### NUM BER 13-09- 134- 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
JOR GE R OWE REY ES, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es Y añ eza n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Jorg e Rowe Rey es, w as ind icted for the murde r of Nel son Ibar ra . See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.02 (V er non 2003)

. A j ur y found hi m g uil ty

of the o ffense and
ass ess ed punis hment at thir ty y ears’ i mpri sonment

. In four i ss ues, appel lan t arg ues that: (1) the prose cuto r m ade im prop er a rg um ent s during open ing statem ent ; (2) the trial court
er re d by prev enti ng him from fully cross -e x amini ng a w it ness ; and ( 3) the tr ial co urt er re dA t t h e tim e o fth e in c id e n t, M .R . w a s a m in o r a n d w ill b e r e f e r r e d to b y in itia ls o n ly. 1 2 by d en y i ng h i s req ue s t for a s el f- de fen s e i ns tr ucti on . W e affi r m. I. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO UND At a bout 3:00 a.m. o n Sept ember 23, 2008, Vi cto ri a pol ic e off ic er C hr is C anal es w as dis patc h e d t o t he Vi sta D el Sol Apar tments

. W hen he knoc ked on th e frontdoor to apar tment 130, appel lan t and M .R

. opened i t. Off ic er Can ale s saw “ a l ot of bl ood,” broken 1 furni ture on the flo or , and that appel lan t’ s p ants “ w ere s aturated in blo od.” W hen O ff ic er Can ale s l ooked to see if any one w as behi nd th e frontdoor , he saw Ibar ra ’s l eg s. After appel lan t and M .R . w ere tak en i nto c ust ody , O ff ic er C anal es entered the apar tment and deter mined that Ibar ra w as dead. W it ness es tes ti f ie d that the day before the murder , I bar ra and appel lan t had an argume nt atthe resta uran t w here the y b o t h w orked . Th at evening, Iba rra, Herminio Hernan dez, M.R., and ap pellan t w ere drinking b eer in the livi ng roo m of the ap artm entin
w hic h the y

al l li v ed. M. R. tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t and Ibar ra had a fis t f igh t in the li v ing
ro om. After they sto pped fig hti ng , Ibar ra sat dow n on the sofa, and M. R. and ap p ell ant pushe d H er nandezout of the apar tment. After

w ards, app e lla nt “ w ent t ow ards Nel son [Iba rra],” w ho w as sitting on a sofa and “hit him [Iba rra] w ith a knee , on th e face. ” Iba rra fell to t he f lo o r, a n d appell ant b eg an hi tti ng Ibar ra “ w it h c hai rs and chai r leg s a nd
ev er ythi ng .” I bar ra di ed atthe sc ene. On cross-examina tion, M.R. testif ied that during the time when ap pellan t and Ibarra had the argum ent at work, Iba rra ma de a “physical advance ” towards app ellant

. How ever, on the nig ht of t he murde r, Ibar ra did not “g et phy si cal ly ag g re ss iv e tow ards” appell ant. M. R. sa w

appel lan t attac k I bar ra .3

Dr . Lei sha W ood, the forensi c p athol og is t w ho per formed Ibar ra ’s auto psy , t est ified that Ibar ra ’s manner

of death w as a homic ide re sul ti ng “from numerous ty pes of abras ion s and bruises.” Specif ically , she foun d nu me rous injuries on Iba rra’s he ad and “f ractures a ll throu ghout th e skull, in v ary ing degrees and siz es.” She co uld no t det ermin e w hatex actly
caus ed th e i nju ri es, but she sai d tha t i t c oul d be cons is tent w it h a wo o d e n obj ect

. She foun d de fensive w oun ds on Ibarra’s han ds. App ellantchose not to testif y at the g uilt-inno cenc e p h a s e , a nd th e de fense present ed no w it ness es dur ing the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e. II. O P E NI NG S TA TE MENT In hi s first iss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n per mitt ing the prose cu t o r to make improp er argumen ts in his ope ning state me nt, which allegedly improper ly

sh ifted the burden of

proof and v iol ated appel lan t’ s r ig ht t o the presumpt ion of inno cence . During t he guilt-i nno cence p hase , the prosecu tor ma de th e followi ng remarks in h is o p e n in g s t a t e m e n tt o t h e ju ry: Prosec utor : Good morni ng , l adi es and g entl eman. W ood c an be

used for ma ny things. It can be used to make sh elter. It can be fuel for fire. And i t c an, a ls o, be a w eapon. D efe ns e C ou ns el : Object ion. T his i s arg um en t, y ou r H on or . Th is is

suppo sed to be openi ng st atement, not arg ument. The tr ial co urt ov er ru led the obj ect ion

. Later , t he prosec utor st ated: Prosec utor : After th e y beat Her mini o Her nandez , then they tur ned thei r ang er

and thei r hatred to w ards Nel son Ibar ra — Defense C ounse l: Y our Hon or , thi s is arg ument. This is in te rpret ati on of

ev ide nce w e hav en’ t ev en heard. T he trial cou rt ov erruled th e objection , and the pro secut or contin ued as follows: Prosecu tor: T hatanger and thathatred lef t Mr. Ibarra f ighting for his li fe.4 * * * Thatp i e c e o f wo o d

