Osvaldo Cruz Cornejo v. State
01-16-00250-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Appellant Osvaldo Cruz Cornejo was tried for DWI third-offense after an SUV he was in collided with a stopped car; multiple bystanders identified Cornejo as the driver.
- Cornejo initially denied driving to one officer, later admitted driving to another; he smelled of alcohol and showed signs of impairment and was arrested.
- Defense theory: Cornejo conceded intoxication but insisted he was a passenger and that a day laborer he had hired (unknown to him) was driving; he also testified he lacked a driver’s license.
- During voir dire, defense counsel began describing possible community-supervision conditions; the trial court sustained the State’s objection and limited further inquiry.
- A pretrial motion in limine barred reference to extraneous offenses; during closing, the prosecutor referenced Cornejo’s admitted lack of a driver’s license, prompting a mistrial request that the court denied and instead gave a limiting instruction.
- Jury convicted Cornejo; punishment assessed at four years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cornejo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court limited voir dire on community-supervision conditions | Limitation was proper because jurors do not set probation terms; questioning had gone too far afield | Counsel needed latitude to explain probation conditions to assess juror bias; limiting voir dire prejudiced defense | No abuse of discretion; error not preserved (no specific prohibited question shown) |
| Prosecutor referenced defendant’s lack of a license in closing despite limine | Reference was fair comment on evidence and credibility because defendant himself testified he had no license | Reference violated limine and was incurably harmful, requiring mistrial | No abuse of discretion denying mistrial: defendant volunteered the evidence; argument summarized admitted testimony; limiting instruction cured any harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (preservation requirements for voir dire error)
- Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (unobjected-to evidence admitted becomes usable for all purposes)
- Bacon v. State, 500 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (defendant’s volunteered testimony may render otherwise improper subject fair game in argument)
- Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (proper areas of jury argument)
- Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for denial of mistrial and objections to closing argument)