Pabon v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Dickerson

    2022 S.D. 23 (S.D. 2022)   Cited 6 times
    In Dickerson, 973 N.W.2d at 264, the Court held that the State had not demonstrated that the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no evidence corroborating the witness’s testimony and the State’s case primarily depended on whether the jury accepted the witness's version of events.

    See SDCL 19-19-401 (providing that "[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) The fact is of consequence in determining the action" (emphasis added)). Like the State, the dissent also relies on two factually distinguishable decisions: State v. Deleon-Yuja, No. 2019AP2059-CR, 2021 WL 1883365, at *7 (Wis. Ct. App. May 11, 2021) and Ramos Pabon v. State, No. 02-18-00517-CR, 2019 WL 4122611, at *4 (Tex. App. Aug. 29, 2019). In Deleon-Yuja, the victims who testified at trial were young girls, and unlike here, there was no evidence in the record that they or their parents "had an illegal immigration status."

  2. Wooldridge v. State

    No. 07-24-00081-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 2, 2024)

    Because the State's indirect allusion to Appellant's failure to testify was invited by Appellant and was constrained to the area of invitation, we conclude that the State's comment does not constitute reversible error. See Allen v. State, 693 S.W.2d 380, 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (en banc) (op. on reh'g) (State's "indirect allusion" to defendant's failure to testify was invited by defendant's argument about evidentiary inadequacy); Pabon v. State, No. 02-18-00517-CR, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 8017, at *14 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

  3. Chavez v. State

    No. 02-22-00090-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 9, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "One requirement for obtaining a U-Visa is that a complainant 'must assist law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the crime.'" Pabon v. State, No. 02-18-00517-CR, 2019 WL 4122611, at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting Diane Mickelson, Comment, When the Problem is the Solution: Evaluating the Intersection Between the U[]Visa "Helpfulness" Requirement and No-Drop Prosecution Policies, 53 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1455, 1465 (2019)).

  4. Winchester v. State

    No. 02-19-00293-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 10, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    But even if a jury argument exceeds the permissible bounds, we will not reverse a trial court's erroneously overruling a defense objection unless the error affected the defendant's substantial rights.See Milton v. State, 572 S.W.3d 234, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019); Ramos Pabon v. State, No. 02-18-00517-CR, 2019 WL 4122611, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh'g).

  5. Wisenbaker v. State

    No. 08-19-00034-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 23, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    To preserve error when a trial court excludes evidence, a party must show the substance of the excluded evidence by an offer of proof unless the substance is apparent from the context of the questions asked. See TEX.R.APP.P. 33.2; TEX.R.EVID. 103(a)(2); Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163, 168 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009); Pabon v. State, No. 02-18-00517-CR, 2019 WL 4122611, at *4 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2019, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication). The primary purpose of the offer of proof is to enable an appellate court to determine whether the exclusion was erroneous and harmful.

  6. Babin v. State

    No. 02-19-00247-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 3, 2020)

    Even if Babin had preserved his arguments, we would conclude that he was not harmed by the exclusion. See, e.g., Ramos Pabon v. State, No. 02-18-00517-CR, 2019 WL 4122611, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The jury heard that shortly before Elaine's outcry against Babin, Babin saw Carl with his hand inside Elaine's underwear, causing Babin to yell at Carl and his mother and to forcibly eject Elaine's "very good friend[]" from the house.

  7. Hopper v. State

    No. 02-18-00476-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    We recognize that this requirement cannot impinge on a defendant's right "to explore any plausible basis for witness bias." Jones v. State, 571 S.W.3d 764, 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019); Pabon v. State, No. 02-18-00517-CR, 2019 WL 4122611, at *4 n.3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). A. The State's Forfeiture Argument