Rodney Wayne Allen v. State
14-13-01030-CR
| Tex. | Aug 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Rodney Wayne Allen challenged a murder conviction on self-defense grounds; he sought to introduce Diles’s convictions, Crip gang membership, and Diles’s alleged physical abuse of Castillo, all of which the trial court excluded.
- Allen also sought copies of offense reports alleging Diles had crimes of violence, arguing Brady material; those materials were not admitted.
- The trial court’s rulings on the three categories of character evidence and the Brady material were reviewed on appeal; the majority affirmed the conviction.
- The author of this concurrence agrees with the Brady-material preservation rationale and the exclusion of Diles’s convictions, but would not join the majority on the gang and Castillo-abuse rulings.
- The concurrence offers an alternative view on the apprehension-of-danger theory, arguing that Diles’s prior acts could be admissible to support Allen’s fear of Diles as the basis for self-defense, and that the State opened doors for cross-examination in certain respects.
- Overall, the concurrence would remand or reverse only as to the stated concerns about admissibility and harm under the apprehension-of-danger framework and preservation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady material preservation | Allen | State | No preservation; not argued in offer of proof |
| Admission of Diles’s prior convictions | Allen | State | Not preserved; convictions not mentioned in offer of proof |
| Admission of Diles’s gang membership | Allen | State | Exclusion affirmed (though concurrence would distinguish harm); not reversible on evidence opened elsewhere |
| Admission of Diles’s physical abuse of Castillo | Allen | State | Exclusion affirmed (but concurrence would allow certain acts to prove apprehension of danger and criticizes sole reliance on the majority approach) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (applicability of apprehension of danger and specific prior acts to show state of mind)
- Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (prior acts admissible to show victim’s character for violence in apprehension cases)
- Thompson v. State, 659 S.W.2d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (unambiguous acts analysis in first-aggressor theory)
- Womble v. State, 618 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (evidence admitted elsewhere may render error harmless)