NO. 07-05 -030 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D AU GU ST 31, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ BENIT O RODRIGUEZ, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 31 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HE MP HI L L COU NT Y; ST NO . 262 3; H ON ORABLE STEVEN EM ME RT, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
OPIN ION App ellantBenito Rodriguezpresen ts tw o po in ts challen ging ev iden tiaryrulings in his trial fo r agg rav ate d sexual assau lt. Agreeing the challen ged evidence was imprope rly admitted b ut f in d in g i ts admiss ion does not presentrev ersi ble er ro r, w e aff ir m the tr ial
cour t’ s j udg ment.
A Novembe r 2004 indictm e n tco nta ining one cou nt alleged app ellantsex ually
ass aul ted h is daug hter Ani ta on March 9, 2000, and “ did then and there by ac ts or w ords threa ten to cause or place, An ita . . . in fe ar thatserious bo dily in jury w ould be imm inen tly2

inf licted on [her.]” T he u ndisp ute d evidence showed thatin March 2 0 0 0 ap pellan t’s daug hter w as tw enty -tw o y ears o ld and l iv ed athe r p a re nts ’ home. She w or ked at a presc hool but did not dr iv e and w as take n to and from w or k b y appel lan t. W it h the hel p of
co-w orkers Anita moved ou t of her paren ts’ hom e in March 200 0. She partici pat ed in
couns eli ng w it h c ounse lor D ani na Ken nedy

from M ay

thro u gh October

2000 and l ater obtai ned add it ion al couns eli ng throug h her ch urch.
Tri al beg an on Mo nday Ju ly 25, 2005. On Jul y

22, the F ri day b e fore tr ial , t he prosec uti on referred Ani ta t o Sony a H ig g ins , al so a li cens ed professi onal couns elo r. They
m e tfo r two h o u rs . Hi ggi n s wa s t h e S t a t e ’s f ir s twit n e s s wh e n t ri a l b e ga n o n Mo n d a y. Both of appell ant’ s point s of er ro r chal len g e the admi ss ion of tes ti mony from H ig g ins
re l a t i n g A n i t a ’ s s t a t e me n t s a b o u t a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e x u a l a b u s e o f h e r fro m t h e t i me s h e w as eig hteen y ears o ld unti l she mov ed out of t he home. Appel lan t’ s first poi nt c omplai ns the
ev ide nce w as admitted in vio la ti on of the ru le ag ain st hearsay . Tex . R . Ev id. 802. The Stat e c ontends the sta tements w ere admis si ble under the ex cept ion for s tatement s made for purpo ses of

med ical diagnosis or treatm ent . Te x . R. Ev id. 80 3(4).
W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s a dmis si on or ex cl usi on of ev ide nce for abus e of di sc re ti on. Cun nin ghamv. Sta te , 877 S.W .2d 310, 313 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1994)

. Und er thatst andard,
w e sho uld no t rev erse a trial court if its r uling w as w ithin th e “z one of reason able disagreem ent .” Gr

een v . St ate , 9 3 4 S.W .2d 9 2, 10 1- 02 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) , cer t. denied , 520 U.S. 120 0, 11 7 S.Ct. 1 561 , 137 L.Ed .2d 707 (1997 ).The St ate i nit ial ly respon ds that appel lan t w aiv ed hi s a ppel la te c o m pla int s b y 1 failing to object tim ely w hen t h e s a m e evidence w as introd uced during the vi ctim’s tes ti mony . It poi nts to Ani ta’ s t est imony t h at “ the s ex ual offense” beg an w hen s he w as eig hteen y ears o ld. W e do not a gre e tha t app ell ant’ s o bje cti on to the tes ti mony w as unt ime ly

. T he relevant p ortion of the rep orter’s record reveals this ex chan ge during Anita’s

3 Hi g g ins des cr ibe d her

meeti ng w it h Ani ta as “ a c li nic al int er v iew and ment al sta tus
ex am.” W hen t he St ate a sk ed H ig g ins w hat A nit a tol d H ig g ins , t he tr ial co urt s ust ain ed app ellant ’s hearsay objectio n. T he St ate sought to sh ow the hea rsaytestim ony fell w ithin the e x cept ion for s tatement s made for m edi cal diag nosi s or treatment by as ki ng H ig g ins if sh e ha d “a re co m m e n d a ti o n as to a n y f u rt h e r tre a tm e n t fo r he r” b a se d on th e m e e ti n g. On recei v ing a po si ti v e respon se, the prosec utor agai n as ked w hat A nit a tol d H ig g ins

