Andy Cole Hesbrook, Jr. v. State, 11-15-00235-CR

Appellant Andy Cole Hesbrook Jr. was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault and sentenced to 20 years' confinement and a $2,500 fine.
The complainant J.S., a childhood friend, alleged that after an evening together while both were intoxicated, Hesbrook entered her home later that night and put his hands in her underwear; she and her sister expelled him and he later apologized by text.
At a pretrial hearing, Hesbrook sought to elicit testimony from J.S. about two prior allegations she made: one accusing a former husband (Eric Garcia) of sexually assaulting her three-year-old daughter (charges later dismissed), and another involving her second husband breaking a phone during a fight and being arrested for tampering with a 9-1-1 call.
The State objected to the proffered testimony under relevance, Rules 403, 404(b), and 608(b); the trial court sustained the objections and excluded the evidence.
On appeal, Hesbrook argued exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and present a defense by preventing impeachment of the complainant with prior false-allegation evidence.
The court affirmed, concluding the proffered evidence was offered to attack J.S.’s general credibility rather than to show bias or motive, lacked proof the prior allegations were false or sufficiently similar, and thus was properly excluded under Texas evidentiary law and precedent.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of evidence of complainant's prior allegations violated Sixth Amendment confrontation/right to present a defense	Exclusion prevented impeachment of J.S. and denied right to present a defense by hiding prior false accusations	Evidence was irrelevant or barred by Rules 403, 404(b), and 608(b); appellant offered it only to attack general credibility	Court held exclusion proper: offered only for general credibility, lacked proof those allegations were false or sufficiently similar, so trial court did not abuse discretion

Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings — abuse of discretion)
Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (review of trial court evidentiary decisions)
Gonzalez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (affirmance of correct evidentiary rulings on any legal theory supported by the record)
Dering v. State, 465 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015) (upholding evidentiary rulings where record supports exclusion)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (distinguishing permissible impeachment of bias/motive from improper impeachment by prior false-accusation evidence under Rule 608(b))
Miller v. State, 36 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (defendant’s right to present evidence is subject to relevance and established evidentiary rules)
Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (circumstances where exclusion of evidence may implicate constitutional right to present a defense)
Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (prior allegations not probative for impeachment absent proof they were false or similar)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (impeachment by showing potential bias or motive is constitutionally protected)