Elio Hugo Garfias v. the State of Texas, 03-19-00877-CR

Indictments: Garfias was tried for assault-family-violence with a prior conviction (arising from a June 21, 2014 altercation with his long-term partner, Helena) and for repeated violations of a family-violence bond condition based on numerous contacts in July 2015.
At the scene officers observed Helena with significant facial injuries and blood; three young children were in the rear of the vehicle; CPS later removed the children temporarily.
Bond condition forbade Garfias from contacting Helena; phone records and threatening messages led to the separate bond-violation indictment; jury convicted on both counts in October 2019.
Prior-conviction evidence: Garfias stipulated to a 2013 assault conviction; the State sought to admit additional priors including a 2004 assault (over Garfias’s objection that Rule 609(b) bars convictions older than ten years absent a strong probative showing).
Trial court admitted the 2004 conviction (and a 2006 conviction) as rebuttal to Garfias’s self-defense theory, briefly referencing the common-law “tacking” doctrine but explaining the priors were highly probative to show intent and to refute self-defense.
Appeal: Garfias challenged admission of the 2004 conviction as an abuse of discretion under Tex. R. Evid. 609(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the trial court applied the correct standard and that the conviction’s probative value outweighed prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 2004 assault conviction (>10 years) under Tex. R. Evid. 609(b) (and trial court’s reference to tacking)	2004 conviction admissible to rebut Garfias’s self-defense claim; highly probative of intent and pattern of violence	2004 conviction is too remote under Rule 609(b); tacking doctrine should not circumvent the ten-year limit; admission was unduly prejudicial	Admission upheld. Trial court did not abuse its discretion; prior assault admissible to refute self-defense because probative value outweighed prejudicial effect; correct legal standard applied despite mentioning tacking

State v. Story, 445 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standard of abuse-of-discretion review for admissibility rulings)
Meadows v. State, 455 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (Rule 609(b) supplants common-law tacking doctrine)
Jones v. State, 241 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (prior violent acts admissible to rebut self-defense)
Halliburton v. State, 528 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (prior acts may be used to show intent on self-defense issue)
Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (appellate review assumes implicit findings supporting trial-court rulings)
Arguellez v. State, 409 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (trial-court rulings will be upheld if correct under any applicable legal theory)