Summary
The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Leon Cauley Jr.'s conviction for injury to a disabled person. The court held that the trial court did not reversibly err in admitting the challenged hearsay, extraneous-offense evidence, and criminal trespass warning, emphasizing preservation of error and cumulative evidence.
Holdings
- The testimony that Wendy's ex-boyfriend burned her with scalding water was admissible under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception to the hearsay rule. Any testimony concerning additional conduct outside that exception did not warrant reversal because the objection was not preserved and the same evidence was admitted through Wendy's testimony without objection.
- The trial court did not reversibly err by admitting the pending assault complaint and arrest warrant because the evidence was offered to refute Cauley's denial and attack his credibility, Cauley ultimately admitted the pending charge, and his hearsay objection was not preserved.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the pending assault charge to contradict Cauley's testimony and address his credibility.
- The criminal trespass warning was relevant and admissible to attack Cauley's credibility because it contradicted his testimony about the warning and his authority to return to Wendy's home. Any Rule 403 argument was forfeited because Cauley did not make that objection at trial.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court reversibly erred by admitting a paramedic's testimony repeating Wendy's statements about the cause of her injuries and Cauley's conduct.
- Whether the trial court reversibly erred by admitting a pending assault complaint and arrest warrant as hearsay and extraneous-offense evidence.
- Whether the trial court reversibly erred by admitting evidence of the pending assault charge for impeachment.
- Whether the trial court reversibly erred by admitting a criminal trespass warning for impeachment.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (11)
- Smith v. State, No. 09-17-00081-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1874, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)(followed)
- Rhomer v. State, 569 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019)(followed)
- Dabney v. State, 492 S.W.3d 309, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)(followed)
- Compton v. State, 666 S.W.3d 685, 714 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023)(followed)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)(followed)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 578-79, 589-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)(followed)
- Puderbaugh v. State, 31 S.W.3d 683, 685 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, pet. ref’d)(followed)
- Hanke v. State, No. 09-14-00326-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9884, at *18 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 23, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)(followed)
- Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463, 465-68 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)(followed)
- Reyes v. State, 741 S.W.2d 414, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…