1 

NO. 01-14-00606-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS 

___________________________

TRIAL COURT NO. 1370103 

IN THE 179TH JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT 

 KRISTIN M. GUINEY, PRESIDING JUDGE 

OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

___________________________

WILLIAM DELACRUZ 

Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee 

 APPELLANTS BRIEF 

(a)(1) APPELLANT’S COUNSEL: PAUL DECUIR, JR.

 TBN: 05712500 

 P.O. BOX 9687 

 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77213 

 (281) 409-9692 

 (713) 450-2773 FAX 

 E-MAIL: paul.decuir@yahoo.com 

 

(2) APPELLEES COUNSEL: ALAN CURRY 

HARRIS COUNTY ASSISTANT 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

1201 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600 

HOUSTON, TX 77002 

 

(b) Notice of Appeal filed on September 9, 2014 

(c) Oral Argument is NOT Requested. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00606-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/16/2015 1:37:10 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/16/2015 1:37:10 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. COVER SHEET FOR APPELLANTS BRIEF------------1

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS--------------------------------------2

3. IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL------------3

4. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES----------------------------------4

5. STATEMENT OF CASE---------------------------------------6

6. ISSUES PRESENTED-----------------------------------------6

7. ISSUE NUMBER ONE-----------------------------------------7

8. ISSUE NUMBER TWO----------------------------------------10

10. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER-------------------------------12

12. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-------------------------------13
3

IDENTIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSELS

APPELLANT: WILLIAM Delacruz

HARRIS COUNTY JAIL

1200 BAKER STREET

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77702

 713-252-8157

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:

PAUL DECUIR, JR.

TBN: 05712500

P.O. BOX 9687

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77213

281-409-9692

713-450-2773-FAX

e-mail: paul.decuir@yahoo.com

APPELLEE: STATE OF TEXAS

APPELLEES ATTORNEY:

ALAN CURRY

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

1201 FRANKLIN, 6TH FLOOR

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: PAGE

DELK V. STATE, 855 S.W. 2d 700------------------- 10

HERNANDEZ V. STATE, 351 S.W. 3d 156-----------10

RULES OF EVIDENCE

TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE--------------------------8

O. 01-14-00606-CR
5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRS TJUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS

___________________________

TRIAL COURT NO. 1370103

IN THE 179TH JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT 

KRISTIN M. GUINEY, PRESIDING JUDGE

OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

___________________________

WILLIAM DELACRUZ

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

APPELLANTS BRIEF
6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was charged with a Second Degree Felony, AGGRAVATED 

ASSAULT W/ DEADLY WEAPON. Trial was had to a jury of twelve and the 

Appellant was adjudged Guilty and sentenced to a term of Four (4) years in the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. No fine was

accessed. The Appellant filed a Motion for New Trial based on the Discovery of 

New Evidence and the denial of the trial Court to allow the Defendant to 

introduce the criminal record of the Complainant once his character had been 

placed in issue before the jury. The character of the complainant had been placed 

in issue by two of the prosecution’s witnesses and the jury was led to believe that 

the complainant was a fine upstanding individual who would not intentionally 

harm anyone.

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE ONE:

When the State presents witnesses who describe the 

complainant as a helpful person who would never harm 

anyone, leaving the Jury with the impression that the 

complainant is an upstanding member of the community, 

should the Defendant be allowed to present the prior bad 
7

acts of the complaintant to refute the claim of the State? 

ISSUE TWO:

Does the discovery of records of the Defendants

WARRANT THE Court granting a new trial in order to 

ascertain the Mental Competency of the Defendant at the 

time of the offense and during the trial on the merits

ISSUE NO. ONE:

ISSUE ONE:

When the State presents witnesses who describe the 

complainant as a helpful person who would never harm 

anyone leaving the Jury with the impression that the 

complainant is an upstanding member of the community, 

should the Defendant be allowed to present the prior bad 

acts of the complaintant to refute the claim of the State? 

ARGUMENY AND AUTHORITIES:

When the State presents witnesses who describe the 

complainant as a helpful person who would never harm anyone,

leaving the Jury with the impression that the complainant is an 
8

upstanding member of the community, should the Defendant be 

allowed to present the prior bad acts of the complaintant to refute the

representation of the complainant and the claim by the State that the 

Complainant was a nice, helpful person who would not harm anyone

and that the shooting of the Defendant, WILLIAM DELACRUZ was 

an accident. (RR,Vo. 3, pgs. 25, line 19 thru page 26 line 25; Vol. 3, 

page 109 thru page 113, line 25.). These representations by the State 

gave the jury the impression that ADAM ORTIZ was a helpful, kind 

individual who was mentally challenged and would not shoot anyone. 

According to the witnesses for the State, Adam Ortiz would not 

intentionally harm anyone.

