### NUM BER 13-07- 0041 2-CV 

## 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 – E DI NBURG
A LV IN M EL VIN M ERC ER, JR ., A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 30t h Dist rict C ou rt o f Matago rda Co un ty , T exas .



# MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s In th is appe a l f ro m a f am ily v iolence protect iv e orde r, the ap pellan t, Alvi n Melv in Me rc er , J r. , arg ues that the tr ial cour t er re d w hen i t prohi bit ed hi s c ounse l from pursui ng a l ine of q uest ion ing dur ing cross -e x aminat ion that Me rc er bel iev es w oul d hav e i mpeached
a w itness. The of

fer of proof in t h e r e cord, ho w ever, reveals that the evidence Mercer’s
couns el in tended to eli ci t w oul d not hav e gone to the iss ue of the w it ness ’s credi bil it y , and2

thus , t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on w hen i t hal ted t he l ine of q uest ion ing on t he g r ou nd s o f i r r el ev an c y
. W e affi r m. I. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO UND On A pr i l 24 , 20 07 , th e St at e, on be ha l f of Ti ffany Le c a, fi l ed an ap pl i c at i on for a family v iol ence protec ti v e or der ag ain st Me rc er , Lec a’s former l iv e- in boyfrie nd. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 71.004( 3) ( Ver non 200 2) ( inc lud ing “ dati ng v iol ence” w it hin the defini ti on of “famil y

v iol ence” ); id. § 71 .0021( a) ( Ver n o n 2002) ( defini ng “ dati ng v iol ence” ). I n the app lication, Leca allege d f our incide nts be tw een 200 4 an d 20 07 when Mercer forcef ully pu s he d he r

a nd v er ba l l y

t hrea te ne d he r

w i th b od i l y

h ar m. The tr ial courtheld a hear ing on the State’ s appli cat ion f or protec ti v e order

on June 26, 2 007. Cra ig Ruck a, a M atag or da C ounty D eputy Sher iff, w as the first w it ness ca ll ed. Off ic er R uck a s tated thaton Oct ober 8, 2006, he s aw

M er cer eng ag e i n w hat h e bel iev ed to be “assaultive condu ct” w hen Mercer “ grabb e d her [Le ca] an d pu shed her.” Rucka
ar r es te d M er c er

on th e s c en e aft er

w r es tl i ng h i m t o th e g r ou nd a nd p ep pe r- s pray i ng h i m. Leca hersel f w as the n ext w it ness ca ll ed, a nd s he w as ag g re ss iv ely q uest ion ed abo u t c ontradi cti ons in her des cr ipt ion of the O cto ber 8 ev ents

. Fi rs t, on D ecember 12, 2 0 0 6 , L e c a p ro vid e d a swo rn a f f id a vit d is p u t in g O f

f ic e r R u c k a ’s st o ry: W e [Le ca and M er cer

] w er e arg uin g thatni g ht an d upon re tur nin g home a sher iff escor

ted me back

to myhouse to get some pers onal belong ing s. The sherif f w as ne v er called . . . . At no time d u ri n g t h e n ight did Alv in Melv in Me rc er , J r. , ac t i n a w ro ng ful w ay
. He w as throw n dow n and pepper sp ra y ed in the face for no appar ent c ause. Then, atthe hear ing , Lec a r ecant ed her aff ida v ittes ti mony

and sai d that Officer Ruc ka’ s s tor

y w as, i n fact, tr ue. In d o in g so, s he admi tted that her ear li er aff ida v ithad bee n un truth f ul:3

Q: Now , then, so, y ou heard the off ic er ’s testi mony , did y ou not , t hat y ou had bee n as saul ted? A: Y es, si r, I did

. Q: Okay. Y et, a t a time closer to the poin t in time of the ev ent , y ou were w il li ng to sig n a d ocumentw it hout Mr . M er cer ’s bei ng pr esentthat sai d not hin g w ro ng happen ed di d y ou not ? A: Y es, si r. That aff ida v iti s a l ie. Q: This aff ida v iti s a l ie? A: So, I’ m a l iar , r ig ht? I l ied to

