Allen v. State
| Citation | 473 S.W.3d 426 |
| Decision Date | 04 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 14–13–01030–CR,14–13–01030–CR |
| Parties | Rodney Wayne Allen, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Brian W. Wice and Adele O. Hedges, Houston, TX, for Appellant.
Clinton Morgan, Houston, TX, for State.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.
The State indicted appellant Rodney Wayne Allen for the murder of Jonathan Diles,1 and appellant pled not guilty. Appellant argued at trial that he acted in self-defense. A jury convicted appellant of murder, and the trial court assessed his punishment at 45 years' imprisonment. Appellant challenges his conviction on grounds that the trial court erred by (1) excluding testimony regarding Diles's character for violence and aggression; and (2) denying appellant's request that the State provide him with copies of offense reports in cases in which Diles was charged with crimes of violence. We affirm.
An altercation occurred between appellant and Diles, which ended in Diles's death. According to several witnesses, appellant punched a hole in Diles's apartment wall; Diles grabbed appellant by the neck; and Diles forced appellant to the outside patio. Appellant fatally shot Diles on the patio.
Appellant argues that the trial court's allegedly erroneous rulings prevented him from proving that he acted in self-defense when he shot Diles. Appellant does not pinpoint trial court rulings he considers to be in error, but argues his issues generally. The State contends that appellant has not preserved complaints regarding several trial court rulings. We summarize key witness testimony, attorney arguments, and party objections to place appellant's general contentions into context.
The State filed a motion in limine before trial. The trial court granted the State's motion and instructed the parties and counsel not to allude to, refer to, or in any way bring before the jury any reference regarding Diles's prior criminal history, bad acts, or character without first approaching the bench.
Appellant's trial counsel approached the bench before giving her opening statement. Counsel informed the trial court that appellant asserted self-defense as a justification for killing Diles. Counsel asked for permission to assert that the evidence would show appellant knew of Diles's violent nature, and that Diles had a violent past. Counsel argued that this evidence would explain appellant's apprehension of Diles and tend to show that Diles, rather than appellant, was the first aggressor in the altercation that led to Diles's death. Counsel specifically requested permission to assert that appellant knew (1) of Diles's prior convictions for assault and theft;2 (2) that Diles was a member of the Crips, a violent street gang; and (3) that Diles was violent toward Sharon Castillo, Diles's girlfriend and an eyewitness to his death.3 The trial court denied counsel's request with respect to appellant's knowledge of Diles's prior convictions and gang membership, but granted counsel's request with respect to appellant's knowledge of Diles's violence toward Castillo.
The State gave an opening statement, and appellant's counsel followed. Appellant's counsel referred to Diles by his nickname, "Mellow," in her opening statement. The State then called the officer dispatched to the scene of Diles's death. The officer testified briefly, and court adjourned for the day.4
Appellant's counsel approached the bench before the start of the second day of trial. Counsel requested copies of the offense reports "for [Diles's] prior acts of violence." She argued: "Specific acts of violence become relevant when the defense raises the issue of self-defense or first aggressor." The trial court refused counsel's request.
The State then called Castillo. Castillo testified that she had lived with Diles for five-and-a-half years and considered Diles to be her husband. The State questioned Castillo as follows:
The State later questioned Castillo as follows:
The State questioned Castillo regarding her relationship with appellant. Castillo testified that she met appellant "a while back" through her son. She testified that appellant was 23 years old at the time of trial, and that he is 18 years her junior. Castillo stated that she considered appellant to be a son, and that appellant called her "Mama" and called Diles "Pops."
Castillo testified that, on March 11, 2012,5 she entertained Julia Jones at her apartment. Diles and two others, Roderick Brown and Shay McBride, arrived at the apartment by that evening. According to Castillo, appellant called her for a ride to the apartment. Castillo borrowed a car, picked up appellant, and returned with appellant to her apartment. Castillo testified that appellant brought a gun.
According to Castillo, Jones went to the bathroom to do her hair at some point in the evening. Appellant joined Jones in the bathroom, and the two began to argue. Jones and appellant left the bathroom once and returned. They then left the bathroom a second time. Both were upset.
Jones and appellant entered the living room where Castillo, Diles, Brown, and McBride were sitting. According to Castillo, appellant stated that he wanted to leave. He then punched a hole in the wall. Diles rose from the couch and told appellant to calm down. Appellant and Jones continued to argue. Diles then grabbed appellant "in a full nelson,"6 and told appellant that he would let him go when he calmed down. The apartment door leading to the patio was open. Diles walked appellant outside to the patio while holding him.
According to Castillo, Jones then grabbed her keys, exited the apartment, and walked toward the parking lot. Diles released appellant after Jones had walked past. Appellant turned once he was released, "like he was fixin' to run towards [Jones.] [T]hat's when [Diles] grabbed [appellant]." Castillo testified that Diles grabbed the back of appellant's shirt. She stated that, after Diles grabbed appellant's shirt, appellant pulled out a gun and shot Diles in the head. Castillo stood next to Diles. She stated that appellant looked at her immediately after shooting Diles and ran away. Castillo testified that Diles did not have a gun and never attempted to hurt appellant.
Appellant's counsel cross-examined Castillo about her relationship with Diles as follows:
The court called the attorneys to the bench immediately after this exchange. There, the following conference ensued:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barron v. State
...issue of first aggressor if the proffered act explains the victim's ambiguously aggressive conduct." Allen v. State , 473 S.W.3d 426, 446 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. dism'd) ; see Torres , 117 S.W.3d at 894–95 ; Torres , 71 S.W.3d at 762 ("As long as the proffered violent act......
-
Barron v. State
...to clarify the issue of first aggressor if the proffered act explains the victim's ambiguously aggressive conduct." Allen v. State, 473 S.W.3d 426, 446 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. dism'd); see Torres, 117 S.W.3d at 894-95; Torres, 71 S.W.3d at 762 ("As long as the proffered v......
-
Alcala v. State
... ... against using specific instances of a witness's conduct ... to attack the witness's character for ... truthfulness."). Certain credibility evidence may be ... also admissible where a witness "opens the door" by ... placing his or her credibility at issue. Allen v ... State , 473 S.W.3d 426, 454 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th ... Dist.] 2015, pet. dism'd); ... see Daggett v. State , 187 S.W.3d 444, 453 n.24 (Tex ... Crim. App. 2005) ("When a witness makes a broad ... statement of good conduct or character on a collateral issue, ... ...
-
Fish v. State
...admissible, the specific violent acts must be probative of the reasonableness of the defendant's apprehension of danger. See Allen v. State , 473 S.W.3d 426, 448–49 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. dism'd ), 517 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) ; see also Thompson v. State , 659 ......