—Th a ts i mp l e p i e c e o f wo o d w as used as a deadl y

w eapon. And as si mp le as thatpi ece of w ood w as is as si mple as thi s cas e is , l adi es and g entl eman. (in d ica ti n g) It’ s n ot s elf- defense. It ’s not anythi ng el se but— Defense Counse l: Object ion, your Hono r. T his is a rg um ent

. W e ha v en’t

heard any

ev ide nce, w e’re al re ady g etti ng i nto arg ument ab out w hat t his ca se is or i sn’ t. T he trial cou rt ov erruled th e obje ction, a nd th e prose cuto r told the jury , “Th e evidence w ill show thatthi s i sn’ t s elf- defense. It ’s not anythi ng el se but murder .” A . Pres erv ation of Error Rul e 33. 1 of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re g ov er ns preser v ati on of er ro r and s tates i n par

t: (a ) In G eneral. As a prereq uis it e to present ing a c omplai n t fo r appel lat e re v iew , t he record mustsh ow that : (1 ) the c omplai nt was made to t h e tri al cour t by a t imel y req uest , obj ect ion , or

moti on th at: (A ) sta ted t he grounds for the ru li ng thatthe compl ain ing par ty soug ht fro m the tr ial cour t w it h suffici ent spec ific ity to make t he tr ial co urt aware of the compl ain t, unl ess the spec ificg ro unds w ere apparent from the cont ext[. ] T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1. “Th is Rule enco mp asses th e con ceptof ‘party respo nsibility.’” Pena v . St ate , 285 S. W .3 d 45 9 , 4 6 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Rey na v . St ate , 168 S.W .3d 1 7 3 , 176 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ). In other w ords, “ [t] he c omplai nin g par ty bears t he respon si bil ity of cl ear l y

c o n v e y i n g t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e t h e p a rt i c u l a r c o mp l a i n t , i n c l u d i n g t h e p re c i s e a nd prop er a pplicat ion of

the law as w ell as the u nde rly ing ration ale.” Id . at 46 3-64 . To av oid forfeiting the com plaint on appe al, “the party mu st ‘let the trial judge kno w w hathe w ant s,5

w hy he t hin ks he is entitl ed to it, and to do so clear ly enough for t he j udg e to understa nd him at a time w hen the judge is in the prop er positio n to do som eth ing abo ut it.’” Id . at464 (qu o ti n g Lanks ton v

. St ate , 827 S.W .2d 9 0 7 , 9 0 9 (T ex. C rim. App . 199 2)). “ W het her a par ty ’s par ti cul ar complai nt i s p re ser v ed depe nds on w hether the compl ain t on appeal
com ports w ith the co mp laint ma de a t trial.” Id

. In mak ing thatdete rmi nati on, “ w e c onsi der the c ontext i n w hic h the c omplai nt w as made and the p arti es’ sh ared unde rs tandi ng at that time .” Id

. B. A nal ysis W hil e appel lan t’ s o bje cti ons at t ri al w ere tha t t he prosec utor ’s remark s c onst it uted “a rg ument” and “i nterp re ta ti on of ev ide nce, ” the c omplai nt on appeal focuse s o n the shif ting of the burd en of proo f in the eyes of the jury and alleged v iolat io n o f a p p e llant’s ri g ht t o the presumpt ion of inn ocenc e. After cons ide ri ng the cont ext in w hic h the obj ect ion s
w ere made a nd the parti es’ share d unders tandi ng at that ti me, the record does not show tha t app ellant ’s objectio ns clearly convey ed to the t rial cou rt th at the p rosecu tor’s rema rks eit her sh ifted the burden of proof in the e y es of the j ur y or v iol ated appel lan t’ s r ig ht t o the presumpt ion of inn ocenc e. Acc ordin g ly , t he co mplai nt on appeal does not compor t w it h the objecti ons made at tr ial . Therefore , app ell ant d id not p re ser v e er ro r. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1; Pena , 285 S.W .3d a t 464 ; Br igg s v . St ate , 789 S.W .2d 918, 924 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 0) (stating that co nstitu tiona l error ma y b e forfeited b y

failure to raise the issu e at trial); W ri ght v . St ate , 776 S.W .2d 7 63, 7 66 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1989, no p et.)

. Fund amental er ro r maybe rais ed for th e first ti me on ap peal

. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 103( d) ( prov idi ng thatan appel lat e court maytake notic e of f undamental errors e ffect ing subst ant ial rig hts, a lthou gh the errors were n ot prese rv ed a t trial). Fund am ent al errors areE x am pl es of ri gh t s t ha t are w ai vab l e o nl y i nc l ud e t he ri gh t s t o t he as s i s t an c e o f co un s el an d t o a j ury 2 tri a l

. S a l d a n o v . S ta te , 70 S

. W

. 3d 87 3, 88 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 02 ).

Ex am pl es o fabso l ut e sy st em i c r equi r em ent s i ncl ude j ur i sdi ct i on o ft he p er son, j ur i sdi ct i on o ft he 3 s u b je c t m a tte r, a p e n a l s ta tu te ’ s b e i n g i n c o m p l i a n c e w i th th e S e p a ra ti o n o f P o w e rs s e c ti o n o f th e s ta te c o n s ti tu ti o n , a c o n s ti tu ti o n a l re q u i re m e n t t h a t a d i s tri c t c o u rt m u s t c o n d u c t i ts p ro c e e d i n g s a t th e c o u n tys e a t, t he co nst i t ut i onal pr ohi bi t i on o fex post f act o l aws, and cer t ai n con st i t ut i onal r est r ai nt s on t he co m m ent s of a ju d g e . Id

. at 888
- 89.

