easy-to-transfer files, he was instructed to record
the on-screen footage with his body camera and then transfer and download that
shorter excerpt onto a hard drive associated with the body camera system. This
shorter body camera footage was then burned onto a CD and provided to the district
attorney’s office. Deputy Piper testified that the body camera footage fairly and
accurately depicted the events contained in it and that no alterations or deletions had
been made.
The State offered the body camera footage, and Appellant objected on the
basis that the original jail security video was the best evidence of what had occurred
in the jail hallway between Sergeant Tighe and Appellant. The trial court overruled
Appellant’s objection and admitted the body camera footage. Deputy Piper testified

2
that, based on the footage, he believed Appellant’s actions met the elements of
assault of a public servant.
II. Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse
of discretion standard. Ruiz v. State, 631 S.W.3d 841, 855 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2021, pet. ref’d). We will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary ruling, and there is
no abuse of discretion, unless that decision lies outside the zone of reasonable
disagreement. Barron v. State, 630 S.W.3d 392, 410 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021,
pet. ref’d). And we will uphold a trial court’s evidentiary ruling, even if its reasoning
is flawed, if it is correct on any theory of law that reasonably finds support in the
record and is applicable to the case. Wishert v. State, 654 S.W.3d 317, 330 (Tex.
App.—Eastland 2022, pet. ref’d).
III. Analysis
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted
the body camera footage of the original jail security video because its admission
violated the best evidence rule. See TEX. R. EVID. 1002 (“An original writing,
recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules
or other law provides otherwise.”).
Rule 1003 of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that a “duplicate is
admissible to the same extent as the original unless a question is raised about the
original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.”
TEX. R. EVID. 1003. As a recording of the original jail security video, the objected-
to body camera footage falls within the definition of a “duplicate” for the purposes
of the best evidence rule. TEX. R. EVID. 1001(e) (A “duplicate” is “a counterpart
produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent
process or technique that accurately reproduces the original.”).

3
Here, Appellant did not challenge the authenticity of the original jail security
video in the trial court below, and the circumstances do not suggest unfairness;
therefore, the body camera footage recorded by Deputy Piper was an admissible
duplicate of the original jail security video. See TEX. R. EVID. 1003; Ballard v. State,
23 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.) (holding that a copy of a video
was admissible under Rule 1003 because the appellant failed to challenge the
authenticity of the original). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion when it admitted the body camera footage. Wishert, 654 S.W.3d at
330; Barron, 630 S.W.3d at 410.
Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue on appeal.
IV. This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

April 2, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

4