Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El Paso
THE ESTATE OF JOEL SOTO by and through its independent administrator, MARIBEL AMADOR, and MARIBEL AMADOR, Indiv. and IVAN SOTO, JOSEL SOTO, JR., and PAULINA SOTO, all Indiv., By and Through Their Next Friend, MARIBEL AMADOR, Appellants,
BAUDELIO GONZALEZ MIRELES, Appellee.
from the 205th Judicial District Court of Hudspeth County,
McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
T. RODRIGUEZ, JUSTICE.
Maribel Amador, the Independent Administrator of the Estate
of Joel Soto, et al., appeal the trial court's denial of
their Motion for New Trial. The decedent, Joel Soto, was
struck and killed by a vehicle driven by the Appellee,
Baudillo Gonzalez Mireles, as Soto was riding his bicycle. In
a single issue, Appellants contend the trial court erred by
not excluding the evidence regarding Joel Soto's blood
alcohol content level. We affirm.
parties agree a trial took place and evidence pertaining to
Soto's blood alcohol content level at the time of his
death was admitted during the trial. The jury unanimously
found Soto negligent for his death and awarded zero damages
to Soto's estate.
December 15, 2017, the trial court denied Appellants'
Motion for New Trial. This appeal followed.
their sole issue, Appellants claims reversible error because
the trial court erred by not excluding the evidence as to
Soto's blood alcohol content level. Appellee responds
that Appellants did not provide the reporter's record of
the trial testimony or exhibits, and only provides the
reporter's record from the pretrial hearings and the
hearing on her motion for new trial. Appellee asserts the
lack of the full trial record is fatal to Appellants'
appeal because Appellants cannot establish harmful
evidentiary error with a partial record. We agree.
review a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial
for abuse of discretion. Manjlai v. Manjlai, 447
S.W.3d 376, 379 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet.
denied). A trial court abuses its discretion when it rules
without regard for any guiding rules or principles.
Granbury Marina Hotel, L.P. v. Berkel & Co.
Contractors, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex.App.- El
Paso 2015, no pet.)(citing Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998)). In addition,
an appellant seeking to reverse a judgment on evidentiary
error must show not only that the trial court abused its
discretion and improperly admitted the evidence, but also
that the admission probably resulted in an improper judgment.
Sanchez v. Balderrama, 546 S.W.3d 230, 234
(Tex.App.-El Paso 2017, no pet.). To properly evaluate
whether an admission of a particular piece of evidence
resulted in an improper judgment, we must review the entire
record and the appellant must demonstrate the judgment turned
on the specific, particular evidence admitted. Id.
at 234-35. Determining whether erroneous admission of
evidence is harmful is a matter of judgment by the reviewing
court. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v. Armstrong, 145
S.W.3d 131, 144 (Tex. 2004).
Rule 34.6(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, if an
appellant requests a partial reporter's record, the
appellant must include in the request a statement of the
points or issues to be presented on appeal and will then be
limited to those points or issues. Tex.R.App.P. 34.6(c)(1).
This gives the opposing party the opportunity to supplement
the requested evidence by designating additional exhibits and
portions of the testimony to be included in the
reporter's record. Tex.R.App.P. 34.6(c)(2). Compliance
with Rule 34.6(c) requires appellate courts to presume that
the partial reporter's record constitutes the entire
record for purposes of reviewing the stated points or issues.
failed to comply with Tex.R.App.P. 34.6(c)'s
requirements. Appellants requested a partial reporter's
record, but failed to include any statements of the issues
intended to be presented on appeal. When an appellant
completely fails to include any statements of the issues, the
record is deemed incomplete and the appellate court presumes
the omitted portions of the reporter's record are
relevant and support the trial court's judgment.
Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Tex.
2002)(noting that Rule 34.6 requires appellate courts to
affirm the ...