F or c on ve nie nc e , w e re fe r t o th e me mbe rs of the Gr os s f

a mil y us ingthe ir

fi rs t na me s. 1 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-06-00035- CR

G ar lan d Edwin G r os s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 20341 69, H ONO RAB LE BRENDA P . KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y con vic te d a

pp e lla nt G arl and

Ed wi n G ro ss, Jr. o f a ssa

ult a g a ins t a pu bli c
serva nt, a third-deg ree felony

. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22. 0 1 (b )( 1 ) (West Supp. 2006). Ap pe lla nt el e c te d to hav e punis hme nt as se sse d by the jud g e , who a sse sse d a sen te nc e of fi ve y e a rs ’ imprisonment, but suspende d that sentenc e and pla ced a ppellant on community

supervision for f

ive y ear s. The trial co urt also assesse d a $2,500 fine and orde red a ppellant to complete 200 hour s of
c omm un ity se rv ic e . App e lla

nt a rgue s o n a

pp e a l th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s f a c tually in su ffi c ie nt t o
su pp or t hi s c on vic tio n a

nd that th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in a llo wi ng the State to i mpr op e rl y imp e a c h b oth appellant a

nd his son. W e af

firm the judg ment of convic tion.

BACK GR OUND On Octobe r 13, 2003, appe llant’s daug hter B ritta ny , tw e nty

- tw o ye a r s o ld at the time, 1 called the L akew ay

Police Depa

rtment in response to a family disturbance at t he Gr oss household.2

The full deta ils of this family disturbance are not clear from the r ecor d, but there is testimony that

a pp e lla nt a nd his e ig hte e n- y e ar- old

so n Jef fr e y we re e ng a g e d in

a ph y sic a l a lte rc a tio n a

nd that bo th B ri tta ny and a pp e lla nt ’s wi fe Ste ph anie un su c c e ssf ull y tr ie d to int e rc e de and

br e a k u p th e fi g ht. Appellant lef

t the house afte r the police wer e ca lled but before they arr ived. Appellant testified that he did not know that the police ha d been c alled. Of fi ce r He ctor Almaguer w as dispatche d to the Gr o ss household to respond to Br ittany ’s ca ll. He enter ed the house on the first floor throug h the side door and e ncounter ed Stephanie, B rittany , and Jeffre y .

The Gr oss house is divided into three levels. The fir st floor includes a be droom and the g ame r oom with a side door that opens to the outside. The second f loor contai ns the front
e n tr an c e to th e h o u s e , an d a s ta ir c a s e w it h s e v e n s te p s c o n n e c ts th is f lo o r to th e f

ir st floor below. The third floor is w here the dining room is loc ated, and there are stairs conne cting it to the second floor. Almag uer pr ocee ded to interview Stephanie , Br ittany , and Jeffre y in the dining r oom on the third floor of the house. All of appellant’ s family members indicated that they did not want to p re ss c ha

rg e s a g a ins t a

pp e lla nt f or any thi ng that oc c ur

re d duri ng the fa

mil y dis tur ba nc e . Sh or tly afte r beg inning the inter

views, Almaguer r ece ived a r adio transmission from S erg eant Ma ry Proctor, who had a lso been dispatche d to the scene and wa s outside the house. Proctor told Almaguer that appellant ha d returne d and wa s enteringthe re sidence

.

Almag uer te stified that upon rec eiving the ra dio transmission, he stood up fr om the dining room table, as did appellant’ s family members. They moved t o the back portion of the third f lo o r , wh il e A lm a g

u e r d e s c e n d ed to the sec ond-floor la nding w here he enc ountere d appellant c oming up the stairs fr om the first floor. Almaguer te stified that he told appellant to stop and put his hands3

behind his back be cause he wa s under a rre st for family

violence. A lmag uer te stified that he re peate d t h i s c o m m an d

t h r e e t i m e s . T h e o f

f i c e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e n , w i t h o u t s ayi n g a w o r d o r e v e nm a k i n g e ye contac t, appellant “r

ushed him,” deliver ed an uppe r-r idge chop to Almag uer’ s throat with his right ha nd , a nd punc he d A lma g ue r i n th e c he st w ithhis le ft ha nd . A lma g ue r r e c ounte d b e ingimm e diate ly inc a pa c itate d b y

thi s att a c k, and state d tha t app e lla nt the n g ra

bb e d A lma g ue r’ s sh ir

t and pu lle d h im do wn the sta ir s. Al ma g ue r t e sti fi e d th a t bo th he and a pp e lla nt land e d a t the bo tto m of the sta ir we ll, wher e L akew ay