. The defense repeated i ts hearsay object ion leadi ng to a disc uss ion outs ide the presenc e of the jury , w hich prima rily

focuse d on w het her the u nde rly ing events w ere extraneo us “crimes,
w ro ng s o r act s” under

R ule 404(b)

. W it h reg ard to appel lan t’ s hearsay obj ect ion , t he St ate
arg ued H ig g ins “ made not es w it h re g ards [si c] to an y future treatment[ .]” Atthe conc lus ion of that d is cus si on, t he tr ial co urt ov er ru led appel lan t’ s o bje cti ons. The tr ial cour t s ust ain ed
a s ubseq uent hearsay obj ect ion to Hi g g ins ’ te st im o n y, but w hen t he St ate a g ain l ater
arg ued t he te sti mony

w as admis si ble under R ule 803( 4) , th e t rial co urt ov er ru led app ellant ’s o bje c t io n an d Hig gins testif ied to Anita’s sta tem ent s thatapp ellantsex ually abu sed h er o v er a four-year pe riod. I t is th is te stimo ny on which a ppe llant’s com plaint s are based

. App ellantargues the ad mission of hea rsaytestim ony by Hig gins w as error beca use her tes ti mony

es tabl is hed t he s tatement s made to her w ere notmade for

the pur pose of medic al dia g nosi s o r treatment but onl y i n preparati on for tr ial

. Tex as cour ts appl y ing the 1t e s t im o n y:

Pr osec uto r : O k a y . N o w , a t s o me p o i n t i n t i me , t h e s e x u a l o ffe n s e b e g a n ; i s t hat cor re ct? A: Yes. Q: And ap prox imat ely

how ol d w ere y ou? A: 1 8. Defense co unsel : I ’d hav e to - I’d l ik e to re new my extraneous [offense] ob jecti on at t his ti m e , y our

honor , t he one w e’v e made i n l imi nes and hav e had many arg uments about , I ’d li ke to mak e i t now

. The cour t: If couns el w oul d approach. The cour t: You ’re n o t g oin g to hav e her tal k a bout other

se x ual rela ti ons are y ou, s p e c if ic a ll y? Prosecu tor: I’m g oing to ta lk a b o u t the specif ic instance s, the f irst time tha t it happened. T he co urt: Is tha t the one indicted for? Prosecu tor: No. Your hono r, - - The cour t: That’s dang erous. T he trial cou rt sustaine d the object ion. T he o bjectio n w as time ly beca use th e prose cuto r’s inquiry abo ut w hen “th e sexual o f fense ” be gan could h ave refe rred to the of fense for w hich appel lan t w as bei ng tr ied

. See Hughbank v. State, 967 S.W .2d 940 , 944 (Tex.App .--Fort W orth 1 9 90, n o pet .) ( obj ect ion req uired as so on as g ro und for obj ect ion bec omes app aren t). 4 ex cept ion for h earsa y stat ements es tabl is hed by R ule of Ev ide nce 803( 4) hav e hel d the presenc e of a parall el law enfo rce m e n t p ur pose does not p re cl ude app li cat ion of the
ex cept ion

. See B ar

nes v. State, 16 5 S. W .3 d 75 , 82 ( Tex .A pp .- - Au s ti n 20 05 , no pe t.); Tor re s v . St ate , 807 S.W .2d 8 84, 8 87 ( Tex .A p p .- -C or pus Chr is ti 1991, pet. ref’d) ; Hughbank

, 967 S. W .2d a t 943

. Our co urts hav e notfound the ex cept ion appl ic abl e,This ca se does not i nv olv e a c ontent ion that s ta te m e n ts made to a l ic ensed 2 professi onal co unsel or li ke Hi g g ins are outs ide the sc ope of R ule 803( 4) , and w e need no t ex press an opi nio n on that q uest ion here. Cf . Pe re z , 113 S.W .3d a t 830 ( sta tements made to l ic ensed professi onal counsel or not w or ki ng under

su per v is ion of medic al professi onal w ere no t ma de for purpo s e o f med ical diagnosis or treatm ent ) with W ilder v. Sta te , 111 S.W .3d 2 4 9 , 2 5 6 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2003, pet ref’d) ( findi ng st atements made t o li cens ed professi onal co unsel or admi ss ibl e under

