### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-01-00020-CR NO. 03-01-00021-CR

44444444444

4444 Kendrick

Hughes, Appell ant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NOS. A-00-0037-S & A-00-0038-S, HONORABLE TOM GOSS ETT, JUDG E PRESIDING

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 Appel la n t Ken drick H ug h es si m ul tan eou sl y appe als two con

v i cti on s f or s ex ual as sa ul t. See T ex . Pe n. Co de Ann . § 2 2. 01 1( a) ( 1) ( A) ( We st Su pp . 20 01 ) . T he jur y as se ss ed his sentence at five years’ im prisonm ent and a $50 00 f i ne f or ea ch of f en se . The c ourt s

uspe nd ed the i m pos i ti on of b oth se n ten ce s a n d f i n es an d p l ac ed appe l l an t on com m un i ty supe rvision f or aperiod of fi

ve y ears. He appe als to th i s C our

t, a ss er ti n g s i x com pl ai n ts. W e w i l l

af f i rm th e j udgm

en ts o f th e tr i al cou rt. BACKGROUND On October 9, 1999, a gr oup of people ga thered at the apart men

t o f K endrick Hughes. Hughesshared the apartm ent wi th hi s gi rlf rien d, Veronica B ettancourt , and his f rien d, Do nova n Gross. Am

ong t hose pres en

t were Hugh

es , Gros s, Bettan

cou rt, a n d tw o of h er f rien ds , c om pl ai n an ts1 Al though the re cord

is unclea r a s t o t he amo unt o f alc o ho l co nsu med by ea ch ind ivid ua l, it ap pea rs a s t hou gh all five had bee n dr inkingand were i ntoxi cated to v ary

i ng d egree s. The three fem al es seem to have been

most af fected. 2 J.M. and N.A. By

the tim e two o ther friends, Marqus W il li am s and A ng ela Frai

re, arrived a

few hours la ter, all fi ve i ndi vi dual s at the apartment were i ntoxica ted. 1 At some poi

nt durin g the even in g, Hughes h

ad sexual con tac t wi th both co mpl

ain ants. Crim in al sexual assa ult char ges wer e filed aga inst H ughe s, w ho a dmitt ed ha vingsex ual con tac t wi th b oth young women

and i ssued

a statem en t to t ha t ef f ect to the Sa

n A nge l o Poli ce De partm en t. The two cases were cons olidated and proceeded to trial in October 20 00 . Th

e j ur y f oun d H ug h es gui l ty of both o ff enses, des cr ibed as intent ionally or kno wingly caus ing t he penetration of the f em al e sexual organ of another per son by any means, without that p erson’s cons en t. SeeTe x. P en. Co de Ann. § 22.011 (a)(1 )(A). Appellan t appeals both co nvi

ctions. DISCUSSI ON Venireperson Dis

missal Inhi s f irst i ssue, appel

la nt compl ai ns that the trial

court erred in

excusi ng a ve ni rep ers on wi th out a motion to strike for cause. The record shows that the prospective j uror was exam in ed at so me lengt h befo re being r elease d. In o rd er t o p re ser ve this is sue for app eal, app ellant must have tim el y obj ected durin

g voir dire , stating the grounds for t he de sired ru ling with su ffi cient sp ec i f i ci ty to make t he t rial co ur t awa re of t he co mplaint, unless t he sp ecific gr ou nd wa s ap par ent f rom th e con text. SeeTe x. R. A

pp. P. 33 .1(a). Be ca

us e th e r ec ord re f l ec ts th at a pp el l an t f ai l ed to obj e ct at the ti

me of the ve ni rep ers on’ s d

i sm i ss al , or a t an y othe r ti me, th i s c om pl ai nt wasnot3

pr o pe r ly pre serv ed

f or ap pe al . Th us , we ha ve noth i ng to r ev iew , an d a pp ella nt ’s firs t iss ue is overruled. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant’s second and thi rd iss ues chal le nge the suf

fi ci ency of the ev i den ce. He cla ims that t he trial

court erred in

renderi ng a guil ty ve rdict beca use there was i

nsuf fi ci ent evi dence t o s upp or t eithe r c onvict ion. Sp ecifically, the ch arge sta ted th at a sex ual as sa ul t wa s c on si

dere d to be without consent i f: (A ) the ot her person h

as not consented

and t he ac tor kn

owsthe othe r pe rs on is unco nscio us o r p hysically unable t o r esist , o r ( B) t he ot her per so n has no t co nsent ed a nd t he ac tor knows the othe

r pers on i s un

awar e tha t the se xua l ass aul t is occurri ng. See Tex. Pen. Code A nn . § 22.01 1(b )(3), (5).

