### NUM BER 13-08- 0040 9-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
M A NU EL C HA PA

GA RC IA , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## M EMO RA NDUM OPI NI ON ON REHE A RI NG Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Garza M emo rand um Opin ion o n Re he aring b y Ju stice R od rigu ez On Au gus t 3 0 , 2 0 1 0 , a p p e lla n t Man u e l Ch a p a Ga rci a f ile d a m o ti o n fo r re h e a rin g, re q uest ing thatthe Co urt rec onsi der its di spos it ion of

his appeal

. W e g ra nt t he moti on for
re hear ing , w it hdraw

our prev iou s o pin ion and jud g ment of Augus t 25, 2010, and subs ti tute the fol low ing i n i ts pla ce.B e c a u s e th i s i s a m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n a n d th e p a rti e s a re fa m i l i a r w i th th e f a c ts , w e w i l l n o t re c i te 1 th e m h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 2 Garci a c hal len g es his co nv icti on for mansl aug hter by a j ur y , for w hic h he w as sent enced to ten y ears' i ncarcerati on. See T EX . P EN AL C ODE
. A NN . § 19. 04 (Ve rnon 200 3). By one is sue, Garci a argue s that the tr ial co urt den ied hi s d ue proces s r ig hts under the United State s Constitu tion when it ref used to allow him to present ev iden ce, relate d to his self-defense theo ry , of

perceived dan ger and tha t the dece ased w as t h e f irst agg ressor. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 1 Gar c ia w as indicte d for mu rder in conn ection w ith an altercatio n at a Den ny's restau rant in C orpu s Christi, T exas, in w hich he pun ched the dece ased w ho fell back, hit his head, and die d from t hat i nju ry . At tr ial , Garc ia rais ed the iss ue of self-de fense, s tati ng in h is t e s t im o n y t h a tt h e d e c e a s e d wa s t h e f irs ta ggr e s s o r. Fo ll o win g G a rc ia ' s t e s t im o n y, c o u n s e l fo r G a rc ia in fo rm e d t h e t ri a l c o u rtt h a th e wis h e d t o p re s e n tt h e t e s t im o n y o f two wit n e s s e s in su p p o rto f G a rc ia ' s f irs t -a ggr e s s o r s e lf-d e fe n s e t h e o ry: [D efense c ounse l] : Y o u r Ho n or , I don' t pla n on g oin g int o anythi ng butreputa tion. I'm notg oing into an y specif ic s. [T he p rosecu tion] may w antto go into specif ics, but I don' t pl an on g oin g i nto i t. [C our t]: Y ou're s ay ing thaty ou're going to ask i f they know hi s reputat ion i n the co mmu nity , w hether that' s g ood or

bad? [D efense couns el] : For ce rt ain ch ara ct e r tr a it s, y es, si r. F or bei ng an ag g re ss iv e person, bei ng a bul ly , being unp eace f ul. Th ose a re the cha racter traits I w ant t o g o i nto.

. . . .3

[C our t]: I' ll al low sl ig ht l eew ay . Cal l y our w it ness . Garcia the n called Marcos Munoz as a w itness, w ho te stif ied, in relevant pa rt, as follows: [D efense couns el] : Mr . Mun o z, d o yo u k now a man – or

di d y ou know

. . . [t he dec eased ]? [Muno z ]: Yes, sir

. [ De fe n s e c o u n s e l] : A b o u th o w l o n g a p e ri o d o f t im e h a ve yo u k n o wn hi m? [Muno z ]: Abo ut th ree years. [Defense coun sel]: Did y ou know his repu tatio n in the com mu nity in w hic h he re si ded o r in the area th at he w or ked, did y ou know his reputat ion for b ein g a pe aceful person? [Muno z ]: No, sir. [D efense couns el] : You di d n 'tkn o w h is re p u tat io n fo r be in g a peace ful person? [Muno z ]: No, sir. [D efense couns el] : Oka y . So then if y ou d o n 'tkn o w h is re putat ion , y ou can'ttestif