D e fe n s e c o u n s e l w a s n o t re fe rr i n g to th e ju d g e w h o p re s i d e d o v e r th e tri a l n o w b e fo re u s . 4 6 v iolatio n s o f

r ights that are “w aivable only” or denia ls of abso lute systemic 2
re q uirements —bot h of w hic h need not be preser v ed by obj ect ion

. Me ndez

v. Sta te , 138 3 S.W .3d 334, 341 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ; Ma ri n v . St ate , 85 1 S. W .2 d 27 5, 2 80 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1993) , over

ruled on o ther gr ounds by C ainv. Sta te , 947 S.W .2d 262 (Tex . Cr im. App. 199 7). Th us, ap pellan t w as required to objectu n le s s t h e rig hts are e ither w aivable only or an ab solute sy stem ic requireme nt. App ellantrefers to no auth orityholdin g tha t the se compl ain ts cons ti tute eit her a waiv abl e onl y

r ig ht or an a bsol ute s y ste micreq uirement. Iss ue one is ov er ru led

. III . C R OSS -E X A MI NA TI ON A . Credibility

w ith Respect to A

ssa ult Charge Byhi s s e c o n d i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt v i o l a t e d the Con frontat ion C lau se to t he Si xth A mendment o f t h e U n it ed St ates C onst it uti on by preventing him f rom f ully cros s - exam i ni ng H er na nd ez c on c er ning his credibility w ith respe ct to his plea of

g uilty to an assau lt charge. During t he guilt-innoce nce p hase , defense couns el cross -e x amined H er nandezabouthi s p r i o r a s s a u l t c onv icti on. Her nandeztes ti fied tha t he ple ade d guilty

t o an a ssault ch arge; howev er, w hen defense coun sel asked him if the a ss aul t he ple aded g uil ty to w as sel f defense , Her nandez sta ted, “Y es. Be caus e I had to de fend myself. ” W hen defense co unsel as ked him, “ And w hen y ou tol d the Judg e[ ] t hat 4 it w as y our fault th at you assaulte d tha t perso n, you weren’t really telling the truth, beca useS e e D e la w a re v . Va n A r s d a ll , 475 U

. S. 673, 679 (1 986) (st at i ng t hat “ t r i al j udges r et ai n wi de l at i t ude” 5 undert he Conf r ont at i on Cl aus e t o i m pose r est r i ct i ons o n cr oss- exam i nat i on b ased on su ch cr i t er i a as
“ h a r a s s m e n t, p r e j u d ic e , c o n f u s io n o ft h e is s u e s , th e w itn e s s ’ s a f e ty, o r in te r r o g a tio n t h a t is r e p e tit iv e o r o n ly m arg i na l l y rel eva nt. ”)

. 7 y ou’ re sa y ing i t w as sel f-defense?” , t he prosec utor obj ect ed th at “ [h]e’ s p led g uil ty to that of fense . He’s not den y ing the of fense .” In respo nse, defense coun sel state d, “ Your Honor, he’s saying tha t he did n’t do it, beca use o f acting unde r self-d efense . I have a ri ght to f ully
cross -e x amine on th at S ixth A mendment.— ” At that poi n t, t h e t rial c our t s ust ain ed th e obj ect ion

. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw At r i a l c o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d mi t o r e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e i s re v i e w e d u n d e r a n a b u s e - o fd isc re ti o n standard. Tor re s v . St ate , 71 S.W .3d 7 58, 7 60 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002)

. “The trial court abu ses its discretion w hen the de cision lies ou t s id e t h e z one of reason able disagreem ent .” Mc Car ty v. Sta te , 257 S.W .3d 2 38, 2 39 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

. “[ I]f the trial court’s evi den tiaryruling is correct on any th eory of la w a pplicab le to tha t ruling, i t w ill notb e disturb ed even if t he trial jud ge gave th e w rong rea son for h is right ruling.” De La Paz v. Sta te , 279 S.W .3d 3 36, 3 44 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009)

. The Co nfrontat ion Clau se of the Si xth A mendment g uarantees that , “ [i ]n al l cr imi nal prosec uti ons the a cc used shal l enj oy the ri g ht .

. . t o be confro nted w it h the w it ness es ag ain st him. ” U .S. C ON ST . amend. VI. The S ixth A mendment r ig ht t o c onfront w it ness es include s the right to cross-e x am ine the m to atta ck their general credibility or to sho w their poss ibl e bia s, sel f-in terest , or moti v es in tes ti fyi ng . Ham m er v. Sta te , 296 S.W .3d 555, 56 1 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (ci ti n g Davis v. Alaska , 415 U .S. 308, 316 ( 1974) ). “ This r ig ht i s n ot unq ual ified , howev er ; the tr ial jud g e has w ide dis creti on i n l imi ti ng the sc ope and extent of cross-examina tion. ” Id

. G enerall y , t he Sixth Amendment r ig ht t o presentev ide nce and 5R ul e 60 8( a) ( 1) of t he T ex as R ul es of Ev i dence pr ov i des: “ T he cr edi bi l i t y of a wi t ness m ay be 6 at t acked orsupp or t ed b y ev i dence i n t he f or m of opi ni on o r r eput at i on, but subj ect t o t hese l i m i t at i ons: ( 1) t he evi de nc e m ay refer on l y t o c ha rac t er for t rut hfu l ne s s or un t rut hfu l ne s s . . . ” T EX
. R. E V ID
. 60 8(a )( 1).

