Nicholas Oliver Goree v. State, 14-15-00164-CR

Defendant Nicholas Goree was convicted of aggravated robbery (with a prior felony enhancement) and sentenced to 38 years' confinement.
Victim Larry Rodriguez was robbed in his apartment by two men; one (Byrd) forced entry with a gun while the other (Goree) collected property and loaded it into the victim’s mother’s red Sentra.
The victim and the victim’s mother (Norma Leal) each later identified Goree: Leal in a one-hour show-up and the victim in a live lineup the next day; both also identified Goree at trial.
Goree and his codefendant were arrested shortly after the robbery near the crashed stolen car, found with stolen property and two guns, and were seen hiding under a tarp.
At trial Goree sought to cross-examine the victim about the victim’s misidentifications in a separate lineup (the first lineup, concerning Byrd); the trial court excluded that evidence as not relevant.
The State argues exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion and, even if error, was harmless because identity proof was overwhelming.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence that victim misidentified others in a different lineup	State: Excluding evidence of victim’s misidentification of others was proper; not relevant to identification of Goree	Goree: Misidentification in first lineup is relevant to credibility/accuracy of victim’s identification of Goree in second lineup	Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence of misidentifying others in a different lineup was not relevant to Goree’s identification and exclusion was proper
If erroneous exclusion occurred, whether error was harmful	State: Any error was harmless because relevance was marginal and identity evidence was overwhelming	Goree: (Implicit) Exclusion could have influenced jury’s assessment of identity/credibility	Held harmless: even assuming error, it did not affect substantial rights given strong eyewitness and circumstantial evidence

Bryant v. State, 666 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (prior misidentifications of persons other than defendant are not probative of defendant’s identification)
Wells v. State, 880 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994) (evidence of prior misidentification held irrelevant)
Sneed v. State, 955 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (trial court afforded deference in relevance determinations)
Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (relevance determined by the purpose for which evidence is offered)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (overwhelming evidence is a factor in harmless-error analysis)
Sohail v. State, 264 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (appellate harmless-error standard for excluded evidence)
Renfro v. State, 822 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (distinguishing relevance of prior misidentifications)
Simpson v. State, 181 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005) (attempt to hide as evidence of consciousness of guilt)