Michael Anderson v. Thomas Snoddy, 06-14-00096-CV

Suit filed for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, fraud, and tortious interference; jury returned verdict for defense and trial court rendered take-nothing judgment.
Parties: Michael Anderson (appellant) and Thomas Snoddy (appellee) in Upshur County, Texas.
Evidence and issues centered on a supposed partnership, financial backing, and alleged misappropriation of phone lines belonging to Fast Action Bail Bonds.
Anderson alleged Snoddy failed to provide a proper surety and diverted phone lines, harming Anderson’s bail-bond business.
The record shows extensive cross-examination disputes, court-imposed impeachment limitations, and exclusion of certain bond-forfeiture judgments nisi.
The appellate brief requests a new trial based on multiple trial-court errors affecting credibility and the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of cross-examination for prior inconsistent statements	Cross-exam should cover any relevant inconsistencies, not be limited to identical questions.	Cross-examination must follow Rule 613 procedures with identical question context.	Reversible error; scope ruled improper impeachment limits harmed Anderson.
Judicial comments on credibility during cross-examination	Court comments on impeachment undermined plaintiff’s credibility argument.	Court comments were proper control of trial conduct.	Reversible error; jurors misled about witness credibility.
Exclusion of judgments nisi as evidence of personal liability	Judgments nisi show Anderson was personally named; relevant to damages and liability.	Judgments nisi were irrelevant to the case at hand.	Reversible error; exclusion prejudiced Anderson.
Cross-examination on partnership property and related law	Questions about ownership of partnership property are fact-based and probative.	Some questions called for legal conclusions; not admissible.	Reversible error; proper factual inquiries into ownership should have been allowed.
Character evidence and bolstering of credibility	Impermissible bolstering of Barry Lovely’s credibility.	Character testimony for credibility is permissible under Rule 405/404.	Reversible error; improper character evidence contributed to erroneous verdict.

Aranda v. State, 736 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (liberal impeachment with prior statements; criteria for admissibility)
Ferguson v. State, 97 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (scope of Rule 613; extrinsic evidence rules; impeachment limitations)
Del Carmen Hernandez v. State, 273 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (prior inconsistent statements; bolstering limitations clarified)
Stewart v. State, 129 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (relevance standard; small probative value remains admissible)
In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1998) (sequencing of evidentiary issues and disclosures in trials)
Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool, 813 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991) (cumulative error considerations in reversible error)
Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (nature of bond forfeiture and nisi judgments; relevance nuances)
Ho v. State, 171 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (relevance of extrinsic statements; impeachment context)
Quintero v. Citizens and S. Factors, Inc., 596 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980) (partnership concepts and evidentiary limits)
Republic Waste Services, Ltd. v. Martinez, 335 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (relevance and probative value in civil cases)