Police Offic er Damien Pere z, who had rec ently arr ived at the sc ene, pulled a ppellant off of Almag uer. Almag uer testified that as appellant was taken into c ustody he said that h e had taken on big g er and better police depar tments a nd would likely be filing a lawsuit ag ainst Almag uer. Almag uer a lso testified that althoug h he did not reme mber where appellant’s wife and children we re during the incident, they

would be lying if

they testified that they

wer e rig ht behind him. Appellant, Stephanie, B rittany , and Jeffre y all testified to a

differ ent ver sion of the incident, often using the same words. All thre e of a ppellant’s fa

mily members testified that when Al mag uer w as ale rted that a ppellant had r eturne d to the residenc e, they followed Almaguer dow n the sta ir s to the se c on d- fl oo r land ing and we re sta nd ing a pp ro xima te ly thr e e fe e t beh ind him wi th a good view of the incident whe n it happened. T his contradicte d Almag uer’ s testimony that the Gross family

members we re not be hind him. I t also contradic ted Proctor’ s testimony that when she and Pere z entered the house as a ppellant and Almaguer la nded at the bottom of the s t airs she saw Jef fr e y , B ri tta

ny , a nd Ste ph anie sta

nd in g on the thi rd fl oo r. Pr oc tor

a lso te sti fi e d th a t th e fa

mil y
me mbe rs a ll t old

he r a t th e tim e that th e y did no t se e the inc ide nt, a lth ou g h s he did no t no te thi s in he r w ri tte n r e po rt
.4 Appellant and his family

members a ll testified that appellant, who is rig ht-hande d, was holding a ca

n of soda in his rig ht ha

nd on the stairwell. Appellant and his c hildren testified that Almag uer sc rea

med at appe llant to “put y our fucking hands behind y our back” be cause he wa s under

arr est; Stephanie could not re member w hether Almag uer ha d curse d. All f our testified that a

ppellant told Almague r that he ha d come home to check on his fa mily , and appe llant and his children testified that appellant sa id “this is wrong ” or “y ou’ve got it wrong .” Appellant and his family all denied that appellant st ru ck Almaguer w ith his hands. I nstead they said Almag uer g rabbe d appellant’ s side, presumably

to spin him around to put hi m in handcuff s, when both appe llant and Almag uer tumbled down the stairs. The family members testified that Almag uer la nded on top of appe llant and that Pe re z “f lop pe d” on

top of bo th o f t he m a t th e bo tto m of

the sta ir we ll. Appellant acknow ledg ed that afte r being taken into custody he told the offic ers that he ha d t a k e no nb i g g e r

a n d b e t t e r p o l i c e d e p art m e n t s an d

t h a th e w o u l d

p r o b a b l y f i l e a l a w s u it ag ainst Almag uer. A

ppellant testified that the of fice rs wer e “tr ash-talking ” to him, so he did it right back. Avideotape that was filmed from the patrol cars out side the house picke d up some audio fr om inside the h o u s e thr o u g h th e o f f ic e r s ’ mi c r o p h o n e s ; i t w a s e n te r e d in to e v id e n c e . O nth e ta p e, appellant c an be he ard statingthat Almag uer pushe d him down the stairs and that he was attacked in his own home. On another such t ape, Almag uer can be hear d stating that he was the one pushed do wn the sta ir s. After a p p e ll an t w a s in

c u s to dy , Pr o c to r

to o k d ig it a l p h o to g r a

p h s o f A lm a g u e r ’s inj ur ies. Pr oc tor

a lso too k s ta te me nts fr om S te ph anie , B ri tta ny , a nd Jef fr e y a bo ut t he fa mil y5

dis tur ba nc e tha t br ou g ht t

he po lic e to the Gr os s ho us e ho ld in the fi rs t pl a c e . H ow e ve r, Pr oc tor did
no t in qu ir e a

bo ut t he inc ide nt i nv olv ingAl ma g ue r a nd a pp e lla nt. I n h is f ir st i ssu e on

a pp e a l, a pp e lla nt a rgues that

the e vid e nc e wa s f

a c tua lly insufficient to support a c onviction. Specifica lly , he ar g ues that the only evidenc e that appe llant struck Almag uer was Almag uer’ s testimony

