Carlos Cardenas Hernandez v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-12-00165-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 8, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Carlos Cardenas Hernandez was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to 90 years in prison by a jury. He pleaded true to four enhancement allegations, and the jury found he used a deadly weapon. The incident occurred on October 21, 2010, when Carlos stabbed his brother Daniel multiple times during a confrontation while drinking beer with his siblings. Daniel sustained serious injuries that required emergency care.

During pre-trial proceedings, the State moved to exclude evidence regarding an allegation that Daniel had raped Carlos's daughter in 1999, which Carlos claimed to have learned about only four months prior to the assault. The State argued that the allegation was not provable, too remote in time, and posed a risk of unfair prejudice. The trial court granted the motion, instructing that the issue could be revisited during trial based on other evidence presented. Carlos did not pursue the matter during the guilt phase but raised it during the punishment phase, where the court allowed limited testimony regarding his motive.

Carlos’s defense did not assert an affirmative defense or alternative account during the guilt phase, instead arguing for reasonable doubt. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the complaint about excluding the evidence of the alleged rape was not preserved for review.

Carlos contends that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial and due process by granting the State's motion in limine, which he claims barred him from presenting evidence of Daniel's alleged rape of his daughter. Under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 33.1, a complaint for appellate review must show that the issue was timely raised in the trial court, specifying the grounds for the complaint, and that the court ruled on it or refused to rule, with the complaining party objecting to that refusal. Additionally, the exclusion of evidence must affect a substantial right, and the substance of the evidence must be made known to the court or be apparent from the context of questioning.

The purpose of an offer of proof is to allow appellate courts to assess whether an exclusion was erroneous and harmful. Evidence exclusion errors can also be preserved via a bill of exceptions. A motion in limine, however, is a preemptive objection that does not determine the admissibility of evidence but requires parties to seek definitive rulings before presenting potentially objectionable evidence. Such motions do not establish reversible error on their own since they do not reveal what specific evidence was excluded, and their rulings are subject to reconsideration throughout the trial.

In this case, the State's motion in limine sought to prevent references to the alleged rape without prior admissibility hearings. The trial judge recognized this as a preliminary ruling, indicating that he might reconsider the admissibility during the trial. Ultimately, the court's ruling on the motion in limine did not preserve any issues for appeal.

To preserve the admissibility of evidence for appeal, a party must attempt to introduce specific evidence at trial and obtain a ruling on its admissibility. The case of Basham establishes that the record should reflect the evidence excluded from the jury's consideration, which is essential for the appellate court's review of potential reversible error. In this instance, Carlos did not seek to introduce evidence regarding the alleged rape during the guilt-or-innocence phase nor requested a ruling on its admissibility. Although trial counsel referenced the motion in limine twice, no specific admissibility request was made until the punishment phase. Consequently, without a trial court ruling on the admissibility of the evidence concerning the alleged rape, Carlos's issue is not preserved for appellate review, leading to the overruling of his appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.