Codiem Renoir Wooten v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7302

Wooten was convicted of murder after a trial that included cross-examination alleging extraneous bad acts and a punishment phase dispute over a sudden-passion instruction.
The State questioned Wooten about Chelsie Griffin’s character in an attempt to impeach self-defense claims; no police report or Griffin statements were admitted as evidence.
Wooten admitted lying to police in an initial interview; the State then pursued extraneous-offense questioning, arguing he opened the door by previous false statements.
Cleveland testified about Johnson’s reaction and the shooting in a front-yard confrontation, after which Johnson was killed and Wooten was wounded.
Before punishment, Wooten sought a sudden-passion instruction; the court refused, and the jury sentenced him to 60 years.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded for a new punishment hearing to consider sudden-passion grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by admitting/allowing irrelevant hearsay about extraneous acts	Wooten: State’s cross-examination of Griffin was improper hearsay	State: questioning was admissible to rebut self-defense and because Wooten opened the door	No reversible error; questioning did not constitute evidence and was within the door-opened theory
Whether the trial court erred by denying a sudden-passion instruction at punishment	Wooten: evidence supported sudden passion due to fear and provocations	State: evidence not enough for abrupt passion or no adequate cause	Error; failure to instruct was harmful; remand for new punishment hearing

Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (extraneous offenses generally inadmissible but may rebut defense)
Wells v. State, 730 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987) (remarks or questions are not evidence; door-opened issues)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (extraneous-offense evidence admissible to impeach if relevant to defense)
Hudson v. State, 112 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (rebuttal of defense with extraneous acts permissible)
Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (self-defense and sudden passion linked; instruction guidance)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (two-step Almanza test for jury-charge error)
McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (evidence of sudden passion requires minimal support to get instruction)
Benavides v. State, 992 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (courts advise providing sudden-passion instruction if evidence exists)
Lewis v. State, 231 S.W. 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1921) (classic standard for adequate cause in sudden passion context)
Chavez v. State, 6 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (self-defense and sudden-passion considerations intertwined)
Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (jury-charge harm assessment for non-objected errors)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Ngo clarifies preservation and error-harm standards)