Meadows v. Texas (original by judge johnson)
Annotate this CaseAppellant was convicted of robbing two employees of a restaurant before opening for business that day. Appellant testified at the guilt phase. A jury convicted appellant of two counts of aggravated robbery. The jury then assessed punishment at seventy-five years' incarceration for each count. On direct appeal, appellant claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the state to cross-examine him about felony convictions that were more than ten years old and about a misdemeanor conviction that was not a crime of moral turpitude. The court of appeals noted that "[w]hether to admit remote convictions lies within the trial court's discretion and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case" (citing "Jackson v. Texas," 50 S.W.3d 579 (2001)). The court declined appellant's invitation to revisit Jackson regarding the "tacking" of felony convictions that were out-of-date under Rule 609. Using the standard found in Rule 609(a) instead of the more restrictive Rule 609(b), the court of appeals also noted that, under the tacking doctrine, a trial court must determine whether the probative value of the convictions outweighs, rather than "substantially" outweighs, their prejudicial effect and accordingly overruled appellant's complaint about the trial court's application of the balancing test. The court of appeals also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its determination that the prior convictions' probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect. After its review, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded this case back to the court of appeals for reconsideration under the correct Rule 609 standard.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.