Texas Court of Appeals

Valdesgalvan v. State

No. 02-22-00098-CR                       03/16/23

Issue:

Does the admission of extraneous offense evidence, which is expressly allowed under Article 38.371, violate a defendant’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Holding:

No, the court held that Article 38.371 was subject to a rational basis test. The purpose of Article 38.371 in allowing extraneous evidence is to show the nature of a family or dating relationship in domestic violence cases. The State has a legitimate and compelling interest in decreasing domestic violence. Furthermore, Article 38.371 explicitly incorporates the procedural safeguards provided by the rules of evidence to ensure that a defendant’s right to a fair trial is protected. Read opinion.

Commentary:

Here, the Second Court of Appeals joins the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (in Thomas v. State, 651 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. ref’d)) in holding that Article 38.371 is not facially unconstitutional.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused the defendant’s petition for discretionary review in Thomas and likely will do so here, if the defendant pursues one, because the appellate courts’ analyses are essentially the same.  The absence of an affirmance by the CCA means that these holding do not apply statewide; so, if you practice outside of the appellate jurisdiction of either of these intermediate appellate courts, these cases will serve as only persuasive authority for your local courts.  However, the reasoning of both of these opinions is sound, so you should expect that they will be followed in other jurisdictions, as well, such that statewide application will be achieved in piecemeal fashion.  Regardless of where you practice, though, if you prosecute domestic violence cases at either the trial or appellate level, keep these cases handy if you’re ever presented with a similar attack on the constitutionality of Article 38.371.