. Appellant argues that Almag uer’ s testimony was self

se rv i n g b e c a

u s e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c r i m i n a l t r i a l A l m a g u e r h a d a p e n d i n g c i v i l l aw s u i ta g a ins t appellant f

or money damag es ar ising out of the inc ident in question. I n his second issue, appe llant argues that the trial c ourt er red by allowing the State to impeach Jeffr ey by introducing two contra dictory

statements that J eff

rey made a bout the initial family

disturbance —one made to Proctor on the day

of the incident, and one made to a ppellant’s lawy er over a month late r. Appellant ar g ues that this constitut ed improper impeachme nt on a collateral matter. I n his third issue, appellant ar g ues that the t rial court err ed by allowing the State to question appellant a bout his previous long- running dis putes wi th t

he De e r P ark

Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt a nd the Ha rr is C ounty

She ri ff ’s De pa rtme nt. Appellant ar g ues that this line of questioning w as improper impeachme nt on a collater al matter a nd that the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice substantially outweig hed any

probative va lue.
DI SCU SSIO N
F actual Suf

fi ciency I n conductinga fa ctual suff iciency revie w, only

one question is prese nted: Co n s i d e r i n g a l l th e e v i d e n c e i n a n e u t r a l l i g h t , w a s t h e j u r y r a t i o n a l l y j u s t i f

i e d i n f ind ing g uil t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a

b l e d o u b t ? Zun iga v . S

tat e , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).6

Howeve r, there are two way s in w hich the evidenc e may be insufficient. F irst, evidence supporting the ve rd ic t, c on sid e re d b y its e lf , may be too we a k to supp or t a find ing of g uil t be y on d a re a so na ble doubt. Id. Second, evide nce contrar y to the verdict may be so st rong that the beyond-a- rea sonabledoubt standard c ould not have bee n met, despite the evidenc e supporting the ver dict. Id. at 484-85. Where, a s here , most of the evidenc e is te stimoni al, unless the rec ord clea rly reve als that a diffe rent result is appropr iate, an a ppellat e co u rt m ust defer to the jury ’s deter

mination concer

ning w hat weig ht to give c ontradictory testimonial evidence b ec au s e resolution often turns on an eva luation of cr edibility

and deme ano r, and the jurors were in attendanc e whe n the testimony was de livered. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Almag uer’ s testimony , considere d by itself, is enoug h to support a finding of appellant’ s g uilt beyond a re asonable doubt. Se e Go od ma n v. Sta te , 6 6 S. W. 3 d

2 8 3 , 2 8 5
- 8 6 ( T e x. Crim. App

. 2 0 0 1 ) (stating that the testimony of a pe rson with five pe rjury convictions, standing

a lon e , is fa c tua lly

su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a bey on d-a -r e a so na

ble -d ou bt f ind ing ). B ut w e mus t deter mine whether

appellant pr esente d contra ry ev i d en ce so strong that the beyond-a- rea sonabledoubt standard c ould not have bee n met. The e vidence that appellant pr esente d was his testimony and the testim ony of his wife a nd children. A

ppellant ar g ues that the testimony that he wa s car

rying
a ca n of soda in his rig ht hand and th e v i d eo t ap e s howing him carr y ing the can a s he ente red the ho us e sh owthat it wa s imp os sib le fo r him to have str uc k A lma g ue r w ithhis ri g ht h and . T he State argued at tria l that appellant could have droppe d the ca n befor e striking Almag uer. The j ury appar ently

conclude d that Almag uer w as a c redible w itness and that appellant a

nd his family

wer e not cr edible witnesses. A ppellant ar g ues that Almaguer’ s testimony7

wa s se lf -s e rv ingbe caus e of the c ivi l la ws uit he ha d f ile d a g a ins t a

pp e lla nt. Ho we ve r, de fe ns e counsel questioned Almag uer about the civil suit; the jurors wer e awa re of its exi stence when they

ma de the ir

c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n. Th e re is nothin g in the re c or d tha t indi c a te s th a t th e jur y c ou ld not have r ationally believed Almag uer and disbelieved appellant and his family . Wit h reg ard to the soda ca n, it is for the j ury to choose betwee n two equally competing theories of the ca se. Goodman , 66 S.W. 3d

a t 28 7; LaP oin te v . S

tat e , 1 9 6 S. W. 3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 8 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s ti n 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t. )

