Judge finds defense violated motion in limine after questioning witness about alleged images; jury told to disregard

DALLAS — Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court ruled that defense questioning during the testimony of Joanna Reyes violated the state—ourt—ar on discussing alleged crimes or bad acts of the victim and instructed jurors to entirely disregard a line of questioning about alleged images on the victim nd denied a motion for mistrial.

The ruling came after defense counsel asked Reyes on direct whether she had told others that images of a sexual nature, including what the parties characterized at one point as potentially criminal images, had been found in the complainant nd whether she had discussed those images with third parties. The prosecutor had previously filed a motion in limine asking that "any crimes, wrongs, or bad acts of the victim, Mark Anthony Saldivar," not be presented to the jury without first approaching the court. The judge said defense counsel failed to approach the bench as required and found the motion had been violated.

Why it matters: Trial limits on evidence are intended to prevent jurors from hearing inflammatory or prejudicial material about a victim that has not been vetted for admissibility. The judge—ound the defense crossed that line and took immediate remedial steps to limit jury exposure.

In court, Judge Boyd told counsel she considered the reference to alleged images a bad act that fell squarely within the state's motion in limine and said defense counsel should have approached the court outside the jury's presence before asking the question. "You violated the motion in limine," the judge said, and ordered the jury to disregard the single question and any answer that may have followed.

The defense argued the questions sought to test the witness—redibility and prior inconsistent statements and were not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted; counsel told the court the intent was impeachment, not to "accuse" the victim. The judge disagreed that approach procedures had been followed and rejected that explanation as a cure for a pretrial order that requires advance notice.

The judge declined the defense sk for a mistrial. The court instead directed that the witness be taken from the courtroom briefly, told jurors to disregard the question and answer, and then the witness was returned and testimony resumed. The court further noted that if counsel believed evidence fell within an exception the proper step was to approach the bench before asking the jury-facing question.

Joanna Reyes was testifying about the events that preceded the April 2017 offense date identified in court papers. During earlier testimony she described what she said she had told a detective and what she had told other acquaintances about the events leading to the altercation that culminated with the victim on the hood of a vehicle. On cross-examination the defense pursued those prior statements and whether Reyes had described seeing condoms and lubricant in the victim—ackpack; the judge ordered the jury to disregard any reference to sexual images and admonished counsel that questions about bad acts of the victim must be presented to the court prior to being asked in open court.

The court lso addressed other topics that counsel raised about prior statements, impeachment and admissibility, instructing counsel on the correct procedural step — approach the bench and obtain a ruling — before placing such material before the jury.

Courtroom status: After the ruling the trial proceeded; the court indicated exhibits and testimony would be handled consistent with motion-in-limine requirements going forward and recalled witnesses as needed.

A denial of mistrial does not prevent later appellate arguments about the propriety of the admission or exclusion of particular evidence; Judge Boyd id not announce additional sanctions for the defense beyond the jury admonition.