Craig Michael Campbell v. State, 551 S.W.3d 371

Complainant fled on foot across an intersection and was pursued in a gray car that drove at high speed into a gas station, nearly striking her; two eyewitnesses and an officer observed the events.
Appellant Craig Michael Campbell was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; bench trial resulted in conviction for the lesser-included offense of deadly conduct and one year in county jail.
Appellant testified he followed the complainant to get her back into his car after she admitted drug use and kicked him; he admitted driving erratically but denied intent to harm.
The State subpoenaed the complainant but could not locate her at trial; an application for a writ of attachment contained a clerical defect and never issued. Appellant requested a continuance to secure the writ; the trial court denied the continuance.
Appellant sought to impeach an eyewitness with a prior inconsistent out-of-court statement to a responding officer; the trial court excluded the officer’s testimony about that statement as hearsay.

Issue	State's Argument	Campbell's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for deadly conduct	Eyewitnesses and appellant’s admission support finding he recklessly endangered complainant	Appellant claimed he was trying to help the complainant and lack of intent/actual injury shows no deadly conduct	Affirmed: evidence sufficient (recklessness, not intent, is required)
Violation of compulsory process for failure to issue writ of attachment	No denial occurred because the writ never issued due to clerical defect and appellant did not pursue correction	Appellant argued trial court violated his right by not compelling absent complainant	No error preserved: appellant failed to obtain a court denial and did not follow prescribed procedure
Abuse of discretion in denying continuance to obtain writ	State noted diligence and warned parties; appellant had opportunity to cure defect and did not	Appellant argued he needed time to obtain proper writ to secure complainant’s testimony	No abuse: appellant failed to comply with art. 29.06 requirements and lacked diligence
Exclusion of impeachment evidence (prior inconsistent statement)	The excluded remark was collateral, related to post-offense conduct, and other evidence strongly established culpability	Campbell argued the officer could testify for impeachment (not for truth) to show witness unreliability	Any evidentiary error was nonconstitutional and harmless given corroborating eyewitness testimony; no reversal

Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (verdict will not be overturned unless irrational or unsupported)
Turro v. State, 867 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (factfinder resolves credibility conflicts)
McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (any rational trier of fact standard)
Ford v. State, 38 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (deadly conduct defined as reckless conduct placing another in imminent danger)
Erwin v. State, 729 S.W.2d 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (three-step preservation process when subpoenaed witness fails to appear)
Gentry v. State, 770 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (issuance of subpoena benefits opposing party; distinction between continuance and attachment issues)
Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (article 29.06 diligence and requirements for continuance based on unavailable witness)
Harrison v. State, 187 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (requirements for written motion for continuance)
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (exclusion of evidence is constitutional error only when it precludes presentation of a defense)
Broussard v. State, 434 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (harmlessness analysis for excluded impeachment evidence)