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

NO. 03-03-00559- CR

Ro dgyLe e Ne sby , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BURNET COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 9322, H ONO RAB LE GUILFO RD L. JONES, II I, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found Rodg y

L ee N esby

g uilty o f aggr avated sexual assault of a child and assessed punishment at ninety -nine y ear s in prison. See T e x . P en. Co de A nn . § 22 .0 21 (a)(1 )(B) (West Supp. 2004-05). Nesby complains that the di strict court erre d by admitting testimony

of the complaining witness and two other children a

bout ext rane ous acts by appellant. We will affirm the jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND

Nesby was c onvicted for having se x with his longtime g irlfriend’ s minor daug hter, who was cal led“Mar

bl e Fall s N um ber 1 18 ” du ri ng tr ial . (W e wi ll sh ort en t hi s p seu do ny m t o “M F118” and will shorte n other pseudony ms simi larly .) He was c onvicted for an incident oc curr ing on or ab ou t O cto ber 3 1, 20 01 . On ly MF-1 18 tes ti fi ed ab ou t th at in cid ent , b utsh e andher c ou si ns , M F-2

12 2 a nd MF -1 24 , a ll tes tif

ie d a bo ut p re vio us se xua l a c tiv ity inv olv ingNe sb y , M F -1 18 , a nd the se other c hildren. Afte r Nesby ’s objection to te stimony about extraneous ac ts involvi ng other c hildren, the cour t instructed the jurors that the y could consider testimony about incidents conce rning children other than MF -1 1 8 o n l y i f the juror s found beyond a re asonable doubt that Nesby committed the extraneous offe nse; the cour t a lso limited the jury ’s use of these extraneous offe nses to such issues as plan, pre paration, intent, opportunit y , and identity of the victim a nd/or the acc used in this ca se. On appe al, Nesby

challeng es the a dmission of thi s evidenc e. Other evidenc e adduce d at trial provides context for evaluating the distr i ct co u rt ’s admission of the children’ s testimony . The State be g an it s case with testimony from police investigators L arr

y L amb and Melony My ers and the written statements Nesby g ave them. I n one statement, Nesby descr ibed MF-118 as disturbed, inappropriately sexual in behavior and dre ss, and vindictive. Nesby

indicated that MF -118’s a ccusati o n s aga i n s t him were motivated by ang er that he wo uld no t le t he r m ov e in w ithhim and his n ew wi fe. I n his s e c on d s tate me nt, Ne sb y sa id that MF -1 18 wa s se xua lly a g g re ssi ve tow ard

him and ha d to uc he d h is pen is a g a ins t hi s w ill
nume ro us tim e s. Ne sb y

sa id t hat on c e , w he n h is sh ou lde r wa s inj ur e d, MF -1 18 and MF -1 24 c a me int o h is b e dr oo m, he ld him do wn , an d inse rt e d his p e nis int o M F -1 18 ’s va g ina . ( L a mb t e sti fi e d th a t,
a t ti me of tr ia l, MF -1 18 wa s abo ut 5’ 1, 10 0 p ound s, and tha t MF -1 24 wa s a

bo ut 5 ’3 , 1 20 po un ds ; the inc ide nt o c c ur

re d mo re tha

n tw o y e ars be fo re tr ia l.) Ne sb y sa id that, wh e n he did no t ma int a in penetr ation, the g irls laug hed and compar ed him to an uncle with whom they had also ha d sex. The
e xpe ri ence up set h im a

nd he mov e d o ut o f t

he ho us e . A ft e r t

he de te c tiv e s te sti fi e d, the State ad d u ce d evidenc e fr om various per sons reg ardinghow MF- 118’s ac cusations came to light. The State then ca lled the childre n to the stand.3 Be fore MF-122 te stified, t h e co u rt ag ain instructed the jur y reg ardingextraneous offe nses. The c ourt told jurors t hey could consider the other of fense s only

if they believed be y ond
a re asonable doubt that Nesby committed the m. E ven then, the c ourt said, they could consider

the oth e r o ff e ns e s o nly

fo r t he purp os e of

c on sid e ri ngpla

n, pr e pa ratio n, int e nt, op po rt

un ity , a nd ide nti ty of the victim and/or the a ccuse d in this case. MF -122 testified that, whe n he wa s seven or eig ht y ear s old, he and his siblings sometimes stay ed with Nesby and MF -118 duringthe day . MF-122 te stified that Nesby

would tell MF-118 to “start doing stuff to his thing” a nd that Nesby

would put “the sper

m
or wh a te ve r o n h e r b utt .” MF -1 22 te sti fi e d th at N esb y the n to ld h im t o s imu late havin g se x with MF -1 18 . M F -1 22 te sti fi e d th a t th is h a pp e ne d to him thr e e or fo ur tim e s, e ve ntu a lly le a din g to h im having sex wit h MF-118. O n cross-e x amination, MF-122 admitted that he had pr eviously denied that these e vents occur

red, but he ex plained that he made the denials beca use he was shy

and sca red. MF -1 24 te sti fi e d that sh e wa s fo ur te e n y e ars old a t the tim e of tr ia l. She te sti fi e d th a t,
on e su mm er wh en s he w as el even y ears ol d, Nes by bab y sat sev eral ti mes for her, her bro th ers , M F11 8 a nd MF -1 18 ’s sis te rs . A ft e r the c ourt g a ve the lim iti ng ins tr uc tio n ab out e xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e s, MF -1 24 te sti fi e d a

bo ut a tim e that sh e and MF -1 18 we re lyingin b e d w a tc hin g te le vis ion wh ile
wea ring T-shirts and box er shorts. Nesby came in and lay betwee n them. He r emoved MF -118’s underw ear