Al though appella

nt’s bri ef i s uncl ear as to whether he i s chal le ngi ng the l egal or factual suf fi ci ency of t he evide nce, app ellant cit es ca se s d isc us sing fac t ua l su fficie nc y, a nd we will there f ore assu me this is t he issue he int en ds t o ad dr es s. Whe n r ev iew ing fac t ua l su fficie nc y, w e c o nsid er all t he evi den

ce i n a ne utral l i ght. Johnson v. State, 23 S. W. 3d 1, 6- 7 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 2000). We do not, howe ver, subs t itu t e o ur judg ment fo r t hat of t he t r ier o f fac t an d w ill se t as ide a v er dic t o nly if it is so c on

tra ry to th e ov er wh el m i n g w ei gh t of th e ev i den ce

so a s to b e c l ea

rl y wr on g a n d u n j us t. Clew is v. Sta te, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 6) . Ap plying thi s test to the f

acts b ef ore us, we d o no t find

the jury’ s verdict to be patently un just or wr ong. Because t he evide nce, including appellant’s wr itt en co nfessio n, i s f ac tual l y suf f i ci en t to su pp o r t bo t h o f t he co nvic t io ns, we o ve r rule appell ant’s second and third issues.4

Prior C onduct of the V

ictim In his fo ur t h iss ue , ap pe llant cla ims that t he trial court erred in

not admi tt in g evi dence re gar ding J. M. ’s

pr ev i ous sex ual ac ti v i ty . W e w i l l

re v er se a tr i al cou rt’ s dec i si on to excl ude evi dence o nly if the court abused

i ts di scre tion . Kesterson v

. State, 997 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Tex. App.—Dal la s 1999, no p et .) . B eca use t he evide nce c onc er ns onl y J.M ., i ts e xc l us i on woul

d have n o be ari ng on app ellant’ s co nvictio n in assau lting N .A.

A t r ial c o ur t will be f

oun d to have ab

used its discretion when

its “deci sion was so cle ar ly wr ong as to li e outside that zone withi

n wh ic h reasonab le

persons m

igh t disagree.” Id. at 292 (c iting Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667, 68 2 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 92 ) ) . I n d ec idin g w he t he rt o ad mit t he t est imony

of A nn Powel l , a sexua l ass aul t nurs e exam

i ner who exa

m i ne d J.M ., the c ourt looked to Texas Rul

e of Evi de nc e 412 , whi

ch address es evi

dence of previous sexual

conduct in

crim in al cases. Und er Ru le 4 12 , in a p ro se cu t io n fo r s exu al a ss au lt , e vide nce o f sp ec ifi c i nstan ces of an al le ged victim ’s past sex

ual beh avi or is not admi

ssi ble except in li mi ted circumstances. Tex. R. Evi d. 412(b); Kesterson, 997 S. W.2 d at 293 . D ur ingcross exami nation, appellant soug ht to question Nurse Po we ll ab out a “rap e fo rm” t hat J.M . ha d co mplet ed. On t his for m, J. M. ind icat ed t hat she had h ad in terco urse wi

th an i n di v i du al oth er th an appe l l an t du ri n g th e te n da y s prior to th e a ss aul

t. Appe llant wanted t o int ro duc e t his evidenc e t o t he jur y as a p os sible cau se fo r t he cha fing show n by the phy si cal ex am con du cte d on J. M. af ter th e a ss aul

t. Al though appell

ant fails to stat e whether Nurse Po well ’s t e st imony falls und er any exce ption to Rul e 412, t he o nly applicable exc ept ion wo uld be th at th i s e v i den ce wa s n ec es sa ry to rebutor explai

n sci entif ic or medical

evi dence of fered b y the Stat e. SeeTex. R. Evid. 412(b)(2)(A ).5

However, because a

reasonabl

e person could f

in d that evi dence

of J.M.’s pri

or sexual conduct was unn ece ssa ry t o r eb ut o rex pla in

the me dic al

testim ony of fered by the S t at e, we c anno t say t hat t he trial court abused i

ts discreti on in

excl udin g the evi dence. Further, the probativ e v alue o f the evi dence i s q ue sti on abl e. The p h

y si ca l ev i den ce of sex ual ac ti v i ty pr ov i de d n

o i n di ca ti on as to whether J.M . ha d co nsent ed. In a ddit ion, even if the phy si cal chaf in g could have resul

ted from an earli er encounter, appell

ant had al ready a dmi tt ed t o havi

ng i nt er co ur se wit h J. M. o n t he nig ht in que st ion. Thus, the al le ged error in n o way af f ected a ppel l an t’s s ubs tantial ri ghts . See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b). Accordingl

y, appel la nt’s f ourt h i ssue i s overruled. Voluntary In toxicati on as a Defen se

