Curtis Wayne Hamilton v. State ( 2009 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-07-00400-CR
CURTIS WAYNE HAMILTON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 32094CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joel and Patty Chandler hired Roy Prather and Appellant Curtis Wayne
Hamilton to help them move from Greenville, Texas to Waxahachie, Texas. Prather and
Hamilton both testified that they had several conflicts throughout the day. Prather
testified that just after they arrived in Waxahachie, he got into the U-Haul truck to get
away from Hamilton when, through the open window of the truck, Hamilton hit him in
the throat with a metal pipe. Mrs. Chandler’s testimony supported this testimony.
Hamilton testified, however, that Prather came toward him with a pipe in his hand, so
he picked up something to defend himself with. He stated that he swung the pipe at
Prather, but he did not hit him.
Hamilton testified on direct examination that while he and Mrs. Chandler were
in the car driving to Waxahachie, she asked him if he was going to fight, and he replied,
“I don’t fight.” He also testified, “I told Mr. Prather, I don’t like to fight because
fighting -- I belong to the brotherhood. I’m trying to -- I’m trying to -- I’m trying to save
Waxahachie. I’m trying to bring people closer.” Furthermore, when his counsel asked
him if, in his mind, he started the “shenanigans,” Hamilton replied, “No. I don’t like to
fight. I told you I don’t like to fight. I hate fighting because fighting gets you in trouble
and fighting gets you hurt.”
The State asked the court outside the presence of the jury that it be allowed to
impeach Hamilton by questioning him about his prior convictions for assault and
resisting arrest in order to correct the false impression that he does not fight.
Hamilton’s counsel objected, but the trial court overruled the objections, and the State
questioned Hamilton accordingly.
A jury found Hamilton guilty of aggravated assault and assessed a twenty-year
prison sentence. In his sole point on appeal, Hamilton contends that the trial court
erred in overruling his objection to the State’s introduction of evidence of his prior
convictions during the guilt/innocence phase of trial. We will affirm.
We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence under an abuse of
discretion standard. We will reverse the trial court’s decision only if it is outside the
Hamilton v. State Page 2
zone of reasonable disagreement. Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281, 284 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003).
An accused who takes the stand may be impeached in the same manner as any
other witness. Hammett v. State, 713 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). But as with
any other witness, an accused cannot be impeached by a prior offense that he has been
charged with unless the charges resulted in a final conviction for either a felony offense
or an offense involving moral turpitude, neither of which is too remote. Prescott v. State,
744 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). However, an exception arises when a
defendant testifies and, during direct examination, leaves a false impression as to the
extent of his prior arrests, convictions, charges against him, or “trouble” with the police
generally. Id. at 131; Ochoa v. State, 481 S.W.2d 847, 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). In such
a case, the defendant is deemed to have “opened the door” to an inquiry by the State as
to the validity of his testimony. Prescott, 744 S.W.2d at 131.
Hamilton’s testimony that he did not fight, did not like to fight, and actually
worked to bring people closer together created a false impression that he is not
aggressive and that he is actually a peacekeeper in the community. Thus, Hamilton
opened the door to an inquiry by the State to correct the false impression. See Turner v.
State, 4 S.W.3d 74, 78-80 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (holding State could impeach
defendant with subsequent, violent police confrontation when defendant testified six
times on direct examination that he was polite to police officer who arrested him).
Furthermore, in balancing the probative value of the evidence against its potential for
unfair prejudice, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
Hamilton v. State Page 3
admitting evidence of Hamilton’s prior convictions for assault and resisting arrest. See
TEX. R. EVID. 403. We overrule Hamilton’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 26, 2009
Do not publish
[CR25]
Hamilton v. State Page 4