R ule 803( 4) ). 5 howev er, w hen there is no e v iden ce the hea rsaystate me nts w ere m ade w ith a pu rpose of obtai nin g medi cal ca re . S ee Gar ci a v . St ate , 126 S.W .3d 9 21, 9 27 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ( ex cept ion i nappl ic abl e w hen no ev ide nce show ed v icti m w as seek ing medical tr e a tm ent) ; B a r

n e s, 165 S. W .3d a t 82 (p edi atr ic ian g ather ing ev ide nce but a ls o “ condu cti ng leg it imat e medi cal ex aminat ion ”) ; Hughbank , 967 S. W .2d a t 943 ( phy si ci an c onduc ti ng “rape ex am” admittedl y both prov idi ng medi ca l treatment and c oll ect ing ev ide nce but tes ti fied i nformati on from v icti m’s st atements as si ste d i n di ag nosi ng and treati ng her ). See als o Per ez v. Sta te , 113 S.W .3d 819, 830 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2003, pet. ref’d) ( sta tements to c o u n selor

i nadmis si ble bec ause, inter alia , n o e v i d e n c e c h i l d v i c t i m “ w a s a w a re of seei ng [c ounse lor

] for the purp ose of medic al treatment and t hat h er st atements w ere for the pur pose of t re atment. ” (c it ati on om it ted)) ; Bur ns v. State , 122 S.W .3d 4 34, 4 38 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2003, pet re f’d) ( noti ng Ru le 803( 4) ex cept ion i s b ased on st
ass umpti on pat ien t und ersta nds impor tanc e of bei ng tr uthful w it h medi cal p e rso n n el to
re cei v e ac curate d iag nosi s a nd treatment) ( ci ti n g Be heler v. Sta te , 3 S.W .3d 1 82, 1 88 (Tex .App. –For

t W orth 19 99, p et ref’d)

. Here, w e c an find no ev id e n ce A n ita w ent t o H ig g ins or made s tatement s t o her seek ing medi cal di ag nosi s o r treatment. H ig g ins tes ti fied uneq uiv ocal ly Ani ta w as not a 2 pati ent. She sai d Anita had been referred bythe dis tr ict attor ney ’s of fice “i n preparati on6

for th is hear ing .” As note d, H ig g ins ’ si ng le tw o -h o u r ses si on w it h Ani ta oc cur re d on the Fr ida y before tr ial beg an on Mo nday

. The prosec utor ’s att empt to br ing the sta tements
w it hin R ule 803( 4) by

as ki ng H ig g ins on t he s tand if s h e had a recommendat ion for treatment f a il s b ecaus e H ig g ins ’ posi ti v e respon se does not s how Ani ta made the challen ged state me nts for the purpose of diagnosis or treat me nt. Evidence thata w itness
w ould have p rov ided m edica l se rv ices if reque sted is inad equate to show the decla rant’s pur pose to o btai n medi cal treatment. Garcia , 126 S.W .3d at 927. W hen as ked if sh e had
re ce ived a ny

co unsel ing , An it a reci ted t hree month s o f couns eli ng after l eav ing her parents ’ home, couns eli ng from D ani na Ken nedy , and l ater co unsel ing throug h her ch ur ch. She mad e no reference to he r int er v iew w it h H ig g ins

. Seei ng no e v ide nce the h earsay state me nts w ere m ade w ith a pu rpose of obta ining med ical care, w e f ind t h e t rial court abuse d i ts dis creti on by admi tti ng hearsay

tes ti mony

by H ig g ins

. Appel lan t’ s s econd poi nt conten ds Hi g g ins ’ tes ti mony w as ev ide nce of extraneous offenses and shoul d hav e been ex cl uded be caus e the Sta te fail ed to gi ve noti ce of its int ent to use those off enses as req uired byRule of Ev ide nce 404( b)

. Our co ncl usi on th e tr ial co urt s houl d hav e s ust ain ed appe l l a nt’ s h earsay obj ect ion to Hi g g ins ’ tes ti mony makes
c on s i de rat i on o f hi s s ec on d po i ntu nn ec es s ar y . W e tu r n to t he q ue s ti on o f ha r m.
T o de term ine if

the ad mission of

Hig gins’ testim ony req uires rev ersal, w e w ill app ly the stand ard for non const itution al errors set out in Rule o f A p pellat e Proce dure 44.2 (b). See Ba g h er

i v. State , 119 S.W .3d 7 55, 7 62- 63 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ( appl y ing 44.2 (b ) sta ndard to er ro neous admi ss ion of ev ide nce) ; P o t ie r v. Sta te , 68 S.W .3d 6 57, 6 63 (Tex .C ri m .App. 2002) ( er ro neous ev ide nti ar y r uli ng s rarely

co nst it uti onal er ro r)

