Fred Douglas Moore, Jr. v. State, 06-15-00082-CR

Background

Appellant Fred Douglas Moore, Jr. was convicted by a jury in Hunt County, Texas of robbery and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment (trial April 2015). The document is the appellant's brief seeking reversal.
Incident: on March 16, 2014, store clerk Andres Hernandez accused Moore of taking $40 from beneath the counter during a handshake; Hernandez testified Moore caused him pain on shin and arm but also testified Moore never threatened or struck him and that Hernandez initiated physical contact.
Surveillance video (State's Exhibit 1) does not clearly show the clerk's account of a reach-under-the-counter theft or any deliberate physical assault by Moore; video shows Hernandez grabbing Moore as Moore attempts to leave.
Defense attempted to elicit testimony that Hernandez had (1) allowed customers to take items in the past while on duty and (2) had been discharged and was dishonest; the trial court excluded that impeachment/evidence of prior conduct and refused to admit it to the jury (bill(s) of exception taken).
Defense requested a lesser‑included instruction (theft) and argued legal insufficiency for robbery because the record lacks evidence that Moore intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury or placed Hernandez in fear; the trial court denied the lesser‑included charge (per brief).

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's/Respondent's Argument	Held
1. Exclusion of impeachment evidence re: complainant's prior conduct/credibility	Trial court improperly barred cross‑examination and excluded proffered testimony showing the clerk allowed thefts and was dishonest; exclusion violated Confrontation Clause and due process because the evidence was central to defense (consent and credibility).	State objected under Rules 608(b) and 610(b); sought to preclude specific‑instance impeachment and extrinsic proof of misconduct.	Appellant preserved bills of exception and argues constitutional error; brief requests reversal. (Record in brief does not include the appellate court’s decision.)
2. Denial of lesser‑included offense instruction (theft)	Theft is a statutory lesser‑included offense of robbery and the evidence (victim testimony and video) raised theft as a valid, rational alternative; jury should have been instructed.	State relied on jury instruction given for robbery and argued facts supported robbery.	Appellant contends error; brief asks for reversal or remand. (No appellate ruling in this filing.)
3. Legal sufficiency of evidence for robbery	Evidence is legally insufficient because no proof Moore threatened, caused, or intended bodily injury; victim admitted Moore did not strike him and video fails to show assault—only the victim’s aggressive conduct.	State contends evidence sufficed for jury to find robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.	Appellant asserts insufficiency and asks reversal. (Appellate outcome not included in this brief.)
4. Harmless‑error standard and constitutional impact of evidentiary exclusion	The excluded impeachment was central to defense; under Rule 44.2(a) exclusion likely not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	State would argue any exclusion was harmless in light of other evidence.	Appellant argues error was not harmless and deprived constitutional rights; outcome not present in record provided.

Key Cases Cited

California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (Supreme Court) (cross‑examination central to testing witness credibility)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court) (right to cross‑examine to expose bias and test credibility)
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (Supreme Court) (Confrontation Clause protects right to cross‑examine witnesses)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court) (legal sufficiency review—whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Rule 608(b) must yield to constitutional confrontation rights in some circumstances)
Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App.) (exclusionary rules of evidence can rise to constitutional error)