Court Opinion

ID: 9776101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:19:01.592909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:52.228761
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
Although we granted three grounds for review, the majority addresses only the first ground for review which asks whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded appellant’s right of confrontation was not violated when the trial judge prohibited appellant from cross-examining the complainant about a civil suit for damages arising out of the instant criminal case. The majority dismisses both the second ground for review which asks whether the Court of Appeals correctly held appellant’s right of confrontation was not violated when the trial judge prohibited cross-examination regarding the complaining witness’ deferred adjudication status, and the third ground for review which asks whether the Court of Appeals correctly held the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for new trial based upon the recantation of a material witness.
Believing the majority erroneously holds appellant failed to demonstrate how the proffered testimony regarding the a potential civil claim against the owner of the apartment complex was relevant to show the complainant’s bias, motive or interest in testifying for the State, and believing the facts of the present case indicate complainant’s deferred adjudication status provided bias, motive or interest for the complainant to testify against the accused, thereby making appellant’s second ground for review meritorious, I dissent.1
I.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution guarantees the accused an adequate opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1109-10, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, 353-54 (1974). Cross-examination is the principle means of testing a witness’ credibility, and the truthfulness of his testimony. Id. This Court has held the scope .of cross-examination encompasses all facts and circumstances tending to show that a witness may shade his testimony for the purpose of helping to establish only one side of the case. Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494, 497-498 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).
In the instant case, appellant told the trial court, at two separate hearings, he wanted to cross-examine the complainant about three matters that demonstrated the complainant’s bias, motive and interest in testifying against him: the fact complainant hired an attorney to file a civil law suit; the fact complainant was on deferred adjudication for a narcotics offense and presently under police surveillance for narcotics use; and, the fact complainant has a criminal history of narcotics abuse. All of these issues, taken as a whole, were designed to bolster the defense’s theory that the alleged aggravated robbery of the complainant was first, not committed by appellant (identity of the perpetrator was an issue at trial), and second, was a drug related incident. The trial judge prohibited all lines of questioning.
A. The Civil Suit
In Shelby v. State, No. 491-87 (Tex.Cr. App. delivered January 24, 1990) (Not pub*423lished) (Slip. op. at pg. 5), this Court held a complainant’s civil law suit, resulting from the alleged criminal offense, is an appropriate subject of cross-examination to expose the complainant’s potential bias, motive or interest in testifying for the prosecution, and the trial court’s limitation of such cross-examination was error. This Court subsequently issued a second opinion, Shelby v. State, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), wherein we could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the denial of the appellant’s fundamental right to cross-examination guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment was harmless.”
The majority attempts to distinguish Shelby, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), on two primary bases. First, they argue Shelby focuses exclusively on a harm analysis and does not address the substantive issue presented in the instant case. Ante at 421. While it is true Shelby, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), focused on a harm analysis only, the opinion explicitly embraces the holding of the earlier unpublished opinion which, as discussed supra, addressed the substantive issue.
Second, the majority argues Shelby is distinguishable in that, in Shelby the very occurrence of the offense (sexual assault) was at issue.2 Specifically, the majority’s contends in the instant case, the complainant’s hiring of an attorney to file a civil suit is of no relevance, because, “the record before the trial court at the time the evidence was excluded contains no indication ... a fact issue existed concerning the occurrence of the crime_” (Ante at 421.) The majority’s effort to distinguish Shelby on this basis is not convincing and ignores the defense’s theory of the ease that appellant did not commit the alleged offense, and that it was more likely the incident was drug related.3 In fact, the majority attempts to bolster its argument the occurrence of the offense is not at issue in the instant case by noting there is ample evidence the complainant was robbed and assaulted. They point to the “gunshot to the thigh” as an example of such evidence. Ante at 421.
The mere fact there is evidence supporting a robbery and assault does not prove the majority’s contention there is “no indication ... a fact issue existed in the instant case concerning the occurrence of the crime." Ostensibly, “the crime” refers to “the crime” for which appellant is on trial. In appellant’s trial for aggravated robbery, the relevant issue was not merely whether complainant was robbed and assaulted but whether appellant robbed and assaulted complainant. In regard to this inquiry, appellant raised the issue of identity and there is evidence in the record indicating appellant did not commit the offense.4 Additionally, appellant raised a fact issue whether the incident (the “aggravated robbery”), which resulted in complainant’s injuries, was a drug-related incident. Herein lies the relevance of the civil suit to the facts surrounding appellant’s trial for aggravated robbery. Obviously, the complainant cannot recover in a civil negligence suit against the apartment complex for failure to provide security unless she was injured by the lack of security. That is where the complainant’s motivation to fabricate the aggravated robbery comes into play. Like Shelby, since there is a fact issue as to the occurrence of this crime, and there is an issue as to whether this incident was brought on by complainant’s own illegal drug use, the complainant’s civil case and her prospective financial gain from the suit are relevant to show complainant might have fabricated the very incidence of a crime to cover the truth that her injuries were really the result of an incident brought about by her own illegal *424drug activity.5 However likely or unlikely this defense, appellant should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant regarding the civil suit “to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors ... could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). As we said in Shelby, 819 S.W.2d at 546 “... [a] reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of [complainant’s] credibility had [appellant’s] counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination.” Because the majority holds otherwise, I dissent.