I n H am m er , t he co ur t of cr i m i nal app eal s st at ed: “ U nderR ul e 61 3( b) , t he o ppone nt m ust f i r st cr oss- 7 exam i ne t he wi t ness wi t h t he ci r cum st ances s urr oundi ng t he b i as, i nt er est , orm ot i v e, and , i ft he wi t ness de ni es t he c i rcu m s t an c es or t he m oti ve, t he op po ne nt m ay i ntr od uc e e x t ri ns i c evi de nc e t o p rove t he m oti ve or bi as . ” H am m er v . S ta te , 2 9 6 S

. W .3 d 5 6 1 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) . “ F u r th e r m o r e , R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) e x p lic itly per m i t s t he d ef ense, as wel l as t he pr osecut i on, t o off erev i dence ofot heract s of m i sconductt o est abl i sh a pe rso n’ s m oti ve fo r perform i ng so m e a c t

— s uc h a s m ak i ng a fal s e a l l eg ati on ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt. ” Id

. 8 to c ro ss -e x amine w it ness es does not c onfli ct w it h the c o rre sp ondi ng r ig hts under st ate
ev ide nti ar

y r ule s. Id

. Thus, w e can reso lv e most q uest ion s reg ardin g cross -e x aminat ion by l ooki ng to the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. Id

. “I n tho se ra re sit u ati ons in w hic h the appl ic abl e r ule of ev ide nce confli cts w it h a federal cons ti tuti onal r ig ht, Rul e 101(c ) [of the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce] req uires that the Cons ti tuti on of the Uni ted S tates co ntrols ov er the ev iden tiaryrule.” Id

. In Ham m er, th e c o urt of cr imi nal appeal s s tated that“ [t] he C o n fro n t a t i o n C l a u s e ma n d a t e o f Davis v. Alaska is not incon sistentw ith T exas ev iden tiary law

. Thus, compl ian ce w it h a r ule of ev ide nce w il l, in most ins tanc es, av oid a c onst it uti onal question conce rning the ad missibility of such evidence .” Id . at566. “U n d e r Ru le 4 0 4 (a )( 3 ) of t h e T e xa s Ru le s o f E vid e n c e , a d e fe n d a n t m a ya lwa ys offer ev ide nce of a per

ti nent charact er

trait—s u ch a s t ru thfulnes s— of anyw it ness . But, und er Rule 608 , the w itn e s s ’s gene ral characte r fo r truthf ulne ss may be shown only throu gh reputa tion o r opinion testim ony.” Id . at 563; seeT EX
. R. E V ID . 608 (a ). O ur st ate 6
ev ide ntiary

r ule s p er mit a par

ty to cross -e x amine a w it ness “ on s peci fic i nst ances of condu ct w hen t hey

are us ed to es tabl is h hi s s peci fi c b ia s, sel f-in terest , or moti v e for tes ti fyi ng .” Ham m er

, 295 S.W .3d a t 563

. 7 2. A nal ysis App ellanta ttem pte d to im pea ch Hernan dez’s credib ility byshowi ng through crossex aminat ion thatw hen H er nandezpl eaded g uil ty to the pr ior ass aul t, he w as untr uthful toI n hi s appel l at e br i ef , app el l ant ar gues t hat he “ has a r i ght t o qu est i on t he wi t ness’ cr edi bi l i t y , whi ch 8 he was doi ng when he st ar t ed q uest i oni ng t he wi t ness a bout l y i ng u nder oat h i n a pr i oroff ense t o whi ch he pl ed. L y i ng u nderoat h i s a ser i ous m at t erand cer t ai nl y ra i s es quest i ons o fcr edi bi l i t y . ” T exas Rul e of E v i d e n c e 6 0 9 p ro v i d e s fo r t h e a d m i s s i o n o f a w i tn e s s ’ s p rio r c o n v i c ti o n fo r i m p e a c h m e n t p u rp o s e s . See T EX
. R. E V ID . 6 0 9

. H o w e v e r, n o th i n g i n th e a p p e l l a te re c o rd s h o w e d th a t H e rn a n d e z h a d e i th e r b e e n c h a rg e d w i th orconv i ct ed o fanycr i m e ar i si ng o ut ofanyst at em ent he m ay hav e m ade ei t hert o a cour t off i ci al ort o t he j u d g e w h o p r e s id e d o v e r th e h e a r in g a t w h ic h H e r n a n d e z p le a d e d g u ilty to th e p r io r o ff e n s e . T h e r e f o r e , R u le 609 does not appl y . W e not e t hat appel l ant di d cr oss- exam i ne H er nande z about t he f act t hat he had a pr i or c o n v i c ti o n fo r a s s a u l t.

