BACKGROUND
Prior to jury selection, the State filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking to exclude facts that went to the heart of the Appellant's defense. Specifically, the State sought to prevent Appellant from raising any defensive issues during voir dire, opening statements, cross-examination, and even during Appellant's own testimony in the event he decided to testify. Despite a complete lack of testimony to support the State's motion, the trial court agreed with the State and ordered Appellant to comply with that motion and ruling. Appellant properly objected, and the trial court erred by overruling it.
Testimony in Front of the Jury
Appellant's testimony in front of the jury entitled him to the requested defensive charge of self-defense. Appellant testified that he had been engaged in a lengthy affair with Complainant's wife, Sandra Watson. It was Sandra who had given Appellant the passcode and key to her family home during their relationship. Appellant testified that he had entered the house on the day in question at Sandra's request to feed her cats. He parked his truck about a half-mile down the road, placed his .45 caliber handgun in his pocket, walked to the house, entered with the key provided by Sandra, and disengaged the house alarm. After feeding the cats, Appellant noticed Complainant approaching the house. Appellant testified he could not open the back door, so he went into the room Sandra described as her “sanctuary room” and tried to exit through a window that Sandra called her “escape route out of the house.” In addition to the window being stuck, Appellant could not fit through the window, so he hid in “sanctuary room” closet, where Complainant kept many of his firearms in a gun safe. One of those guns was on top of the safe.
Appellant also testified that, while in the closet, he heard Complainant rummage around the house, before suddenly appearing at the closet door in an aggressive “linebacker stance” brandishing a hunting knife while moving it up and down. Complainant shouted “YOU” in a loud booming voice as he approached Appellant in the closet while still holding his knife. When Appellant came face-to-face with Complainant, who had his hunting knife in hand, Appellant grabbed from the top of the gun safe Complainant's loaded .380 caliber handgun. Appellant testified that at this point, Complainant, still holding the knife, reached forward and grabbed the gun, which discharged below Complainant's waist as they both struggled for the gun.
Appellant and Complainant testified about a struggle that ensued following the gunshot, but those versions are vastly different.
11 Although the trial court had previously stated in the pretrial hearing “that if it gets to where we have an instruction on self-defense, I will give you adequate time to explain that to the panel,” that did not happen. When Appellant was questioned about his state of mind at that moment, rather than conduct any additional hearings outside the jury's presence, without any objection from the State, the trial judge ordered the direct examination of the Appellant to stop, excused the jury, and admonished him and his lawyer by stating “you may not venture off into anything that alludes to or invades the province of self-defense.” This error on the part of the trial court deprived Appellant of his right to present a complete defense.
Bill of Exception
Appellant also provided additional testimony in a Bill of Exception. Specifically, Appellant's affair with Sandra Watson lasted from July 2011 until the date of the offense, February 14, 2013. According to Appellant, they exchanged over 70,000 text messages during their relationship. From February 10, 2013, to the date of the offense, Appellant and Sandra exchanged 850 messages, 187 of which were on the date of the offense. Appellant also testified that Sandra's husband, Complainant, had discovered the relationship between Appellant and Sandra two months before the offense by looking at Sandra's Facebook page. While we need not consider the Bill of Exception in this case, we mention it to highlight the actions of the trial judge, which prevented Appellant from putting on a complete defense.
To reiterate, the State sought and succeeded in keeping pertinent information from the jury based on the trial court's motion in limine ruling. That erroneous ruling prevented testimony that further corroborated Appellant was having an affair with Sandra Watson for almost two years, as well as any mention of the contents of text messages and photos of Sandra Watson individually or with Appellant. This evidence also would have corroborated Appellant's claim that he had permission to be at the house on the date in question.
