Golliday v. State, 560 S.W.3d 664

Background

Complainant alleged she was raped in her apartment after drinking; Appellant had driven her to a store earlier, returned, and after consensual kissing allegedly forced intercourse; she called 911 and Appellant was later convicted.
At trial Appellant sought to introduce proffered testimony from the complainant and the SANE nurse (Jill Zutek) about the complainant's mental-health history, prior accusations, medication (Zoloft, Xanax), mixing alcohol and prescriptions, and herpes; the trial court excluded much of this testimony as irrelevant/hearsay and sustained State objections.
Appellant made offers of proof outside the jury but did not explicitly invoke the Confrontation Clause or other constitutional grounds when requesting admission; he stressed relevance and that the jury should hear "the rest of the story."
The court of appeals (panel, then en banc 5-4) reversed, holding the trial court's exclusions deprived Appellant of due process, confrontation, and the right to present a defense, concluding error was preserved.
The State sought rehearing to argue Appellant forfeited constitutional complaints by failing to specify a constitutional basis at trial; the highest court analyzed preservation doctrine and concluded Appellant failed to preserve the constitutional claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of Appellant's proffered testimony preserved a Confrontation/Due Process claim for appeal	Appellant argued relevance and that exclusion prevented him from presenting "the rest of the story" and thereby denied his constitutional rights	State argued Appellant failed to articulate a constitutional basis at trial and thus forfeited such claims under preservation rules	Court held Appellant did not preserve constitutional claims because he did not clearly state constitutional grounds at trial; reversal of court of appeals and remand to consider other issues
Proper interplay of Tex. R. Evid. 103 and Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 for proffers	Appellant relied on his offer of proof under Rule 103 as sufficient to preserve error	State relied on Reyna and Rule 33.1 to argue Rule 103 compliance alone is insufficient; must state legal grounds	Court held Rule 103 (offer of proof) does not substitute for Rule 33.1's requirement to state specific grounds; Reyna controls
Whether Holmes excused a more specific articulation of legal grounds for proffered evidence	Appellant/court of appeals relied on Holmes to say detailed objection unnecessary	State argued Holmes addresses sufficiency of detail in offers, not waiver of legal-ground requirement	Court held Holmes concerns offer-of-proof detail only and does not excuse stating the legal basis required by Rule 33.1
Whether a general relevance/hearsay objection notifies the trial court of constitutional claims	Appellant argued broad relevance statements and post-exclusion opening statement preserved the claim	State argued general hearsay/relevance objections do not put the trial court on notice of constitutional claims	Court held general relevance/hearsay arguments and post-exclusion opening remarks were insufficient to preserve a Confrontation/Due Process claim

Key Cases Cited

Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (proffer complying with Rule 103 does not preserve a constitutional complaint unless the proponent clearly articulated the constitutional basis to the trial court)
Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (addresses sufficiency and detail of offers of proof under evidentiary rules, not waiver of Rule 33.1 grounds requirement)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discusses preservation and that common trial objections do not necessarily put trial court on notice of constitutional due-process claims)
Golliday v. State, 551 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2017) (trial-court exclusions of proffered testimony; court of appeals held constitutional error preserved but reversed by higher court)