y w het her – Atth is p o in t, th e tri a l co u rtin te rru p te d Ga rci a 's co u n se l, an d th e fo ll o wing e xch a n ge occ ur re d at the b ench: [C our t]: I g av e y ou s ome l eewa y . He answ ered y our

q ue s ti on a nd h e s ai d no . S o th at ' s i t for h i m. [D efense c ounse l] : I don 'tthi nk he unde rs tands , J udg e. [Court] : I think he did. You a sked h im twi ce. So th at's it for hi m. D o y ou hav e s omebody el se? [ D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ] : Let me askhim a coupl e of m o re q u e s ti ons about – [ Co u rt ] : He ' s a lr e a d y –4

[ P ro s e c u t o r] : He sa ys h e d o e s n ' tkn o w. [C our t]: Ex cus e me, ple ase. [ P ro s e c u t o r] : S o rry. [C our t]: He al re ady answ ered the q uest ion

. He sai d no, I don 'tkn ow

hi s reputat ion , p e rio d. And y ou ask ed h im tw ic e. So do y ou hav e s omebody els e y ou w ant t o puton? [D efense c ounse l] : I do, Y our Hon o r, b u t I wan t to make sure the y don' t mak e the sa me mis tak e he made. And I need t o tal k t o tha t w it ness i f that' s t he c ase. [Court] : No

. I'm g oing to l et – w e're in trial. If y ou h a ve a w it ness , y ou puthi m on. If y ou don' t hav e a w it ness , y ou don' t puthi m on. [D efense c ounse l] : I don 'thav e any one, Judg e. [C our t]: That's i t? [D efense c ounse l] : That's i t. Garci a the n rest ed hi s c ase. T he jury w as cha rg ed o n the indicted of fense of murd er and also on th e lesserinc lud ed offenses of ag g ra v ated ass aul t, mansl aug hter , and cr imi nal ly neg li g ent h omic ide

. T he jury charge include d an instruction on self-defense . T he jury returne d a guilty

v erdict
on mans lau g hter

al one. After

furth er proceed ing s o n puni shment , t he j ur y se ntenc ed Garci a to ten y ears' i ncarcerati on i n the Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce and as ses sed a $10, 000 fine. Garcia f il e d a m otion for new trial, arguing, i n relevant pa rt, thatthe trial court prevente d the jury

f rom h earing evi den ce relevant to his self-de fense theo ry w hen the cou rt
ex cl uded t he te sti mony of Mu nozand Ma rg ar it a H er re ro , t he d e ceas ed's ex -w ife, attheM a r g a r ita H e r r e r o w a s n e v e r c a lle d a s a w itn e s s a t t h e g u ilt- in n o c e n c e p h a s e o fth e tr ia l. 2 5 g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e of the tr ial

. G arci a the n fil ed an amended mot ion for n ew tr ial , t o 2
w hic h he attac hed t he affidav it s o f Munozand H e rre ro . The aff ida v it s c ontai ned
summar ies of the p ro ffered te stimoni es re g ardin g the decea sed' s a ll eg ed pas t acts of
v iol ence and ag g re ss ion ag ain st them and his rep utati on for vi ole nce and ag g re ss ion i n the communi ty

. After hear ing the moti on and pur por ti ng to "admit " the two a ff ida v it s a s ev ide nce, the tr ial co urt den ied Garci a's moti on. II. D I S CUS S I ON By one is sue, Garci a c omplai ns that his co nst it uti onal r ig hts w ere v iol ated w hen t he trial court den ied him "a fa ir opp ortun ity to present testimo ny relevant to his defense of self defense," w hic h Garci a arg ues w oul d hav e show n perc eiv ed dang er and that the d eceas ed
w as the first ag g re ss or . See Ray v. St ate , 178 S.W .3d 833 , 835 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 5); Poti er v. Sta te , 68 S.W .3d 6 57, 6 59 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 2) ( en banc ); see als o U. S. C ON ST . am end . VI. Garcia's com plaintfocuse s on the e xc h ange be tw een his defense couns el and the tri al cour t foll ow ing Munoz 's tes ti mony at the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e of the tr ial ; s peci fical ly , he arg ues in his br ief as foll ow s:

