Joshua Golliday v. State, 02-15-00416-CR

Background

Joshua Golliday convicted of sexual assault; this opinion is a dissent arguing the majority reversed his conviction based on unpreserved constitutional complaints.
At trial defense sought to cross-examine the complainant about psychiatric/substance-treatment history (Millwood) and medical history (Xanax, Zoloft, anxiety, herpes).
The State objected outside the jury on hearsay, relevance, and Rule 404 grounds; the trial court sustained the objections and excluded the testimony.
Defense made offers of proof showing what the excluded witnesses would say and argued relevance/that the State opened the door; defense did not explicitly invoke constitutional grounds (Confrontation Clause, due process, right to present a defense) in response to the State’s objections.
On appeal the majority reversed the conviction on constitutional grounds, but the dissent argues those constitutional claims were forfeited because they were not preserved in the trial court.
The dissent emphasizes preservation doctrine: a party must timely state specific grounds for relief so the trial judge and opposing counsel are informed and can rule/respond; mere offers of proof or vague statements like "whole picture" do not suffice to preserve constitutional claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Golliday)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (Dissent's Position)
Whether exclusion of testimony denied confrontation/due process/right to present a defense	Exclusion prevented meaningful cross-examination and presentation of defensive theory; constitutional violation (Hammer)	Evidence was hearsay, irrelevant, and barred by Rule 404; no constitutional objection was made at trial	Forfeited: defendant failed to raise constitutional grounds at trial; not preserved for appeal
Whether an offer of proof alone preserves constitutional complaints on appeal	Offer of proof showed what evidence would be and thus preserved error	Offer of proof did not notify trial court of constitutional basis; party must state why evidence admissible	Rejected: Reyna requires proponent to articulate constitutional grounds, not just the evidence offered
Whether vague statements like "get the whole picture" preserve constitutional claims	Such statements conveyed that the jury needed full context to assess credibility/defense	Vague comments do not put judge or State on notice of constitutional claims per Rule 33.1(a)	Not preserved: nonspecific remarks insufficient to preserve constitutional issues
Whether appellate court may reverse on constitutional grounds not considered by trial court	Golliday asks appellate review on constitutional error	State argues appellate review improper because trial court never had chance to consider constitutional claim	Dissent: appellate reversal on unpreserved constitutional grounds is improper; precedent forbids it

Key Cases Cited

Garza v. State, 435 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (preservation rule applies to constitutional arguments about presenting a defense)
Schumm v. State, 481 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.) (defendant must raise constitutional basis at trial to preserve claim)
Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (preservation serves to inform judge and opposing counsel)
Vasquez v. State, 483 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (must tell trial court what you want and why clearly enough for judge to understand)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (state evidentiary rules offend constitution if they bar cross-examination to present vital defensive theory)
Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (opportunity to present defense subject to forfeiture if not raised at trial)
Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (proponent who offers evidence must state constitutional grounds at trial or forfeits appellate complaint)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (non-explicit objections preserve error only if record shows judge and counsel understood argument)
Snodgrass v. State, 490 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.) (preservation is a systemic requirement; appellate courts should not reach unpreserved issues)