Damion Navarro v. State
13-14-00610-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 3, 2015Background
- Damion Navarro was indicted for burglary of a habitation; jury convicted and returned an affirmative deadly-weapon finding; sentence 50 years' imprisonment.
- At trial, the complainant testified about a ski mask and a struggle during which the mask was pulled off Navarro’s face but remained on his head.
- Defense attempted to impeach the complainant with an alleged prior inconsistent statement in a police report (that the complainant told the officer something different about the ski mask); the State objected as hearsay and the trial court sustained the objections.
- Defense did not make an offer of proof nor call the complainant outside the jury’s presence to preserve the excluded testimony for appeal.
- Navarro argued on appeal that (1) the trial court erred by excluding impeachment evidence, (2) his confrontation/cross-examination rights were violated, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue and assert those rights.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Navarro failed to preserve the first two issues and failed to show Strickland prejudice on the ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court erred by denying right to impeach complainant with prior inconsistent statement | Navarro: trial court improperly excluded prior statement in police report that contradicted complainant’s trial testimony | State: objectionable impeachment was hearsay and defendant failed to preserve error by offer of proof | Not preserved for appeal; claim overruled |
| Trial court prevented full cross-examination regarding credibility/truthfulness | Navarro: exclusion prevented meaningful cross-examination on inconsistency | State: cross-examination limitation not preserved absent offer of proof or questioning outside jury | Not preserved for appeal; claim overruled |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to assert confrontation/right to impeach and for not making an offer of proof | Navarro: counsel was deficient for not asserting confrontation clause, impeaching effectively, or making offer of proof | State: even if deficient, Navarro cannot show reasonable probability of a different outcome (no Strickland prejudice) | No ineffective assistance; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (offer of proof required to preserve exclusion of evidence)
- Mims v. State, 434 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (preservation requires offer of proof or questioning outside jury)
- Guerra v. State, 942 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1996) (party must inform court of theory of admittance)
- Lopez v. State, 200 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (cross-examination limits require preservation)
- Love v. State, 861 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (preservation when cross-examination is limited)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (failure to show either prong defeats claim)
- Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for evaluating counsel performance)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Strickland applied in Texas)
- Cueva v. State, 339 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2011) (ineffective assistance review)
- Duke v. State, 365 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2012) (preservation principles for excluded cross-examination)