Alan Domingo Diaz v. State, 01-15-00646-CR

Background

Alan Domingo Diaz was charged with aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury after punching cellmate Brandon Andrews in a jail haircut area; Andrews lost use of his left eye.
Diaz had previously told Andrews "don’t snitch" after their joint burglary arrest; Andrews later gave a statement to police and they were separated in jail.
Witness testimony conflicted: some inmates said Andrews spat on Diaz and that Diaz acted in self‑defense; others denied spitting or said Andrews did not fight back.
The trial court excluded testimony about a prior threatening statement Andrews allegedly made to another inmate and limited admission of Andrews’s civil lawsuit petition against Washington County for alleged failure to provide timely medical care.
A jury acquitted Diaz of aggravated assault in retaliation but convicted him of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury; an enhancement was found true and Diaz was sentenced to 99 years.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Diaz)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing a self‑defense instruction	Evidence (inmate testimony that Andrews spat) raised self‑defense; instruction required	Spitting is not deadly force; deadly‑force standard applies because injury caused loss of eye	No error: spitting is not deadly force and did not justify deadly‑force instruction
Whether exclusion of testimony about Andrews’s alleged threat was error	Testimony about the threat was admissible (e.g., under excited‑utterance exception)	Trial court excluded it as hearsay	Not preserved for appeal (no offer of proof); issue overruled
Whether limiting cross‑examination about Andrews’s civil suit was error	Cross‑exam on the suit would show Andrews’s motive/bias and that county negligence, not Diaz, caused the serious injury	Court permitted substantial questioning; further questioning was cumulative/collateral	No abuse of discretion; admitted testimony already conveyed same facts—any error harmless
Whether excluding the redacted civil‑petition was error	Petition would prove motive/bias and alternate cause of injury	Petition excluded but same information was elicited from Andrews on cross	Overruled: exclusion harmless because substance was admitted through other testimony

Key Cases Cited

Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App.) (two‑step jury‑charge review)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless‑error standard for jury charges)
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defensive issues must be submitted when raised by evidence)
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App.) (same)
Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App.) (same)
Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for defensive‑issue submission)
Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deadly‑force justification standards)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
Railsback v. State, 95 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (admission of evidence through other sources renders exclusion harmless)
Shuffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court evidentiary discretion)
Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App.) (evidentiary rulings review)
Smith v. State, 340 S.W.3d 41 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (abuse‑of‑discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Alfaro v. State, 224 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (offer of proof requirement to preserve evidentiary error)
Cruz‑Escalante v. State, 491 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (limits on cross‑examination)
Mims v. State, 434 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (review of cross‑examination scope)