Defense co u n s e l t r i e d t o fi rs to ffe r t h e t e s t i mo n y

o f e a c h o f t he defense w it ness es . . . . Mr . M unoztoo k th e s tand, but apparentl y di d not understa nd th e nat ure of the q uest ion s put to him and g av e an unex pect ed re spons e. Defense co unsel att empted t o q uest ion M unozfurth e r b ut t he cour t woul d no[ t] per mit it

. D efense c ounse l then re q uest ed ti me to confer w it h the se cond w it ness before she tes ti fied to make sure s he unde rs tood the n ature of the q uest ion s t hat s he woul d be ask ed. The tr ial cour t den ied defense c ounse l thi s req uest

. D e fense couns el deci ded notto cal l theA po rt i on of t he evi de nc e a bo ut w hi c h G arc i a c om pl ai ns on ap pe al

— t es t i m on y by M un oz an d H errero 3 re g a rd i n g th e d e c e a s e d 's p rio r v i o l e n t a c ts

— w a s n o t i n tro d u c e d a t t h e g u i l t-i n n o c e n c e p h a s e o f h i s tri a l

. It i s cl ear f r om t he r ecor d t hat G ar ci a on l y i nt ended t o i nt r oduce and di d at t em pt t o i nt r oduce ev i dence oft he decease d' s al l eged r eput at i on i n t he co m m uni t y for vi ol en c e an d ag gr essi on. T hus, ev en t hough t he subst ance oft he p r oposed t est i m onyr egar di ng sp eci f i c v i ol ent act s app ear s i n t he r ecor d bef or e us t hr ough t he a ff i dav i t s of M unoz and H er r er o at t ached t o G ar ci a' s m ot i on f or new t r i al , we ar e f aced wi t h a pr ocedur al h u rd l e i n th a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s n e v e r o ff e re d a t t ria l

. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 103 ( b) ( pr ov i di ng t hat an off erof pr oof shal l be m ade " as soon as pr act i cabl e, but bef or e t he cour t ' s char ge i s r ead t o t he j ur y . . . . " )

. G ar ci a do es not acknowl edge oradd r ess t hi s ci r cum st ance i n hi s br i eft o t he C our t

. Because G ar ci a di d not i nt r oduce t he t es t i m on y of M un oz an d H errero rega rdi ng al l eg ed s pe c i fi c pri or ac t s of ag gre s s i on an d vi ol en c e, t he t ri al co urt d i d n o t h a v e th e o p p o rtu n i ty to ru l e o n th e a d m i s s i b i l i ty o f th a t t e s ti m o n y . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33

. 1(a ); Va lle v . S ta te , 109 S. W

. 3d 5 00, 509 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 3) ( hol di ng t hat pr eser v at i on o fer r orr equi r es ob j ect i on a n d r u l i n g o n th a t o b je c ti o n ); H i ll v . S ta te , 902 S. W

. 2d 5 7, 60 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 199 5, pet

. r ef ' d) ( hol di ng t hat t he t r i al cour t ' s adv er se r ul i ng m ust expl i ci t l y appea r i n t he r ecor d, and absent any not at i on a s t o t he t r i al cour t ' s deci si on, er r ori s wai v ed)

. A nd a bs en t a ru l i ng b y t he t r i al cour t on t hi s por t i on o ft he ev i dence about w hi c h G arc i a now com pl ai ns, t hi s C our t i s l eft wi t h no cogn i z abl e com pl ai nt r egar di ng te s ti m o n y o f t h e d e c e a s e d 's s p e c i fic p rio r vi o l e n t a c ts o n w h i c h to p a s s ju d g m e n t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33

. 1(a ). G ar ci a ha s t her ef or e wai v ed t hi s por t i on ofhi s ar gum ent , and w e ove r r ul e hi s i ssue t o t he e xt ent i t com pl ai ns ofev i dence r egar di ng t he d eceased ' s pr i orv i ol ent act s.

