tcdla.com - Voice For The Defense Online

solely on the basis of the un cor rob o rated testimony of a victim,and therefore I think that it is in sex cases that the balancingap proach will most often ren der such evidence admissible.” Thecourt specifically held that the Confrontation Clause—and duepro cess clause re quir ing fundamental fairness in a trial—willpre vail if there is a conflict between the Constitution and theRules of Evidence.Criminal Record of the “Victim”In Arroyo v. State, 117 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), theCourt reviewed a misdemeanor conviction for assault. In thatcase, the victim did not testify. The defendant wished to impeachher credibility with certified copies of judgments of convictionsin several criminal cases. The Court notes in a footnote that Rule806 and 609 of the Rules of Evidence would allow the in troduction of this evidence. However, the state successfully ar guedthat the defendant could not show that this was the same per sonalleged as the victim, and the trial court refused to allow thein tro duc tion of the evidence. The Court of Criminal Appealsre versed this holding. The State had previously provided the defendant with the victim’s rap sheet pursuant to the defendant’sBrady motion. The State was now stopped from asserting thatthe exhibits were inadmissible on the ground of identity. Thecase was remanded to the court of appeals to see if there wasany other legal theory to exclude the documents.Bias of the WitnessThe defendant is entitled to attack the motive that a witnessmay have for testifying. “The exposure of a witness’s motivationin testifying is a proper and important function of the right ofcross-examination.” Specific acts may be admissible in spite ofthe Rule of Evidence if they are necessary to show the bias or motivefor the witness to testify untruthfully. Thomas v. State, 897S.W.2d 539 (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 1995). In Thomas the de fendant,charged with sexual assault, wanted to bolster his consentdefense by showing that the victim’s boyfriend was violent andjeal ous and that she would lie to avoid him finding out that shehad consented to sex with the defendant. The Court of Appealsre versed the trial court decision to exclude this evidence.Evidence of the Defendant’s Good CharacterThe defendant has the right to introduce evidence of his goodcharacter at the guilt/innocence stage of the trial. Failure to al lowsuch evidence has been held to be reversible error. Green v. State,700 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985)Practice TipsMotions to FileThe motion to quash is an important tool in most assault cases.The State is entitled to allege that the acts occurred “recklessly.”Assault is a result-oriented crime. Therefore, “recklessly” shouldbe defined in the jury charge as:A person acts recklessly or is reck less with respect to there sult of his conduct when he is aware of but consciouslydis re gards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that there sult will occur. The risk must be of such a nature andde gree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviationfrom the stan dard of care that an ordinary person wouldex er cise under all the circumstances as viewed from theac tor’s standpoint.Tex. Pe nal Code 6.03(c). Article 21.15 of the Code of CriminalPro ce dure requires that if recklessness is alleged, in order for thein for ma tion or indictment to be sufficient, it must allege, withrea son able certainty, the act or acts relied upon to constitute thereck less ness, and in no event shall it be sufficient to allege merelythat the accused, in committing the offense, acted recklessly.The motion for discovery is important in order to determineif there is a 911 tape-recorded call, who the witnesses will be,and whether there are any photographs of any injuries available.Also, it includes the statutory right to be told of any statementmade by the defendant. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 39.14.The motion to suppress the warrantless arrest is very important. Most arrests will fall under Article 14.03, which allowsan arrest without a warrant. However, the burden is always uponthe State to prove an exception to the warrant requirement.This might give the defendant a pretrial hearing on the legalityof the arrest. Included in this motion is the request to suppressall state ments made by the defendant. This gives the attorneythe op por tunity to litigate whether the statements meet Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art. 38.22 and whether the statements willbe admissible at trial.The request for notice under 404(b) and 609 of the Rulesof Evidence and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 39.14 (b) of expertwit nesses and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 37.07 are extremelyim por tant in family violence cases. Ex tra ne ous offenses needto be learned about in advance of trial. Prior convictions of theState’s witnesses must be disclosed if re quested. Many of theState’s counselors want to testify as “ex perts” concerning thebattered-person syndrome. This in for ma tion must be disclosedor it is not admissible.30 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE October 2009