367 S.W.3d 470
Tex. App.2012Background
- Medina convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly-weapon enhancement and sentenced to 18.5 years’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.
- The offense arose January 6, 2011 when Puente’s car alarm prompted him to find Medina in the driver’s seat; Medina fled with the radio and stabbed Puente with a screwdriver, countered by Puente’s fists.
- Officer Kelly testified Medina confessed to committing crimes for “Big Vic,” and noted the radio removal and a screwdriver found on Medina; Medina claimed memory loss.
- Medina testified as an innocent bystander and admitted prior felony convictions for burglary of a motor vehicle, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and robbery for impeachment.
- The State admitted the three prior convictions to impeach Medina under Rule 609(a), applying the Theus factors to balance probative value against prejudice; Medina appeals the admissibility of each conviction.
- The appellate court upheld admission of all three convictions, finding the Theus factors weighed in favor of admissibility or were neutral, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of burglary convictions under 609. | Medina | State | Admission affirmed; four factors favored admission (impeachment value, proximity, credibility, defense importance) and similarity outweighed by other factors. |
| Admissibility of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction. | Medina | State | Admission affirmed; four factors favored admission (impeachment value, proximity, defense importance) and similarity neutral. |
| Admissibility of robbery conviction. | Medina | State | Admission affirmed; three factors favored admission (impeachment value neutral, proximity, defense importance); similarity was the only factor against admission but not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (impeachment factors for Rule 609(a) balancing; five-factor test)
- Berry v. State, 179 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005) (impeachment of defendant credibility; admission favored where credibility hinges on testimony)
- Thomas v. State, 312 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (complementary application of Theus factors in balancing)
- Tamez v. State, 205 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (compliance with Theus factors; impeachment value and credibility considerations)