In h is b r ie f , G a r c ia a ls o p o in ts to a c tio n s b y th e tr ia l c o u r t d u r in g th e p u n is h m e n t p h a s e o fth e tr ia l, bu t t ho s e a c t i on s are i rr el eva nt for pu rpo s es of t hi s ap pe al as G arc i a' s ch al l en ge rel a te s on l y t o h i s se l fd e f e n s e th e o r y a t t h e g u ilt- in n o c e n c e p h a s e o fh is tr ia l.

Fi nal l y , t o t he e xt ent t hat G arc i a c om pl ai ns of t he e xcl usi on o ft est i m onybyH er r er o r egar di ng t he re p u ta ti o n o f th e d e c e a s e d , h e h a s w a i v e d th a t c o m p l a i n t. H e rr e ro w a s n e v e r c a l l e d a s a w i tn e s s a t t h e g u i l ti nnocen ce ph ase o ft he t r i al , and t he t r i al cour t t hus h ad n o op por t uni t y t o rul e on t he a dm i ssi bi l i t y of her te s ti m o n y . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33

. 1(a ); s e e a ls o Va lle , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 5 0 9 ; H ill , 902 S. W

. 2d a t 60.
6 w it ness and re ste d.[ ] 3 Garcia then argues thatthe excluded ev iden ce "would ha v e assiste d the jury in determin[i ng ] ex act ly

w hat [ Garci a] w as confro nted w it h", an d "[h] ad th e j ur y had the tes ti mony

of [M unozand Her re ro ,] the v erdict may hav e been different. " The ex cl usi on of a defendant 's ev ide nce can amount t o a v iol ati on o f t h e r ig ht t o compel the atten dance of w it ness es in the d e fe n d a n t's fav or , butnot ev er y er ro neous ex cl usi on of a defendant 's ev ide nce amounts to a c onst it uti onal v iol ati on. Poti er v. Sta te , 68 S. W .3d 6 57, 6 59 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ( en banc ); see U. S. C ON ST . amend. VI.T h e S ta te c o n te n d s , i n p a r t, th a t G a r c ia f a il e d to p r e s e r v e e r r o r re g a r d in g th e e x c lu s io n o fM u n o z's 4 te s ti m o n y b e c a u s e h e fa i l e d to m a k e a ti m e l y o ff e r o f p ro o f c o n ta i n i n g th e s u b s ta n c e o f th a t t e s ti m o n y . See T EX
. R. E V ID . 1 0 3 (a )( 2 ). W e d i s a g re e . B e fo re M u n o z to o k th e s ta n d , c o u n s e l f o r G a rc i a s ta te d th a t h i s fi rs taggr essorwi t nesses woul d t est i fy as t o " cer t ai n cha r act ert r ai t s" of t he d eceased , i ncl udi ng "be i ng an aggr essi v e pe r son, bei ng a bul l y , bei ng u npeace f ul

. " Based on t hese r epr esent at i ons, we be l i ev e t he s ub s t an c e o f M un oz' s t es t i m on y w as m ad e k n o w n to th e t ri al co urt , an d t he co m pl ai nt w as t he refore p re s e rv e d