In his fift h iss ue , ap pe ll an t cla i m s tha t the State erred i

n re movi ng v olu ntary i ntox i ca ti on as a def en se u nde r section 8.04 of the Texa s Pen

al Code. SeeTex . P en. Co de Ann . § 8. 04( a) (Wes t Su pp. 200 1) . B eca use app ellant cite s no aut hor ity in supp or t of his co nt ent ion, he f ai l s to provide this court with an argum ent to co nsi

der. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Therefore, any co mplaintis waived . E ven liberally cons t ru ing app ellant’ s fifth issue , w e as sume he is challenging t he con sti tuti on al i ty of secti on 8.04 (a ), which states that voluntary i ntoxica tion does not constitute a defense t o t he co mmi

ssio n of c rime. T ex. Pen. Co de Ann . § 8.04( a). A t l ea st on e other c ourt of ap pe als has h

el d the statut e c onstitut i onal . See Smith v. State , 9 68 S .W. 2d 4 90, 495 (T ex. App. —T exar kana 1998, n o pet.). W h en ch al l en gi n g th e c on sti tuti on al i ty of a st at ut e, it is incumbent upon the de f en da nt to s how tha t the sta tute’ s op era

ti on is unco nst itu t ional as t o him in his situa t ion. Raby v. State , 970 S.W.2d 1, 19 (Tex. Crim . App. 1998). Appella nt has f ai le d to de mons

trate how se cti on 8.04(a) is un

constitutional

as i t applies to him

, and we are not persuaded tha t thi s s ec ti on of6

t he penal code hasoperated

i n a n un constituti onal man ner. Id. at 12 . Fo rt he se r ea so ns, we o ve r rule appella nt’s f if th is sue. Failure to Grant a New Trial

In his sixth issu e, app ellant cl ai m s th at th e tr i al cou rt e rre d i n f ai l i n g to grant hi

m a new t r ial. Ag ai

n, a ppel l an t ci tes n o authori ty in support o f h

is compl ai nt and thereby

wai ves the issue. Te x. R. Ap p. P. 38 . 1( h) . Fu r t he r , it is w it hin t he t r ial court ’s sound di sc r et io n t o gr an t o rde ny a m oti on f or new tria l , and we wi l l

not di sturb

a trial co ur t ’s de cision u nless it abus ed it s discr et ion. Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ; Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 644 (T ex. App.—Dal

la s 1996, no writ). Appel la nt notes that t he t rial co ur t did no t gr ant him a hearing o n t he mo t io n. Ho we ve r , t he r igh t t o a h ea r ing o n a mo t io n fo rne w t r ial is not ab sol ute. Reyes v. State, 849 S.W .2d 812 , 815 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1993 ); W

aller, 931 S.W .2d

at 6 44. Th e a

bu se of di sc reti on stan dard al so app l i es to the

den i al of a n evi den tia ry he ari ng. Wall er, 931 S.W.2d at 644. The trial court ma y b e found to have

abused i ts discreti on when

it deni es, wi thout conductin

g a heari ng, a m ot ion f or new trial

that rai ses matters outsi

de th e rec ord. Id. at 644; Kiser v. Sta te, 788 S.W.2d 909 , 9 14 ( Te x. Ap p. —Da llas 199 0, pet . r ef’d) . T he t rial co ur t need not set a hea ring if the m oti on f ornew trial

rais es matters wh

i ch can be determ i ne d f rom th e rec ord. Kis er, 788 S.W.2d at 914. A ppe l l an t’s moti on f or n ew tri al di d n ot rais e any

new i ssues; in

stead, he cl

ai me d in suf fi ci ency of the eviden

ce, a matter whi ch could be determi ned from the record. Because ap pe l l an t did n ot raise an i ss ueouts i dethe

rec ord on wh i ch ev i de nc e w asreq

ui red , th e tri

al cou rt di d n ot abuse i ts d i sc reti on in den y i n g h i s m oti on f or n ew trial wi th out a h ea ri n g. A cc ordi n gl y , w e ov er ru l e a pp el l an t’s si xth is sue.7 CONCLU SION For t he reasons stated above, we overrul e all of appella nt’s i ssues an

d aff irm the trial court ’s rul

in g.

Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed on B ot h Cause s File d: Novem

ber 15, 2001 Do No t Publis

h