. That7

s t a n d a rd r e qu ir e s u s t o d is re ga rd a n y e rr o r wh ic h d o e s n o ta f fe c ta su b s t a n t ia l r ig h t

. T e x. R. A p p . P

. 4 4

. 2 ( b )

. A s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t i s a ffe c t e d w h e n t h e e r ro r h a d a s u b s t a n t ial and inj ur iou s e ffector

i nflue n ce i n d e te rmi nin g the jur y ’s v erdict. Ki

ng v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). If , co n ve rs e ly, a f t e r e xa m in in g t h e r e c o rd a s a wh o le , we hav e “ fair

as surance that the e rror did not influ ence the jur y , or had but a sl ig ht effect," the
er ro neous admi ss ion of ev ide nce did not affecta subs tanti al r ig ht. Johns on v . St ate , 967 S.W .2d 4 10, 4 17 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998)

. To ass ess the li kel iho o d tha t t he j ur y ’s dec is ion w as adv ersel y affect ed by

the
er ro neous admi ss ion of Hi g g ins ’ tes ti mony , w e c onsi der the enti re record, i ncl udi ng the
o t h e r e v i d e n c e a d mi t t e d , t h e n a t u re o f t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt i n g t h e v e rd i c t , a n d the charact er

of the e rror

i n l ig ht of the othe r ev ide nce in the c ase. Mo ti ll a v . St ate , 78 S.W .3d 352 , 357 -58 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 2002 ) (ev alua ting harm f rom e rroneo usly adm itted ev iden ce). W e al so cons ide r the arg uments of c ounse l and the extent to w hic h the Sta te empha si z ed the i mprop er

ev ide nce. Id . at357; Mo ra les v. St ate , 32 S.W .3d 8 62, 8 67 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 0). Here, w e f ind th e cha racter of the error, con sidered in th e cont ext of othe r ev iden ce before t he j ur

y , t o be an impor

tant factor

. The hearsay tes ti mony w as Hi g g ins ’ re ci tati on of w hatAnita to ld her du ring the ir i nte rv iew three days before, con cerning app ellant ’s fo ury ear histo ry of sexual assau lts on Anita. She said Anita relate d tha t app ellantf irst sex ually
ass aul ted h er

throug h forc ed s ex ual i ntercourse w hen she w as eig hteen, and after that heAlthou gh appe llant objected imm edia tely af ter Anita ’s response , the respon se 3 n o n e t h e le s s wa s b e fo re t h e ju ry. 8 did so wi th increa sing frequen cy to the pointthathe eventu ally sex ually as s a ulted his daug hter “ dai ly ,” ex ceptw hen s he w as il l or menst ru ati ng . T he trial cou rt sustaine d ap pellan t’s object ions to q u e s t io ns see king to elicit testim ony from Anita a bou t this history of sexual of fense s against he r, and su staine d his obj ect ion s to the same q uest ion s address ed to couns elo r Kennedy

. H ig g ins thus prov ide d the o nly tes ti mony about the freq uent sex ual ass aul ts occ ur ri ng dur ing the four- y ear per iod before the indicted of

fense . Th is testimo ny, com ing f rom the State’s first w itness, certainly setthe sta g e fo r Ani ta’ s d esc ri pti on of the ass aul t for w hic h appel lan t w as ind icted. But Hi g g ins si mply w as tel li ng the jur y w hat Ani ta tol d her

. From our rev iew of the e nti re ty

of the test imony , w e concl ude that Anit a’s credi bil ity before the j ur

y w as the c ri ti cal el ement of the State’ s cas e. The ju ry heard di re ct tes ti mony aboutthe ind icted o ffense onl y from Ani ta, and i f the j ur

y di d not belie v e her test imony , w e f ind i t unl ik ely they w oul d bel iev e s he nonethe les s w as tr uthful w hen s he tol d Hi g g ins three day s before that appel lan t as saul ted her many ti mes.
T he St ate also poin ts to oth er evi den ce of app ellant ’s sex ual m iscond uct to w ard Ani ta oc cur ri ng ov er

a pe ri od of y ears, and arg ues that ev ide nce dimi nis hed t he effect of the t ri al cour

t’ s e rror . As prev iou sl y note d, be fore app ell ant v oic ed an o bje ct io n , An it a respo nde d w ith “18" to q u e s t io n in g asking how old she w as w hen “the sexual of fense beg an.” The State als o notes that appel lan t doe s n ot c omplai n on appeal abouttes ti mony