– Q : S o , yo u a re n o w a d m it t in g t o t h is co u rt t h a tyo u co m m it t e d p e rj u ry? A: Y es, si r, at that poi nt. Mercer’s cou nsel w as, at this junctu re, developin g a trial stra tegy t o discredit L eca’s
a ll e ga t io n s b y im p u gn in g h e r h o n e s t y. Pr e s u m a b ly s e e k in g t o a d va n c e t h is st ra t e gy, Me rc er ’s co unsel next at tempted to q uest ion Lec a abouta recentco nv iction for dr iv ing wh il e in t o xic a t e d (D W I ) a n d h e r su p p o s e d vio la t io n o f t h e p ro b a t io n sh e re c e ive d : “H a ve y ou complet ed a l l t h e t e r ms — a r e y o u i n g o o d s t a n d i n g , i f y o u w i l l , i n s i d e t h o s e t e r ms of y our probati on?” To thi s q uest ion , Lec a r epl ied , “ Y es, si r. ” Al most immedi atel y , how ev er , the S tate
o bj e c t e d t o t h e e n t i r e “ l i n e o f q u e s t i o n i n g , ” a rg u i n g t h a tL e c a ’ s a d h e r e n c e t o h e r D WI pr obati on w as ir re lev ant to the is sue of w hether M er cer had commi tted family

v iol ence and
w het her fam ily v iolence w as likely to occur again in the f utu re. In re s p o n s e , Merce r’s atto rney defend ed his strate gy b y e x plainin g, “Your Hon or, I’m going to th e credibility of this wit n e s s a n d t h e fa c tt h a ts h e s a id s h e wa s in go o d st a n d in g a n d we h a ve re a s o n t o b e li e ve4

tha t s h e ’s actua lly

broken some of

the te rms of

her [DW I] prob ation .” The trial court
sus tai ned t he St ate’ s o bje cti on on the b asi s o f ir re lev ancy
. See T EX
. R. E V ID . 402

. A s imi lar di sput e oc cur re d l ater

i n the hear ing w hen M er cer ca ll ed R ober

t G annaw ay to th e s t a n d t o testif

y that he ha d see n Le ca drink alcoh ol at a f ishing tourna me nt in Sarg ent, Tex as. The S tate agai n obj ect ed; M er cer ’s co unsel ex pla ine d tha t he w as seek ing to impeac h Leca’ s cr edi bil it y
. The tr ial courtagai n s ust ain ed th e obj ect ion on t he basi s o f ir re lev ance. See i d. At t he c oncl usi on of the hear ing , t he c our t g ra nted the p rote cti v e order . The followi ng day, M ercer f iled an app eal, a rg ui n g t hat the trial court erred bypreventing his attor ney from i mpeachi ng Lec a on the s tand.

II. P RESE RVA TI ON OF E RROR T he so le issue in this app eal is whethe r th e trial co urt erred by ex cluding evi den ce that Me rc er

w as attempt ing to eli ci t from Leca on c ro ss -e x aminat ion

. Such er ro r must be pr eser v ed by an o ff er of proof. See T EX
. R. E V ID . 103 (a )( 2)

. The Stat e arg ues that Me rc er failed to make the ne cessary off er of proof , but w e disagree. It is true tha t Mercer’s
coun sel did not explicitly ma ke an of fer of proo f , but und er the rules of ev iden ce, Mercer’s
cou n se l d id n ot ne ed to sa ti sfythi s for mali ty as l ong as the “s ubst ance of the ev ide nce”
w as “app aren t f rom th e con text w ithin w hich questio ns w ere aske d.” Id. It is appar ent from the cont ext of the q uest ion s a sk ed by M er cer ’s co unsel thathe
w as seek ing to impeac h the w it ness by sh ow ing that she w as dis hones t abo ut w hether sh e had adh er ed to the ter ms of her probati on. This i s n ot mere s pecul ati on; M er cer ’s co unsel
ex pli ci tl y st ated, “ I’ m g oin g to the c re dib il it y of thi s w it ness and the factthatsh e s aid sh e5

w as in g ood s tandi n g a n d we hav e r eason to bel iev e tha t s he’ s a ctu all y broken some o f the t er ms of her

[D W I] probati on.” F urther more, w hen t he tr ial co urt l ater pr e v ented Me rc e r ’ s c o u n s e l fro m q u e s t i o n i n g G a n n a w a y a b o u t L e c a ’ s a l c o h o l c o n s u mp t i on ata fishi ng tour nament, Me rc er ’s co unsel ex pla ine d tha t he w as seek ing to int rod u ce the
ev ide n ce in order

to br ing Lec a’s credi bil it y i nto q uest ion

. Al l of these sta tements i n the
rec ord ma k e th e s ub s ta nc e of t he e v i de nc e M er c er s ou g htt o i nt r od uc e ab un dan tly appar ent. Ther efore, the c omplai nt w as pr eser v ed. W e now

tur n to the meri ts of the compl ain t. III
. R E LE V A NCE M e r c e r a s s e rt s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d b y h a l t i n g t h e l i n e o f

q u e s t i o n i n g a b o u tD WI prob ation w hich w as inten ded to i mp each Leca

