We granted the State's petition to determine two issues: (1) whether the court of appeals "erred in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring, and placing a burden upon, the State" to establish the admissibility of its proffered evidence instead of recognizing that, in the context of a pre-trial determination, the burden should have been on Appellee; and (2) whether the court of appeals applied *376an improper standard in deciding the question of the relevance of the evidence, asking whether it was reasonable for the trial court to reject the State's proffer rather than whether it would have been reasonable for the trial court to find that inculpatory inferences were available from the State's proffer. Having examined the record and the briefs, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. We therefore dismiss the State's petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted.
State v. Villegas, 544 S.W.3d 375 (2018)
May 2, 2018
·
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
·
NO. PD–0053–17
544 S.W.3d 375
The STATE of Texas
v.
Daniel VILLEGAS, Appellee
NO. PD-0053-17
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
DELIVERED: May 2, 2018
Joe A. Spencer, Jr., Law Office of Joe Aureliano Spencer, Jr., 1009 Montana Ave., John P. Mobbs, Attorney at Law, 7170 Westwind Dr., ste. 201, El Paso, TX 79902, for Appellee.
Stacey Soule, State's Attorney, Austin, TX, Lily Stroud, Assistant District Attorney, 201 El Paso County Courthouse, 500 E. San Antonio, El Paso, Texas 79901, for the State.