Render v. State, 347 S.W.3d 905

Render was convicted in two related trials: aggravated assault (15 years) and manslaughter (30 years), with sentences to run concurrently.
A February 28, 2008 altercation at Southside Village Apartments involved Holland, Tomlinson, and Render at Render’s apartment 1002.
Holland later died from blunt-force head injuries; Tomlinson sustained severe injuries, including a subdural hematoma.
Indictments charged the two offenses with alternative means of committing them; the State elicited Holland’s statements to a police officer about the incident.
The conviction and sentences were upheld on appeal despite nine points of error, including Confrontation Clause challenges, admissibility of extraneous conduct, self-defense jury instructions, and concurrent-sentencing guidance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause: admission of Holland’s statements	Render argues Grusendorf’s testimony violated confrontation rights	State contends exception or forfeiture applies; statements non-testimonial	Harmless error; conviction not harmed beyond reasonable doubt
Hearsay nexus of Holland’s statements	Holland’s statements were hearsay and inadmissible	Forfeiture/dying declarations analyses apply; multiple hearsay exceptions	Harmless error; affirmance sustained
Extraneous assault (Mike) under Rule 404/403	Evidence of prior assault to show aggressor intent	Admissible to rebut self-defense; proper limiting instructions given	Not an abuse of discretion; admissible evidence including proper limiting instructions
Requested self-defense jury instructions (robbery/aggravated robbery)	Court failed to give robbery-related immediate-necessity presumptions	Record shows no robbery or aggravated-robbery evidence; not raised	No error; instructions not warranted by the record
Concurrent sentences instruction during punishment	Court erred by informing jury sentences would run concurrently	Concurrence required by statute; permissible to answer jury's question	Proper to instruct concurrent sentences; no reversible error

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination)
Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Confrontation Clause reviewed de novo; standard abuse-of-discretion distinction)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (Forfeiture by wrongdoing; exclusion of witness testimony under equitable grounds)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Dying declarations and ongoing-emergency considerations for testimonial vs non-testimonial statements)
Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Testimonial vs non-testimonial analysis; emergency doctrine)
De La Paz v. State, 273 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Testimonial nature of out-of-court statements in police interrogations)
Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (Self-defense jury instruction necessity when evidence raises issue)
Jones v. State, 241 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2007) (Rule 404/403 considerations for prior-acts evidence in self-defense)
Haliburton v. State, 578 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (Concurrent-sentencing guidance in multi-offense trials)