Trevor Ashley Wolfe v. State
11-15-00004-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Appellant Trevor Wolfe was convicted by a jury of assault family violence by strangulation; sentence was 10 years, probated and placed on 10 years community supervision.
- Incident: on July 27, 2013, after the victim (Kim Mitchell) attempted to move out, Wolfe allegedly threw a toolbox, grabbed and choked Mitchell; witnesses intervened and Mitchell lost consciousness; deputies observed neck bruising.
- Defense theory at trial: Wolfe claimed Mitchell was the aggressor and he acted in self-defense; jury was instructed on self-defense and a lesser included misdemeanor.
- State introduced testimony from Mitchell about an extraneous incident roughly one week earlier in which Wolfe allegedly damaged property, threatened her with guns, and acted violently toward her.
- During trial a juror privately asked why witness Marty Rex left his corrections job; the court declined to answer; the State then recalled Marty and elicited the reason. Appellant did not object at any point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (Rule 404(b)) | Mitchell’s testimony about the prior violent episode was inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Harrell because the court did not make a prior finding the act could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt | State: Wolfe’s self-defense claim placed intent/aggressor status at issue, so evidence of prior violent acts by Wolfe was admissible to rebut self-defense | Court upheld admission: trial testimony satisfied Harrell’s requirement and extraneous-act evidence was admissible to show intent/rebut self-defense |
| Juror questioning a witness / allowing recall based on juror question | Allowing a juror to ask a question and then recalling the witness was reversible error that tainted the adversarial process | State: court handled the juror question appropriately; recall was prompted by the juror’s question; defendant failed to object, so claim is unpreserved | Court held error was not preserved: appellant did not timely object to juror question or the recall, so issue waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (trial court must ensure extraneous-offense can be found beyond a reasonable doubt before admitting it)
- Fischer v. State, 268 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Rule 104(b) allows admission conditioned on later proof; court may rely on later trial evidence)
- Render v. State, 347 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011, pet. ref’d) (when defendant raises self‑defense, State may introduce prior violent acts showing the defendant was aggressor)
- Halliburton v. State, 528 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (prior violent acts admissible to rebut self‑defense)
- Pavlacka v. State, 892 S.W.2d 897 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (rebuttal of denials is not a proper Rule 404(b) purpose)
- Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (juror participation in soliciting evidence risks converting jurors into advocates and can be reversible error)