Court Opinion

ID: 9682249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:08:26.701025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:38.436113
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING7
In our initial opinion, we found that the trial court’s refusal to permit evidence of adultery by Mary Driggers was not harmful error because other evidence showed that the parties had contemplated a divorce. Drig-gers, however, contends that the gist of his defense was not that a divorce was being considered, but that Mary Driggers had a motive for coaching her daughter to make accusations against him. According to Drig-gers, that motive was that his wife knew that her extramarital affairs8 could be used against her on the issue of who would get custody of the daughter, and therefore she wanted to use the accusation against him to offset any fault on her part for having the affairs.
On rehearing, counsel also points out that this defensive theory goes not only to the impeachment of Mary Driggers as a witness, but also to the explanation of why the claims were being made against Driggers by the daughter. In other words, Driggers contends this would have been admissible evidence even if Mary Driggers had not testified because it would go to the heart of his defense. Thus, the excluded evidence of the extramarital affairs would go not only to impeach Mary Driggers as a witness, but to cast doubt upon the credibility of the entire case against Driggers.
Although Driggers raises this on rehearing, if this was the gist of his defense it should have been raised specifically at the trial court level. It was not. He asked that this evidence be admitted, but did not inform the trial judge of the basis now raised. In order to preserve this error, the purpose now asserted should have been specifically set forth at the trial court level. Tex.R.CRIM. Evid. 103(a) allows such an offer of proof even without specifying the basis in the trial court when it is apparent from the context within which the questions are asked.
In the present case, in the trial court, there was no evidence or argument that the mother was concerned about seeking custody of the child if a divorce were filed; there was no evidence or argument that the wife was motivated to coach the child to report sexual molestation by the father to assure future custody of the child if a divorce were filed; there was no evidence or argument that the wife was seeking a basis for obtaining custody to offset previous affairs if a divorce were filed. So, from the context, this reason for admitting the evidence was not readily apparent.
We overrule Wilburn Driggers’ motion for rehearing.

. Justice Larry Starr was a member of the Court when the original opinion in this cause was issued. .Justice Donald R. Ross succeeded Justice Starr and was a member of the Court at rehearing.

. In a bill of exceptions made outside the presence of the jury, the trial court allowed a record to be made by questioning Mrs. Driggers about the extramarital affairs. She unequivocally admits to extramarital affairs.