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.

2025A trial judge violates Article 38.05 where it makes a statement that “implies approval of the State’s -9- 04-24-00196-CR argument, indicates disbelief in the defense’s position, or diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” Simon v. State, 203 S.W.3d 581, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th] 2006, no pet.).

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)).

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.)).

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 .

2010A defendant is 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 v. State , 253 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Tex. Crim.

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).

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).

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.

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 how 6 the trial court views the credibility of the defense.” Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419, 430 (Tex. Crim.

2024Error in Refusing Appellant’s Self-Defense Instruction To be entitled to a deadly-force self-defense instruction, Appellant was required to present some evidence triggering Section 9.32, “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.

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.

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.)).

2025Doing so did not “(1) impl[y] approval of the State’s argument; (2) indicate[] any disbelief in the defense position; or (3) diminish[] the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” See id. (quoting Joung Youn Kim, 331 S.W.3d at 160 ).

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.

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.

2016The DA office sited Exparte Young 479 SW2d 45 ,46"An applicant's delay in seeking habeas corp us may prejudice the credibility of the claim." It says "may prejudice" not "does prejudice" in truver's memorandum he said he could not get his case file till 2012 from his other cases court appointed attorney Leon Haley.

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.

2019“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 (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.

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.”).

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.)).

2021Stated differently, “[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.” Thien Quoc 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)). previous to the return of the verdict, make any remark calculated to convey to the jury his opinion of the case.

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

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

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.).

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

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.

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)).

2003See Withers , 994 S.W.2d at 745 ; see also Villarreal v. State , 61 S.W.3d 673, 681 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref'd) (holding that a self-defense instruction was inappropriate when the record reflected that deadly force was not immediately necessary because sufficient time had elapsed to allow Villarreal to leave the crime scene and then return to use deadly force on an unconscious victim).

2003See Withers , 994 S.W.2d at 745 ; see also Villarreal v. State , 61 S.W.3d 673, 681 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that a self-defense instruction was inappropriate when the record reflected that deadly force was not immediately necessary because sufficient time had elapsed to allow Villarreal to leave the crime scene and then return to use deadly force on an unconscious victim).

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.

2021“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.” 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.

2021And that’s a defense, so please move on.” Appellant argued in his motion for new trial and on appeal that the trial court erred by excluding this “mitigation evidence.” He contends that, had appellant’s testimony been admitted, “it would have provided a basis for the jury to consider in assessing a lighter sentence.” He further argues on appeal that the trial court’s remarks in sustaining the objections were improper because they “indicated disbelief in [appellant’s] mitigation 23 evidence and diminished the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.” See Proenza v. State, 541 S.W.3d 7

2018App. 2003). “‘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 defense’s position, or diminishes the credibility of the defense’s approach to the case.’” Proenza v. State, 471 S.W.2d 35 , 51 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi, 2015) aff’d in part and rev’d and remanded in part, 541 S.W.3d 786 (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”).

2015The same holds true with respect the absence of any provocation of Mass and Dews by Appellant. 26 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, un-impeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Gaspar, 327 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (citing Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim.

2015The same holds true with respect the absence of any provocation of Mass and Dews by Appellant. 38 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, un-impeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense.” Gaspar, 327 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (citing Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex. Crim.