Opinion filed Februar y 1 2, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 01 77 -CR

____ ____ _ GER ALD O SA LAZAR , A ppellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 35th Distric t Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR 17994

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ger aldo Salazar a

ppeals his conviction by

a jury for the offense of possession of less than one g ram of me thamphetamine. The jury assessed his punishment at conf inement for twenty y ear s. He contends in a single issue that the t rial court err ed by admitting into evidenc e photog raphs of jewelr y fo un d in a ve hic le dr ive n b y

him a t th e tim e of

an a lle g e d e xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e . We a ff

ir m. At the punishment stag e of trial, the State introduce d photogr aphs of dr ug para pherna lia and

a larg e c oll e c tio n of je we lr y fo un d dur ing the se arc h of a ve hic le dr ive n b y Sa la zar fo r t he purp os e of showing that Salazar had c ommitt ed an unadjudicated dr ug offe nse. Salazar’ s counsel objec ted to t he de pic ti on of jew e lr

y c on ta ine d in

the e xhibi ts o n th e ba sis that th e je we lr y wa s unr e la te d to the un a dju dic a te d d

rug off ense a nd , th e re fo re , th a t th e pr ob a tiv e va lue of the e xhibi ts g re a tly

ou tw e ig he d th e pr e

jud ic ia l va lue. The tr ia l c ourt a dmi tte d th e e xhibi ts d e pic tin g the je we lr y wi th the condition that the State show it was not its contention that the jewe lry items were stolen.John G . H ill , For m er Just ic e, Cour

t of A ppea ls , 2nd D is tri ct

of T ex as a t For

t W orth, s itt ing by

a ss ig nm ent

. 1
2 Al tho ug h r e le va

nt, e vid e nc e may

be e xclu de d if

its pro bat ive va lue is s ub sta nti a lly outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, of

confusingthe issues, or misleading the j ury or by considerations of undue delay or needless prese ntation of cumulative evidenc e. T EX
. R. E V ID . 403. Salazar sug g ests that the admission of the photogr aphs of the je welry would lead the jur

y to believe that he had committed some other c rime such a s theft of the je welry and that the a dmission of the p h o t o g r a p h s w a s d e s i g n e d t o i mp r e s s t h e j u r y i n s o m e i r

r a t i o n a l b u t n e v e rt h e l e s s i n d e l i b l e w a y. I nasmuch a s the trial cour

t require d the State t o neg ate any sug g estion that it was contendingthat the jewelr y in question was s tolen and inasmuch a s Salazar has no sug g estion as to any other ne g ative impression the photog raphs of the jewe lry might have left with the jury , we hold that the tria l court did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

a dmi tti ngthe ph ot ograph s o f t he je we lr y int o e vid e nc e be c a

us e its probative va lue, althoug h slight, is not substantially outweig hed by the dang er of unfair pr ejudice. JohnPa ul M oo dy , an inv e sti g a tor wi th t he B ro wn Cou nty She ri ff ’s Of fi c e , w a s th e wi tne ss who t estified concer

ning the exhibi ts in question. After the ex hibits wer e admitt ed, he testified that he had not f

ound any jewelr

y that he believed was stolen or “such as that” and that the jew elry had been r eturne d to the owner of the ve hicle. F urther, the State did not mention the jew elry in its final argument on punishment. W e also note that the State pre s en t ed ev i d ence of five pr evious felony convictions. Taking all of these things into c onsideration, we hold that, e ven if the tria l court had

err ed in allowing photogr aphs of the je welry to be int roduce d into evidenc e, we must disreg ard suc h

err or bec ause it did not aff ect Salazar ’s substantial rig hts. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4. 2(b ). We ov e rr ule Sa la zar ’s so le iss ue on

a pp e a l. The judg ment is affirme d.

Fe bruar y 12, 2009 PER C URI AM Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., S t r an g e , J. , an d

H i l l , J. 1