credibility defense in Texas

2022App. 2008) (“The appellant is, of course, entitled to an instruction on every defensive issue raised by the evidence, ‘whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or uncontradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense.’”) (quoting Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2021App. 2006); Holland v. State, 481 S.W.3d 706 , 708–09 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. ref’d). “‘An accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense.’” Madrigal v. State, 347 S.W.3d 809, 817 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2011, pet. ref’d) (quoting Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2025Trenton James Adams v. The State of Texas Page 2 “there is no evidence in the record to even suggest that […] Trenton Adams did not know right from wrong at the time he committed the offense.” AUTHORITY “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on [a defensive issue] if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim.

2024“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense if the issue is raised Johnson’s death. 23 by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Lee v. State, 442 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (quoting Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim.

2025See, e.g., Simon, 203 S.W.3d at 590 (“The trial court improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if it makes a statement that implies approval of the State’s argument, indicates disbelief in the defendant’s position, or diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” (emphasis added)).

2025A comment violates this statute if it is “reasonably calculated to benefit the State or prejudice the defendant’s rights,” Proenza v. State, 541 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017), by “impl[ying] approval of the State’s argument, indicat[ing] disbelief in the defense’s position, or diminish[ing] the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case,” Simon v. State, 203 S.W.3d 581, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2019A defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is “weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of the trial court’s opinion about the credibility of the defense.” Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim.

2014“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unim-peached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); accord Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

2026For example, an “opinion of the case” includes a statement that “implies approval of the States argument,” “indicates [] disbelief in the defense’s position,” or “diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to[] the case.” Clark v. State, 878 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, no pet.); see, e.g., Knox v. State, 13 S.W.2d 378, 379 (Tex. Crim.

2016“A trial judge improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if he makes a statement that (1) implies approval of the State’s argument; (2) indicates any disbelief in the defense position; or (3) diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” Joung Youn Kim v. State, 331 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (plurality op.) (citing Clark v. State, 878 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.)).

2022“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or uncontradicted, and regardless of how the trial court views the credibility of the defense.” Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)).

2014“The appellant is, of course, entitled to an instruction on every defensive issue raised by the evidence, ‘whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or uncontradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense.’” Allen, 253 S.W.3d at 267 .

2023“A trial court improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if it makes a statement that implies approval of the State’s argument, that indicates any disbelief in the defense’s position, or that diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to its case.” Hoang, 997 S.W.2d at 681 (citations omitted).

2019“A trial court improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if it makes a statement that implies approval of the State’s argument, that indicates any disbelief in the defense’s position, or that diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to its case.” Hoang, 997 S.W.2d at 681 (citations omitted).

2026A. Defensive Instruction Submission It is well-established that a “defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or uncontradicted, and regardless of how the trial court views the credibility of the defense.” Maciel v. State, 631 S.W.3d 720 , 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (quoting Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)); Sanders v. State, 707 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).

2025Nevertheless, a “defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or uncontradicted, and regardless of how the trial court views the credibility of the defense.” Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419, 430 (Tex. Crim.

2026He is correct that a jury instruction is warranted if raised by the evidence, “whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).

2024A. Standard of Review “A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self[-]defense if the issue [of self-defense] is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2026Further, “[a] trial judge improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if he makes a statement that (1) implies approval of the State’s argument; (2) indicates any disbelief in the defense position; or (3) diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” Nguyen v. State, 506 S.W.3d 69, 83 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (quoting Joung Youn Kim v. State, 331 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (plurality op.)).

2025“A trial judge improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if he makes a statement that (1) implies approval of the State’s argument; (2) indicates any disbelief in the defense position; or (3) diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” Nguyen v. State, 506 S.W.3d 69, 83 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (quoting Joung Youn Kim v. State, 331 S.W.3d 156 , 160 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (plurality op.)).

2015App. 1996) (recognizing that “an accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense”); Miller v. State, 815 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 1996) (recognizing that "an accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense"); Miller v. State,· 815 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (quoting Ex parte Young, 479 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)) (“‘While we do not desire to make an absolute rule concerning habeas corpus petitioners who do not assert their legal remedies promptly, we nevertheless feel that in some instances, a petitioner’s delay in seeking relief can prejudice the credibility of his claim.’”).

2019“An applicant’s delay in seeking habeas corpus relief may prejudice the credibility of his claim.” Id. (citing Ex parte Young, 479 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. Crim.

2019Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

2019App. 1999); see Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 , 208–09 (Tex. Crim.

2009Hamel, 916 S.W.2d at 493 (stating that “an accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense”); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (“The evidence which raises the issue may be either strong, weak, contradicted, unimpeached, or unbelievable.”).

2009Hamel, 916 S.W.2d at 493 (stating that “an accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense”); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex. Crim.

2026“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185 , 196-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (internal citations omitted).

2024“A defendant is [therefore] entitled to an instruction on self-defense if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 196 (Tex. Crim.

2026Further, “[a] trial judge improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if he makes a statement that (1) implies approval of the State’s argument; (2) indicates any disbelief in the defense position; or (3) diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” Nguyen v. State, 506 S.W.3d 69, 83 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (quoting Joung Youn Kim v. State, 331 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (plurality op.)).

