Ramirez v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2168

Officers respond to an aggravated robbery; two suspects flee; Ramirez and another suspect are arrested; Matsik is wounded by gunfire.
Appellant Cody Ramirez is charged with aggravated assault of Officer Matsik with a deadly weapon; jury convicts him after trial.
At trial, Ramirez presents a duress defense via testimony from Richard Ramirez (uncle) who allegedly coerced Ramirez to commit the crime.
The trial court allows cross-examination on juvenile record and extraneous offenses but forecloses gang-activity questioning; Ramirez later declines to testify.
Ramirez is sentenced to life imprisonment; apparatus for conviction notes clerical errors later reforming the judgment to reflect not guilty plea and correct statute.
The State’s theory includes that Ramirez did not face an imminent threat at the time of the offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court’s ruling deny Ramirez’s right to testify by permitting potentially improper impeachment?	Ramirez	Ramirez	Issue overruled.
Did the court err by not giving a proper duress jury instruction?	Ramirez	Ramirez	Issue overruled.

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (prescribed method for reviewing claims when defendant did not testify)
Jackson v. State, 992 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant’s failure to testify forecloses review of cross-examination scope)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to testify but subject to cross-examination rules)
Portash, 440 U.S. 450 (U.S. 1979) (impeachment evidence and defendant’s testimony context)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1984) (harm standard for preserved error in appellate review)
Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (duress defense requires admission to proscribed conduct to avail defense)
Blount v. State, 542 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (imminence requirement for duress interpretation)