Ette v. State, 551 S.W.3d 783

Appellant Eddie Ette, operator of an insurance agency, received $350,000 from Nosa and Ann Evbuomwan to procure two performance bonds but did not obtain the bonds and treated the money as his fee. Appellant's invoices, however, showed only $2,000 in fees and $348,000 toward premiums.
A jury convicted Ette of misapplication of fiduciary property (first-degree felony under the statute as in force in 2007) and assessed punishment at 10 years' confinement with a $10,000 fine; the jury recommended suspension of confinement but not the fine.
At trial the court limited defense cross-examination of Nosa regarding a separate $900,000 indebtedness and bankruptcy related to a third lot (1920 Enchanted Way); defense contended this impeachment bore on credibility, bias, and motive.
At sentencing the judge read and accepted the jury verdict (which included the $10,000 fine) but, when orally pronouncing sentence, omitted any mention of the fine; the written judgment, verdict form, and probation conditions (signed by judge and appellant) all reflected the $10,000 fine.
Appellant appealed asserting (1) Sixth Amendment confrontation/right-to-present-defense violation from the cross-examination limitation, and (2) the $10,000 fine must be deleted because it was not orally pronounced.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether limiting cross-examination of the complainant about an unrelated bankruptcy/debt violated Ette's Confrontation Clause and right to present a defense	Trial court prevented impeachment on bias/credibility and thus deprived Ette of opportunity for effective cross-examination	The excluded evidence was irrelevant to charges about the bonds and did not affect the documents (invoices) central to guilt	No constitutional violation; exclusion was within court's discretion because the proffered impeachment concerned an unrelated property and had no bearing on the paperwork central to the offense
Whether the $10,000 fine must be removed because the judge did not orally pronounce it at sentencing	Omission of the fine from the oral pronouncement means no fine was imposed as required by law	The jury verdict, the written judgment, and signed probation conditions show the fine was assessed and intended; omission was inadvertent/ambiguous and should be harmonized to preserve the jury's verdict	Affirmed the fine: resolved discrepancy in favor of the jury verdict and judgment; judgment corrected for statutory citation clerical error

Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (standard on abuse of discretion and confrontation/cross-examination limits)
Johnson v. State, 433 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (scope of cross-examination and confrontation doctrine)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (cross-examination as principal means to test witness credibility)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (impeachment for bias and limits on general credibility attacks)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (permissible bases to limit cross-examination)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (right to present a complete defense)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1998) (trial-court exclusion of evidence does not always violate constitutional rights)
Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (oral pronouncement controls written judgment; sentence must be pronounced in defendant's presence)
Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (trial court cannot change a jury's verdict after jurors disperse)
Milczanowski v. State, 645 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (written verdict basis for reforming erroneous recitations in judgment)