Madrigal v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5144

Madrigal was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 16 years in TDCJ- Institutional Division.
The offense occurred July 4, 2008 at Club Palenke in Victoria, Texas, involving Madrigal, Melanie Luis, and Jose Cervantes.
Madrigal testified that Cervantes slapped him, leading to a knife-find and stabbing; Cervantes testified Madrigal stabbed him after a prior altercation.
Madrigal claimed a self-defense theory; the State presented evidence of aggressive actions by Madrigal during the incident.
The defense sought to exclude Luis's testimony on self-defense and requested a jury instruction on defense of third persons, which the trial court denied or limited.
The court ultimately affirmed the conviction and addressed multiple challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of Luis's self-defense testimony violated rights	Madrigal	Madrigal claims exclusion impeded self-defense proof	No reversible error; discretion proper; testimony excluded based on personal-knowledge sufficiency.
Whether the court's comments violated Article 38.05	Madrigal	Comments not prejudicial; cured by instruction	No reversible error; instruction and curative measures adequate.
Whether trial court's comments and actions violated Fifth Amendment rights	Madrigal	Fifth Amendment not violated; defense proven through other witnesses	No violation; Fifth Amendment rights preserved.
Whether knife was properly authenticated	Madrigal	Knife authenticated via detective's chain of custody and distinctive features	Knife properly authenticated; admissible.
Whether defense of third persons should have been instructed	Madrigal	Evidence insufficient to support defense of third persons	No instruction required; not supported by evidence; harmless error.
Whether evidence supports self-defense negating guilt	Madrigal	Evidence could support self-defense	Sufficiency supports conviction; verdict not against the weight of evidence.

Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (abuse of discretion in denying evidence; Rule 602/701)
Turro v. State, 950 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997) (admissibility and lay testimony limitations)
Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (testimony based on perception; rule 701)
Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (defensive issues raised by evidence; harmless error standard)
Hughes v. State, 719 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (defense of others; justification standard)
Kennedy v. State, 193 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (defense of third persons; absence of danger evidence)