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.
Bernadette Perusquia v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-12-00126-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 12, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Bernadette Perusquia was convicted of murder, and her appeal raised two main issues: the exclusion of specific prior acts of violence by the victim, Juan Perusquia, and the erroneous reading of the jury charge on self-defense. During trial, Bernadette claimed self-defense, stating she shot Juan as he lunged at her, after he had previously assaulted her. To support her defense, she sought to introduce testimony from Juan’s first wife regarding his violent acts. However, the trial court allowed only character testimony but excluded specific acts of violence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, applying an abuse of discretion standard to review the exclusion of evidence. The court noted that while defendants can introduce evidence of a victim's character for violence, it can only be done through reputation or opinion testimony when arguing that the victim was the first aggressor. Specific acts can be relevant for demonstrating intent or motive but require evidence of a violent act by the victim that relates to the self-defense claim. In this case, Bernadette's argument for the inclusion of specific acts did not meet the necessary threshold to justify their admission. A trial court has discretion to exclude evidence of prior violent acts if the victim's behavior clearly indicates they were the first aggressor. Evidence of prior violent acts is only relevant if it addresses ambiguity in the victim's actions and clarifies their conduct. To admit a complainant's extraneous acts in self-defense claims, there must be ambiguous evidence of the victim's aggression and the proffered evidence must clarify that ambiguity. In this case, evidence confirmed that Juan was the first aggressor, and Bernadette failed to demonstrate any admissibility of the evidence for non-character purposes. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it. Additionally, Bernadette raised a concern regarding the transcription of the jury charge, asserting that the trial court misread the burden of proof on self-defense. Following a hearing, the trial court corrected the transcription error, and Bernadette did not appeal the instructions in the written charge or file any supplemental briefs on the matter. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.