Miguel Angel Parra Morales v. State, 389 S.W.3d 915

Parra Morales was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and punished with seven years’ imprisonment (probated for five years) and a $5,000 fine.
The State challenged three issues on appeal: admission of an extraneous offense, notice of records of conviction for impeachment, and comments on Parra Morales’s silence.
Chavarria testified that Parra Morales threatened to kill her and Garcia the day before the assault, and then stabbed Garcia the next day upon finding him with Chavarria.
Parra Morales claimed self-defense; the jury rejected his defense and found him guilty.
During punishment, the State referenced extraneous convictions during cross-examination and the defense objected; the court allowed limited impeachment.
The State later made comments about Parra Morales’s silence which the defense argued violated his Fifth Amendment rights, which the court addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of same-transaction contextual evidence	Parra Morales argues the phone threat was an extraneous act, not context.	State asserts it clarifies intent/state of mind and rebuts self-defense.	Evidence properly admitted as same-transaction contextual.
Notice of extraneous offenses for punishment	State failed to provide notice of all prior convictions for punishment.	Article 37.07(g) notice applies to case-in-chief, not cross-examination.	No error; notice not required for cross-examination impeachment.
Prosecutor's comments on defendant's silence	Prosecutor impermissibly commented on post-arrest silence, violating right to remain silent.	Prosecutor’s remarks were improper and could require mistrial.	No reversible error; comments did not impermissibly infringe on rights; no mistrial.

De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (same-transaction contextual admissibility determined)
Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (same-transaction contextual evidence governs context)
Jaubert v. State, 74 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (notice for extraneous offenses limited to case-in-chief)
Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (contextual evidence and impeachment principles discussed)
Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (pre-arrest silence and its admissibility)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (flight may support inference of guilt)
Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980) (pre-arrest silence and impeachment rights)