. See id. ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33

. 1(a ). 7 T here are tw o circumst ance s in w hich th e imp rope r ex clusion o f evi d e nce ma y estab lish a constitu tiona l v iolation : (1) w hen a state ev iden tiaryrule cat eg or ic all y

and ar bit ra ri ly

prohi bit s t he defendant from offer ing rele v ant evidenc e thatis v ital to his de fense ; or (2) w hen a trial court erroneo usly ex clud e s re le vantev ide nce that is a v it al por ti on of the cas e and the ex cl usi on effectiv ely

precl udes the d efendant from p re sent ing a de fense. Ray v. Sta te , 1 7 8 S. W .3 d 83 3 , 8 3 5 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Poti er , 68 S.W .3d a t 659
- 62; W iley v. State , 74 S.W .3d 399, 405 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2002) ). If the e rror i s found t o be of cons ti tuti onal propor ti ons, w e "mustrev erse [the] judg ment of conv icti on or pu nis hment unl ess [w e] deter mine[ ] bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatthe er ro r did not cont ri bute to t he
conv icti on or

puni shment ." T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4.2( a)

. Here, Garcia d o e s n o t claim th at an ev iden tiaryrule categorically and arbitrarily prohi bit ed him f ro m offer ing ev ide nce. W e w il l therefore de ter mine: first, w hether the tr ial
cour t i mpermi ss ibl y

ci rc umsc ri bed M unoz 's tes ti mony ; an d i f so, w hether

the ex cl uded
ev ide nce w as so v it al a par t of G a rci a 's c ase that iteffect iv ely precl uded hi m from prese nting his defense . T he initial question in this case, th en, is w het her the trial court's limitat ion of

Munoz's testimo ny am oun ted to a n e rr o n eou s ex clusion o f adm issible
re putat ion al ev ide nce. W e bel iev e tha t i t di d not

. 4 "A defendant in a homi ci de prosec uti on w ho rais es the i ss ue of sel f-defense may int ro duce ev ide nce of the dec eased 's v iol ent c haract er ." Tor re s v . St ate , 71 S.W .3d 7 58,8

760 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2002) ( ci ti ng T EX . R. E V ID . 404 (a)(2); T ate v . St ate , 981 S.W .2d 1 89, 192- 93 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1998) (e n banc ); Thom pson v. State , 6 5 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 3 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1983) ). This ev ide nce may be int ro duced in the form of opini on or reputat ion tes ti mony

to prov e the deceased act ed in conformi ty w it h hi s v iol ent n ature. T EX . R. E V ID . 405( a)

. How ever, fo r such reput ation al evi den ce to be adm issible, the propo nen t mu st f irst lay the proper

foundati on for the q ual if ica tion of the w it ness w ho w il l tes ti fy about the
re putat ion of the d eceas ed. See Mowbray v. Sta te , 7 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 8 , 6 6 8 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1990, pet. ref'd) (uphol din g ex cl usi on of reputat ion testi mony

bas ed
on no proper

predi cat e) ; see als o Peck v . St ate , 923 S.W .2d 8 39, 8 42- 43 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1996, no pet .)

. "To be an appro p ria te reputat ion w it ness , t he w it ness musthav e a subst ant ial fam iliarity

w ith the reputa tion o f the perso n ab outw hom the wi tne ss is suppo sed to t est ify ." Gar za v . St ate , 18 S.W .3d 8 13, 824 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 00, p et.
r e f'd ) (ci ti n g Lopez

v. Sta te , 8 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 4
- 4 5 ( Te x . A p p . – S a n A n t o n i o 1 993, no p et.) ); see Mo wbray, 7 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d a t 6 6 8 ( s t a t i n g s a me p r i n c i p l e u n d e r p re d e c e s s o r to
cur re nt r ule 405) ; see als o T EX . R. E V ID . 405 (a ) (p ro v idi ng that"to be qual ified to tes ti fy at the g uil t stag e of

a [cr imi nal ] tri al conc er nin g the charact er or ch aract er

traitof an ac cus ed,
a w itness m ust have bee n fam iliar w ith the rep uta tion

. . . prior to the day of th e of fense "). W e w il l not dis tur b a tr ial cour t' s deci si on to ex cl ude the pro p o se d reputat ion al tes ti mony

unless an abuse of dis creti on i s s how n. See Mo ntgom er y v. State , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ( op. o n reh'g ); Fer re ll v. Sta te , 9 6 8 S

. W

. 2 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 4 (T e x.9

App.