I n H am m er , t he co ur t of cr i m i nal app eal s st at ed wi t h r espect t o t hi s r ul e: 9 For exam pl e, t he d ef endan t m ay not ask t he wi t ness: D i dn’ t y ou cheat on y ouri ncom e t ax l ast y ear ? D i dn’ t y ou l i e on T uesdayabo ut hav i ng a n aff ai r wi t h y ourboss? Di dn’ t y ou st eal five d o l l a rs fro m th e c h u rc h c o l l e c ti o n p l a te l a s t w e e k a n d th e n l i e to th e p r ie s t a b o u t i t? W hi l e al l oft hose quest i ons a t t ack t he wi t ness’ s gen er al char act erf ort r ut hf ul ness, t hat m ode of i m pe ac hm en t i s sp ec i fi c al l y ba rr ed by R ul e 6 08 (b). H am m er , 296 S. W

. 3d a t 563

.

R ul e 60 8( b) pr ov i des i n pa r t , “ [ s] peci f i c i nst ances oft he co nduct ofa w i t ne s s , for t he p ur pose of 10 at t acki ng o r supp or t i ng t he wi t ness’ cr edi bi l i t y , ot hert han conv i ct i on o fcr i m e as pr ov i ded i n Rul e 60 9, m ay no t be i nq ui red i nto on cro s s -ex am i na t i on of t he w i t ne s s n o r p ro v e d b y ex t ri ns i c evi de nc e.” T EX
. R. E V ID
. 60 8(b ). 9 t h e j u d g e w h o pr esi d e d o v e r t h a tc a s e , b e c a u s e H e r n a n d e za s s a u l t e d t h e v i c t i m i n s e l fdefense, and t herefore , was not g uil ty of ass aul t. H ow ev er , “ [a] w it ness ’s g eneral

8 characte r for

tr uthfulnes s o r credi bil ity may not be attac ked by

cross -e x amini ng hi m ( or offer ing extr ins icev ide nce) concer nin g speci fic pri or i nst ances of untr uthfulnes s.” Id .; see 9 T EX
. R. E V ID . 608 (b); see als o Lopez v. Sta te , 989 S.W .2d 4 02, 40 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–San 10 Antoni o 1999, no pet .) ; Rui z v. Sta te , 891 S.W .2d 3 02, 3 06 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1994, pet. re f’d) (s tati ng that “[ i] n Tex as, a w it ness may not be impeac hed w it h spec ifici nst ances o f b a d c onduct notresul ti ng i n c onv icti on” ); Ramir ez v. Sta te , 8 3 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 2 7 , 8 2 8- 29 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1992, no p et.) ( sta ti ng thatev ide nce show ing thato f f icer w as term inate d be cause , in a telep hon e call, he sa id tha t he cou ld not repo rt for duty becau se his tru c kh a d b roken down w hen , in fact, h e w as v isiting his gi rlfrien d w as inad missible under R ule 608( b) t o impeach him after he had tes ti fied to facts thates tabl is hed t he charged of

fense and negate d the lesser-include d of fense ).10

W e hol d tha t w hether

H er nandez ’s tes ti mony w as admis si ble is at lea st subj ectto
re asona ble di sag re ement. Thus, the tr ial co urt di d notab u se it s d is creti on by deny ing appel lan t t he oppo rt uni ty to cross -e x amine Her nandezabout w hether he was untr uthful to the j udg e tha t presi ded ov er his g uil ty pl ea to the ass aul t c harg e. Iss ue two i s o v er ru led

. B. Credibility

w ith Respect to Intoxication In issue three , app ellantco nte nds the t rial cou rt violated t he Con f ronta tion Clau se of the Sixth Ame ndm entto the United St ate s Constitu tio n b y p re ve n ting him f rom f ully
cross -e x amini ng H er nandezco nce rn ing hi s c re dib il ity bec ause of his i ntox ic ati on “ and
re g ardin g hi s role i n thi s o ffense. ” 1. Context of the Complaint Hernan dez testif ied on cross-examina tion that during the day precedin g the murd er, he boug ht a si x -p ack

of beer and drank all of it

. That ni g ht, he a n d M .R

. b o u g ht an eightee n-pa ck of bee r f rom w hich Herna nde zdrank f iv e or six bee rs. H e dran k the be ers pr ior to Ibar ra ’s murder

. Her nandezdeni ed being “dr unk. ” W hen defense co unsel as ked him , “And it’s fair to say, w hen guys start drinking b eer, it’s a lot easier to get an gr y ; isn’t it?” He replied , “I don ’t know. Of course , if som eth ing—if someb ody of fend s y ou, y ou’re g oin g to g et mad. ” W hen defense couns el ask ed him, “A nd, i f somebody offends y ou, you are g oin g to be more mad if yo u had been dri nki ng beer ; i s t hat c or re ct? ” To thi s, he s aid , “Y es.” Af

ter this exchange, th e com plaine d-of colloquy occurred as follows: Defense Counse l: So, t he fact tha t y ou had volunt eere d t o d rin k a bun ch

of bee rs , yo u w ere pa rtly respon sible for these probl ems t hat h ad oc cur re d; w eren’ t y ou? Prosec utor : Y our Hon or , I’ ll obj ect

. The q uest ion i s a rg umentati v e. D e fe n s e C o u n s e l : I’ m jus t aski ng him

—Y o u r H o n o r , t h ey ask ed the q uest ion and opened the d oor . I hav e the r ig h t to the full Si xth A mendment r ig ht.11

