Angela K. Jones-Jackson v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9249

Appellant Angela K. Jones-Jackson was convicted by a jury of robbery; punishment: 5 years TDCJ and $5,000 fine.
The victim testified that Jones-Jackson assaulted her, took her cell phone and purse, and she never recovered them; Appellant admitted striking the victim but denied taking property.
Before trial, the court ruled convictions older than ten years inadmissible under Tex. R. Evid. 609(b); the victim admitted two felony convictions from 2003 which were admitted for impeachment.
Appellant sought to introduce multiple earlier felony drug convictions (1984, 1992, 2002) to impeach the victim; the trial court excluded these as remote.
Appellant argued (1) the older convictions could be “tacked” to later convictions to avoid Rule 609(b)’s heightened standard, and (2) the State’s direct examination “opened the door” by eliciting limited prior-conviction testimony; the court rejected both arguments.
The court held any error in excluding the remote convictions would be nonconstitutional and harmless because the jury already knew of a 2003 drug conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion excluding prior convictions >10 years old	Jones-Jackson: older convictions admissible for impeachment (tacking or otherwise)	State: Rule 609(b) bars remote convictions unless probative value substantially outweighs prejudice; tacking no longer valid	Court: No abuse; tacking doctrine rejected post-Rule 609; Rule 609(b) applies and convictions excluded
Whether State "opened the door" to admit remote convictions by questioning victim about 2003 convictions	Jones-Jackson: prosecutor’s questioning created false impression that victim had only two felonies, permitting corrective impeachment	State: questioning was narrowly tailored to admissible convictions and did not imply exclusivity	Court: No. Questions did not create a false impression about only two convictions; no opening of the door

Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (abuse of discretion defined as decision outside zone of reasonable disagreement)
Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177 (tacking doctrine abrogated by adoption of Rule 609)
Leyba v. State, 416 S.W.3d 563 (applies Hankins: Rule 609(b) exclusively governs remote convictions)
Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (factors to weigh impeachment value vs. prejudice under Rule 609)
Prescott v. State, 744 S.W.2d 128 (false-impression doctrine allows corrective impeachment)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (erroneous evidentiary rulings that are nonconstitutional require reversal only if they affect substantial rights)
Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91 (standard for harmless nonconstitutional error)
Jackson v. State, 50 S.W.3d 579 (illustrative authority on tacking doctrine in earlier jurisprudence)