## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 198- CR
K E NNE T H E DW AR D S AND E R S AP P E L L ANT A/ K/A KENN ET H EDW ARD S SAN DERS V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA L DI STRI CT CO URT NO . 3 OF T ARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OP I NI ON

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON A j ury f ound A ppe l l ant Kennet h Edw ar d Sande r s gui l t y of t hr ee cou nt s of a g g r a v a ted se x u a l as sa u l t of a ch i l d an d as se ss e d h i s p u n i sh m e n t at thirty y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t o n e a c h c h a rg e . T h e tr i a l c o u rt s e n te n c e d S a n d e rs con si st entw i t h t he j ury’ s f i ndi ngsan d or d e re d th e t hr ees ent enc est o r un con se cut i vel y. I n t hr ee poi nt s, Sande r s con t end s t hat t he t r i alco urter r ed by (1 ) a d m i ttin g e v i d e n c e o f a n e x tra n e o u s o ffe n s e , (2 ) d e n y i n g h i sre q u e s t fo r a2

l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on, an d ( 3) ove r r ul i ng hi s o b j e c ti on t o t he j ury c har ge on p u n i s h m e n t. W e w i l l a ffir m .

II. F ACT UALAND P RO CEDU RA L B ACKGROUND I n 1998, S a n d e rs m ar r i ed D . S. Att hatt i m e, D . S. ha d t hr eeyou ng chi l dr en— t w o gi r l s and a boy. O ne oft hos e c hi l dr en, D . G . , i s t he com pl ai nan t i n t h i s c a s e a n d wa st e n y e a r s o l d wh e n S a n d e r sa n d h e rmo t h e rma r r i e d . D. G. t es t i f i ed t hatSande r s f or ce d he r i nt o a s exu alr el at i ons hi p w i t h hi m be gi nni ng w h e n s h e w a se l e v e n y e a rso l d a n d c o n ti n u i n g fo r s e v e ra l y e a rs . D ur i ng t he cour se of t hi s r el at i onshi p, D . G . sai d t hatSan der s w oul d f or ce h e r to e n g a g e e i th e r i n s e x u a l o r o ra l i n te rc o u rs e w i th h i m e v e ryd a yo r e v e ry o th e r d a y . A d d i ti o n a l l y , w h e n D .G . h a d s l e e p o v e rsw i th h e r g i rl fri e n d s , S a n d e rs f o r c e d h e rt o s u b m itt o a n d p e r f o r m o r a l a n d s e x u a l in t e r c o u r s e w it h h im in f r ontofhe rf r i end s. D. G . ’ s gi r l f r i end s w er e a l l ab outD . G . ’ s age — r ang i ng f r om e l e v e n to th i rte e n y e a rs o l d . D .G . a l s o te s ti fi e d th a t, o n o n e o c c a s i o n , S a n d e rs bou ght dr ugs and, i n l i eu of m oney paym ent , al l ow ed t he dr ug deal ert o f or ce D .G . to h a v e b o th s e x u a l a n d o ra l i n te rc o u rs e w i th h i m . T h e S ta te a d d i ti o n a l l y p re s e n te d th e te s ti m o n y o f tw o o f D . G .’s gi r l f r i ends, w ho cor r obo r at ed D . G . ’ s t est i m ony r egar di ng t he f or ced i nt er cour se w i t h S a n d e r s d u r i n g t h e s l e e p o v e r s . I n h i s d e f e n s e , S a n d e r s d e n i e d a l l of D . G . ’ s al l ega t i onsan d c l ai m ed t hat D . G . w as f abr i ca t i ng t he st ory i n r et al i at i on3

fo r S a n d e rs’s m o v i n g h e r an d h e r f a m i l yto a d i fferen t Fo rtW o rt h su b u rb i n l a te 2 0 0 0 . A f t erhe ar i ng t he t es t i m ony oft hes e a nd ot herw i t nes se s, t he j ury f ound Sande r s gui l t y o f th re e cou nt s ofag gr ava t ed se xua l as sa ul tofa chi l d a nd a s s e s s e d h i sp u n i s h m e n t a t th i rtyy e a rs ’ i n c a rc e ra ti o n o n e a c h c o u n t. S a n d e rs now appeal s. III. A DMI SSI ON O F E XTRANEO US O F F EN SE E VIDENCE I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , Sande r s com pl ai ns t hat t he t r i al cou rter r ed by a l l ow i ng D . G . ’ s t es t i m ony t hatSande r s “g ave ” D . G . t o hi s dr ug de al eran d a l l ow ed t he deal ert o sexual l y abuse D . G . i n l i eu ofm o n e y paym entf ort he dr ugs. Such t est i m ony, San d e rs cont ends, w as i r r el evant , and, assum i ng t hati tw as re l evant , w as ext r em el y pr ej udi ci al and ofl i t t l e pr obati ve val ue. W e addr ess e a c h a rg u m e n t i n tu rn . A . St and ard ofRevi ew f orRel eva nceD et er m i nat i ons R u l e 4 0 4 (b) em b o d i e s th e es tab l i sh e d p ri n c i p l e th a t a d e fen d a n t i s n o t t o b e tri e d fo r c o l l a te ra l c ri m e so r fo r b e i n g a c ri m i n a l g e n e ra l l y . T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 4 (b ); Nobles v. State, 8 4 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); Russ ell
v. S tate , 1 1 3 S .W .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 5 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f’d ); Bo o ker v. S tate , 1 0 3 S .W .3 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 0 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 3 , p e t. r ef ’ d) ( op. o n re h ’g) . Conse que nt l y, ev i den ceofex t r ane ousof f ens esi s not4

adm i ssi bl e att he gui l t - i nno cence phase oft r i al t o pr ove t hata def endan tact ed i n c o n fo rm i tyw i th h i sc h a r a c t e rb yc o m m i ttin g th e c h a rg e d o ffe n s e . T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 4 (b ); Russ ell, 1 1 3 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 5 ; Bo oker, 1 0 3 S .W .3 d a t 5 2 9 . H o w e v e r , t h e T e x a sL e g is la t u r e h a sd e t e r m i ne d t h a t , n o t w it h s t a n d in g ru le 404 , ev i den ce o f o th e rcr i m es , w r ongs , orac t s com m i t t ed by t he def end ant agai nsta chi l d und ersevent een year s ol d w ho i s t he vi c tim o f t he al l eged o ffen se sh a l l b e a d m i tted for i ts b e a ri n g o n rel e v a n t m a tters, su c h as the sta te ofm i nd of t he def end ant and t he chi l d and t he r el at i ons hi p oft he def end antan d th e c h i l d b e fo re a n d a fte r th e o ffe n s e . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 38. 37, § 2 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); D i x o nv. S tate , 201 S . W .3d 731, 734– 35 ( Tex. C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). C o u rt s o f a p p e a lsh a v e t h e r e f o r e re c o g n iz e d t h a ta rt ic le 38 . 37 , sect i on 2 super sedes appl i cat i on of r ul e 40 2 an d m akes ot her w i se i rre l e v a n t e v i d e n c e re l e v a n t. Jo n es v. S tate , 119 S . W . 3d 412, 420 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.); Hitt v. S tate , 53 S. W . 3d 697, 704– 05 ( Tex. A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 1 , p e t. re f’d ); W a l ker v. S tate , 4 S. W . 3d 98, 102– 03 ( Tex. A p p .— W a c o 1 9 9 9 , p e t. re f’d ); A l l red v. S tate , No. 11- 04- 00026

