Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

No. 14-18-00494-CV

SANDRA MAGALLANES, Appellant 

V.

HILDA WADSWORTH, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 113th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-65970 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

 In her appeal from the judgment rendered after a jury trial in a personal-injury 

case, defendant Sandra Magallanes contends that the trial court reversibly erred in

admitting affidavit testimony regarding the necessity for, and reasonable expenses 

of, plaintiff Hilda Wadsworth’s medical treatment. 

 To prevail on appeal, Magallanes must show not only that the trial court erred 

in admitting the challenged affidavits, but also that the erroneously admitted 
2

evidence probably resulted in the rendition of an improper judgment. See Interstate 

Northborough P’ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Tex. 2001). “Typically, a 

successful challenge to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings requires the complaining 

party to demonstrate that the judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or 

admitted.” Id. To perform the required harm analysis, we must “evaluate the entire 

case from voir dire to closing argument, considering the evidence, strengths and 

weaknesses of the case, and the verdict.” Serv. Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 

221, 236 (Tex. 2011). The reporter’s record before us, however, contains only a 

pretrial hearing on a motion in limine, a mid-trial bench conference on Magallanes’s 

objections to the proffered affidavits, and a volume of trial exhibits. 

A partial reporter’s record sometimes suffices to show harmful error. If the 

parties have filed a written stipulation agreeing on the contents of a partial record, 

then we will presume that the agreed record contains “all evidence and filings 

relevant to the appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.2. The parties also have the option to 

file an agreed statement of the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.3. Even without an 

agreement between the parties, an appellant can request a partial reporter’s record

and “include in the request a statement of the points or issues to be presented on 

appeal and will then be limited to those points or issues.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(c)(1). 

But in the absence of an agreement between the parties or a statement of the 

appellant’s issues to be presented on appeal, “we must presume that the omitted 

portions of the record are relevant and would support the judgment.” Mason v. Our

Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church, 154 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).

 Because the record before us does not contain the parties’ agreement to a 

partial reporter’s record, an agreed statement of the case, or a statement of 

Magallanes’s issues to be presented on appeal, we must presume that the material 
3

omitted from the reporter’s record supports the trial court’s judgment. See Bennett 

v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam) (“There is no question 

that, had Bennett completely failed to submit his statement of points or issues, Rule 

34.6 would require the appellate court to affirm the trial court’s judgment.”). We 

accordingly presume that the properly admitted evidence omitted from the reporter’s 

record supports the judgment. In light of this presumption, we express no opinion 

as to whether the properly admitted evidence includes the challenged affidavits.

 Because the record before us does not support Magallanes’s arguments for 

harmful error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

 

 /s/ Tracy Christopher 

 Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant.