Javier Noel Campos v. State, 01-13-00415-CR

Defendant Javier Noel Campos was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to an aggregate 68 years' imprisonment.
At trial the State sought to impeach Campos with several prior convictions, including a remote 1992 felony conviction (two counts of aggravated assault) more than ten years old.
Campos moved pretrial to testify free of impeachment by prior convictions; the trial court denied the motion and permitted cross-examination about the 1992 conviction, citing a "tacking" rationale and saying a balancing test had been performed but without specific findings required by Rule 609(b).
Campos testified and denied the offenses; during cross-examination the State impeached him with the 1992 convictions.
On initial appeal the convictions were affirmed; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded for reconsideration of the Rule 609(b) issue in light of Meadows v. State, 455 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
On remand Campos argues the State and trial court failed to satisfy Rule 609(b)’s requirements (interest of justice, probative value supported by specific facts, and that probative value substantially outweighs prejudicial effect) and seeks new trials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of >10‑year‑old prior conviction under Rule 609(b)	State argued prior convictions (including remote 1992 felony) were admissible for impeachment, relying on "tacking"/balancing and other prior convictions to justify admission.	Campos argued Rule 609(b) requires explicit trial‑court findings that admission is in the interest of justice, that the conviction has probative value supported by specific facts, and that probative value substantially outweighs prejudice — none of which the record shows.	On remand the Court was instructed to analyze admissibility under Meadows/Rule 609(b); appellant contends the trial court erred and asks for reversal and new trials.

Meadows v. State, 455 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (clarifies that Rule 609(b) governs admission of convictions older than ten years and requires stringent, specific findings)
Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (sets nonexclusive factors for weighing impeachment value under Rule 609(a); does not govern remote convictions)
Butler v. State, 890 S.W.2d 951 (Tex. App. — Waco 1995) (discusses burden on proponent to show Rule 609(b) criteria for remote convictions)
Leyba v. State, 416 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (applied Rule 609(b) standard exclusively for convictions over ten years old)
Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App. — Austin 2005) (addresses limits of the tacking doctrine and application of Rule 609(b))
Mireles v. State, 413 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 2013) (examines impeachment value of prior convictions that do not involve deception)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless‑error principles: whether improper evidence contributed to conviction)
United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1979) (federal interpretation of Rule 609(b): convictions over ten years are admissible very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances)
United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1999) (probative value for impeachment measured by how well the conviction shows untrustworthiness, not by the proponent’s need)