## Facts

- Korey Demaine Walker pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance.
- Walker failed to appear for sentencing, and the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.
- When officers attempted to execute the warrant, Walker and the police exchanged gunfire, leading to a prosecution for attempted capital murder of a peace officer.
- Walker was tried more than once on the charge; after his retrial, a jury again convicted him and the trial court sentenced him to 60 years’ imprisonment.
- At trial, the State called Katrina Smith, an acquaintance who spoke with Walker after the shooting.
- Smith testified that she and Walker did not talk about the police during that post-incident conversation.
- The State impeached Smith with a prior inconsistent statement she had made to a police detective describing that conversation differently.
- Over Walker’s objection, the trial court allowed the impeachment and gave an oral instruction that the prior statement could be considered in assessing Smith’s credibility, without expressly telling the jury it could not consider the statement for its truth.
- The court’s final written jury charge later instructed that Smith’s prior inconsistent statement could be used only to assess credibility.
- Walker also sought to cross-examine a law-enforcement witness (Sergeant White) about who provided counsel for White when White gave an investigative statement, arguing the information could show bias; the trial court limited that inquiry.
- Walker additionally requested that the jury charge include a mistake-of-fact instruction in connection with the self-defense submission; the trial court refused.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court violate the Confrontation Clause or Texas Rule of Evidence 613(b) by limiting cross-examination aimed at showing Sergeant White’s bias (specifically, who provided his attorney)?
2. Did the trial court err by refusing to include a mistake-of-fact instruction as part of the self-defense jury charge?
3. Did the trial court commit reversible error by giving an incomplete limiting instruction when Smith’s prior inconsistent statement was admitted for impeachment, despite the final written charge limiting the jury’s use of that statement to credibility?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed Walker’s conviction and 60-year sentence.
- Limiting the defense’s cross-examination about the identity of the person or organization that provided Sergeant White’s attorney was within the trial court’s discretion and did not violate confrontation rights because Walker did not show how that information would demonstrate bias or a motive to testify falsely.
- The trial court did not err in refusing a mistake-of-fact instruction because the evidence did not raise a reasonable mistaken belief that, if true, would negate the culpability required or justify Walker’s conduct beyond the self-defense submission given.
- Any problem with the trial court’s oral limiting instruction regarding Smith’s prior inconsistent statement was cured (or rendered harmless) by the final written jury charge expressly restricting the statement’s use to evaluating credibility rather than proving the truth of the matters asserted.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment permits cross-examination to expose a witness’s potential bias or motive, but trial courts may restrict questioning that is speculative, collateral, repetitive, or of limited relevance, so long as the jury still has a sufficient basis to evaluate credibility.
- Under Texas law, a defendant is entitled to a defensive instruction only if the record contains evidence raising that defense; a mistake-of-fact instruction is not required unless the evidence supports a reasonable mistaken belief that would negate the required mental state.
- A prior inconsistent statement offered for impeachment is generally admissible to test credibility, not as substantive proof; when admitted for a limited purpose, a limiting instruction is appropriate upon request.
- A clear, correct final written jury charge limiting the purpose for which the jury may consider impeachment evidence can cure or render harmless an earlier, less specific oral limiting instruction, and appellate review considers whether any error affected substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Walker’s attempted capital murder conviction, holding that the trial judge acted within allowable bounds by restricting speculative bias questioning about who furnished a police witness’s attorney, properly refused a mistake-of-fact instruction not raised by the evidence, and ensured the jury’s use of an impeaching prior inconsistent statement was confined to credibility through the final written charge.


Walker v. State, 300 S.W.3d 836 (2009)