3 th a t a p p e lla n t t o u ch e d An it a ’s b re a stor p u b ica r e a in a p p ro p ria te ly du rin g he r te e n a geIn re spons e to an obj ect ion , t he St ate arg ued thi s tes ti mony did not v iol ate the t ri al 4 cour t’ s p rev iou s r uli ng on e xtraneous offenses bec ause Ani ta w as there referr ing to phy si cal , not sex ual , abuse

. In it s cont ext, w e find the jur y easi ly co uld hav e c onsi dered Anita to be r e f e rr in g t h ere to a ppe llant’s sexual assau lts of her. No app ellate issue is present ed reg ardin g tes ti mony from any

w it ness but Hi g g ins

. See Per ez , 113 S.W .3d at 831 (imprope r adm is s io n o f e v iden ce no t rev ersible 5 e rro r whe n sa m e fa ct s pro ved b y o th e r p ro p e rly ad m it te d evid e n ce ), cit in g Br ooks v. Sta te , 990 S.W .2d 278 , 287 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). 9 y ears, put h is hand under her shi rt w hil e they w ere ly ing on the couc h w atc hin g tel ev is ion , once loo ked up Ani ta’ s s hor ts w hil e s he w as chang ing a l ig htbul b and someti mes s w atted her “ on th e butt. ” Ani ta tes ti fied some o f these act ion s “ did n’tfeel r ig ht.” Sh e al so tes ti fied to sta tem ent s byapp ellantthathe w ould “never do it again.” The St a t e con ten ds this 4 tes ti mony , w hen c ompared w it h Hi g g ins ’ ina dmis si ble hearsay tes ti mony of four y ears o f freq uent sex ual as saul ts, i s “ the s a m e or si mil ar ev ide nce, ” admitted a t t ri al w it hout obje ction, makin g adm ission of Hig gins’ testim ony harmle ss. W e cann ot agree w ith this 5 cont ent ion by the S tate , butw e f ind th e evidence thatapp ellant ’s sex ual m iscond uct to w ard Anita occurred over a period o f time d iminish ed so me w h a tt h e e f fect of the trial court’s
error. At t he ti me of tr ial, A n it a w as tw enty -s ev en. Dur ing her tes ti mony , s he des cr ibe d her father ’s co ntroll ing , abu si v e and v iol ent a cti ons tow ard her and her sibl ing s w hil e the y liv ed a t hom e. By the time o f the ind icted o f

fense in March 200 0, she w as the only child li v ing w it h her

parents

. She t est ified to her fear of her father, and to t he depress ion and lac k o f sel f-est eem she felt

. She t old the jur y thatappel lan t onc e frac tured her ar m w hen she “t old hi m thati f he di dn’ t s top w hat h e w as doi ng , t hat I w as g oin g to g o to mymother .” W ith respe ct to the events of March 9, 20 00, she test if ied “actu ally thatnight w as the lastA s k ed s pe cif icallywhat ap pe l l an t di d, s he s ai d, “ H e . . . s tu c kh i s p en i s i n my 6 v ag ina , he ra ped me a nd th en he pul led out ri g ht be fore he came.” Ex cep t for

the int ro duct ion of the p hotog ra phs, appel lan t’ s c ase w as present ed 7 onl y throug h c ro ss -e x aminat ion

. 10 nig ht he ev er

di d an yth ing to me.” Sh e des cr ibe d, i n nar ra ti v e fashi on, t hat s he and appel lan t w ere al one af ter her mother w ent to w or k t hat e v eni ng . She an d appel lan t had
arg ued dur ing su pper

ov er hi s s uspi ci ons she w as plan nin g to mov e f ro m the home. They lat er co nti nued t o arg ue, w it h appel lan t ac cus ing A n it a of sl eepi ng w it h oth er men. She then desc ri bed how

he g ra bbed he r ar m, pi ck ed her up a nd to ok her

to the b ack

room w here, de spi te he r str ug g li ng , c ry ing , and tel li ng hi m to s top, he “ ra ped me.” After w ard, 6 she te stif ied, she could not stop cry ing, and ap pellan t “told me to be quiet, stop act ing l ike a ba by and to go g et clea ned up.” As note d, sho rtly t here af ter, w ith the help of

co-w orkers, she mov ed outof her

parents ’ home.
Testi fyi ng furth er , An it a des cr ibe d her l ife s inc e mov ing from her parents ’ home, an d sai d s he repor

ted a ppel lan t’ s a cti ons in Aug ust2004. A sk e d wh y i t t ook her

so l ong to
ma k e a re p o rt , s h e re s p o n d e d , “ B e c a u s e I w a s n ’ ts t ro n g e n o u g h t o d e a l w i t h i t