The tr ial co urt t old co unsel to re -a sk the q uest ion : Defense Coun sel: Sure. Since y ou h ad volunte ered to drink ma ny bee rs

before all t his arguing started ha ppe ning, y ou a re partly re spons ibl e for all these arg uments and fig hts that sta rt ed; a re n’ty ou? Prosec utor : Y our H onor , my

obj ect ion w as arg umentati v e. Tri al Cou rt : Sust ain ed. 2. Pre serv ation of Error W ith respe ct to tha t part of app ellant ’s comp la in to n app eal th at th e trial court prev ented him f ro m cro ss -e xam in in g Her n a n d e z rega rd in g Her n a n d e z’s ro le in th e offense, Tex as Rul e of E v ide nce 103( a) (2 ) li mits the sc ope of i ss ues w hic h maybe a ppeal ed w hen
ev ide nce is l imi te d o r e xclu ded. In other w ords, “ [e]r ro r maynot be predi cat ed upon a ru li ng w hic h .

. . ex cl udes ev ide nce unl ess a subs tanti al ri g ht of t he par ty i s a ffect ed, a nd

. . . the subs tanc e of

the ev ide nce w as made know n to the cour t byof fer, or w as apparent f rom th e con text w ithin w hich question s w ere aske d.” T EX
. R. E V ID . 103 (a )( 2)

. The offer of proof may

be i n q uest ion -a nd- answ er form or in t h e form of a c onci se sta tement by
couns el. T EX
. R. E V ID . 103 (b ); W ar ner v. Sta te , 969 S .W .2d 1 , 2 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 8). “A n offer of proof to be acc ompli shed by co unsel ’s co nci se sta te m e n t m u st in cl ude a
re asona bly

sp eci fic s ummary

of the ev ide nce offered and must sta te t he rele v ance of the
ev ide n ce u n les s t he rele v ance is apparent, so that the c our t c an det er mine w hether the evidence is relevant and adm issible.” W ar ner , 969 S.W .2d at 2. The pr imar y pur pose of an offer of proof is to enabl e us to deter mine w hether the ex cl usi on w as er ro neous and har mf ul. M C C ORMI CK ON E VI D ENC E § 51 (4 th ed . 199 2) ; Accord , S TE V E N G OO D E ET AL ., 1 T EX AS P RA CTI CE —G U I D E TO TH E T EX AS R UL ES OF E V I DE NCE : C I V I L A ND C R I M I N AL § 103. 3 (199 3).In h i s a n s w e r, H e rn a n d e z s ta te d , i n p a rt: 11 T heyst ar t ed t el l i ng m e I coul dn’ t be i n t hat apa r t m ent

. And t hen, f r om t her e, I asked th e m , “ G iv e m e a c h a n c e to g e t o u t. ” B u t it w a s n ’t to te ll th e m th a t I w a n te d to f ig h t. I to ld t hem t o gi v e m e an opp or t uni t y , so t hat I coul d l eav e t he f ol l owi ng day , beca use i t wasn’ t j ust f orm e t o l eav e, j ust l i k e t heyhad t ol d m e— A t t h a t p o i n t, d e fe n s e c o u n s e l o b j e c te d , i n re l e v a n t p a rt, t h a t h e “b e l i e v e [d ] h e ’ s a n s w e re d th e q u e s ti o n [.] ” T he t r i al cour t ov er r ul ed t he o bj ect i on. 12 Here, the substa nce o f the ev iden ce w as no t ma de kn own to the trial court by of fer. Furt h e r, t he su bsta nce o f the evidence w as no t app aren t f rom th e con text w ithin w hich q u e s t i o n s w e re a s k e d

. D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’ s q u e s t i o n , w h i c h t h e p ro s e c u t o r o bj e c t e d t o, ask ed H er nandez , “ Si nce y ou had v olu nteered to drin k manybeers before al l thi s a rg uin g sta rt ed happ eni n g , y ou are par tl y respon si ble for a ll thes e arg uments and fig hts that starte d; aren’t y ou? ” It is not app aren t f rom the context of this question tha t d efense coun sel w as asking Hernan dez abou t his role in t he o f fense ; i.e., Ib arra’s murd er. Becau se the substa nce o f

the evidence w as no t ma de known t o the t rial cou rt by of fer, and beca use the s ubst ance of the ev ide nce w as not apparent from the c ontext w it hin w hic h q uest ion s
w ere ask ed, appel lan t has faile d to compl y w it h Rul e 103( a) (2 ). W e hol d th a t a p p ell ant
w aiv ed any

er ro r w it h respect to the tr ial cour t’ s e x cl usi on of H er nandez ’s tes ti mony . See T EX
. R. E V ID . 103 (a )( 2) ; Guidr y v . St ate , 9 S.W .3d 1 33, 1 53 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ( hol din g that defendant’ s a rg ument r e g a rd i n g e x c l u si on of ev ide nce w as w aiv ed bec ause defendant did no t ma ke of

fer of proof regarding excluded te stimo ny)

. After the a bov e c oll oq uy , defense co unsel , dur ing the cross -e x aminat ion of Her nandez , as ked him a q uest ion ak in to that w hic h the prosec utor had prev iou sl y obj ect ed to. D efense c ounse l ask ed H er nandez : “The fact that y ou hav e drank many beers, y ou caus ed s ome of thes e fig hts ; didn’ t y ou?” The tr ial co urt al low ed H er nandezto answ er 11 the q uest ion