. W e believe, ho w ever, that th e trial court did no t abu se its d is c re t io n in f inding tha t line of q uest ioning to be irrelevant in a f am ily viol e n ce pro te ct ive o rd e r he a rin g. Und er the Si x th A mendment, defendants hav e the due proce ss r igh t to full y and compl etel y

co nfront adv erse w it ness es dur ing cross -e x aminat ion —butth a t rig ht i s n ot absol ute. See U .S. C ON ST
. a m e n d. V I; Car penter v. Sta te , 9 7 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1998) ; see als o Lopez v. Sta te , N o. 12 -0 2- 00380- CV , 200 3 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 10788, **1 1- 12 (Tex

. App.–Ty ler Dec . 23, 2003, pet. deni ed) ( mem. op, not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( appl y ing this pri nci ple in a dati ng vi ole nce protec ti v e order hear ing ). The t ri al
cour t has the dis cr eti on to i mpose re asona ble l im its o n c ro ss -e x aminat ion bas ed upon
conc er ns about “h ar ass ment, pre jud ic e, c onfusio n of the is sues , and m ar gin all y r ele vant inter ro gati on .” Car penter , 979 S.W .2d a t 634 ( emphasi s a dded) ; Stri edel v. Str iedel , 156

S.W .3d 1 63, 1 66 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, no p et.) ; see als o Lopez , 200 3 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS, at * *11- 12. In a he aring on a f a m il y v iolence protect iv e orde r the on ly relev ant issues are
w hether famil y v iol ence has occ ur re d and w hether i t i s l ik ely

to occ ur i n th e futur e. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 85.001 (V er non 200 2) ; In r e Eppe rs on , 2 1 3 S

. W

. 3 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 4 n
. 4 (T e x. App.–E ast lan d 2007, no pet.) (ack now led g ing a “mut ual ly vi ole nt” r ela ti onshi p betw een a compl ain ant a nd her

ex -fia ncé, but re fusing to factor the cul pabi li ty

of the compl ain ant i nto it s d eci si on bec ause her behav ior

w as “n ot rele v ant t o [t he] i nq uir y i nto w hether

the
ev ide nce suffici entl y

sh ow s t hat [ the e x -fian cé ] is lik ely to commi t famil y

v iol ence in the f u t u re ”)

. Be cause a trial court has th e discretion to limit irrelev ant q uest ions on crossex aminat ion , it f oll ow s t hat a tr ial co urt i n a famil y v iol ence protec ti v e order hear ing may limit any cross-ex am inatio n if the question s a sked are irrelev ant t o w het her fam ily v iolence
occ ur re d i n the pas t or

w il l occ ur

i n the futur e. See C ar

penter , 979 S.W .2d a t 634 ; Duk es
v. State , 239 S.W .3d 444 , 448 -49 (Te x . App .–Dallas 2 007 , pet . ref ’d). For ex ample, i n an unpubl is hed 200 3 opi nio n, t he T y ler Cour t of Appea ls found no
e rro r in a t ri al cour

t’ s d eci si on to hal t t he c ro ss -e x aminat ion of a w it ness i n a d ati ng
v iol e n ce protec ti v e order hear ing w hen t he defendant’ s a ttor ney as ked q uest ion s
conc er nin g the compl ain ant’ s k now led g e of the Bi ble , out -o f-w edl ock pr eg nancy , and adul ter y
. See Lopez , 200 3 T ex. App

. LEXIS, at **11 -12. T he Cou rt reason ed th at th ese is sues w er e “ marg ina ll y r ele v ant” to the q uest ion of w hether f amil y v iol ence had oc cur re d
or w oul d oc cur

i n the futur e, an d thu s it wa s n o t a n er ro r to ex cl ude t he ev ide nce as ir re lev ant. Id.M er cer ci t es D avis v. Al aska i n hi s ap pel l at e br i efwhen he p r oposes t hat " when a wi t ness i s a 1 c o n fe s s e d p e rju re r . .
. th e m o ti v e s to lie a re u n q u e s ti o n a b l y ‘ o n th e ta b l e ' a n d th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e s i ts di s c ret i on by di s al l ow i ng an ex am i na t i on i nto

. . . m oti ves an d cred i bi l i t y ." See 4 1 5 U

. S

. 30 8, 31 9 (19 74 ). M er cer , howev er , m i sr eads D a v is i n pr eci sel y t he sam e way t he appel l ant i n C al lins m i sr ead D a v is

