Arteaga v. State, 04-87-00048-CR
| Decision Date | 31 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-87-00048-CR,04-87-00048-CR |
| Citation | 757 S.W.2d 158 |
| Parties | Lorenzo ARTEAGA, a/k/a Lorenzo Artega, a/k/a Lorenzo Artiaga, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul J. Goeke, Huffman, Mayton & Goeke, San Antonio, for appellant.
Fred G. Rodriguez, Jay Brandon, James Kopp, Daniel Thornberry, Criminal Dist. Attys. San Antonio, for appellee.
Before CADENA, C.J., and CANTU and DIAL, JJ.
A jury found appellant, Lorenzo Arteaga, guilty of unlawfully carrying a weapon, and the court set punishment at one year's probation and a fine. Appellant, who waived his right to representation by an attorney and conducted his own defense, now complains that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to reopen his case and testify in his own behalf. We agree.
Before the trial began, the court warned appellant of the dangers of self-representation and the possibility that he might waive applicable defenses and fail to preserve error for appeal. After saying that he understood the risk, appellant told the court that he intended to rely on several defensive theories, including mistake of fact, self-defense, defense of third persons and defense of property.
By sustaining an objection that such evidence was irrelevant the court barred appellant's attempt to elicit testimony from his only witness about the character of the area where he resides, works and manages property, and where he was arrested for carrying a handgun. He argued that he was not unlawfully carrying the weapon because he was protecting his own property from "pimps, thieves, and burglars." When appellant attempted to rest, the court asked, in the presence of the jury, "You don't wish to testify yourself?" Appellant replied "All I would testify to is the same facts, Your Honor." He then rested and closed.
At the charge conference appellant requested instructions on mistake of fact, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and defense of another's property, all of which were denied as not supported by the evidence. He then moved to reopen the case in order to testify as to the existence of facts which, he argued, would raise the defensive issues in question and entitle him to his requested instructions. The record reveals the following exchange:
Although appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Britt
-
Tectonic Realty Inv. Co. v. CNA Lloyd's of Texas Ins. Co.
... ... counterclaim alleged that CNA offended article 21.21 by violating section 4 of article 21.21, State Insurance Board Order No. 18663, and section 17.46 of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer ... ...
-
Watkins v. State
...materially changed the case in his favor. Gray v. State, 797 S.W.2d 157, 160 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.); Arteaga v. State, 757 S.W.2d 158, 159 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1988, no pet.); Conner v. State, 725 S.W.2d 457, 459 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1987, no In support of his motio......
-
Yee v. State
... ... In Arteaga v. State, 757 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1988, no pet.), although the defendant did not make a bill of exceptions, his complaint was properly ... ...
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...even where trial counsel failed to make an offer of proof as to what the excluded testimony would have shown. [ Arteaga v. State , 757 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. App. San Antonio, 1988).] §11:73 Missing Witnesses There is a three-step procedure for preserving error when a subpoenaed witness does not ......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...even where trial counsel failed to make an o൵er of proof as to what the excluded testimony would have shown. [ Arteaga v. State , 757 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. App. San Antonio, 1988).] §11:73 Missing Witnesses There is a three-step procedure for preserving error when a subpoenaed witness does not a......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...even where trial counsel failed to make an offer of proof as to what the excluded testimony would have shown. [ Arteaga v. State , 757 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. App. San Antonio, 1988).] §11:73 Missing Witnesses There is a three-step procedure for preserving error when a subpoenaed witness does not ......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...even where trial counsel failed to make an offer of proof as to what the excluded testimony would have shown. [ Arteaga v. State , 757 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. App. San Antonio, 1988).] §11:73 Missing Witnesses There is a three-step procedure for preserving error when a subpoenaed witness does not ......