Rodriguez v. State
305 S.W.2d 350 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While evidence of a witness's good reputation for truthfulness is generally inadmissible to bolster their testimony, it becomes admissible when the opposing party attacks the witness's character by suggesting they have a corrupt motive or are fabricating their testimony, rather than merely contradicting the facts.
Facts:
- Appellant, a 66-year-old man, went to the home of Ramon Gavia.
- Ramon's daughter, Cathalina Gavia, invited Appellant inside to wait for her father.
- Cathalina testified that she later found Appellant on a couch with her seven-year-old foster daughter, holding a hand over the child's mouth while taking off the child's pants.
- Appellant denied assaulting the child, testifying that he was merely helping the child pull up her pants after she had come from the bathroom.
- Appellant testified that the day before the alleged incident, he saw Cathalina in a compromising position with a man in a car on a country road.
- Appellant claimed that when he spoke to Cathalina about what he had seen, she became angry and then fabricated the assault allegation in retaliation.
- Cathalina denied both being on a country road with a man and that Appellant had confronted her about any such incident.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas prosecuted Appellant in a state trial court for aggravated assault.
- A jury convicted Appellant of the offense.
- The trial court sentenced Appellant to 9 months in jail and imposed a $750 fine.
- Appellant appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's testimony, which suggests a key prosecution witness fabricated an accusation out of anger and a desire for revenge, constitute a direct attack on the witness's veracity, thereby permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of the witness's good reputation for truth and veracity?
Opinions:
Majority - Woodley, Judge.
Yes. When a defendant's testimony implies that a witness is fabricating their testimony due to a corrupt motive, it opens the door to the admission of evidence of that witness's good reputation for truth and veracity. The court distinguished this situation from the general rule that prohibits bolstering a witness's testimony with character evidence when it has only been contradicted by other evidence. Here, the appellant did not merely contradict Cathalina Gavia’s testimony; he provided a specific motive for her to lie—anger and retaliation for being confronted about a personal matter. This constitutes a direct attack on her veracity and character. Therefore, it was proper for the state to rebut this attack by introducing testimony that Cathalina Gavia had a good reputation in the community for truth and veracity, an exception supported by precedents like Helton v. State.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the important evidentiary distinction between contradicting a witness's testimony and directly attacking their character for truthfulness. It clarifies that alleging a specific, corrupt motive for a witness to lie (such as revenge) crosses the line from mere contradiction to an attack on veracity. This holding has significant strategic implications for trial practice, as it cautions defense attorneys that attempting to impeach a prosecution witness by ascribing a motive to fabricate can 'open the door' for the prosecution to introduce otherwise inadmissible character evidence to bolster that witness's credibility before the jury.
Unlock the full brief for Rodriguez v. State