Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Robert Allen Chitwood v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-10-00054-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 6, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Robert Allen Chitwood appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child, asserting three main issues regarding trial court errors. First, he argues that the court improperly limited his cross-examination of the child victims concerning a separate incident of aggravated sexual assault involving them and another male, claiming this could reveal bias or motive. The court's decision was reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, which requires Chitwood to prove that the denial of this testimony was unreasonable. The court found that he failed to satisfy the criteria of Texas Rule of Evidence 412, which allows for the admission of a victim's past sexual behavior only if it relates to their motive or bias and its probative value outweighs potential prejudice. The court noted that Chitwood did not adequately demonstrate how the evidence in question would fulfill these requirements or how it would aid in presenting a viable defense. Furthermore, he did not explain how the prior sexual activity of one complainant could indicate a motive to falsely accuse him or how it affected his defense strategy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions on all issues raised. The court addressed several issues raised by the appellant regarding the admissibility of evidence during the trial. 1. **Credibility of the Victim**: The appellant's argument that the victim's past dishonesty implies current falsehoods was rejected. The court emphasized that merely suggesting a witness is lying without proper justification does not satisfy the evidentiary requirements established in Hammer. The appellant failed to demonstrate why the court should allow deviations from Rule 412(b)(3), which pertains to evidence of a victim's past sexual behavior. 2. **Extraneous Offenses**: The appellant claimed the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce extraneous bad acts related to his parole revocation, arguing this violated Rules 404(a) and 609. The court overruled this claim, noting that Rule 609 was not cited at trial, thus failing to preserve the argument for appeal. The appellant's objection regarding Rule 404 was based solely on lack of prior notice about the extraneous offenses, not the character evidence argument presented on appeal, which was deemed unpreserved. 3. **Impeachment with Old Conviction**: The appellant contested the admission of a 1993 conviction for impeachment, arguing it was over ten years old and thus inadmissible under Rule 609(b). However, the court clarified that evidence of older convictions may still be admitted if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect, and the trial judge is not required to explicitly state this balancing process. The appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the conviction, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decisions on all issues.