- CR, 2006 W L 102 908 3, at*2 ( Tex . A p p .— Eas t l and Sept . 13, 2006 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( not des i gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) . Ev en so , t he St at e, ast he pr opone ntofext r ane ous of f ens e e vi den ce , ne vert hel es s bea r s t he bur den of sh ow i ng adm i ss i bi l i t y oft he1 ... R i c k yS a n d e rsi sth e c o u s i n o f A p p e l l a n t K e n n e th E d w a rd S a n d e rs

a n d , to a v o i d c o n fu s i o n , w i l l b e re fe rre d to a s“ R i c k y ” h e re i n a fte r. 5 e v i d e n c e u n d e r a rti c l e 3 8 .3 7 . S e eRa n ki nv. S tate , 974 S. W . 2d 707 , 718 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ). R u l i n g s o n rel e v a n c e sh o u l d b e l e ft l a rge l y to the tr i a l co u rt , rel y i n g o n i ts ow n obs ervat i onsan d e xpe r i enc e, an d w i l l not be r eve r se d abs entan ab us e o f d i s c re ti o n . Sa la za r v. S tate , 3 8 S .W .3 d 1 4 1 , 1 5 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Mo ren o v. S tate , 8 5 8 S .W .2 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 510 U .S . 9 6 6 (1 9 9 3 ). Ift h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s ru lin g w a sw it h in t h e “ z o n e o fre a s o n a b le d i s a g re e m e n t,” th e n th e re i sn o a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n , a n d t h e a p p e l l a te c o u rt m u s t u p h o l d th e tri a l c o u rt’sru l i n g . Moreno , 8 5 8 S .W .2 d a t 4 6 3 ; Jones , 119 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 9 . B. Rel eva nceofD . G . ’ s Tes t i m ony D ur i ng D . G . ’ s t est i m ony, th e S ta te asked D . G . w het hershe knew an i n d i v i d u a l b y th e n a m e o f R i c k yS a n d e rs and i f anyt hi ng un usual had happ ened 1

w i t h hi m . A tt hatpoi nt , San der s obj ect ed t h a t th e t est i m ony the St at e w as seeki ng t o el i ci tw as i r r el evant . Th e t r i al court over r ul ed t he obj ect i on, atw hi ch poi ntSan der s ar gued t hat t he t est i m ony w as r el at ed t o an ext r aneou s of f ense a n d a s k e d f o r a l i mi t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . T h e t r i a l c o u rt , n o t k n o wi n g wh atD . G.6

w asgoi ng t o s a y , e x cus ed t he j ury a nd c onduc t ed a b r i efhe ar i ng on t he
m a tte r. D ur i ng t he hea r i ng, t he St at e e xpl ai ned w hatD . G . ’ s t es t i m ony w oul d be and ar gue d t hati tw asad m i ss i bl e u nde rart i cl e 38. 37, s ec t i on 2 of t he cod e o f cr i m i nal pr ocedu r e. S ander s r espond ed t hat t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ectout w ei ghed a nyp rob a ti vev a l ueo ft het e s t i m on y. Th e t r i a l c ou rtr e vi e w e d a rt i c l e 38. 37 and de t er m i ned t hatD . G . ’ s t es t i m ony abo utRi ck y w asad m i ss i bl e u nde rs ec t i on tw o o f th a t a rti c l e . T h e tri a l c o u rt th e n c a l l e d th e j u ry b a c k i n a n d g a v e th e j u ry t he f ol l ow i ng a dm oni sh m ent : “ I am i ns t r uct i ng y ou a tth i s poi ntt hatt he f ol l ow i ng t es t i m o n y i s be i ng a dm i t t ed onl y f ort he pur pos e o fs how i ng t he p r e v io u s a n d s u b s e q u e n t r e la t io n s h ip b e t w e e n t h e d e f e n d a n ta n d t h e c h ild , if i tdoe s, and not f or t he pur pos e of sh ow i ng a cr i m e, i f i t doe s. ” I n i t s cha r ge att h e g u il t- i nno cence st age, t he t r i al courtl i kew i se i nst r uct ed t he j ur y as f ol l ow s: You ar e i ns t r uct ed t hat i f t her e i s anyt es t i m ony bef or e y ou i n t hi s case r egar di ng t he D ef endan t ’ s havi ng al l egedl y com m i t t ed of f enses[ , ] w r ong s[ , ] or act s ot hert han t he of f ense al l eged agai nst h im in t h e in d ic t m e n tin t h is c a s e , y o u c a n n o tc o n s id e rs a id t e st i m ony f oran y pu r pos e u nl es s you f i nd a nd be l i evebe yond a r e a s o n a b le d o u b tt h a t t h e d e f e n d a n tc o m m it t e d s u c h o f f e n s e s , if anyw er e c om m i t t ed, an d e ven t hen you m a y o n l y c ons i dert he sam e i n det er m i ni ng t he m ot i ve, oppo rt uni t y, i nt ent , know l edge, [ or ] i den t i t y[ ] f ort hi s def end antnow on t r i albe f or e y ou, or t o s how t he pr evi ousan d s ubs equ entr el at i ons hi p be t w ee n t he def end ant a n d th e c h i l d , i f i t d o e s , a n d fo r n o o th e r p u rp o s e .7

