Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 21, 2012

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Celis v. State, No. 02-10-00505-CR (May 24, 2012) (Gabriel, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: both opinions at the same link.]

Held:  Limiting the complainant's impeachment with her 30-year history of DWI did not violate rule of evidence 609, and to the extent it involved Appellant's confrontation rights, given the complainant's admitting to a lifetime drinking problem, Appellant's cross examination, and the admission of recent DWI convictions, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dissent:  Appellant sought to present the evidence of Maldonado's prior convictions to support his defense of necessity based on her dangerous and intoxicated driving and to support his argument that her intoxication and addiction prevented her ability accurately to recount the events of the night in question. The State and the trial court recast his issues as simple impeachment based on Maldonado's prior felony convictions and crimes of moral turpitude. Because the trial court refused to admit the evidence upon which Appellant's entire defense was predicated, he was denied his due process right to present his defense, and that error was harmful. Further, by analyzing Appellant's issue as reframed by the State, the majority has also denied Appellant his constitutional right to present a defense.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «