Francisco Javier Hernandez v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-05-00095-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 28, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Francisco Javier Hernandez pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and received a 25-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine. He raised two issues on appeal: the denial of due process due to the exclusion of his testimony regarding an affirmative defense of duress, and the assertion that this exclusion constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court. During his testimony, Hernandez described threats to himself and his family from the Morales brothers, who allegedly coerced him into making drug deliveries under threat of imminent harm. Despite his detailed account, the trial court sustained the State’s objection to his testimony. 

Regarding due process, Hernandez's claim was not preserved for appellate review because he failed to make a timely, specific objection during the trial. Therefore, this issue was overruled. In addressing the second issue, the court found that the State's arguments about preservation were not convincing. Hernandez had attempted to present evidence of duress, and the court’s refusal to admit this testimony raised questions about the abuse of discretion in excluding relevant evidence. The appellate court decided to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.

The State objected to Hernandez's testimony regarding duress, prompting a court hearing to evaluate the admissibility of the evidence. The court ruled the testimony inadmissible and upheld the State's objection, implicitly rejecting Hernandez's counsel's arguments for its inclusion. This ruling preserved Hernandez's complaint for appellate review under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) and 33.1(c). A defendant has the right to present relevant evidence of a defense, which includes material and probative evidence. The issue of duress is material to Hernandez's guilt. The court noted that whether evidence has the tendency to prove a proposition is a logical assessment rather than a purely legal one.

Hernandez testified that the Morales brothers threatened harm to his family unless he delivered cocaine and that they had previously kidnapped him. The State argued that Hernandez's testimony lacked specificity regarding the threat, thus claiming it was not probative. However, referencing the Miller case, a rational jury could find that Hernandez's evidence supported his claim of acting under duress, as it established a reasonable fear for his and his family's safety. The court concluded that the lack of detail in the threats affected the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility, affirming the right to an instruction on the defensive issue if the evidence raised it, regardless of its strength.

The court improperly excluded Hernandez’s testimony regarding duress, which affected his substantial rights. The key contested issues were his knowledge of the controlled substance and whether he acted under duress. This exclusion removed the only evidence he presented for his affirmative defense, leading to the conclusion that his rights were significantly impacted. As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Hernandez's guilty plea did not waive his right to challenge the ruling since the plea followed the exclusion of his testimony. A valid guilty plea only waives the right to appeal if the judgment is independent of the alleged error. Hernandez's testimony was deemed relevant and admissible, although the court did not assess its credibility. He indicated suspicion about delivering drugs but lacked precise knowledge of the substance. In drug possession cases, the State must prove that the defendant had control over the substance, intended to deliver it, and was aware that it was a controlled substance. Hernandez's admissions were sufficient to allow for an affirmative defense submission.