D . G . t hen t es t i f i ed t hat Sande r s’ s cou si n, Ri ck y, w asa dr ug de al eran d t hat R i cky sol d m et ham phetam i ne t o S ander s. O n one occasi on, San der s ei t her di d notha ve t he m one y t o pa y f ort he dr ugsors i m pl y di d notw antt o payf or t he dr ugs . Thataft er noon, S a n d e r s app r oac hed D . G . an d t ol d he rt hats he
w oul d be spendi ng t he r estof t he af t er noo n w i t h R i cky. D . G . di d not suspect anyt hi ng, but Ri ck y t ook herba ckt o hi s apa rt m entan d f or ce d D. G . t o e nga ge i n b o th o ral an d se x u a l i n terc o u rse w i th h i m . D .G . l a ter l e a rne d tha t se xw i th herw as Sand er s’ s f or m ofpaym entt o R i cky f ort he m et ham phetam i ne. O n a p p e a l, S a n d e r sc o n t e n d st h a tb e c a u s e h e w a sin d ic t e d f o rs p e c if ic ac t s ofs exu alab us e a gai ns tD . G . , t he i nci den tw i t h Ri ck y t o s ett l e a dr ug de bt
w as com pl et el y i r r el evant , as i t di d not t end t o m ake any f actofconsequen ce m or e orl ess pr obab l e t han i tw oul d be w i t hou tt he evi dence. The S t at e ar gues, a s i td i d a tt het r i a l l e ve l , t ha tt het e s t i m on y i s rel e va ntu nd e ra rt i c l e 38. 37, s e c ti o n 2 o f th e c o d e o f c ri m i n a l p ro c e d u re a ss h o w i n g S a n d e rs ’sa n d D .G .’s s ta te s o f m i n d a n d th e i r p re v i o u sa n d s u b s e q u e n t re l a ti o n s h i p . D .G .’ s t e s t im o n y c o n c e r n in g t h e e v e n t sw it h R ic k yw a sre le v a n tin t h is case t o d e mo n s t r a t e t h e u n n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p S a n d e r shad d e v e l o p e d to w a rd D .G . S ee Jones , 11 9 S . W . 3d at42 0 ( hol di ng t hatevi dence of t he def endan t ’ s act i ons i nvol vi ng t he chi l d vi ct i m and t hi r d pa rt y c h il d r en w asr el eva ntt o s how t he def end ant ’ s st at e o fm i nd a nd r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he8

c o m p l a i n a n t); E

rns t v. S tate , 971 S. W . 2d 698, 700 ( Te x. App . — Aus t i n 1998,
n o p e t.); Co m ea uxv. S tate , Nos . 14- 03- 01223

- CR, 14- 03- 01224

- CR, 14- 03- 01 22 5- C R , 20 05 W L 11 49 79 5, at *5 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] M ay 17, 2005 , pet . r ef ’ d) ( notde si gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) ( hol di ng e vi den cet hatt he def end ants ol i ci t ed a t hi r d pa rt y t o hav e se x w i t h t he chi l d vi ct i m w asr el eva nt to s h o w th e d e fe n d a n t’ s s t a t e o f m i n d a n d h i sre l a ti o n s h i p w i th th e v i c ti m ). The t es t i m ony r eve al ed Sande r s’ s st at e o fm i nd a nd r el at i ons hi p w i t h D. G . by dem ons t r at i ng t hatSande r s sa w s ex w i t h D. G . asa t r ada bl e g ood t hathet ook l i ght l y. Sand er s’ s al l ow i ng a n a d ul tm al e t o s exu al l y a bus e D. G . t hus dem ons t r at ed hi s ow n s t at e o fm i nd and r el at i ons hi p w i t h D. G . M or eov er , t he t r i al cou rt sp ec i f i ca l l y i ns t r uct ed t he j ury no tt o c ons i dert he evi den cef oran y p u r p o s e o t h e rt h a n s h o wi n g t h e s t a t e s o fmi n d a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t we e n D. G. a n d S a n d e rs . S ee Jones , 119 S. W . 3d a t420. T he r efore, co ns i de r i ng art i cl e 3 8 . 3 7 an d t he ev i de nc e ad m i t t ed at tr ia l,
w e cannot say w i t h confi dence t hat t he evi dence ofw hathappen ed w i t h R i cky d i d n o t m a k e i t m o re p rob a b l e tha t S a n d e rs i n fac t h a d s e x u a l rel a ti o n s w i th D . G . h i m s e l f. S ee Montgom ery v. State, 8 1 0 S . W . 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 9 1 ( T ex . C r im . A pp. 1990 ) ( op. on r eh’ g) . Thusw e h ol d t hat D . G . ’ s t es t i m ony con ce r ni ng t he e v e n ts w i th R i c k yw a sre l e v a n t. See Moreno , 858 S. W . 2d a t463.9

C . St and ard ofRevi ew f orRul e 403 D et er m i nat i on E v i d e n c e th a t i s rel e v a n t u n d e r a rt i c l e 3 8 .3 7 i s n e v e rt h e l e ss su bje c tto ex c l u s i o n i f i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t we i g h e d b y t h e d a nge rof
u n fa irpr ej udi ce, conf usi on of t he i ssues, m i sl eadi ng t he j ur y, orneedl ess p re s e n ta ti o n o f c u m u l a ti v e e v i d e n c e . T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 3 ; Hitt, 53 S. W . 3d at 7 0 6 ; Po o lev. S tate , 9 7 4S .W .2 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 7 ( T e x . A p p .— A u sti n 1 9 9 8 , p e t. r ef ’ d) . O nl y “ unf ai r ” pr ej udi cepr ovi dest he bas i s f orex cl us i on ofr el eva nt e v i d e n c e . Mont

g o m ery, 810 S . W . 2d at389. Unf ai rpr ej udi cear i se s f r om evi dence t hat has an und ue t enden cy t o suggest t hat a deci si on be m ade on an i m p ro p e r b a s i s , c o m m o n l ya n e m o ti o n a l o n e . Id. W hen a def endan tm akes a r ul e 40 3 o bj ect i on, t he t r i al court has a non di scr et i onar y obl i gat i on t o w ei gh t he pr obati ve val ue oft he evi dence agai nst th e u n fa i r p rej u d i c e o f i ts a d m i s s i o n . Id. I n ove r r ul i ng su ch an obj ec t i on, t he t r i al courti s ass um ed t o have appl i ed a r ul e 40 3 b al anci ng t estand det er m i ned th e e v i d e n c e w a sa d m i s s i b l e . S e ePo o le , 974 S . W . 2d a t897; Y a tesv. S tate , 9 4 1 S .W .2 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 7 (T e x . A p p .— W a c o 1 9 9 7 , p e t. re f’d ); Ca b a l lero v. S tate , 9 1 9 S .W .2 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 2 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s t o n [ 1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 6 , p e t. re f’d ). Rul e 403 doe s notr equ i r e t hatt he t r i alco urtpe r f or m t he bal anc i ng t es t on t he re c o rd . Po o le , 9 7 4S .W .2 d a t 8 9 7 ; Y ates , 941 S. W . 2d a t367.10

The t r i alco urti s gi ven w i d e l a t i t udet o a dm i torex cl udeev i den ceof e x tra n e o u so ffe n s e s . S e eMo n tg o m ery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d a t3 9 0 ; Po o le , 974 S .W .2 d a t 8 9 7 . A re v i e w i n g c o u rt m u s t th e re fo re re c o g n i z e th a t th e tri a l c o u rt i s i n a s upe r i orpos i t i on t o ga uget he i m pac toft he r el eva nt evi den ce and not r e v e r s e a t r ia l c o u rt ’s ru lin g ifitisw it h in t h e “ z o n e o fre a s o n a b le di sagr eem ent . ” Mozon v. S ta te, 991 S . W . 2d 841, 847 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ); Mo n tg o m ery , 810 S . W . 2d at391. I n ba l anc i ng pr oba t i ve val ue and unf ai rpr ej udi ceunde rr ul e 403, an app el l at e cou rtpr es um est hatt he pr oba t i ve v a l u e w i l l o u tw e i g h a n y p rej u d i c i a l e ffe c t. Mont gom ery, 810 S. W . 2d a t389. I ti s t her ef or e t he obj ec t i ng pa rt y’ s bur den t o d e m o n s tr at e t hatt he pr oba t i ve v a l u e i s s u b s ta n ti a l l yo u tw e i g h e d b yth e d a n g e r o f u n fa i r p rej u d i c e . Hi nojosa v. Sta te , 995 S. W . 2d 955, 958 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 1999 , no p e t.); Po o le , 974 S. W . 2d a t897. A n app el l at e cou rtm us tm ea su r e t he t r i alco urt ’ s bal anc i ng de t er m i nat i on a g a i n s t th e re l e v a n t c ri te ri a b yw h i c h a ru l e 4 0 3 d e c i s i o n i sm a d e . Mozon, 991 S. W . 2d at847. The r el eva ntcr i t er i a i n de t er m i ni ng w het hert he pr ej udi ceof a n e xt r a ne ou so f f e ns e s ub s t a nt i a l l y ou t w e i gh si t s pr ob a t i vev a l uei nc l ud e ( 1) how co m pel l i ngl y t he ext r ane ousof f ens e e vi den ces ervest o m ak e a f ac tof c o n se q u e n c e m o re o r l e ss p rob a b l e — a fac to r w h i c h i s re l a ted to th e stren g th of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p r o p o n e n t t o s h o w t h e d e f e n d a n t i n f act2 ... B e c a u s e S a n d e rso bj e c te d o n s p e c i fi c g ro u n d sa n d th e tri a l c o u rt

ove r r ul ed hi s obj ec t i on, w e a ss um e t hatt he t r i alco urt a p p l i ed r ul e 403 and 11 com m i t t ed t he ext r aneou s of f ense; ( 2) t he potent i al t he ot herof f ense evi dence ha s t o i m pr e s st hej ury “ i n s om e i r r a t i on a l b utn e ve rt he l e s si nd e l i bl e w a y” ; ( 3) th e ti m e th e p ro p o n e n t w i l l n e e d to d e v e l o p th e e v i d e n c e , d u ri n g w h i c h th e j u ry w i l l be di st r act ed f r om consi der at i on of t he i ndi ct ed of f ense; and ( 4) t he f or ce oft he pr opo nent’ s need f or t hi s evi dence t o pr ove a f act ofconsequen ce, t hat is , d o e s t h e p r o p o n e n t h a v e o t h e rp r o b a t iv e e v id e n c e a v a ila b le t o h im t o h e lp est abl i sh t hi s f act , and i s t hi s f actr el at ed t o an iss ue i n di sput e. Id . ( ci t i ng Mo n tg o m ery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d a t 3 8 9

– 9 0 ). W hen t he r el eva ntcri te ri a a r e v i ew ed obj ec t i vel y a nd l ea d t o t he con cl us i on t hatt he dan gerofunf ai rpr ej udi ces ubs t ant i al l y ou t w ei ghst he p ro b a ti v e v a l u e o f th e p ro ffe re d e v i d e n c e , th e a p p e l l a t e c o u rt s h o u l d d e c l a re th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b y f a i l i n g to e x c l u d e i t. Curti s v. State, 89 S . W . 3d 163 , 170 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2002, pe t . r ef ’ d) ( ci t i ng Mo n tg o m ery , 810 S .W .2 d a t 3 9 2 ). D . Rul e 403 and D . G . ’ s Tes t i m ony S ander s ar gues t hatt he pr ej udi ci al ef f ectofD . G . ’ s ext r aneou s of f ense t est i m ony i nvol vi ng R i cky f arout w ei ghed i t s pr obati ve val ue and t hat t he t r i al c o u rt th e refo re e rr e d b y o v e rr u l i n g h i s o bj e c ti o n to i t. Appl yi ng t her ul e 403 2d e t e r m in e d t h a tt h e p r o b a t iv e v a lu e o ft h e e v id e n c e w a sn o ts u b s t a n t ia lly

o u tw e i g h e d b ya n yd e g re e o f u n fa i r p rej u d i c e . S e ePo o le , 974 S. W . 2d a t897; Y ates , 941 S. W . 2d a t367. 12 bal anci ng f act o rs , w e f i r stexam i ne how com pel l i ngl y t he ext r aneou s act i nvol vi ng D . G . and R i cky show s Sand er s’ s gui l ti n com m i t t i ng t he c h a r ged of f ens es. S eeMozon , 99 1 S . W . 2d at84 7. H er e, t he i ndi ct m entchar ges Sande r s w i t h, o n v a ri ousoc ca si ons , i nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y c aus i ng t he pen et r at i on ofD . G . ’ s f em al e s exu al or gan by i ns ert i ng hi s f i nge r , t ongue , an d
m al e s exu alor gan i nt o her f em al e s exu alor gan an d ofca us i ng t he pen et r at i on ofD . G . ’ s m out h w i t h hi s m al e se xua l or gan . Evi den ce t hat Sande r s w asw i l l i ng to a l l o w R i c k yto s e x u a l l ya s s a u l t D .G . i n th e s a m e m a n n e r i n w h i c h S a n d e rs w as charg e d m akes i tm or e l i kel y— but pr obab l y not com pel l i ngl y l i kel y— t hat h e h i ms e l fd i d t h e s a me t h i n g t o D. G. N ext , unde rt he se con d a nd t hi r d f ac t or s, w e e xam i ne t he pot ent i aloft he e v i dence t o i m pr ess t he j ur y i n som e i r r at i onal butnevert hel ess i ndel i bl e w ay a n d th e a m o u n t o f t i m e th e S ta te u s e d i n d e v e l o p i n g th e e v i d e n c e . See i d. D . G . ’ s t est i m ony ab out w hatRi cky di d t o herand S ander s’ s i nvol vem entm ay h a v e in f la m e d t h e ju ry , b u tt h e in c id e n t w it h R ic k y , a lt h o u g h h e in o u s , p a le d in com par i son t o D . G . ’ s gr aphi c t est i m ony ab out S ander s’ s r epeat ed sexual as sa ul t s ofhe rbe gi nni ng w h e n sh e w asel eve n ye ar s ol d a nd c ont i nui ng f or13

sever al year s. D . G . ’ s gr aphi c t e s tim ony co ncer ni ng S ander s’ s conduct ov e r s ha do w e d, by f a r , a ny i nf l a m m a t ory r e s po ns e t he j ury m a y ha veh a d to D .G .’s te s ti m o n yc o n c e rn i n g th e e v e n ts w i th R i c k y . F u rth e rm o re , D . G . ’s d e s c r ip t io n o ft h e in c id e n tw it h R ic k y c o n s is t e d o f lit t le m o r e t h a n o n e p a g e in al m os tt w o hundr ed pag es of t es t i m ony. A ddi t i ona l l y, D . G . ’ s br i eft es t i m ony abo ut th e i n ci den tw i t h Ri ck y w asf ol l ow ed by a s pec i f i c l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on f r om t he t r i al cou rt ( w hi ch w as al m os t as l ong as D . G . ’ s t es t i m ony abo utt he in c id e n t ) d ir e c t in g t h e ju ryt o c o n s id e rt h e e v id e n c e o n lyin a s m u c h a sit d e m o n s tra te d th e re l a ti o n s h i p b e tw e e n D .G . a n d S a n d e rs . C o n s e q u e n tl y , h e re t he ext r ane ousac ti nvol vi ng Ri ck y w as not l i ke l y t o c r ea t e s uch pr ej udi cei n t he
m i n d s o f th e j u rors th a t th e y w o u l d b e u n a b l e to c o n side r th e e v i d e n c e fo r i ts p ro p e r p u rp o s e . See i d. Looki ng t o t he f ourt h f act or , w e det er m i ne t he f or ce oft he S t at e’ s need fo r D .G .’s te s ti m o n ya b o u t t h e i n c i d e n t w i th R i c k y . See i d. T h e S tate possessed evi dence a nd t est i m ony co ncer ni ng S ander s’ s di r ectact s agai nst D .G . T h e S tate ’s n e e d fo r t h e tes ti m o n yw a s th u s o n l ysl i g h t. B e g i n n i n g w i th th e p re s u m p ti o n th a t D .G .’s te s ti m o n ya b o u t th e i n c i d e n t w i th R i c k yw a sm o re p ro b a ti v e th a n p rej u d i c i a l a n d e v a l u a ti n g i t u n d e r th e ru l e 4 0 3 fa c to rs , h o w e v e r, w e c a n n o t s a yth a t S a n d e rsw a s u n fa i rl yp rej u d i c e d b yD .G .’s te s ti m o n y . S ee i d. ; Mo n tg o m ery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d a t 3 8 9 . W e t h e r e f o r e h o ld t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rtd id14

notab us e i t s di sc r et i on byal l ow i ng D. G . ’ s t es t i m ony con ce r ni ng t he i nci den t
w i th R i c k y . Mozon , 991 S. W . 2d a t847. E. N o Har m f r om A dm itt i ng D. G . ’ s Tes t i m ony A l t er nat i vel y, even i f D . G . ’ s t est i m ony abou t t he i nci dent w i t h R i cky w as m or e pr ej udi ci al t han pr obati ve, her t est i m ony on t hi s poi nt w as nevert hel ess h a rm l e s s . S e eCo ckrel l v. S tate , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d 7 3 , 9 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), c ert. deni

e d , 52 0 U .S . 1 17 3 ( 19 97 ) ( cond uct i ng a har m anal ysi s aft er d e te rm i n i n g th a t th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t c o m m i t e rro r). I n m ak i ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, w e e va l u a te t he adm i ss i on oft he e x tra n e o u so ffe n s e e v i d e n c e i n th e c o n te x t o f th e e n ti re re c o rd . See Moti l l a v. S tate , 7 8 S .W . 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 5

– 5 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). H e re , th e re c o rd
r eveal s t hatt he S t at e spentvery l i t t l e t i m e on t he R i cky i nci dent. D . G . ’ s act ual t es t i m ony on t he i ss ue t ookup a l i t t l e ove r a pag e oft he al m os tt w o- hundr edp a g e r e c o rd. Fu rt h e rm o re, t h e S tate d i d n o t m e n ti o n the i n c i d e n t at alli n i ts ope ni ng s t at em ent and m ent i one d i t onl y br i ef l y i n c l os i ng a r gum ent s, s ayi ng,

“ Y o u m a y u s e a s in s t r u c t e d in t h e C o u rt ’s C h a r g e , a ll t h e t e s t im o n y , c o u s in R ic k y , a ll t h e o t h e rp a rt--w e ll, a c t u a llyw h a tI’ m t a lk in g a b o u tist h e s t u f fin Par ke rCount y. You ca n us e - - ut i l i z e t hat t es t i m ony i n your eva l uat i on, i fyou b e l i e v e b e y o n d a rea so n a b l e d o u b t th a t th a t o c c u rr e d .” T h e S tate w e n t o n to f o c u s s o l e l yo n t h e t e s t i mo n ya b o u t t h e s e x u a l a c t st h a tS a n d e r sf o r c e d D. G.15