. We
overr ule appe llant’s first issue.
Im proper Im peachm ent of Jeff rey The State c oncede s that the trial cour t e rre d by allowing the State to question J eff rey about two contra dictory

statements he made conce rning the initial fa mily disturbance

. This line of qu est io ni ng c on sti tut e d im pr op e r i mpe a c hme nt o n a c oll a te ra l matte r. A m a tte r i s c oll a te ra l if it could not be shown in evide nce f or any purpose other

than contra diction. Gu tie rre z v. Sta te , 764 S.W .2d 796, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Here , J eff rey ’s statements conc erne d a collate ral matter be c a us e the State c ou ld n ot h a ve pro ved th e detai ls o f t he ini tia l f

a mil y dis tur ba nc e a s p art

of its
case -in-chie f. G en er al l y , using pr ior inconsistent statements to impeach a witness on a collate ral matter is impermissible. Flan ne ry v . S tat e , 676 S.W .2d 369, 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). An exception a

pplies when a witness testifies g ratuitously as to a c ollatera l matter. Ha mm e tt v . S tat e , 713 S.W .2d 102, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). I n that situation, the witness may be impeac hed by showing that he lied or is mi s t ak en ab o u t that collater al matter. Id. Howeve r, the State may not bootstrap its way to such i mpeac hment by eliciting the offe nding statement on cross- examination. Id. at 105 n.4. The other exception a llowing impeachme nt as to a collate ral matter occur s when a8

witness leave s a false impression conce rning a matter related to his credibility

. Da gg e tt v . S tat e , 187 S.W. 3d 44 4, 45 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). B ut t his e xce pti on

do e s n ot a

pp ly wh e n th e fa lse impression is crea

ted by the State’s cr oss-examination. Sh ipm an v . S tat e , 604 S.W .2d 182, 184-85 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ). As the State c on c e de s, ne ith e r e xce pti on a pp lie s h e re . H ow e ve r, the Sta te
c on te nd s th a t th e e rr or

wa s h arm le ss. The e rrone ous admission of evidence is nonconstituti o n al er ror if the trial court’ s ruling mere ly offe nds the rules of evidenc e. So lom on v . S tat e , 49 S.W .3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). This Court must disreg ard nonconstitutional e rror unless it a ffe cted substantial r ights of the defe ndant. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b). Substantial rig hts are not a ffe cted by the er roneous a dmission of evide nce if

the appe llate cour

t, afte r ex amining the rec ord as a whole, has fair assura nce that the
err or did not influence the jury or had only

a slig ht effe ct. Solomon , 49 S.W .3d at 365. Appellant ar gues that this impeachme nt was harmful beca use J eff rey was the f irst of the family

members to testify , and the impea chme n t o f J eff rey cause d the jury

to discredit the substantially

simil ar te stimony of t he other family members. Whil e thi s may have ha d some eff ect on the jury , the mere fac t that the family members’ testimony was so simil ar ma y itself have a

roused the jur y ’s su sp icions . F ur

the rm or e , B ri tta

ny and Jef fr e y we re a lso imp e a c he d o n p e rm iss ibl e g ro un ds . O n c ro ss- e xami natio n, Jef fr e y a dmi tte d that his pa

re nts pa y fo r his sc ho ol, his c ar, and his apar tment. J eff

rey also stated that B ritt an y get s ex ci ted too quickly on occa sion and that she
overr eac ts “a lot.” On cross-e x amination, Br ittany was que stioned about the contra dictory statements she made ab o u tt h e f am i l y d i s tu rb an ce p re ce d i n g ap p el l an t ’s al l ege d as s au l ton Almag

uer. L ike J eff rey , Br ittan y m ad e a s t atement a bout the family

alterc ation to police on the day of the9

incident that contra dicted her statement to a

ppellant’s lawy er ove r a month later . Appellant did not ob je c t to the State ’s qu e sti on ingof B ri tta ny a bo ut t he inc on sis te nc ie s b e tw e e n th e tw o s ta te me nts
. Also, appellant hims elf undermined t he cr edibility of Jeffre y and B rittany

