Marcus Allen Delaney v. State, 07-17-00027-CR

On Feb. 4, 2016 Deputy McGuinn activated lights after observing Appellant driving after dark with one headlight out; Appellant used hazards, did not immediately stop, then pulled into his father’s driveway.
After stopping, Appellant exited, removed his coat and emptied pockets, refused to re-enter vehicle or produce ID, walked to the porch and ignored deputies’ commands.
McGuinn reached to detain Appellant on the porch; Appellant ran, deputies chased and arrested him after being handcuffed by Deputy McGarry; Appellant admitted he ran but said it was out of fear of being shot.
During cross/examination Appellant attempted to testify about a police shooting months earlier; the State objected under Rule 602 (lack of personal knowledge) and the trial court sustained; defense did not proffer an offer of proof.
Jury found Appellant guilty of evading arrest or detention (enhanced); he was sentenced to 24 months in state jail; the State argues on appeal that (1) error was not preserved, (2) any exclusion complied with evidentiary rules, (3) any error was harmless, and (4) the evidence suffices to show intentional evasion.

Issue	State's Argument	Appellant's Argument	Held
Preservation of error for excluded testimony	Greenwood failed to object or make an offer of proof, so issue waived	Exclusion of testimony about police shooting relevant to state of mind	Error not preserved because no offer of proof and defense acquiesced
Trial court abused discretion by excluding testimony under Rule 602	Exclusion was proper under Rule 602 (lack of personal knowledge); within trial court’s discretion	Testimony was necessary to show defensive theory and state of mind	No abuse: trial court acted within evidentiary rules and zone of reasonable disagreement
Harmlessness of assumed error (constitutional vs. non-constitutional)	Exclusion did not rise to constitutional level; non-constitutional harm review applies and any error was harmless	Excluded testimony was material to defensive theory and could have influenced jury	Non-constitutional review applies; exclusion harmless or only slight effect given admitted evidence and cumulative nature
Sufficiency of evidence for intentional evasion	Evidence (lights, commands, refusal, flight, admissions) supports lawful detention and intentional evasion beyond a reasonable doubt	Flight was motivated by fear, not intent to evade; convictions require intentional flight from lawful detention	Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find lawful detention and intentional evasion

Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (preservation and contextual review of error)
Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (timely objection requirement for preserving error)
Mays v. State, 285 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (offer of proof requirement to preserve exclusion of evidence)
Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (when exclusion of evidence rises to constitutional error and harmlessness framework)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury credibility and sufficiency review)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigative detentions)
Rodriguez v. U.S., 135 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2015) (traffic stops analyzed as investigatory detentions under Terry)