Johnny Lee Sizemore v. State, 04-15-00786-CR

Defendant Johnny Lee Sizemore shot victim Shawn Weber during a meeting at Sizemore’s home; Weber survived a gunshot that entered his neck and exited his body.
Core disputed issue at trial: whether Sizemore acted in self-defense; State’s theory was an unprovoked shooting, defense claimed Weber lunged with a knife.
At trial Sizemore testified he feared for his life, gave opinion that Weber had a violent reputation, and attempted to testify to two specific prior violent incidents involving Weber.
The trial court allowed reputation and generic notice of the prior incidents but excluded detailed testimony about the incidents because Sizemore lacked personal knowledge of the specifics.
Another defense witness (Ryan Brown) testified in detail about the road‑rage incident; no other witness testified about the second alleged assault.
Jury rejected self‑defense and convicted Sizemore of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; on appeal Sizemore argued the exclusion of the details was reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sizemore)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding Sizemore’s testimony about details of two prior violent incidents by Weber	Exclusion was proper because Sizemore lacked personal knowledge of the incident details and testimony was inadmissible as specifics without foundation	Exclusion prevented him from proving his perceived danger was reasonable; he should have been allowed to describe the incidents to show his state of mind	Court assumed possible abuse of discretion but found any error harmless and affirmed conviction

Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (evidence of victim’s violent character admissible to show reasonableness of defendant’s apprehension)
Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explains admissibility of reputation, opinion, or specific prior acts to show communicated character and defendant’s state of mind)
Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional error in criminal cases)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors for assessing whether exclusion of evidence likely influenced verdict)
De La O v. State, 127 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (error does not affect substantial rights if it only slightly influences the jury)