Court Opinion

ID: 9659855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:56:12.059133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:12.205918
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by RICKHOFF, J.
RICKHOFF, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the majority opinion and write to again observe that Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) not only cannot be logically and responsibly applied to all behavior, but that these rules should be reversed for certain conduct.
When the trial opens with the prosecutor reading six prior convictions for driving while intoxicated, the very offense charged, will the jury conclude that the defendant acted in conformity with his past behavior? Of course. Some jurors may need an expert to rely on, but they constantly judge others based on their character. Could the court devise a curative instruction to neutralize the prejudice thus injected into the proceeding? Not likely. But I believe that this jury reaches the right conclusion; someone with six convictions for DWI, and standing accused of it again, is driving drunk.
My experience as a trial and appellate judge has been that with some behaviors, including chronic alcohol abuse, past behavior is in fact the single most significant factor in determining whether that person committed alcohol abuse in a given case. See also Creekmore v. State, 860 S.W.2d 880, 885 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1993, pet. ref d) (arguing that character is always at issue when one is charged with sexually abusing children in one’s care).
If one has been so deviant as to previously sexually assault a child or repeatedly drive *849drunk, the reality is that his past behavior predicts his future behavior. In these eases, “character” remains consistent and the jurors’ common experience compels them to so conclude.
We should quit dancing around Tex.R. Evid. 404(b) and 408 and recognize that they are contrary to certain human conditions. If we are serious about not convicting Tamez for acting in conformity with his character, we would never allow the six convictions to be read prior to the evidence, charge, argument and deliberations on guilt/innoeence. Since we are not, we must recognize that at times character evidence is the most relevant evidence.