2025“A trial judge improperly comments on the weight of the evidence if he makes a statement that (1) implies approval of the State’s argument; (2) indicates any disbelief in the defense position; or (3) diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” Nguyen v. State, 506 S.W.3d 69, 83 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (quoting Joung Youn Kim v. State, 331 S.W.3d 156 , 160 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (plurality op.)).

2025“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of the trial court’s opinion about the credibility of the defense.” VanBrackle v. State, 179 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.).

2024“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of the trial court’s opinion about the credibility of the defense.” VanBrackle v. State, 179 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.).

2023“An applicant’s delay in seeking habeas corpus relief may prejudice the credibility of his claim.” Ex parte Anaya, No. 11-19-00122-CR, 2019 WL 3023569 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland July 11, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 664 ).

2019“An applicant’s delay in seeking habeas corpus relief may prejudice the credibility of his claim.” Id. (citing Ex parte Young, 479 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. Crim.

2017Furthermore, one is entitled to an instruction on self-defense if 2 evidence appears of record supporting the theory, irrespective of whether that “evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense.” See Hill v. State, 99 S.W.3d 248, 251 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d).

2009See Davis v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683, 693 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref'd); Hill v. State, 99 S.W.3d 248, 250-51 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd) (explaining that if there is evidence supporting a self-defense theory, an instruction to the jury is required whether such “evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense”).

2012“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Gaspar, 327 S.W.3d at 356 (citing Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Guilbeau v. State, 193 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd)); see Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).

2009This mistake-of-faet defense “is applicable only if the actor’s mistake affects his culpable mental state regarding commission of the offense charged.” Egger v. State, 817 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1991, pet. ref'd) (citing Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307, 314 (Tex.Crim.App.1990)). “[A]n accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense.” Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.Crim.A

2009“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on [a defensive issue] if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State , 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ; Kelly v. State , 195 S.W.3d 753, 756 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. ref’d) .

2008Standard of Review “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on [a defensive issue] if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State , 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ; Kelly v. State , 195 S.W.3d 753, 756 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, pet. ref’d) .

2015App. 1991) (op. on reh'g); Brazelton v. State, 947 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997, no pet.).

2001Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing that “an accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense”); Miller v. State 815 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (op. on reh’g); Brazelton v. State, 947 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.).

2012So, it always turns into a very high stressed shouting match.” 14 indicates any disbelief in the defense’s position, or that diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to its case.” Watts v. State, 140 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d).

2012This occurs when the court "makes a statement that implies approval of the State's argument, that indicates any disbelief in the defense's position, or that diminishes the credibility of the defense's approach to its case." Watts v. State , 140 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).

2010A [A]n accused is entitled to an affirmative instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may . . . think about the credibility of the defense. @ Valenzuela v. State , 943 S.W.2d 130, 131 ( Tex.App .--Amarillo 1997, no pet.) ( citing Hamel v. State , 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1996)).

2010A[A]n accused is entitled to an affirmative instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or 8 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 11 contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may . . . think about the credibility of the defense.@ Valenzuela v. State, 943 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (citing Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)).

2010Pertinent Law “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on [a defensive issue] if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State , 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Johnson v. State , 157 S.W.3d 48, 50 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.); accord King v. State , 174 S.W.3d 796, 813 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d); Stefanoff v. State , 78 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d); Pennington v. State , 54 S.

2009This mistake-of-faet defense “is applicable only if the actor’s mistake affects his culpable mental state regarding commission of the offense charged.” Egger v. State, 817 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1991, pet. ref'd) (citing Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307, 314 (Tex.Crim.App.1990)). “[A]n accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense.” Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.Crim.A

2025A comment violates this statute if it is “reasonably calculated to benefit the State or prejudice the defendant’s rights,” Proenza v. State, 541 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017), by “impl[ying] approval of the State’s argument, indicat[ing] disbelief in the defense’s position, or diminish[ing] the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case,” Simon v. State, 203 S.W.3d 581, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2023Proenza v. State, 541 S.W.3d 786, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); see Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc), overruled on 16 of evidence or speaking in another context, we have construed Article 38.05 to mean that a trial court should not make a comment “that (1) implies approval of the State’s argument, (2) that indicates any disbelief in the defense’s position, or (3) that diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to its case.” See Urrutia v. State, No. 08-18-00035-CR, 2019 WL 6271269 , at *10 (Tex. App.—El Paso Nov. 25, 2019, pet. ref’d) (not designated

2010Pertinent Law “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on [a defensive issue] if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Ferrel v. State , 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Johnson v. State , 157 S.W.3d 48, 50 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.); accord King v. State , 174 S.W.3d 796, 813 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d); Stefanoff v. State , 78 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d); Pennington v. State , 54 S.

2006Muniz, 851 S.W.2d at 254 (citing Sanders v. State, 707 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tex.Crim.App.1986)); see also Ferrel, 55 S.W.3d at 591 (“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.”); Johnson, 157 S.W.3d at 50 (quoting Ferrel).