Drake Costilla v. the State of Texas, 01-20-00297-CR

Background

Drake Costilla was indicted for the third-degree felony of continuous family violence alleging assaults on October 12 and November 12, 2017; the jury acquitted on the felony but convicted him of the lesser-included misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury—family violence based on the November 12 incident.
Responding officers recorded bodycam footage: Costilla told officers Frausto struck him and he restrained her; Frausto told officers he pinned her and put a hand over her mouth and nose; photos showed scratches on Costilla and some facial redness on Frausto.
Frausto initially invoked the Fifth; the State obtained a court order granting her use and derivative use immunity to compel testimony; the immunity application and order were admitted into evidence.
At trial Frausto largely disavowed her prior statement to police (saying she had lied to avoid jail), claimed memory lapses, but on cross admitted inconsistencies; defense argued she fabricated or manipulated statements and that Costilla acted in self-defense.
Costilla moved for directed verdict as to the October 12 incident (denied). On appeal he raised four claims: directed-verdict/sufficiency for Oct. 12, Confrontation Clause violation from compelled-immunity testimony, trial-court comment on weight by admitting immunity documents, and jury-charge error on culpable mental state definitions.

Issues

Issue	Costilla's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Denial of directed verdict / sufficiency as to Oct. 12 assault	Evidence for Oct. 12 was legally insufficient; denial may have caused a compromise verdict	The jury convicted only for Nov. 12; sufficiency challenge to Oct. 12 would be advisory and would not affect conviction	Court: Challenge is not cognizable — reviewing Oct. 12 sufficiency would be an advisory opinion and cannot reverse the Nov. 12-based conviction
2. Confrontation Clause — allowing Frausto to testify under use-and-derivative-use immunity	Granting immunity (allegedly including perjury) made cross-examination meaningless and violated confrontation	Immunity did not cover perjury; witness was present and subject to cross-examination; lack of memory can be probed	Court: No violation — order expressly excluded perjury, Frausto was cross-examined and did not refuse to answer to a degree that made cross-examination meaningless
3. Article 38.05 / comment on weight by admitting immunity application and order	Admitting those documents communicated the court’s endorsement of Frausto’s veracity and prejudiced defendant	Admissibility ruling and any bench remarks occurred outside jury presence; admitting an exhibit is not a judicial comment on weight	Court: No reversible error — judge made rulings outside jury hearing and admission of documents is not an Article 38.05 comment on weight
4. Jury-charge error — definitions of "intentionally" and "knowingly" included conduct/circumstances language	Assault causing bodily injury is result-oriented; definitions should have been limited to culpability as to result only	The application paragraphs required culpability as to causing bodily injury and counsel argued disputed credibility/self-defense	Court: Definitions were erroneous but harmless (no reversible harm) because application paragraphs properly required culpability as to result, evidence/arguments focused on credibility and self-defense

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (legal-sufficiency review standard for directed-verdict motions)
Lang v. State, 561 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (legal-sufficiency requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (effect of reversal for legal insufficiency)
Pfeiffer v. State, 363 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (court may not issue advisory opinions)
Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (scope of Confrontation Clause and limits on cross-examination restrictions)
Butterfield v. State, 992 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (use-and-derivative-use immunity eliminates self-incrimination risk but does not protect perjury)
Preston v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 902 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2018) (immunity can violate confrontation if witness refuses to answer and cross-examination becomes meaningless)
Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (when offense is result-oriented, culpability must be tied to the result)
Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (definitional errors can be harmless where application paragraphs properly focus culpability)
Simon v. State, 203 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (trial judge must not comment on weight of evidence when ruling on admissibility)