B. Complainant’s Deferred Adjudication Status
Since appellant’s theory of the case turned on his assertion he did not commit the offense and his belief the alleged aggravated robbery was probably drug related, it is clear the complainant’s deferred adjudication status, for which she was under police surveillance, was relevant to her bias in testifying for the State.
In Callins v. State, 780 S.W.2d 176, 196 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) (opinion on court’s own motion for reh’g), this Court, relying on Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, held a witness may be impeached by evidence of a pending deferred adjudication if a showing is made that the witness has testified as a result of bias, motive or ill will emanating from his status of deferred adjudication. See also, Paley v. State, 811 S.W.2d 226, 229 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. refd). In Davis, the United States Supreme Court held petitioner was denied his constitutional right of confrontation because he was not allowed to impeach a witness on the basis of his juvenile record regarding probation for burglary. Critical to the Court’s holding, the petitioner in Davis was able to show that the witness might have been subject to undue pressure from the police and made his identification of petitioner under fear of possible probation revocation. This showing by the petitioner overcame the State’s asserted interest in preserving the confidentiality of juvenile delinquency proceedings.
In the instant case, appellant explained to the trial judge his desire to cross-examine the complainant about her deferred adjudication status to show that the complainant was testifying as a result of bias, motive or ill will emanating from her status of deferred adjudication because she was under police surveillance for continued narcotics use. Because appellant’s theory was that the offense did not occur, and that the complainant received her injuries as a result of her own illegal drug activity, her deferred probation status was relevant as a possible motive for her to allege that she was robbed and assaulted, in an attempt to conceal the incident occurred as a result of her illegal drug use. In fear her deferred probation would be revoked, the complainant could have misrepresented this incident as a crime committed against her (by appellant) rather than as the result of a crime committed by her (illegal drug activity).
Accordingly, appellant laid the necessary predicate to invoke his right of confrontation on the issue of complainant’s deferred adjudication status. Because the majority dismissed this ground for review as improvidently granted, I dissent.
II.
The accused’s right to cross-examine the State’s witnesses regarding their potential bias, motive or interest in testifying against them is secured by the Constitutional right to confrontation. Considering the facts of this case, and appellant’s theory of the case, appellant should have been permitted to expose the potential motives of the complainant to misrepresent this incident as a crime. For one, appellant raised the fact issue as to whether this offense even occurred, indicat-*425mg the incident might have been the result of the complainant’s own illegal drug activity. Clearly, if the complainant was seeking financial gain from her civil suit against the apartment for failure to provide security, she would not recover unless she could prove she was harmed by the lack of security. Thus, it is critical she prove she was robbed and assaulted by appellant. This necessarily makes the civil suit directly relevant to the criminal prosecution.
Second, because appellant’s theory was this incident was the result of the complainant’s drug activity, he should have been able to show the complainant was on deferred adjudication for a narcotics offense because it shows the complainant has a potential interest in covering up what might have been her own criminal activity by asserting she was the victim of a crime. Appellant should have been permitted to expose the potential motive of the complainant so that the jury would have the necessary tools to assess the complainant’s credibility. Because the majority dismissed this ground for review as improvidently granted, and denies appellant his constitutional right to cross-examine the complainant regarding her potential bias, motive or interest in testifying against him, I dissent.

. In proper deference to the role of trial judge as the sole trier of fact at a hearing on a motion for new trial, I concur with the majority’s decision to dismiss the third ground for review as improvidently granted.

. Therefore, because the Shelby civil suit, arising from the sexual assault, could not be won without proof that there was a sexual assault, the Shelby civil case provided a motive for the complainant in that case to fabricate that occurrence of the offense. Ante at 421.

. This theory is documented in the record when appellant presented his reasons to the trial court for wanting to cross-examine complainant regarding the civil suit, her deferred adjudication status, and her criminal history of drug abuse.

.In fact, Manuel Cristales, who later recanted his testimony (in the face of the trial Judge’s threats of perjury charges) was the only witness to positively identify the appellant in the photo spread.

. Given the facts of this case, as discussed infra, appellant should also have been permitted to cross-examine complainant regarding her deferred adjudication status and the fact she was under police surveillance for continued narcotics use. That important fact, considered with the fact complainant was pursuing a civil law suit,certainly raises a question as to the complainant’s credibility in that these two factors provide complainant with a motive to misrepresent what could have been a drug related incident, as a crime.