. Appellant testified that J eff

rey “proba bly . . . fabr icated” his statement to the police bec ause of his emotional state and that Brittany

was “ story

telling” in the statement she g ave police

. T h e ju r y a ls o h e ar d A lm a g u e r ’ s te s ti mo n y th a t h e w a s a s s a u lt e d , an d the jury

was provided with copie s of Almag uer’ s medical re cords f rom his hospital visi t on the day in question, wh ic h c o r

r o b o r a te d h is v e r s io n o f e v e n ts
. T h e me d ic a l r e c o r d s in d ic a te th a t A lm a g u e r wa s diag nosed with a c hest wall contusion and ne ck contusions. Thi s i s co n sistent with Almague r’s testimony that he was hit in the chest and the throat by appellant. Appe llant argues that the injuries

are a lso c on sis te nt w ithme re ly fa lli ngdo wn the sta ir s, bu t he did no t pr e se nt a

ny e vid e nc e on

thi s po int

. Be cause the jury hear d substantially

simil ar t es timony

from other s, including Ste ph anie , w ho wa s n ot i mpe a c he d, be c aus e J effrey and B ri tta ny ’s te sti mony

wa s o the rw ise impeache d in a per

missibl e manne r, and be cause the jury hear d sufficie nt evidence to find appellant g uilty bey ond a reasonable doubt apar t from J eff

rey ’s t estimony , we hold that appe llant’s substantial rig hts were not aff

ecte d by the i mproper impeachment of J eff rey . We overrule appellant’ s second issue.
Im pr ope r Im pe ac hm e nt of A ppe lla nt

Appellant ar g ues in his third issue that the following exchang e constituted improper impe ac hment of appe llant on a collater al matter a nd that any

probative va lue from this line of questioning w as substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice:10

Q. Ok ay . H a ve y ou e ve r f ile d a $5 milli on laws uit

a g a ins t a po lic e de pa

rtme nt f or ha ra ssm e nt? A. Ye s. Q
. T h e H o u s t o nP r e s s h a s a c h r o n i c l e o u t

— i t ’ s a c tu a l l y— [D e f e n s e c o u n s e l] : Your Honor , I am g oing to ob j ec t to that ty

pe of i mp e a c h m e n t
. T h a t ’ s n o ta s w o r ns t a t e m e n tt o i mp e a c h b y. Th e Court : I f h e ha sn ’t of fe re d a state me nt y e t. [De fe ns e c ouns e l]: An d the pr op e r wa y , if I un de rs tand c or

re c tly , Yo ur Ho no r, is that he a sk e d, have y ou

e ve r m a de that st a te me nt. Th e Court : No , h e a sk e d h im i f h e ha d e ve r f ile d a laws uit

. [Defense counsel]: Oh. Q. Th e Ho us ton Pr e ss i s a pe ri od ic a l out of

Ho us ton , is n’ t it ? A. Cor re c t. Q. And y ou have be en intervie wed by a p er s on who writes f

or that na me d Ri c ha

rd Conne lly ; is n’ t th at c or

re c t? A. Ido n’ t r e me mbe r h is n a me . I have be e n in te rv ie we d b y him

. Q. An d th is w a s b a c k in 19 98 ; is n’ t th a t c or

re c t? A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. And in that, y ou explained to him how y ou have be en

ba sic a lly ha ra sse d b y the De e r P ark

po lic e ; is n’ t th a t r ig ht? A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. And so y ou sued them for $5 milli on? A. Th a t is c or re c t. Q. No w, y our w if e kn e w a bo ut t his laws uit , r ig ht?11

A
. N o tr e a l l y. Q
. N o tr e a l l y? A. No. Q. Husband files a suit for $5 milli on and the wife doesn’t know a bo ut i t; i s th a t r ig ht? A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. Okay . So when y ou told me a sec on d ago that when you

made the statement, “I have ta k en on better police depar tments than y ou,” y ou said , “I didn’t r eally mean any thing by that,” y ou actua lly

have done that, haven’ t y ou? A. No. Q. Wel l, you su e d th e m, r ig ht? A. Isu e d th e m and Idr op pe d it

. Q. Wel l, t hat is no t w hat I

a m a sk ing . Y ou

su e d th e m? A. Isu e d th e m. Q. For $5 milli on? A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. Okay . You made alleg ations about all kinds of hara ssment by the police de partment, didn’t y ou? A. Yes, sir. Q. Yo u ma de a lle g a tio ns of be a tin g by

the De e r P a

rk po lic e ; is that c or re c t? A. May Ise e it? Q. Sure. I f y ou can, r ead that statement that he attributed to y ou.12

A. Idid n’ t a c c us e De e r P ark

of do ingit. Q. Oh , e xcu se me , H arr is C ounty She ri ff ’s De pa rtme nt. A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. So y ou have a ccuse d Har ris County

Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment of beatingy ou? A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. But y ou sued De er Par k police? A. Isued both. Q. So y ou have su e d b oth . So y ou have take n o n th e Ha

rr is County Sheriff’ s Depa

rt m en t and the De er Par k Police De pa rtme nt? A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. You also made the alleg ation that at one point the police— [D e f e n s e c o u n s e l] : J udg e, I a m g o in g to o b je c t to th is b e in g im

p e a c h me n t on a collater al issue. [Discussion betwe en the attorne y s and the trial c ourt, and que stion and answer o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f

t h e j u r y] Q. May Icontinue, Your

Honor? T h e C o u rt : Y o um ay. Q. Mr. Gross, whe n this reporter intervi ewe d y ou, y ou made a lle g a tio ns tha

t on on e oc c a sio n th e De e r P ark police g ot a Har ris County

deputy to beat on y ou, and that y ou t old the re p o rt er wh en h e s t ar t edb ea t i n g o n y o u , y o u s t ar t edco u n t i n g, and he str uc k y ou 27 tim e s; i s th a t c or

re c t? A. Th a t is c or re c t.13

Q. You s aid y ou have be en fig hting with the police depar tment fo r t e n y e ars ; is that c or

re c t? A. Th a t so un ds ri g ht. Q. So y ou had a ten-y ear long fig ht with the Deer Park police a

nd the Ha rr is C ounty

She ri ff ’s De pa rtme nt? A. No t th e Ha rr is C ounty

She ri ff ’s De pa rtme nt. Q. But they are the ones that be at y ou— A. Th a t’ s c or re c t. Q. —at D e e r P ark ’s ins tr uc tio ns ; is that r ig ht? A. Cor re c t. Q. You made a lleg ations that a deputy at the Deer Par

k police’s ins tr uc tio ns g ra

bb e d y ou by the ank le and

dr a g g e d y ou

a c ro ss the floor be cause

— A. Ithi nk that’ s w hat it sa

y s inc or re c tly

. I t w a s a

Ha rr is C ounty d e p u t y. Q. Okay . So it was a Har ris County

deputy that dragg ed y ou a c ro ss t he fl oo r at th e De e r P ark

po lic e ’s

— A
. N o , a tt h e H ar r i s C o u n t y f

a c i l i t y. Q. So a Harris Co unty

de pu ty did it b e c a us e the Ha

rr is C ounty wanted to do that to y ou? A
. I h a v e n o i d e a w h y. Q. You made a lleg ations on that same occasion whe n y ou wer e

drag g ed that the police took 5,000 in cash fr om y ou; i s that ri g ht? A. Th a t is c or re c t. Q. But y ou have no w ay to prove that be cause it was just cash?14

A. Th a t is c or re c t. Q. An d th is w a s ju st a n a lle g a tio n b y

y ou , r ig ht? A. I t was the truth by me. Q. An d it wa s b a sic a lly a six- pa g e art ic le , a

nd the on ly purp os e of the intervie w is the police a re ha rassing y ou; i s n ’t that ri g ht? A. The purpose of the a rticle? Q. Yea h. A. Idon’t know what the purpose of the Houston Press coming ou t and int e rv ie wi ngme wa s. Q. Well, I mean, that was the whole topic of this interview that

wa s— A. Wel l, I do n’ t kn owwh a t th e ir

purp os e wa s. Q. Okay . My question is now, that’s the whole topic, is y ou making alleg ations that can’ t be proved by any body but y ou, c or re c t? A. No, there ’s other pe ople. Q. Wel l, you dr op pe d y our l aws uit ? A. Idr op pe d my laws uit

. Q. Would y ou ag ree with me that if any body was beat 27 times by a police de partment, that would be pretty easy to prove? Imean, you would have injurie s all over; ag ree ? A. Idid. Q. Ok ay . B ut you dr op pe d th e laws uit ? A. Th a t’ s c or re c t.15

Q. The police depar tment just flat out said y ou wer e lying a bout a ll o f t hat; i sn ’t that c or re c t? A. T h ey d i d ; t h ey d en i edev ery

t h i n g.

