Paita v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Turner v. State

    443 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App. 2014)

    In analyzing the applicability of this exception, we consider the witness's statement in relation to the question asked, examine how broadly the question could be interpreted, and analyze the relationship between the question asked and the major substantive issues in the trial. Grant v. State, 247 S.W.3d 360, 368 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, pet. ref'd); Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (noting that courts also consider whether the witness's answer was responsive to the question asked). If a witness voluntarily or nonresponsively testifies concerning extraneous matters, the opposing side may correct a false impression presented by the answer.

  2. Turner v. State

    443 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App. 2014)

    In analyzing the applicability of this exception, we consider the witness's statement in relation to the question asked, examine how broadly the question could be interpreted, and analyze the relationship between the question asked and the major substantive issues in the trial. Grant v. State, 247 S.W.3d 360, 368 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, pet. ref'd) ; Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (noting that courts also consider whether the witness's answer was responsive to the question asked). If a witness voluntarily or nonresponsively testifies concerning extraneous matters, the opposing side may correct a false impression presented by the answer.

  3. Urtado v. State

    333 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that "if two different attacks occur, even if close in time, a defendant may be charged with two separate assaults"

    Hardeman v. State, 868 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, pet. dism'd) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Examples of crimes that are not considered crimes of moral turpitude include driving while intoxicated, Shipman v. State, 604 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980), gambling, Miller v. State, 67 Tex.Crim. 654, 150 S.W. 635, 636-37 (Tex.Crim.App. 1912), drug trafficking, Denman v. State, 193 S.W.3d 129, 136 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd), and interference with public duties, Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 713 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). In identifying non-violent crimes that constitute moral turpitude, courts have typically focused on whether the crime involved deception, as past deceptive conduct is relevant to a witness's credibility.

  4. Porter v. State

    No. 05-19-00194-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 7, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    That these statements were repeated several times demonstrates appellant did not inadvertently make the statements. See Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 713 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). Though denying the commission of one crime does not generally allow admission of evidence a different crime, see Theus, 845 S.W.2d at 879 (testimony that appellant was not involved with drugs did not open door to prior arson conviction), we think that, here, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that appellant's statements, considered in context, left the jury with a false impression that appellant had never committed a crime involving taking another's property.

  5. Jenkins v. State

    NO. 07-12-00146-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 13, 2013)

    By his volunteered assertions of his law-abiding behavior, appellant opened the door to the later cross-examination regarding his three misdemeanor convictions for failure to comply with his duties to stop and provide the required information after colliding with and damaging an unattended vehicle. Delk v. State, 855 S.W.2d 700, 704 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (noting when a witness creates a false impression of law abiding behavior, he opens the door on his otherwise irrelevant past criminal history); see also Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 444, 452 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (blanket statement of good conduct like "I would never have sex with a minor" opens the door to proof of relevant act); see Wheeler, 67 S.W.3d at 885 (defendant presented picture he was not the type of person to commit the charged offense, allowing cross-examination on similar extraneous offenses); Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 713 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (defendant's self-serving remarks about respect for police placed his attitude toward public servants into issue and were thus properly subject to impeachment). The State's cross-examination continued:

  6. Haro v. State

    371 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Holding trial court's voir dire comment, "you, individually, g[et] to decide what beyond a reasonable doubt means to you," not fundamental error

    Absent evidence to the contrary, a jury is presumed to follow the instructions set forth in the court's charge. Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 715 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)). Haro does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

  7. Haro v. State

    NO. 01-10-00877-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 29, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Absent evidence to the contrary, a jury is presumed to follow the instructions set forth in the court's charge. Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 715 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist] 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). Haro does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

  8. Davis v. State

    259 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 20 times
    Observing that "the law favors admission of past offenses if they are recent and the witness has demonstrated a pattern of running afoul of the law"

    Although the trial court sustained appellant's objections, we hold that the State's argument that the jury could consider appellant's prior convictions in assessing his credibility was permissible argument. See Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 715 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (finding that "State's closing argument concerned the credibility of appellant's testimony in light of his previous conviction" and was "proper as a reasonable deduction" from evidence); Caballero v. State, 881 S.W.2d 745, 750 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (finding State's argument emphasizing that jury could consider defendant's prior conviction in assessing credibility of his testimony was proper). Here, in its closing argument, the State did not ask the jurors to consider appellant's prior convictions in determining his guilt.

  9. Martin v. State

    265 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance for not filing Theus motion when admission of prior convictions by counsel appeared to be strategic attempt to appear open and honest to jury and to lessen impact of any impeachment on issue

    However, once the door was opened to appellant's prior convictions by his counsel, the State was entitled to develop testimony to fully explain these convictions, even if such evidence might ordinarily have been inadmissible. See King v. State, 773 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989); Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 713 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). Counsel is not ineffective for failing to make objections that have no legal basis.

  10. Hatley v. State

    206 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App. 2006)   Cited 11 times
    Construing terms of written, negotiated plea agreement

    Nonetheless, it is not the province of this Court when conducting a factual sufficiency review to substitute its assessment of witness credibility for the jury's assessment. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Paita v. State, 125 S.W.3d 708, 716-17 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 2003, pet. ref'd); Crutcher v. State, 969 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). Instead, we are to consider all the evidence and weigh the evidence supporting the jury's verdict against the contrary evidence.