This representation by the State would lead a reasonable jury or 

a jury made up of reasonable individuals to believe the Complaintant, 

Adam Ortiz was a kind, helpful individual why would not 

intentionally harm anyone thus causing the jury to find the Defendant 

guilty, as the jury did in this case. The Defendant attempted to 

introduce evidence of the prior “bad acts” of the Complainant ADAM 

ORTIZ. (RR. Vol. 3 page 7, Line 17 thru page 120, line 4; Vol. 3 page 

123 thru page 124, line 5; Vol. 4, page 2, line 2 thru page 6, line 12; 

Vol. 4, page 76, line 16 ,thru page 79, line 22). On several occasions 
9

throughout the trial on the merits, the Defense sought to introduce 

the criminal contacts with the police totaling 14 arrests, investigations 

and contacts with the authorities. Some of the criminal contacts were 

for drug offenses, Family Violence, Criminal Trespass, etc. The record 

was introduced as an attachment to the Bill of Exceptions in the 

Reporters Record. (RR., Vol. 4, page 76, line 10 thru page 79, line 22 

The Texas Rules of evidence, specifically, Rule 4o5 prescribes the 

methods of attacking the credibility of a witness. ADAM ORTIZ, even 

though he is the complaintant, is subject to the same methods as 

prescribed in the Rule. Once his character is placed before the jury, 

his character is subject to attack by the opposing party. Here in the 

testimony provided by the States witnesses, Mr. Tollette and Mrs. 

Ortiz who described Adam Ortiz AS A SLIGHTLY MENTALLY 

RETARDED INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD NEVER INTENTIONALLY 

HARM ANYONE, the State placed the character in issue. The Defense 

should have been allowed to present evidence of ADAM ORTIZ’s

prior bad acts and prior contacts with the law. The representations of 

the States witnesses describing ADAM ORTIZ could possibly, and 

probably had a considerable impact on the twelve members of the

jury. The jury was left with the impression of a slightly mentally 
10

retarded individual who would never harm anyone. The testimony of

Adam Ortiz mother was intended to portray Adam Ortiz as a person

who was helpful and kind. The Defense should have been allowed to 

present evidence that Adam Ortiz activities over the past several years 

were acts of violence, a drug possessor, and a person capable of 

committing violent acts upon others. The State puts before the jury 

that ADAM Ortiz was slightly mentally challenged. That same jury 

was entitled to know of Adam Ortiz past history of violence and drug 

use. This testimony was introduced in order to establish a false

impression in the minds of the jury that Ortiz was a law abiding 

citizen. The Defendant, William Delacruz should have been allowed 

to refute this impression. Hernandez v. State 351 S.W. 3d, 156; Delk 

v. State, 855 S.W. 2d 700

ISSUE NUMBER TWO:

ISSUE NUMBER TWO:

Does the discovery of records of the Defendants

WARRANT THE Court granting a new trial in order to 

ascertain the Mental Competency of the Defendant at the 

time of the offense and during the trial on the merits
11

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES:

Prior to the trial on the merits, Defense counsel had visited with 

the Defendant on many occasions. As none of these occasions play 

any conduct which would have indicated that the Defendant had any 

mental problems. During the trial on the merits, the Defendant 

began displaying conduct which indicated that there was some defect 

in his character. This became readily noticeable to the court staff as 

well as the Judge and Prosecutors. His behavior got to the point that

the judge called for counsel to approach the bench and admonished 

that if the Defendant continued his disruptive behavior he would be 

removed from the courtroom and may be allowed to view the 

proceedings via a video monitor. (RR Vol. page 21, line 7 thru page 22 

line 9) The Defendant continued to display these actions throughout

trial on the merits. After the trial the Defendants parents indicated 

that he was off his medication. After inquiry by Defense counsel, it 

was discovered that the Defendant had been diagnosed as being 

mentally deficient and prescribed medication for William Delacruz. 

Prior to the trial, there was absolutely no indication that a mental 

problem existed. In fact, there was an Armed Security Guard license 

issued by the State of Texas. One of the requirements is that the 
12

applicant be free from any mental deficiency. William Delacruz had 

such license. While we find no authority which addresses the

behavioral problem as in this case, it is a compelling reason for the 

Presiding Judge who witnesses such behavior to inquire as to the 

mental status of the Defendant. Such activity should have caused the 

Presiding Judge to halt the proceedings and to continue the trial until 

after a mental examination could be conducted. A report as to the 

mental status of the Defendant a year prior to the incident was 

attached to the Motion for New Trial but was discounted by the 

Presiding when she denied the Motion for New Trial. (Clerks 

Transcript-Vol. 1, pages 267 thru page 284).

.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays 

that this Honorable Court reverse the decision of the Trial Court and 

case.

Respectfully submitted,

 PAUL DECUIR, JR.
13

__________________________

PAUL DECUIR, JR.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

TBN: 05712500

P.O. BOX 9687

HOUSTON, TX 77213

(281) 409-9692

(713) 450-2773-fax

e-mail: paul.decuir@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

II hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Appellants Brief has been sent to the Attorney for the State of Texas, 

Harris County District Attorneys Office, Appellate Division 1201 

Franklin Suite 600, Houston, TX 77002 on this 16th day of January, 

2015.

 PAUL DECUIR, JR.

___________________________