. C al lins v . S ta te , 780 S. W

. 2d 1 76, 196 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 198 9)

. As t he C al lins cour t expl ai ned: I n D a v is , pet i t i oner was de ni ed h i s const i t ut i onal r i ght of conf r ont at i on b ecause he was not al l owed t o i m peach a wi t ne s s o n t he b asi s of hi s j uv eni l e r ecor d r egar di ng p r obat i on f or bur gl ary
. U nl i k e t hi s case, t he p et i t i oner i n D a v is was ab l e t o sho w t hat t he wi t ness m i ght hav e be en subj ect t o undue pr essur e f r om t he pol i ce and m ade hi s i dent i f i cat i on o fpet i t i oner under f ear of

possi bl e pr obat i on r ev ocat i on. T hi s showi ng b y t he p et i t i oner ov er cam e t he St at e' s asser t ed i nt er est i n pr eser v i ng t he co nf i dent i al i t y of j uv eni l e de l i nquen cy pr oceedi ngs. I n t he i nst ant case, however , appel l ant has not m ade any showi ng t hat wi t ness Hender son t est i f i ed a gai nst hi m as a r esul t of bi as, m ot i v e or i l l wi l l em anat i ng f r om hi s st at us of def er r ed 7 I n t h is ca s e , we a re co n f ro n t e d wit h a s im il a r qu e s t io n o f re le va n c y. Sp e c if ic a ll y, we must deci de w hether

Leca’s alle g ed v iol ati on of her alc ohol probati on terms w as re lev ant to w hether

M er cer had commi tted dati ng v iol ence in the p astor w hether it w as li kel y

that he w oul d do so in the future. W e do not b eli ev e t h e par ti cul ars o f her adher ence to he r pr obati on are r ele v ant t o tho se q uest ion s. See Cal li ns v. State , 7 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 9 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1989) ; see als o Jones v. State , No. 14- 97- 00180- CR , 1999 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 2429, a t *8 ( T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] Apr . 1, 1999, no p et.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publi cat ion ) ( “[ D] eny ing a defendant the ri g ht to i mpeach a w it ness on t he basis of th e w i tn es s ' de fer r ed ad j ud i c at i on prob at i on do es no t de ny th e de fen dan t his const itution al rig ht of

conf ronta tion. ”). T he relevant quest ion i s w het her Leca w as ho nest on th e four occ asi ons w hen she cla imed that M er cer had commit ted famil y

v iol ence— and, in fact, M er cer ’s co unsel did ask her thes e q uest ion s. M or eov er , he w as not l imi ted b y the tr i al c ou rt w he n he a s k ed t he m. In s hor t, the inq uir ies of

Mer cer ’s counsel into Leca’ s s uppos ed probati on v iol ati ons
w ere no t relevant in a fam ily v iolence prote ctiv e orde r hea ring, and thu s the trial court did not a buse it s d is cr eti on i n hal ti ng the cross -e x aminat ion

. 1adj udi cat i on. Appel l ant has f ai l ed t o l ay t he n ecessar y pr edi cat e t hat woul d i nv oke t he r i ght ofconf r ont at i on. Id

. In o th e r w o rd s , e v i d e n c e th a t a s ta te 's w i tn e s s i s o n p ro b a ti o n fo r a n a l c o h o l o ff e n s e m a y b e re l e v a n t t o show t he " pot ent i al bi as or i nt er est of t he wi t ne s s i n he l pi ng t he st at e, " but i n t hi s case, M er cer ' s st at ed p u rp o s e w a s n o t t o s h o w th a t L e c a w a s b i a s e d i n fa v o r o f th e s ta te ; i t w a s to s h o w th a t s h e w a s d i s h o n e s t. S e e S a l a za r v . S ta te , 222 S

. W

. 3d 1 0, 16- 17 ( T ex. App.

— Am ar i l l o 20 06, pet

. r ef ' d) ( ci t i ng M a x w e ll v . S ta te , 4 8 S .W .3 d 1 9 6 , 1 9 9 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 )) ; s e e a l s o M o re n o v . S ta te , 2 2 S .W .3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 5
- 8 6 ( T e x . C r im

. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). D a v is , t her ef or e, i s di st i ngui shabl e. 8 IV. C ONCL US I ON The tr ial di d noter r w hen i t hal ted t he cro ss -e x aminat ion of Leca on the basi s t hat the q uest ion ing w as ir re lev ant. W e AF FI RM the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 31 day

of Jul y , 200 8. st