Timothy Richard O'Kane v. State, 04-16-00526-CR

Timothy O’Kane was tried for assault-family violence (alleged June 5, 2015); convicted by a jury and sentenced to one year in jail (suspended), two years’ probation, and a $2,000 fine.
Defense counsel sought discovery and in camera inspection of the State’s file, claiming the complainant had made prior false allegations and had affidavits recanting prior accusations.
The State maintained its open-file policy and said discoverable items were provided via E-discovery; it declined to produce the prosecutor’s work product and certain prior-case affidavits it considered not exculpatory for this prosecution.
Defense counsel moved orally for a continuance to obtain prior defense files and affidavits; the trial court denied the unsworn oral motion and proceeded to trial.
At trial the court sustained the State’s objections to cross-examination aimed at eliciting the complainant’s entire relationship history and prior allegations; defense counsel did not make a sufficient offer of proof or bill of exception for the excluded evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court erred by denying motion for continuance	O’Kane: continuance needed to obtain prior affidavits/Brady material from DA to prepare defense	State: discoverable material was provided; defense’s motion was oral/unsworn and untimely	Denial affirmed — error forfeited because motion was unsworn/unspecified as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 29.03/29.08 and Anderson/Blackshear line of authority
Trial court improperly limited impeachment/confrontation evidence about complainant’s prior false accusations	O’Kane: prior affidavits and history show complainant is untruthful and should be used to impeach credibility	State: prior specific acts or prior-case affidavits not admissible to attack truthfulness absent proof of falsity or similarity; Rule 608(b) bars extrinsic specific-act impeachment	Denial affirmed — defendant failed to preserve record (no adequate offer of proof) and, on the merits, exclusion was within trial court’s discretion under Rules 608/609 and Confrontation precedents

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional requirement to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App.) (written, sworn continuance motions required to preserve error)
Blackshear v. State, 385 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App.) (no due-process exception to sworn-motion requirement)
Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675 (appellate review of evidentiary rulings under abuse-of-discretion standard)
Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for zone of reasonable disagreement)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (same; correct ruling will be upheld on any applicable theory)
Gonzalez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 114 (Confrontation Clause concerns when testimonial hearsay admitted without opportunity to confront declarant)
Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220 (prior accusations not probative of current complainant credibility without proof prior accusation was false or sufficiently similar)
Mays v. State, 285 S.W.3d 884 (need for adequate offer of proof to preserve exclusion of evidence)
Warner v. State, 969 S.W.2d 1 (requirements for concise statement offer of proof)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (trial court has latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination for impeachment)