Javier Noel Campos v. State
01-13-00416-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 21, 2015Background
- Javier Noel Campos was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to an effective 68-year term. The convictions were affirmed by the First Court of Appeals, then remanded by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for reconsideration of one evidentiary issue in light of Meadows v. State.
- At trial Campos testified and denied the offenses; the State cross-examined him about several prior convictions, including a 1992 felony conviction (two counts of aggravated assault) more than 10 years old.
- Campos moved pretrial to testify free of impeachment by prior convictions under Tex. R. Evid. 609(b); the trial court denied the motion and allowed impeachment, citing a ‘‘tacking’’/"tagging" rationale and a balancing test without articulating specific facts required by Rule 609(b).
- On remand the sole issue is whether admission of the 1992 conviction (21 years old) for impeachment violated Rule 609(b), which bars admission of convictions older than 10 years unless, in the interest of justice, the conviction’s probative value—supported by specific facts and circumstances—substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
- Campos argues the State failed to prove the Rule 609(b) requirements (interest of justice; probative value supported by specific facts and circumstances; probative value substantially outweighs prejudice), and that the trial court improperly relied on tacking and factors from Theus (which interprets Rule 609(a)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Campos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of a >10-year-old felony conviction for impeachment under Tex. R. Evid. 609(b) | The prior convictions (including misdemeanors and the 1992 felony) together justify impeachment; trial court properly balanced and permitted cross-examination (invoking tacking). | Rule 609(b) controls; State did not show admission was in the interest of justice, nor that probative value—supported by specific facts—substantially outweighed prejudice; tacking is not a substitute for Rule 609(b) analysis. | On remand the court must apply Meadows and Rule 609(b); record lacks required findings and specific facts: admission was erroneous and warrants a new trial (appellant requests reversal). |
Key Cases Cited
- Meadows v. State, 455 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (holds Rule 609(b) governs admission of convictions over ten years old and requires specific-fact balancing)
- Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (sets nonexclusive factors for Rule 609(a) impeachment balancing; not controlling for remote convictions)
- Leyba v. State, 416 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (applies Rule 609(b) standard exclusively for remote convictions)
- Butler v. State, 890 S.W.2d 951 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995) (discusses burdens and trial-court obligations before admitting remote convictions)
- Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (addresses limits of tacking doctrine and admissibility analysis)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless-error / substantial-rights analysis guidance)
- United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1979) (construing Fed. R. Evid. 609(b): convictions over ten years admitted rarely; mere importance of credibility insufficient)