Ruben Andres Baldez v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-14-00257-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 23, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ruben Andres Baldez appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), marking his second offense. The case originated from a two-car accident on September 28, 2013, in Victoria, Texas, where Officer Robert Rogers noted Baldez's glassy eyes and the smell of alcohol. Baldez, despite being instructed multiple times by Rogers to stay by his vehicle, was found walking away from the scene. Officer Issac Ramirez observed Baldez's unsteady balance and aggressive behavior, while other officers confirmed signs of intoxication and noted a beer can near Baldez's vehicle. 

During trial, Salazar, the other driver, testified Baldez struck her vehicle from behind, while Baldez claimed he was not intoxicated and blamed Salazar for the accident. The State cross-examined Baldez about a past felony conviction for possession of methadone, which was admitted over Baldez's objection regarding its prejudicial impact versus its probative value. The jury found Baldez guilty, and the trial judge sentenced him to one year in county jail, a $4,000 fine, and imposed court costs. 

Baldez's appeal centers on the trial court's decision to allow the admission of his prior conviction for impeachment, arguing it was unduly prejudicial according to Texas Rule of Evidence 609, which stipulates that evidence of a witness's prior felony conviction is admissible if it is less than ten years old and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals outlines five non-exclusive factors for evaluating the admissibility of prior offenses as evidence: (1) the impeachment value of the prior offense; (2) the temporal proximity between the prior and charged offenses, along with the witness's history; (3) the similarity of the prior offense to the charged offense; (4) the significance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) the relevance of the credibility issue. The State bears the burden to show that the prejudicial effect of the prior offense does not outweigh its probative value. Trial courts have broad discretion under Rule 609, and their rulings will be upheld if reasonable.

In the case at hand, the appellant contends that the State did not sufficiently justify the admissibility of his prior conviction for possession of methadone. However, the courts maintain that state jail felonies are treated as felonies for Rule 609 purposes. The appellant also claimed no evidence of the trial judge performing the balancing test, but courts presume this test was conducted, even without explicit reasoning recorded.

The analysis of the first factor indicates low impeachment value for the drug possession charge, as it lacks deception and is not classified as a crime of moral turpitude. The second factor favors admission due to the relatively recent conviction date, which was less than six years prior to the trial. The third factor also supports admission because the dissimilarity between driving while intoxicated and drug possession minimizes the risk of jury bias based on past conduct. Thus, both the second and third factors weigh in favor of admitting the prior conviction as evidence.

The fourth and fifth factors are considered together due to their interrelated nature. In cases where the defendant's testimony is the sole defense, the defendant's credibility becomes crucial, increasing the State's need to challenge it. In this case, the appellant was the only defense witness, providing testimony that contradicted police officers' claims of his intoxication and also challenged Salazar’s account of the accident. The significance of the appellant’s testimony and the credibility issue strongly support the decision to allow the State to cross-examine him about a prior conviction. The trial court acted within its discretion in this regard. Consequently, the appellant's argument is rejected, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.