t o pe r f or m i n f r ontofan d w i t h her gi r l f r i end s. The St at e d i d notpr es entan y o th e r w i tn e s s e sw h o te s ti fi e d a b o u t th e i n c i d e n t. C o n side r i n g the b ri e f pre se n tati o n o f ev i d e n c e ab o u t w h a t R i c k yd i d to D . G . and Sande r s’ s i nvol vem ent i n t he con t extoft he ent i r e r ec or d, w e c ann ot sa ytha t t h e tes ti m o n ysu b s t a n t i a l l ysw a y e d o r i n fl u e n c e d the j u ry’s v e rdict. S e e Kingv. S tate , 953 S . W . 2d 266, 271 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1997 ) ( ci t i ng Kotteakos v. United S tates , 3 2 8 U .S . 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 , 6 6 S . C t. 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 5 3 (1 9 4 6 )) ( es t abl i sh i ng t hatt her e i s no ha r m upon t he adm i ss i on ofev i den ceunl es s t he a d m i s s i o n h a d a s u b s t a n ti a l a n d i n j u ri o u si n fl u e n c e i n d e te rm i n i n g th e j u ry ’s ver di ct ) . Thus , e v e n i f th e e vi den ceofSande r s’ s t r adi ng s ex w i t h D. G . f or dr ugs w as m or e pr ej udi ci al t han pr obati ve, i tnevert hel ess w oul d have been h a rm l e ss erro r. A c c o rding l y , w e o v e rr u l e S a n d e rs’s fi rst po i n t. I V. L I MI T I NG I N S T R U C T I ON S ander s’ s second poi nti s t hatt he t r i al court er r ed by den yi ng hi s r equest f ora con t em por ane ousl i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on i n c onne ct i on w i t h t he adm i ss i on of a d i ffe re n t e x tra n e o u so ffe n s e . A . W hen a Tr i alCourtM us tG i ve a L i m it i ng I ns t r uct i on U n d e r T e x a sR u l e o f E v i d e n c e 1 0 5 (a ), W hen ev i den cew hi ch i s adm i ss i b l e a s to onepa rt y orf orone pur pose but n otadm i ssi bl e as t o anotherpart y orf oranot her pur pos e i s adm i t t ed, t he cou rt , upon r equ es t , s h a l l r es t r i ctt he16

e v i d e n c e to i ts p rop e r sc o p e an d i n stru c t t h e j u ry a c c o rding l y ; b u t, i n t he abs en c e o fs uch r equ es t[ , ] t he cou rt ’ s ac t i on i n a dm i t t i ng su ch evi den cew i t houtl i m i t at i on s hal l not be a gr ound f orco m pl ai nt o n a p p e a l. T EX . R. E VID . 1 0 5 (a ). The f i r stoppo rt uni t y t o r equ es ta l i m i t i ng i n s tru c ti on i s w hen t he te s ti m o n yi si n i ti a l l ya d m i tte d . S e eHa m m o ckv. S tate , 46 S. W . 3d 889, 895 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 01 ) . A l i m i t i ng i nst r uct i on on t est i m ony ab out an e x t r a n e o u so f f e n s e , ifre q u e s t e d , s h o u ld b e g i v e n w h e n t h e e v id e n c e is a d m i tte d a n d th e n a g a i n i n th e fi n a l j u ryc h a rg e . D el ga do v. S tate , 235 S. W . 3d 2 4 4 , 2 5 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Ham m ock , 46 S. W . 3d at 895 . G i vi ng t he lim it in g in s t r u c t io n in t h e ju ry c h a r g e a lo n e isin s u f f ic ie n tb e c a u s e itis i m pos si bl e f or j ur or s t o go bac k a tt he cl os e o ft he t r i alan d r ea ss es s t he evi dence i n l i ght oft he l i m i t i ng i nst r uct i on, even i f t hey coul d appr eci at e w hi ch i te m s o f e v i d e n c e th e i n s tru c ti o n w a ss u p p o s e d to a p p l yto . Ham m ock , 46 S. W . 3d at895. Thi s m ay r es ul ti n t he j ury dr aw i ng i nf er ence s a b outt he def endan t ’ s gui l tbased upon char act er confor m i t y, a use oft he evi dence t hat
w a s n o t c o n te m p l a te d b yth e tri a l c o u rt. D el gado , 235 S . W . 3d at251. The dang ert hen beco m es t hatt he i m pr operi nf er ence dr aw n canno tl at erbe er ased b ya n i n s tru c ti o n i n th e c h a rg e . Id.3 ... I n 2000, t he f am i l y m ov e d fr om Tar r antCount y t o Pa r ke rCount y.

S a n d e rsw a si n d i c te d o n l y fo r i n c i d e n ts th a t o c c u rre d i n T a rra n t C o u n ty , b e fo re th e m o v e to P a rk e r C o u n ty . 17 B. N ec es sity ofa Li m it i ng I ns t r uct i on forD . G . ’ s Tes t i m ony I n t hi s ca se , t he St at e so ught t o el i ci t t es t i m ony f r om D . G . a b o ut i nci den t s t hatha ppe ned w hen t w o of her bes tf r i end s, M . E. an d A. S. , bot h of
w hom w er e a ppr oxi m at el y D. G .’s a g e , sp entt he ni ghtatD . G . ’ s hous e. The St at e es t abl i sh ed t hat t hes e i nci den t s occ ur r ed i n Par ke r C o u nt y. T h e 3 f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e t hen oc cur r ed: Q . D i d the y[ M .E. an d A .S .] so m e ti m e s s p e n d the n i g h t? A . Y es. Q . D ur i ng t hi s t i m e w as t her e som et hi ng si gni f i cantt hatst art ed occ ur r i ng? A . W hen th ey st art ed t o st ay t he ni ght [ S ander s] w oul d st ay hom e m or e w hen m y m om w entout . H e s t art ed t o buyw i ne coo l er s aga i n. [ S A N D ER S ’ S A T T O R N EY ] : Y ou rH on or, at t hi s t i m e w e w o u ld obj ec tt o t hi s t es t i m ony, 401, 403 and 404, i t ’ s o u ts i de t he j u ri s d i c ti o n o f a n y th i n g -- A tt hatpoi nt , t he t r i alco urt not ed t he hour and t ook a r ec es s f orl unc h, s ayi ng t hati tw oul d r ul e a f t ert he l unc h br ea k. Bef or e b r i ngi ng t he j ury ba cki n f ort he af t er noo n sessi on, t he f ol l ow i ng exch ange t ook pl ace:18