. W h e n I l e ft home I blo ck ed a lotof thi s o ut thi nki ng that itw oul d g o aw ay and itdi dn’ t. No matter w hat I di d, i t nev er

w ent a w ay , and i t affected my l ife.” Appel lan t’ s c ro ss -e x aminat ion of Ani ta focused on her rela ti onshi p w it h her

father dur ing the y ears a fter s he mov ed f ro m her parents ’ home, seek ing to show her l ack of fear of him. Appel lan t i ntroduce d sev eral family photog ra phs show ing Ani ta w it h appel lan t, and app ellantw ith Anita ’s daughte r. 711

Am o ng othe r w it ness es, the Stat e al so present ed th e tes ti mony of Ani ta’ s c ow orkers w ho relat ed th eir observations of app ellant ’s unusu al beh avior toward Anita while she w or ked at the presc hool , her apparent fear

of him, thei r conc er ns for Ani ta’ s w elfare, thei r offers to help A nit a mov e outof her parents ’ home, an d ev ents su rroundi ng her mov e.
Ani ta’ s test imony , if found credi ble , amply suppor ted the jur

y ’s gui lty v erdict. The Stat e di d notemph a size H igg ins ’ tes ti mony i n c los ing arg ument, but e mphasi z ed th e evidence supp orting th e indicte d of fense . Considering the n atu re of Hig gins’ testim ony in the c ontext of all of the e v ide nce before t he j ur y , w e c oncl ude t hat i t di d nothav e a subs tanti al and i nju ri ous effector i nfluenc e i n det er mini ng the jur y ’s g uil ty v erdict.
Rev iew of the re cord compel s the same conc l u s i o n w i th r eg ar d to the e ff ectof Hi g g ins ’ tes ti mony

on t he j ur

y ’s dec is ion to ass ess the max imum s entenc e of ni nety -n ine y ears. Ani ta t est ified ag ain dur ing the puni shmentphas e, rela ti ng to the j ur y a hi sto ry

of
sex ual as saul ts at t he hand s o f her father, beg inn ing at the ag e of 18 or 19 and c onti nui ng throu gh the March 20 00 ind icted o f fense . W ith regard to the pun ishm entpha se of trial, this prese nta tion o f

the sam e evidence as tha t imp rope rly p resen ted e arlier through Hig gins’ tes ti mony

rendered th e tr ial co urt’ s e rror har mles s. Per

ez , 133 S.W .3d at 831 . Moreover, Ani ta’ s o lde st si ste r Ma rg ar it a tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t s ex ual ly abus ed her , beg inn ing w it h dig it al penetrati on of her v ag ina w hen s h e wa s eig ht an d adv anci ng to forced se x ual int ercourse whe n s h e wa s ten. M arg ar it a and thei r y oung estsi ste r Ma ry al so tol d of an
occ asi on on w hic h M ar y w it ness ed appe ll ant’ s s ex ual i ntercourse w it h M arg ar it a, w henMary’s t estim ony indicate s app ellantw as un aware that she w as w itnessin g his 8 ass aul t of M arg ar it a. 12 Ma rg ar it a w as fifteen. Anit a’s sis ters, and her tw o brothers, als o tes ti fied to the phy si cal 8
a b u s e a p p e ll a n tin f li c t e d o n t h e m a n d t h e ir m o t h e r. E vid e n c e wa s p re s e n t e d t h a tt h e two y oung estch il dren w ere remov ed from t he home becau se of appell ant’ s a buse. H av ing consid ered the en tire record, w e conclu de th e trial court’s errone ous a dm ission of Hig gins’ tes ti mony

had no s ubst anti al effecton t he j ur y ’s v erdict on puni shment

. Accordin gly , w e f ind th e error of w hich ap pellan t com plains d id not af fect his subs tanti al ri g hts and must be dis re g arded. Tex

. R. App. P. 4 4.2( b) ; Ki ng , 953 S.W .2d a t 271. H is poi nts of er ro r are ov er ru led , and the jud g ment i s a ff ir med.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Qui nn, C .J. , c oncur ri ng as to re sul t.

Publ is h.