Rap Videos – in Court?

In Hart v. State, 668 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was faced with a unique issue: can rap videos created by a defendant be admitted in court to show the defendant’s character?

Facts of the Case:

Larry Jean Hart was charged with “capital murder while committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of burglary.” He testified at trial that on the night of the incident, he gave a ride to an acquaintance he knew as “Mondo” and three strangers. Hart stated that he stayed in the car while Mondo and the other individuals entered an apartment, robbed the occupant, and shot him to death.

When questioned by police, Hart maintained that he gave the group a ride, but did not know what they were planning to do. At trial, Hart testified on his own behalf, and explained that he doesn’t have “the right comprehension skills.” The trial court conducted a competency evaluation and found that Hart has a below-average IQ and is “naïve and unable to think abstractly about motives or consequences.” However, the trial court did not allow the jury to hear the results of the competency evaluation.

The Evidence

After Hart testified, the State entered two YouTube rap videos created by “Block Da Foo Foo” and alleged that Hart created these videos. One of the videos was called “I.W.T.” (I Won’t Tell), and the other showed Hart rapping “lyrics which make references to weapons, cough syrup, and being a ‘trap king.’” Hart’s attorney objected 1) that the State did not prove that Hart actually wrote these songs or created the videos and 2) that the videos’ prejudicial effect significantly outweighed their probative value. The trial court allowed the videos to come into evidence, and Hart testified that “I.W.T.” was “just a song” and had nothing to do with the case. Hart was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.

Texas Rule of Evidence 403 – Probative and Prejudicial Balancing Test

Under Texas Rule of Evidence 403, a court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” This balancing test weighs the risk of a jury making a decision on emotional grounds with the actual usefulness of the evidence. If that risk is higher than the ability of the evidence to prove or disprove a charge or defense in a case, then the trial court judge can decide to exclude the evidence. On appeal, this decision is reviewed for “abuse of discretion,” which essentially means that it will not be overturned unless the judge disregarded applicable law.

The Direct Appeal

Hart appealed his conviction to the Dallas Court of Appeals. The Dallas Court found that the trial court judge did not abuse their discretion in admitting the rap videos, because the judge could have found that the usefulness of the videos to show Hart’s comprehension skills outweighed any risk of prejudicing the jury.

The Court of Criminal Appeals

Hart appealed the Dallas Court’s decision to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The CCA found that the rap videos were highly prejudicial and that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting them into evidence.

The CCA looked at the balancing test under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. First, the CCA recognized that the videos had some probative value to show Hart’s ability to comprehend his actions. However, when evaluating the prejudicial danger of the videos, the CCA disagreed with the lower court. When determining that the rap videos were highly prejudicial, the Court looked at other courts’ decisions on the topic and emphasized that rap is not the only musical genre where songs are written about criminal activity.

Notably, the Court wrote: “Holding song lyrics to their literal meaning would lead to the following conclusions: Freddie Mercury ‘killed a man,’ Bob Marley ‘shot the sheriff,’ Macy Gray ‘committed murder and got away,’ the band formerly known as The Dixie Chicks killed Earl, and classically, Johnny Cash ‘shot a man just to watch him die.’” The Court held that allowing the jury to view these videos “creat[ed] the potential that the jury could ascribe character assessments to the defendant based on the content of the music he listened to or lyrics he wrote.”