. Thus, ass uming , ar guendo , t h e t ri a l co u rte rr e d in e xc lu d in g t h e t e s t im o n y,T h e c o u rt o f cri m i na l ap pe al s ha s stat ed t ha t “t he ri gh t of cro s s -ex am i na t i on by t he ac c us ed of a 12 t est i fy i ng St at e’ s wi t ness i ncl udes t he r i ght t o i m peach t he wi t ness wi t h r el ev ant ev i dence t hat m i ght r ef l ect bi as, i nt er est , pr ej udi ce, i nconsi st ent st at em ent s, t r ai t s ofchar act eraff ect i ng cr edi bi l i t y , or evi dence t hat m i ght go t o an y i m pa i rm en t or di s ab i l i t y affe c t i ng t he w i t ne s s ’ s cre di bi l i t y . ” Virts v . S ta te , 739 S

. W

. 2d 25, 29 ( T ex. C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). I n to x i c a ti o n “b e a r[s ] o n th e a m o u n t o f c re d i b i l i ty [a w i tn e s s ’ s ] t e s ti m o n y s h o u l d re c e i v e .” C a in v . S ta te , 95 8 S

. W

. 2d 40 4, 40 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 97 ). 13 and er ro r w as preser

v ed, a ny e rror i n ex cl udi ng the tes ti mony w as cured. See W

ade v. State , 8 0 3 S. W .2 d 8 0 6 , 8 0 8 ( T e x. Ap p .– Fo rtW o rt h 19 9 1 , n o pe t. ) (h o ld in g th a t a lt h o u gh tr ial co urt er re d i n ex cl udi ng ce rt ain ev ide nce, er ro r w as cured becau se e vide nce w as admitted t hroug h oth er tes ti mony ). W ith respe c tt o a p p e llant’s com plainton ap pea l that th e trial court prevente d him f rom cross-examin ing H erna nde zregardin g credibility be cause of intoxication, the cou rt

12 of cr imi nal appeals has recog niz ed a dis ti nct ion between t he g eneral ru le in ru le 103( a) (2 ) and the case in w hich th e trial court do es no t perm it the de fend antto que s t io n a State ’s
w it ness about matters that mig ht affect t he w it ness ’s credi bil ity . Vi rt s v . St ate , 739 S.W .2d 25, 29 (Tex. Crim. App

. 198 7). In the latte r case, the accuse d “nee d not sh o w wha this cross-examina tion o f

the wi tne ss w ould have af f irmatively

estab lished; he m ust m erely esta blish w hatgen eral subje ct ma tter he desired t o examine t he w itness a bou t during his
cross -e x aminat ion and, if chal len g ed, show on the record w hy

su ch shoul d be admitted i nto evidence. ” Id

. Here, ap pellan t did no t “merely establish” tha t the “g ene ral subject matter”— int ox ic ati on—woul d be used to i mpeach Her nandez ’s c re d ibil ity . W e hol d tha t app ellantw aived any error w ith respe ct to the trial court’s e xc lu s io n of Hernand ez’s tes ti mony

on t his topi c. See id

. Defense couns el cross -e x amined H er nandezw it h respect t o the amount of beer he drank pr ior

to Ibar ra ’s murder

and w hether

Her nandezw as int ox ic ated the e v eni ng of the murde r. Thus , as sumi ng , ar guendo , this complai nt w as pre ser v ed, a ny er ro r in ex cl udi ng14

the t est imony

w as cured. See Wade , 803 S.W .2d a t 808

. Iss ue th re e i s o v er ru led

.

IV. S EL F -D EFEN SE I NS TR UCT I ON In i ss ue four, appel lan t c ontends thatthe tr ial cour t er re d by deny ing hi s req uestfor an i nst ru cti on i n the ch arg e on sel f-defense. Du rin g the ch arg e c onferenc e at the g uil ti n n o c e n c e p h a s e , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l re q u e s t e d a s e l f- d e fe n s e i n s t r u c t i o n , w h i c h t h e t ri al
cour t den ied

. App ellantargues thatthere was ev iden ce prese nte d tha t he acte d in self-defense and, therefore, the t ri al cour t s houl d hav e i ncl uded a sel f-defense i nst ru cti on i n the ch arg e. He directs ou r atten ti o n to th e followi ng ev iden ce: Holly Jedlicka, a crime scene unit supe rv isor, testif ied t h a tt he T exas Departm entof Public Safety i den tif ied Ib arra’s fing er pr int s o n s ome of the fur nit ure i n the apar tment. Du ri n g the State ’s case-in-chief , the prosecu tor played a vi deo tap e to th e ju ry, depi cti ng the arg u m e n t th a t app ell ant a nd Ib ar ra had at t he rest aurant o n the day precedi ng Ibar ra ’s murder

. The v ide otape show ed Ibar ra maki ng threateni ng g est ures at appel lan t. On t he ev eni ng of

Ibarra’s m urder , appell ant tol d his nei g hbor , Tom D av enpor t, that he got i nto an arg um ent at the restau rant. Davenport testif ied, “It sound ed like the y w ere g ang ing up on him. And he w as pretty upset .” By “t hey ,” D av enpor t meantthe employ ees at th e restau rant. According to Dav enp ort, the emp loyees w ere ap pellan t’s room ma tes. Appel lan t’ s w ife, w ho l iv ed i n the apar tment w it h appel lan t and the others, tes ti fied that on th e ev eni ng of the murder , appel lan t came int o her bedroom “[ a] l ittl e bi t ag it ated. ” S h e t o l d h i m, “ ‘ N o . ’