TH E C O U R T: O kay. I th in k th e la s t th in g t hat happ ened a c tu a l l yw a sth e o bj e c ti o n b y[S a n d e rs ’sa tto rn e y ]. [ S TA TE ’ S A TT O R N EY ] : T h eo bj e c t i o n wa st o of f enses al l eged i n Par kerC oun t y, noti n T ar r ant C oun t y. H e obj ect ed t o t hose t hat th e c o u rtd id n ’th a v e ju ris d ic tio n o n th o s e , I b e li e v e th a t’ srig h t. Is t hatr i ght, [ S ander s’ s att or ney] ? Sande r s’ s att or neydi d notan sw er but eng age d i n a deb at e as t o w het hert he S tate s h o u l d res p o n d i n fr o n t of th e j u ry. T h e S tate u l ti m a tel yres p o n d e d to S a n d e rs ’so bj e c ti o n b y s a y i n g , “ U n d e r 4 0 4 (b ) a n d 3 8 .3 7 th e [S ]ta te s u b m i ts i t’s a d m i s s i b l e .”T h e tri a l c o u rt o v e rru l e d S a n d e rs ’so bj e c ti o n . D .G . th e n tes ti fi e d th a t, a fter t h e fam i l yh a d m o v e d fr o m T a rr a n t C o u n ty t o Pa r ke rCount y, Sande r s con t i nue d t o s ex u a l l y as sa ul the ri n a va r i et y of
w a y s. S a n d e rs “re n e w [ed ] th e o bj e c ti o n ” a n d so u g h t a c o n ti n u i n g o bj e c ti o n to th e t est i m ony. D . G . t hen t est i f i ed t hatone ni ght, she had a sl eepover ather h o u s e a n d i n v i te d M .E . a n d A .S . to s ta yth e n i g h t . S h e s a i d th a t S a n d e rs pr ovi ded w i ne cool er s and m ar ij uana t o t he t w el ve- and t hi rt een- year - ol d gi r l s. Then, Sande r s’ s att or neyobj ec t ed, [ S A N D ER S ’ S A TT O R N EY ] : Y ourH ono r , w e w oul d agai n o b ject a tt h is p o in tu n d e r4 0 1 , 4 0 3 , a n d 4 0 4 f o rt h e re a s o n sp r e v io u s ly sta ted . W e w o u l d as kfor a l i m i ti n g i n stru c ti o n at th i s p o i n t. TH E CO U RT: O ka y. I ’ l l ove r r ul e t he obj ec t i on. [ S AN D E R S ’ S AT T OR N E Y ] : Requ e s tf o ra l i mi t i ng i ns t r uct i on, y o u ’r e o v e r r u lin g t h a ta sw e ll?4 ... W e n ot e t hat Sande r s’ s obj ec t i ons and par al l el r equ es t f or a l i m i t i ng

i nst r uct i on w er e m ade und err ul es 40 1, 40 3, and 4 04 oft he r ul es ofevi dence 19 TH E CO U RT: I ’ l l de ny t he r equ es tf ora l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on. [ S AND E R S ’ S AT T OR NE Y] : S o I d o n ’ th a v e t o o bj e c tt o each que st i on, m ay I ha ve a c ont i nui ng obj ec t i o n to b o t h oft hos e a nd c o n ti n u i n g req u e st? T H E C O U R T : O k a y . D .G . t h e n w e n to n t o t e s t if y t h a t , d u r in g t h e s le e p o v e r , S a n d e r ss e x u a lly a s s a u lt e d h e rin f r o n to fM .E . a n d A .S . a n d h a d M .E . a n d A .S . a ls o s e x u a lly a s s a u lth e ra n d e a c h o t h e r . M .E . t e s t if ie d a ft e r D .G . a n d c o r r o b o r a t e d e x a c t ly
w hatD . G . ha d s ai d. Sand er s nev erobj ec t ed t o M . E. ’ s t es t i m ony. W e n ee d notde ci de w het hert he t r i al cou rt er r ed by not gi vi ng t he l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on r equ es t ed by San der s. Sand er s’ s r unni ng obj ec t i on a nd r equ es tf or a l i m i ti n g i n s tru c ti o n a p p l i e d o n l y to D .G .’s te s ti m o n y . S e eF u en tesv. S tate , 9 9 1 S .W .2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. deni ed, 5 2 8 U .S .1 0 2 6 (1 9 9 9 ); S c aggs v. S tate , 18 S. W . 3d 277, 292 (T e x . A pp. — A us t i n 2000, pe t . r ef ’ d) ( not i ng t hat a r unni ng obj ec t i on w hen r equ es t ed by def ens e c o u n s e l an d gr ant ed by t he t r i al court does not pr eserve er r orw hen ano t herw i t ness t est i f i es t o t he sam e m at t erw i t hou tobj ect i on) . Bu tw hen t he sam e evi dence w as l at er i nt r oduc ed t hr ough t he m at chi ng t es t i m ony ofM . E. , Sande r s di d notobj ec tor r equ es ta l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on. C onsequ ent l y, t he i ssue r ai sed by S ander s— t hat 4w hi ch w oul d a ppl y e qua l l y t o M . E. ’ s t es t i m ony. 5 ... The St at e ar gue s t hat t he evi den ce i n t hi s ca sew ass am e t r ans ac t i on con t ext ualev i den cean d t hat , t her ef or e, no l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on w asr equ i r ed. 20 t he t r i al co urter r ed by a dm i t t i ng a nd fa i l i ng t o gi ve a l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on c o n c e rning D .G .’ s tes ti m o n y a b o u t th e g rou p se xw i th A .S . a n d M .E.— i s m o o t. S e eCh a m b erl

a i nv. S tate , 9 9 8 S .W .2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), c ert. deni e d , 52 8 U . S . 10 82 ( 20 00 ) ( com m ent i ng t hati ti s w el l est abl i shed t hat quest i ons r egar di ng t he adm i ssi on ofevi dence ar e r ender ed m oot i ft he sam e e v i d e n c e i se l s e w h e re i n tro d u c e d w i th o u t o bj e c ti o n ). In o th erw or ds , ev en i ft he t r i alco urtha d e r r ed by a dm i t t i ng D. G .’s t e s t i m on y w i t ho ut a l i m i t i ng i ns t r uc t i on b a s e d on Sa nd e r s ’ s401, 403, a nd 404 obj ect i on, such an er r or w as m ade har m l ess by M . E. ’ s t est i m ony, w hi ch w as o ffe re d fo r a l l p u rp o s e s , w i th o u t o bj e c ti o n . See i d. ; Ma tz v. S tate , 21 S . W . 3d 91 1, 91 2 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 0, pet . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng t hat even i ft he t r i al court had er r ed by i m pr oper l y adm i t t i ng evi dence, such er r or w a s har m l ess w h e n th e e v i d e n c e w a s l a te r i n tro d u c e d w i th o u t o bj e c ti o n ); Brownv. S tate , 6 S . W . 3d 57 1, 58 0 ( Tex . A pp. — Ty l er19 99 , pet . r ef ’ d) ( st at i ng t hat“ [e] ven w hen i nad m i ss i bl e evi den ce i s er r one ous l y a dm i t t ed, t he er r ori s cur ed w hen t he sa m e e vi den ce i s adm i t t ed w i t houtobj ec t i on e l se w her e a tt r i al ”) . Accor di ngl y, w e o v e rr u l e S a n d e rs’s se c o n d p o i n t. 5W e need not addr ess t hi s ar gum ent , how ever , i n l i ght ofourho ld i ng t hat

