Opinion
06-20-00015-CR
07-20-2020
JOSHUA ANDREW MILLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 114th District Court Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. 114-0627-19 Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a Smith County jury convicted Joshua Andrew Miller of family violence assault by impeding breath or circulation and found true the State's punishment enhancement allegations, Miller was sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01 (Supp.). On appeal, Miller argues that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of his prior assaults against the same victim because they were irrelevant. Because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary ruling, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
I. Standard of Review
"A trial judge's decision on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard and will not be reversed if it is within the zone of reasonable disagreement." Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 813-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Russeau v. State, 291 S.W.3d 426, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). "Admission of extraneous offense evidence is generally within the trial court's discretion." Andrews v. State, 78 S.W.3d 13, 20 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002, pet. dism'd, untimely filed). "We will uphold an evidentiary ruling if it was correct on any theory of law applicable to the case." Flowers v. State, 438 S.W.3d 96, 103 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref'd) (citing De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)).
II. Analysis
At trial, the victim testified that Miller had previously assaulted her and described the various assaults over Miller's running relevance objection. On appeal, Miller argues that the trial court erred in overruling his relevance objection. We disagree.
Miller "concedes that no objection was made to this testimony on any grounds other than relevance." For this reason, Miller does not argue on appeal that the evidence should have been excluded under Rule 403 or 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Yet, in the context of arguing that evidence of the prior assaults was irrelevant, Miller invokes Rules 403 and 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Because "an issue on appeal must comport with the objection made at trial," meaning that "an objection stating one legal basis may not be used to support a different legal theory on appeal," we address only Miller's preserved argument that the evidence was irrelevant. Walker v. State, 469 S.W.3d 204, 210-11 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015, pet. ref'd) (citing Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)).
"Texas Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as that evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Andrews, 78 S.W.3d at 20 (citing TEX. R. EVID. 401). Under Rule 402, "all relevant evidence is generally admissible," but evidence that is irrelevant is not. Id.; TEX. R. EVID. 402. If the evidence is not relevant as defined by Rule 401, the trial court need not move to an analysis under Rule 402 to determine whether the admission of relevant evidence is prohibited by the United States or Texas Constitutions, another rule, or statute. See Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 375-77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (explaining that whether evidence should be admitted is a two-step process, with relevance being the initial issue before determining if the evidence should be excluded because of some other provision) (citing TEX. R. EVID. 402).
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that, in family violence assault cases, "each party may offer testimony or other evidence of all relevant facts and circumstances that would assist the trier of fact in determining whether the actor committed the offense . . . including testimony or evidence regarding the nature of the relationship between the actor and the alleged victim," "subject to the Texas Rules of Evidence or other applicable law." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.371(b) (Supp.). Since evidence of prior assaults against the same victim bears on the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, it is relevant evidence. See id. Also, prior assaults against the same victim are relevant to show intent, which is a fact of consequence in family violence assault cases, because they "have a tendency to make probable the State's theory that [the defendant] possessed the requisite intent at the time of the offense." Smith v. State, 314 S.W.3d 576, 592 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.).
Due to Article 38.371 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling that evidence of Miller's prior assaults against the same victim constituted relevant evidence. As a result, we overrule Miller's sole point of error.
III. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice Date Submitted: July 3, 2020
Date Decided: July 20, 2020 Do Not Publish