Jessica G. Castillo v. State
04-15-00208-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 17, 2015Background
- Jessica Castillo was charged with resisting arrest (Cause No. 458109) and DWI with BAC > .15 (Cause No. 458110) arising from an April 30, 2014 traffic stop; a jury found her guilty of both charges.
- At trial the officer (Steven Rivas) testified to smelling alcohol, slurred speech, and failing field sobriety tests; Castillo refused a breath sample and a search warrant was obtained for her blood.
- The State filed (and the court granted) motions in limine and oral requests to exclude any testimony or evidence about the blood draw and blood test unless the defense produced the blood analyst; the trial court limited cross-examination about the blood testing and denied the defense request to present the blood-warrant/checklist and related testimony.
- Defense counsel requested an oral continuance when the exclusion was imposed mid-trial because addresses/contacts for possible expert witnesses were not available; the court denied the continuance.
- The court sentenced Castillo to probated jail time and community supervision and required, as a condition of probation, that she write an apology letter to Officer Rivas; appellant contends that condition violates the privilege against self-incrimination pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held (trial-court ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding testimony about the blood draw/test denied Castillo her right to present a defense and to confront witnesses | Exclusion deprived meaningful cross-examination, impeded defense strategy ("Where's the blood?"), and violated due process and Sixth Amendment rights; reversal requested | Evidence about blood testing is prejudicial and not probative if State does not present a blood analyst; exclusion appropriate absent proper witness | Court sustained State's motion in limine and repeatedly barred questioning into the blood test/search-warrant details unless defense called the analyst; cross-examination was limited |
| Whether denying a mid-trial continuance (after exclusion) abused discretion | Denial prejudiced Castillo because defense lacked contact info and time to obtain witnesses after State's surprise rulings; continuance needed to pursue blood-evidence strategy | Continuance not required; trial should proceed and defense could approach bench or call witnesses if it chose | Court denied the request for continuance |
| Whether the trial-court errors, taken cumulatively, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair | Combined limitations on cross-examination and denial of continuance fatally impaired defendant's ability to present a complete defense; cumulative constitutional error | Errors (if any) were harmless or within the court's discretion and did not render the trial fundamentally unfair | Court limited evidence and denied continuance; appellant preserved a running objection and seeks reversal on cumulative-error grounds |
| Whether ordering an apology letter as a probation condition violates the privilege against self-incrimination during the pendency of appeal | Forcing an apology while appeal is pending risks creating statements that could be used against defendant if convictions are later reinstated or retried; condition violates Fifth Amendment privilege | Probation conditions are discretionary and may include restorative measures; apology is reasonable to protect/restore the victim/community | Court imposed the apology-letter condition as part of community supervision; appellant asks appellate relief to strike that condition pending appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (defendant has a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (limitations on presenting a defense can violate due process)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (denial of effective cross-examination is constitutional error of the first magnitude)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1967) (compulsory process is integral to due process)
- Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial court abused discretion by precluding cross-examination on testing issues in breath/blood evidence cases)
- Woodall v. State, 216 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (trial court improperly limited cross-examination about testing machinery and procedures)
- Henley v. State, 454 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (a trial judge’s evidentiary ruling that undermines constitutional protections is an abuse of discretion)