Rodney Wayne Allen v. State
473 S.W.3d 426
Tex. App.2015Background
- Rodney Allen shot and killed Jonathan Diles during an altercation at Diles’s apartment; Allen claimed self‑defense, saying Diles choked him and reached for his gun. A jury convicted Allen of murder and the trial court sentenced him to 45 years.
- Defense sought to introduce testimony and reports showing Diles’s violent reputation and specific violent acts: (a) Diles’s repeated physical abuse of his girlfriend Sharon Castillo, (b) Diles’s prior convictions (assault/robbery-theft), and (c) Allen’s knowledge that Diles was a Crips gang member.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine excluding reference to the victim’s prior bad acts, convictions, or gang membership absent a bench approach; the court repeatedly denied defense requests to elicit or to obtain underlying offense reports.
- Defense cross‑examination and offers of proof attempted to impeach Castillo, show appellant’s state of mind, and rebut the impression that Diles was “laid back” (nickname “Mellow”); the court excluded evidence as improper character conformity or collateral.
- On appeal Allen raised four issues: exclusion of evidence of Castillo abuse, exclusion of evidence of Diles’s prior convictions, exclusion of evidence of gang membership/knowledge, and denial of requests for offense reports (Brady). The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Exclusion of evidence that Diles physically abused Castillo | Evidence admissible to prove self‑defense (first aggressor / defendant’s reasonable apprehension), to impeach Castillo, and to rebut false impression that Diles was peaceful | Evidence was irrelevant or impermissible character conformity; testimony collateral or not preserved | Affirmed — exclusion within trial court’s discretion: evidence would primarily show character conformity, was collateral for impeachment, and Castillo did not volunteer a false impression opening the door |
| 2) Exclusion of evidence of Diles’s prior convictions (assault/robbery) | Convictions relevant to reputation/violent character to support self‑defense and locate witnesses; Brady request for reports | State: trial court’s limine and preservation issues; reports not shown to be Brady material or material to outcome | Affirmed — error not preserved for appellate review because counsel did not obtain a ruling or make an offer of proof as to convictions; Brady claim speculative and not shown material |
| 3) Exclusion of evidence that Allen knew Diles was a Crip (gang membership) | Gang membership probative of violent character, explains defendant’s apprehension and clarifies ambiguous conduct; admissible to impeach or rebut good‑character impression | Gang evidence irrelevant to the altercation, would be character conformity or unduly prejudicial; preservation failures for some lines | Affirmed — trial court acted within discretion: proffered evidence was not proper reputation/opinion proof under Rule 405, or was collateral, and the defense failed to preserve some complaints |
| 4) Denial of requests for offense reports (Brady) | Reports would reveal witnesses or impeachment evidence favorable to defense and therefore were Brady material | Request speculative; State complied with discovery order for Brady material and no showing of withheld, material evidence | Affirmed — defendant’s speculation failed to establish Brady materiality or a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (distinguishes reputation/opinion character proof and admissibility of victim’s prior acts for self‑defense; communicated vs uncommunicated character)
- Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (prior specific acts may be admissible under Rule 404(b) to explain ambiguous violent conduct or motive)
- Tate v. State, 981 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (limits on using character to prove conduct on a particular occasion)
- Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Brady/Bagley materiality standard; reasonable probability that nondisclosure affected outcome)
- Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation rules for cross‑examination on witness credibility; narrow exceptions to offer‑of‑proof requirement)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; review based on record at time of ruling)