– Fo rtW orth 19 98, p et. re f'd) (c it ati on omi tted) ; see als o Chavez v. Sta te , N o. 13- 01- 00407- CR , 200 2 W L 31084422, at *2 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Sept . 19, 2002, pet. ref'd) (not de signated for pub lication). T hat stan dard requires us to upho ld a trial court's admis si bil ity

dec is ion w hen that deci si on i s w it hin "the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement." Powell v. Sta te , 63 S. W .3d 435 , 438 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01). The atte mpted predi cat e i n thi s c ase cons is ted o f th e p re v iou sl y des cr ibe d
ex chang e betw een M unoz and Garci a's defense couns el. The tr ial cour t then hal ted t he q uest ion ing

. W hen c ounse l for Garc ia protes ted, the tr ial co urt s tated , "[ Mu noz ] al re ady
answ ered th e q uest ion

. H e s aid no, I don 'tkn ow [t he dec eased 's ] reputat ion , per iod

. And y ou as ked him tw ic e." Al thoug h i t i s p oss ibl e tha t M unozco uld hav e been confused by the phrasi ng of defense c ounse l' s q uest ion , und er our deferen ti al sta ndard of rev iew , w e as sume t he tr ial
cour t w as operati ng from t he "best v antag e" to int er pret t he s it uati on. See Montgo m ery, 810 S. W .2d a t 391 ; see a lso T EX . R. E V ID . 104 (a ) (p ro v idi ng thatpreli minar y q uest ion s regarding the qualif ication s of w itnesse s "sha ll be dete rmine d by the [trial] court" ); Mc Vick er s v . St ate , 874 S.W .2d 6 62, 6 6 4 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) , over ruled on o ther gr ounds , Gr

anados v. Sta te , 85 S.W .3d 2 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ( "The r ule s o f
ev i d e n c e a ffo rd t h e c o u rtb ro a d d i s c re t i o n i n t h e d e t e r mi n a t i o n " o f p re l i mi n a r y q u e s ti ons of admis si bil ity .)

. This i s a case that falls w it hin that"reason abl e z one of di sag re ement,"
a c ase in w hic h w e mustdefer to t he tr ial co urt' s reli ance on "i ts ow n obs e rv ati ons and
ex per ien ces " bec ause the c omplai ned- of ex chang e i n volv es re act ion s a nd det ail s t hatA n d b e c a u s e th e re w a s n o e v i d e n ti a ry e rr o r, w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s w h e th e r G a rc i a w a s h a rm e d

. See 5 T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .1 ; R a y v . S ta te , 178 S

. W

. 3d 833, 835 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 5) ( ci t i ng Poti er , 68 S. W

. 3d a t 6 5 9 -6 2 ; W i

l e y v . S ta te , 74 S

. W

. 3d 39 9, 40 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 02 ))

. 10 canno t be appropr iat ely as cer tai ned t hroug h a c old appe lla te record. See Powell , 63 S.W .3d a t 438 ; Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 391

. Thu s, base d on our rev iew of the cold
re cord on appeal , w e c oncl ude t hat G arci a fail ed to l a y t h e p ro per predi cat e tha t M unoz
w as subs tanti all y

famil iar w it h the dec eased 's reputat ion for ag g re ss ion and v iol ence, and
w e the re fore c annot say thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s dis creti on in refusi ng to per mit further q uest ion ing of

Munoz

. See G a r

za , 18 S.W .3d a t 824 ; Mo wbray, 788 S.W .2d a t 668 ; see also T EX . R. E V ID . 405 (b). B e c a u se the trial court did noterr i n excluding M uno z 's testim ony, it did not violate G arcia's const itution al rig ht to comp el favorable w itnesse s. 5 See Ray, 178 S.W .3d a t 835 ; see als o U. S. C ON ST . am end . VI. Garcia's sole issue is
ov er ru led

. III . C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv ered and filed the 4th day of Nov ember , 201 0.