The State fir st arg ues that appe llant o p ened the door to this line of questioning by testify ing that “I would not ever hit a poli ce, nor would Iever

challeng e a police .” See D aggett v. Sta te , 187 S.W .3d 444, 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding t hat impeac hment on a collate ral matter is pe r mi s s ib le to c o r

r e c t a f a ls e im p r e s s io nc r e a te d

b y th e w it n e s s )

. I nr e s p o n s e to a

f ollow-up question by

the State, appe llant testified, “I think y ou are talki n g ab o u t a v er bal as opposed to a phy sical, and I would never challeng e a police office r with a phy sical.” A ppellant made c lear

that he wa s te sti fy

ingtha t he wo uld no t phy sic a lly

c ha lle ng e a

po lic e of fi c e r. Th is d id n ot l e a ve a fa lse impression that appellant would not c halleng e a police depar tment in court. We rejec t the State’s

ar gu m en tt h at ap p el l an to p en edt h e d o o r t o s u ch qu es t i o n i n g.

The State nex t argues t hat any err or in allowing this li ne of que stioning wa s rende red harmless by

appellant’ s testimony prior to the impeac hment on a collate ral matter objection made by defe nse counse l. Se e Le da y v . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that t h e erroneous a dmission of evidence will not result in reversa l when the same evidenc e wa s elsewhe re r ece ived without objection). We ag ree . When the State beg an to a sk appellant que stions ab o u t h is la

w s u it a g a in s t t

h e D e e r Pa r k Po li c e D e p artm e n t a

n d th e H ar r is Co u n ty

Sh e r if f’s Depa rtment, appe llant objected on a differ ent basis than he raises on appea l a nd did not rece ive an adver se ruling. Thus, appellant has failed to prese rve error for review reg arding the t estimony prior16

to appellant’s impea chment on a c o llatera l issue objection. See Tex. R. App. P . 33.1(a) (2) ( providing that err or is prese rved only if the tri al court made an adve rse r uling or ref used to rule a

nd the
c omp la ini ngpa

rt y ob je c te d to the re fu sa l) . The tr ia l c ourt ov e rr ule d a pp e lla nt’ s o bje c tio ns that th is line of questioning constituted impeachme nt on a collater al matter and was more unfairly prejudicia l than probative. Thus, appellant pr eser ved er ror f rom that point forwa

rd. Appellant fa iled to preser ve er ror r eg arding his te stimony that he sued the Dee r Park Police Depa

rtment and Ha

rris County

Sheri ff ’s Depa

rtment for $5 million for har assment and f or
a be a tin g , a

nd that he e ve ntuall y

dr op pe d th is l aws uit . App e lla nt p re se rv e d e rr or

re g ard inghis testimony that he was struck 27 times during the beating, that the harassment by the Deer P ark police lasted for ten y ear s, that the Dee r Park police instructed a H arr is County deputy to beat him, that the po lic e sto le $5 ,0 00 fr om h im o n th e same da y the be a tin g too k pla c e , an d tha t the po lic e de nie d a ll his a lle g a tio ns . We hold t h at any err or re g ardingthe testimony for whic h err or wa s prese rved w as harmless. See Tex. R. Ap p . P
. 44.2(b) ( providing that appellate courts must disreg ard nonconstitutional e rror that does not a ffe ct substantial r ights). The jury had alr eady

hear d evidenc e that appellant sue d two police depa rtments for $5 milli on beca use t hey hara ssed and be at him, and tha t h e e v e n tu a l l y dr o p p e d t h e l aw s u i t b e f o r e t h e t e s t i m o n y i n qu e s t i o n . T h e t e s t i m o n y t h a tis proper ly prese rved for review by

this Court i ncludes the dur ation of the c onflict betwe en appe llant and the De er Par

k police, the number

of times he wa s struck duringthe beating, the re ason for the b e a t i n g , an a l l e g a t i o n o f t h e f t b y t h e p o l i c e , an d t h e d e n i a l o f t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s b y th e p o li c e . We have fa ir a ssu ra nc e that th is t e sti mony

did no t in fl ue nc e the ju ry or ha d o nly a sli g ht e ff

e c t in producingappellant’ s conviction for a ssault ag ainst a public ser vant. Se e So lom on v . S

tat e , 4917

S.W .3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). This is because the testimony in question merely

fleshed
ou t so me de ta ils re g ard ing an is su e that w a s a lr e a dy be fo re the jur

y wi tho ut o bje c tio n. We o ve rr ule appellant’ s third issue.
CO NC LU SION

Havingoverr

uled all of a

ppell ant’s issues on appe al, we a ffirm the judg ment of
c on vic tio n e nte re d b y

the tr ia l c ourt
.

______________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Oc tober 3, 2006 Do Not Publish