Court Opinion

ID: 9611997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:02:31.007174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:34.653938
License: Public Domain

TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Justice,
concurring.
I write separately from the majority opinion to diverge from its analysis of the extraneous offense evidence.
When we review a trial court’s ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence, we do so under an abuse of discretion standard. Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102, 120 S.Ct. 1840, 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). Further, a trial court’s evidentiary ruling should be affirmed if it is correct under any theory applicable. Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116, 120 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).
Generally, specific acts of misconduct may not be introduced to impeach a party or witness. Prescott v. State, 744 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Reyna v. State, 99 S.W.3d 344, 349 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd). Opposing counsel may introduce evidence about otherwise irrelevant past criminal history when a witness, during direct examination, “opens the door” or “leaves a false impression with the jury as to the extent of either his prior arrests, convictions, charges, or trouble with the police.” Reyna, 99 S.W.3d at 349 (citing Prescott, 744 S.W.2d at 130-31). Additionally, as the majority notes, the State may also correct a false impression left by a defendant who voluntarily testifies during cross-examination about his prior criminal record by offering evidence of his prior record. Martinez v. State, 728 S.W.2d 360, 362 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). The exception must relate to the defendant’s testimony that is volunteered and related to collateral matters. Hall v. State, 161 S.W.3d 142, 156 (Tex.App.-Tex-arkana 2005, no pet.) (citing Lopez v. State, 928 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)). The opponent must correct the false impression via cross-examination of the witness who left the false impression instead of calling other witnesses to correct the false impression. Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). “[A]n appellant who ‘opens the door’ to otherwise inadmissible evidence risks having that evidence admitted and used against him. However, the party offering the evidence may not ‘stray beyond the scope of the invitation.’” Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 755-56 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (citing Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52, 71 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)).
Here, during the State’s cross-examination of appellant, he testified that he was “shocked that they took [him] to jail in the first place” and that he “was totally shocked to be arrested in the first place.” While further trying to pursue a discrepancy in appellant’s testimony regarding the timeline, the prosecutor asked appellant whether he had taken notes that *282would substantiate his prior recollection. In response to this question, appellant denied that he had taken notes and further volunteered once again that he was “so shocked by being arrested and placed in that position of being handcuffed and taken to jail for DWI” as his justification for making a mistake on the time he left his father’s house. Appellant’s statements as to “being shocked” were apparently voluntary and made with a view to explain the discrepancy in his testimony regarding the timeline, to justify his behavior regarding the sobriety tests and to explain his refusal to complete a valid breath test. The trial court only allowed the State to ask one question of the appellant to clear up the false impression he left implying he had not been arrested before by asking only if he had been arrested more than 20 times.
I would therefore conclude that the State’s one question into appellant’s number of prior arrests only was strictly limited to rebut the false impression appellant attempted to create before the jury and did not stray beyond the scope of the invitation. For this reason, I would conclude that the trial court’s ruling was not outside the zone of reasonable disagreement and it was therefore within the trial court’s discretion to admit the limited rebuttal question. For this reason, I respectfully concur in the majority’s decision.