Larry Tadueen Bello v. State
05-14-00284-CR
| Tex. App. | May 15, 2015Background
- Police stopped Larry Bello after running a vehicle with temporary tags and finding outstanding warrants; Officer Perez observed Bello with a small green bag in his mouth and forced him to spit it out, revealing crack cocaine.
- Bello testified a different version: he denied using cocaine, said Perez pulled him from the car, and that he first saw the drugs in the officer’s hand.
- At trial the State sought to impeach Bello with prior convictions: a 1998 felony theft and four convictions for false identification (three within five years).
- Bello objected under Texas Rule of Evidence 609, arguing false identification and theft were not moral turpitude or, alternatively, that the remote theft conviction’s prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
- The trial court overruled the objection; Bello appealed the admission of the priors as impeachment evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting Bello’s prior convictions under Tex. R. Evid. 609 | The State: priors (theft and false ID) impeach credibility; intervening false-ID convictions show lack of reformation and reduce remoteness prejudice | Bello: the 16‑year‑old theft conviction is remote and its prejudicial effect outweighs probative value under Rule 609 | Court: affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; Theus factors weigh in favor of admission |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (appellate review and upholding correct rulings on any valid theory)
- Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. 1992) (factors for weighing probative value vs. prejudice under Rule 609)
- Meadows v. State, 455 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (intervening convictions can dilute prejudice of a remote conviction)
- Rodriguez v. State, 129 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (theft and certain offenses implicate moral turpitude)
- Woodall v. State, 77 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (credibility becomes critical in "he said, she said" cases)