– ‘ D o n ’ tfi g h t

. ’ Y o u ’ re a l l co mp a n i o n s . ’ ” Aft e r fi v e mi n u t e s , a p p e l l a n tl e ft the bed room , and a f ight ensue d soo n the reafter.15

On t he day

precedi ng the murde r, M .R . s aw Ibar ra mak e a g g re ss iv e physi cal adv ances tow ards appel lan t w hil e appel lan t and Ibar ra w ere wor ki ng at the rest aurant. M. R. tes ti fied th at I bar ra i nit iat ed th e ag g re ss ion

. A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W hen ev alu ati ng ch arg e er ro r, w e first deci de w hether there w as er ro r in the charg e. Al m anza v . St ate , 686 S.W .2d 1 57, 1 74 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985) (op. on reh’ g ). I f so, “ the
next s tep i s to make an ev ide nti ar y re v iew

. . . as w ell as a re v iew of any othe r par

t of the
re cord as a w hol e w hic h may i ll uminat e the actual , notj usttheo re ti cal, har m to t he
accuse d.” Id

. Pr ior to commenc ing del ibe ra ti ons, the tr ial courtm ustprov ide the ju ry i n a c ri minal case wi th “a w ritten cha rg e distinct ly setting forth th e law

app licable to the case [.]” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 36.14 (V er non 200 7)

. “Thi s l aw req uires the t ri al jud g e to ins tr uctthe jur

y on s tatut ory d e fenses, aff ir mati v e defenses , and j ust ific ati ons w henev er the y are raised by the ev iden ce.” W alter s v . St ate , 24 7 S. W .3 d 20 4, 2 08
- 09 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2007) . “A

defendant is entitl ed to an ins tr uct ion on ev er y defensi v e i ss ue rais ed by the e v ide nce, reg ardle ss of w hethe r th e ev ide nce is st ro ng , feebl e, un impeac hed, or cont ra dicted, and ev en w hen t he tri al cour t t hin ks thatthe tes ti mony i s n ot worthy

of bel ief.” Id . at209. “ [A] defense i s suppo rt ed ( or rais ed) by

the ev ide nce if there i s s ome ev ide nce, f rom any

s ou rc e, o n ea c h el em en t of t he d efe ns e th at , i f be l i ev ed b y t he j ur y , w ould supp ort a ration al inferen ce tha t tha t elem entis tr ue. ” Sh a w v. State , 243 S.W .3d 6 47, 657- 58 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. A defendant need no t t est ify in order to ra is e a d efense. Boget v. State , 40 S.W .3d 624, 626 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2001) , a f f ’d , 74 S.W .3d 2 3, 31 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001)

. Defensi v e i ss ues maybe rais ed by the te stimony

of any
w it ness , ev en th ose cal led by the Stat e. Jacks on v

. St ate , 1 1 0 S

. W

. 3 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 1 (T e x.16

App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2003, pet. ref’d)

. W hen rev iew ing a t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on to deny a req uest ed defensi v e inst ru cti on, “w e v iew the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the d e fe n d a n t’s requested subm ission.” Bufk in v. State , 2 0 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 2 ( T e x . C r i m. App. 2006)

. Howev er , “ if the ev ide nce, v iew ed in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the d efendant, does not e sta bli sh sel f-defense, the d efendant i s not entit led to an inst ru cti on on the i ss ue.” Fer re l v. State , 55 S. W .3d 586 , 591 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01). To jus ti fy the u se of deadly forc e ag ain st another , an act or must firs t s how thathe
reaso nab ly

believed the forc e wa s i m m e diate ly nece ssaryto prote ct himse lf or a third person ag ain st anothe r’ s use or attempt ed use of unlawful deadly

force. T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . §§ 9.31( a) , 9. 32( a) , 9 .3 3 ( Ve rn on 2003 & S upp. 2009)

. “A person has the r ig ht t o defend himse lf

f rom a ppa rent da nger to the same exten t as he would if the da nger w ere real.” Ham el v. State , 9 1 6 S .W .2 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (ci ti n g Dy son v. State , 672 S.W .2d 460 , 463 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84)). B. A nal ysis The ev ide nce does not e nti tl e appel lan t to a sel f-defense ins tr uct ion

. There w as no ev ide nce that Ibar ra ei ther us ed force or attempt ed to use force ag ain st appel lan t s uch that appel lan t believe d i mmediat e forc e w as neces sar y to defend hi msel f w hil e at the apar tment. M .R . t est ified thatappel lan t beat the v icti m to de ath w it hout any prov ocat ion

. Al thoug h the re w as some e v ide nce of v er bal t h re a ts by Ibar ra ag ain st appel lan t, an accuse d is not en titled to a self-defense instruction if his or he r use of force w as in
re spons e to v er bal prov ocat ion

. Id . at494. W e hold the tri al cour t did not err

i n fail ing to inc lud e a s elf- defense i nst ru cti on i n the ch arg e. Iss ue four is ov er ru led

.17 V. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Deliv ered and f iled the 1st day of Apr il , 201 0.