Opinion
No. 05-09-00338-CR
Opinion Filed April 29, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F07-25622-XN.
Before Justices O'NEILL, LANG, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at twenty years' confinement. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the complainant's assault conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant attacked his neighbor with a home-made spear and a knife several times. After the assault, appellant called 911 and told the operator that he had "killed" the victim because he had been "bugging" him and knocking on his door all night long. However, the victim was still alive when he was taken to the hospital, but was left paralyzed. He died before trial. Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. At the punishment phase, appellant attempted to show the attack was provoked. He offered evidence that the victim had previously been convicted of class C misdemeanor assault against a third party. The trial court excluded the evidence as irrelevant. In his sole point of error, appellant contends the evidence was admissible to show the victim was the first aggressor. When a defendant claims that the complainant was the first aggressor, previous specific acts of violence relevant to the ultimate confrontation may be offered to show the complainant's state of mind, intent, or motive. See Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). As long as the violent acts explain the outwardly aggressive conduct of the complainant at the time of the killing, and in a manner other than demonstrating character conformity only, evidence of the acts may be admitted even though those acts were not directed against the defendant. Id. at 762. Here, appellant makes no attempt to connect the complainant's prior conviction to the facts of this case. Instead, he offered the evidence solely to show tthe complainant acted in conformity with his allegedly violent character. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.