Sa n d e rs d i d no tp r e s e rveh i sc om pl a i ntc on c e r ni ng t hed e ni a l o fa r ul e 401, 4 0 3 , o r 4 0 4 l i m i ti n g i n s tru c ti o n c o n c e rn i n g D .G .’s te s ti m o n y b e c a u s e M . E .’s i den t i ca l t es t i m ony w asad m i t t ed f oral l pur pos esw i t houtobj ec t i on. 21 V. I SSUANC E OF S TA TU TO R ILY M ANDATED J URY C HA RG E In h i sth i rd p o i n t, S a n d e rsc o m p l a i n s , a sh e d i d a t tri a l , th a t th e c o u rt’s c h a r g e t o t h e ju ry c o n c e r n in g t h e p o s s ib ilit yo fg o o d c o n d u c tt im e d e n ie d h im due pr ocess because t he char ge contai ned an i ncor r ectst at em entoft he l aw . I n cr aft i ng i t s char ge t o t he j ur y att he pun i shm entphase oft r i al , a t r i al cou rti s bound t o c om pl y w i t h t he m and at ory l ang uag e o fart i cl e 37. 07, s ec t i on 4 o f th e c o d e o f c ri m i n a l p ro c e d u re . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 37. 07, § 4 ( V er non Supp . 2007 ) . Thi s art i cl e r equ i r es t hati n t he t r i alco urt ’ s i ns t r uct i on t o t he j ury dur i ng t he puni sh m ent pha se , t he t r i al cou rt m us ti nf or m t he j ury of th e e x i s te n c e a n d m e c h a n i c so f p a ro l e l a w a n d g o o d c o n d u c t ti m e . Id. A pe r so n c onvi ct ed ofce rt ai n e num er at ed of f ens es , h ow eve r , i s not el i gi bl e f orr el ea seon m and at ory s u p e rv i si on, r ega r dl es s ofhow m uch good t i m e h e m i ghtac c ru e ; h i s good co nduc tt i m e d oesnotm ak e h i m el i gi bl e f or par ol e any soonert han he w oul d b e w ith o u tt he goo d cond uctt i m e cr edi t s. S ee T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 5 0 8 .1 4 9 (a ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 2 2 .0 2 1 (a )(1 )(B ), (e) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); L u qui s v. S tate , 72 S . W . 3d 3 5 5 , 3 6 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ).22

Thus , i n a ca sew her e t he j ury ha s f ound t he def end antgui l t y ofoneof t he of f ens ess et f ort h i n gove r nm ent cod e s ec t i on 508. 149 ( a) , t he port i on of t h e s t a t u t o r ilym a n d a t e d ju ryc h a r g e d is c u s s in g g o o d c o n d u c tt im e o n ly
m a rg i n a l l ya p p l i e sto th a t d e fe n d a n t. S e eL u quis , 72 S. W . 3d at36 2. Thi s has le d s o m e d e f e n d a n t s t o a r g u e t h a t t h e ju ry in s t r u c t io n o n g o o d c o n d u c tt im e is a m i ss t at em entoft he l aw asi tap pl i est o t hem and i s t her ef or e a vi ol at i on of d u e p ro c e s sri g h ts . See i d. a t366 n. 29. In 2 0 0 2 , t h e c o u rto fc r im in a l a p p e a lst o o k u p t h e is s u e o fw h e t h e ra rt ic le 37 . 07 , sect i on 4 ( a) oft he code of cr i m i nal pr ocedu r e w as unconst i t ut i onal und ert he due cou r se ofl aw pr ovi si ons of t he T exas and U ni t ed S t at es C o n s t it u t io n sin t h a titre q u i r e d in s t r u c t io n so n g o o d c o n d u c tt im e t h a tc o u ld
m is le a d t h e ju ryin a c a s e in w h ic h g o o d c o n d u c tt im e d id n o ta f f e c tp a r o le e l i g i b i l i tyo r re l e a s e d a te . Id. at358. Af t era det ai l e d e x a m i n at i on oft he l e g i slati v e h i sto ry o f t h e sta tu te a n d i m p a c t of th e i n stru c ti o n o n the d e fen d a n t, t he courtof cr i m i nal appeal s det er m i ned t hat t he st at ut e di d not vi ol at e ei t her c o n s ti tu ti o n a lp ro v i s i o n . Id. a t3 6 5 . W e n o t e t h a tt h isc o u rth a ss im ila r ly concl uded t hatart i cl e 37 . 07 , sect i on 4 ( a) does not vi ol at e ei t her due pr ocess p ro v i s i o n . S e e Ca gle v. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 5 9 0 , 5 9 4( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ). I n this ca se , S a n d e rs w a s c o n v i c ted o f ag g rav a ted s e x u a l a s sa u l t of a chi l d. Thi s i s oneoft he of f ens esi ncl ude d i n t he st at ut e pr ohi bi t i ng r el ea seon23

m a n d a to rys u p e rv i s i o n . S eeT EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 5 08 . 14 9( a) ( 8) . Ther ef or e, goo d cond uctt i m e has l i t t l e i m pacton w hen S ander s w i l l be el i gi bl e f orpar ol e. S e eL u quis , 7 2 S .W .3 d a t 3 6 2 . N e v e rth e l e s s , th e tri a l c o u rt i n c l u d e d i n i ts j u ry cha r ge t he m and at ory l ang uag e o fart i cl e 37. 07, s ec ti o n 4( a) i n i t s t ot al i t y, i n c l u d i n g th e i n s tru c ti o n o n g o o d c o n d u c t ti m e . S ee T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 3 7 .0 7 , § 4 . A s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , th e c o u rt o f c ri m i n a l a p p e a l sh a se v a l u a te d th e v e ry ar gum entt hatSande r s pr es ent s and has det er m i ned t hata j ury c har ge l i ket he o n e h e re d o e s n o t v i o l a te a d e fe n d a n t’s d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . S e eL u quis , 72 S. W . 3d at365. Thi s cou rtha s si m i l ar l y han ded dow n a ca set hati s di r ec t l y on p o in t a n d d e t er m i ned t hat a j ur y char ge l i ke t he one her e does not vi ol at e a d e f e n d a n t’sd u e p ro c e s sri g h ts . S e eCagle , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 5 9 4 . S a n d e rs hi m sel fadm i t s i n hi s br i eft o t hi s court t hat “t he C ourt of C r i m i nal A ppeal s has d i r ec t l y a ddr es se d [ t he] i ss ue r ai se d he r ei n a nd f ound no v i ol at i on ofdue p r oc ess i n the j ury ch arge a utho r i zed byst atute. ” A cc ordi ng l y, w e o ve r r u le S a n d e rs’s thir d p o i n t. V I. C ON C L U S I ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l th re e o f S a n d e rs ’s p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E24

PA N EL F: C A YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d W A LKER, JJ. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: M a y 8, 2008