### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00085-CR

Carl os Francisco

Char les , Appellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. CR2000-106, H ONORABLE GARY L. STE EL, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury fou nd

appe l l an t Carl os Fra nc i sco Ch arles g uil ty of posse ssi ng m ore t han five pounds of m

ari hua na . SeeTex . Heal

th & Saf ety Code A nn . § 481.1 21(a), (b)(4 ) (We st Supp . 2002) . The dist rict co ur t asse ssed punishment , e nhance d by pr eviou s felony co nvictio ns, a t impriso nment for t went y-five years . We will over ru le app ellant’ s t wo po ints o f err or and a ffi rm t he co nvictio n. A pic kup truck dr iven by Edw ar d Higg ins was st op ped for obs er ved t ra ffi c violat ions by a Departmen

t o f Pub li c Safety tro oper in San Ant onio . T his set in mot ion a chai n of ev ents that resul ted in the dis covery of

twenty-three bags

of m arih uana concea

led in t he t ru ck’ s do or s and speaker boxes . Higgi

ns cl ai me d to be a m

ere “m ule ” and off

ered to hel p narcotics of

fi cers m ake a case agai nst the m en f or whom he wa s workin

g, who were followi

ng hi m i n an ot her veh ic le . A pl an was devise d whe re by Higgins dr ove to a truck sto p in New Braunf

el s, swi tched two spark plug wi

res t o d isable t he truck, an

d cal l ed a c ontact n

um ber to report that he

had br oken down . Higgi

ns wore a wire less micro pho ne, and an unmar ked van wit h a vi deo camera was

parked nearb

y to record what1 Th e district cour t ruled that H iggins’s statements were hearsay but admissible under the

exception for statements aga i nst pena l interest. SeeTex. R. Evid. 803(24). We express no opinion as to whether Higgi ns’s statements were offered to pr ove the truth of the matters stated or merely to pr ove what he said. SeeTex. R. Evid. 801(d ); Dinkins

v. State , 894 S. W. 2d 330, 347 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1995). We also express no opinion as to whether Higgi ns’s statements, if hearsay, were ag ainst his penal inter est under the cir cumstances. See Williamson v. Unite d St ates , 512 U. S. 594, 599-6 01 (19 94); Cofield v . State , 89 1 S . W.2d 9 52 , 95 5- 56 (T ex . Cri m . App. 1994) ; see also Mend ez v. State , 56 S. W. 3d 880, 887-92 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2 001, pet. filed ). 2 took pla ce . T he “t ail car” arriv ed at the tr uck stop an hour after Higgi ns pl aced the cal

l. It was occupied by appe llant and Ped ro Go mez. Higgins, Go mez, and a ppe llantcon ve rs ed at the tru ck stop f orabo ut an h o ur and a ha lf. When Go mez and app ellant d ro ve of f wi thou t ha vi ng tak en pos se ss i on of the m ari hua na , they were stopped a

nd a rrested . Nei ther Higgi ns n or Go mez testif

ie d at a ppe l l an t’s tri al . The s i l en

t vi de otap e of

t he ev en ts at the tr uck stop was admi tt ed i n ev ide ncean d s ho wn t o t he jur y. T he au dio tape recordings of t he t ra nsmissions from Higgi ns’ s m ic rophone were not admi

tt ed. Instead, as the vi

deotape was played, t he Depa

rtm en t of Pu b l i c S af ety n arcoti cs of f i cer w h o su pervi se d th

e op er ati on testi f i ed to what the th

ree men we re s ay i ng ba se d on hi s r ec ol l ec ti on of

the even ts and his revi

ewo f t he au dio tapes. In

his first po int o f err or , a ppe llantcon ten dsh i s c on sti

tuti on al ri gh t to con f ron tation was viol ated wh

en the c ourt perm

i tted the n

arcoti cs of

f i cer to rel

ate Hi ggi ns ’sout-of-c our t stat emen ts. SeeU.S. Const. amend. VI. Thi s obj ection was n ot ma de t o t he di st rict co ur t and there f ore not pre serve d for review. Tex. R. App . P . 33 .1( a); Wright v. State , 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Point of error o ne i s overruled. 13 In hi s second poi

nt of e rr or , a ppe llant co nt ends t he St at e failed t o c or ro bor at e t he sta tem en ts attrib uted to Higgi

ns . See Tex. Code Cri m . Pro c. Ann . art. 38.14 (West 1979) (accompl ic e witnessrul

e). A ppe l l an t arg ue s th at w i thou t corrobor ati on, Hi ggi ns ’s sta tem en ts c an not be cons i dered

and the evi den ce i s i ns uf f i ci en t to sustai n h i s con vi cti on. This argum

ent fails b ecause ar t icle 38. 14 a

ppl i esonl y to i n- court testi

mony ; ou t-of -cou rt sta tem en ts b y an ac com pl i cedo n ot requi re corroborati

on un der th e statute. Bingham v. Sta te , 913 S.W .2d 208 , 209-1 0 (Tex . C r im . App. 1995). Point of error two is overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye ak el

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: February

7, 2002 Do No t Publis

h