and bega n fee ling he r “bottom part” and her brea sts under the T- shirt. He then ha d sex with MF-118, g etting on top of her a nd penetr atingher w ith his penis. MF-124 said she sa w Nesby fo nd le and

have se x with

MF -1 18 a

bo ut s ix or

se ve n ti me s o ve r t

he ne xt we e k or so. MF -1 24 sa id that MF -1 18 wa s tw e lve y e ars old a t th e tim e of

the se a c ts.4 MF-118 w as fifte en at the time of trial. She testified t hat, when she was in first g rade , Nesby b ega n coming into her room and r ubbing he r vag ina ar ea ove r her panties, then unde r her panties. Afte r she made these stateme nts, Nesby objected and requested a limit ing instruc tion; the
c ourt ov e rr ule d h is o bje c tio n a

nd re qu e st f or a lim iti ng ins tr

uc tio n. MF -1 18 te sti fi e d th a t N e sb y fi rs t had sex with her when she was seven or eig ht y ear s old and did so many times after

that. Be fore she testified about eve nts involvi ng the other c hildren, the c ou rt gave a n instruction limi ting the
a pp lic a bil ity of e xtra ne ou s o f f e n s e s t o p u

r p o s e s o f i d e nt i f ic a tio n o f t

he de fe nd ant, pr e pa

ratio n, int e nt, and opportunity . MF-118 the n rec ounted the incident dur ing which MF- 12 4 wa s p rese nt; her te sti mony mat ched MF -1 24 ’s e xce pt t hat MF -1 18 te sti fi e d th a t N e sb y fi rs t tr ie d to have se x with MF-124 befo re t u rni ng to MF-118. She c onfirmed that Ne sby made MF -122 have sex wit h her. Finally , she testified a

bout a time when Nesby

had sex with her on the kitchen ta ble when she was y oung er tha

n fourtee n y ear s old. This last incident was the one f or which N esby

was c onvicted. MF-118 de nied telling a

ny one that she ha d sex wit h her unc le or gr a ndfathe r or telling any state authority

that she had se x with any one other than Nesby
. She denied forc ing Nesby to have sex wit h her. She a dmitted that she initi all y d en i ed t o Nesby ’s new w ife that Ne sby touched he r ina pp ro pr iate ly ; MF -1 18 sa id sh e wi thh e ld that in fo rm a tio n in re ta liatio n f

or the ne w w if

e ’s ro le in
e nd ingNe sb y ’s re latio ns hip wi th M F -1 18 ’s mot he r. MF -1 18 sa id s he late r d e c ide d to e xpos e the se
a c t i v i t i e s t o p r o t e c tN e s b y’ s d a u g h t e r s f r o mN e s b y.
DI SCU SSIO N Nesby raises thre e issues on appe al conc erningthe cour t’s admission of testimony by MF -1 18 , M F
- 1 2 2 , a

n d M F
- 1 2 4 r e g ard inge xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e s; b e c a

us e of the sim ila ri ty of the iss ue s,5

Nesby ar gu es t h ese issues togethe r. He contends that the e vidence was unne cessa ry , and that the pr e jud ic ia l e ffect of th is e vid e nc e so fa r o utw e ig hs the pr ob a tiv e va lue that th e c ourt a bu se d it s dis c re tio n b y

a dmi tti ngit. The State, a s the proponent of this ex trane ous offe nse evide nce, be ars the bur den of showing admissibili ty
. Se e Ra nk in v . S tate , 974 S.W .2d 707, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (op. on reh’ g ). Evidence is r eleva nt a nd g ener ally admissible if it ha s “any tendenc y to make the e x istence of any fa c t tha t is of

c on se qu e nc e to t

he de te rm inatio n o f t

he a c tio n mo re pr ob a

ble or le ss p ro ba

ble tha n it wo uld be wi tho ut the e vid e nc e .” Te x. R. E vid . 4 01 ; see also Tex. R. Evid. 402. Evidence of other c rimes or bad ac ts is not admis sible to prove the de fenda nt’s char acte r in order

to show that the cha rg ed ac ts were i n confor mity with that char acte r, but is admissible to prove motive,
o p p o rtu n it y , in te n t, p r e p ar a ti o n , p la

n , kn o w le d g e , id e n ti ty , o r a b s e n c e o f mi s ta k e o r a c c id e n t. T e x. R. E vid . 4 04 (b ). Whe re the State ’s dir e c t e vid e nc e that c le arl y sh ows an e le me nt o f t he c ri me is neither c ontradicte d by

the def endant nor

und er m ined by

cross-e x amination, evidenc e of othe r crimes to show the e lement is irrele vant. Se e Ra nk in , 974 S.W .2d at 719. The leg islature has de termined t h at , notwithstanding rule 404, evidenc e of othe r
c ri me s, wr on g s, or

a c ts c omm itt e d b y the de fe nd ant ag a ins t a c hil d v ic timsh a ll b e a dmi tte d f or its bear ing on r eleva

nt matters such a s the state of mind of the de fenda nt and the child and the relationship of the defe ndant and the c hild before and af ter the of fense
. SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.37, § 2 (West Supp. 2004-05). This Court has held that evidenc e of e x trane ous sexual conduct with a child helps to prove that acts other wise unthinkable to the avera g e juror c ould occur , showing , for e x ample, that a pe rson i n a posi tion of authority , custody , or ca re of a young child has6

develope d an unnatur al attitude and relationship t owar d that child. Er ns t v . S tate , 971 S.W .2d 698, 70 0 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin , 19 98 , no pe t.) ; se e als o M on tgo me ry

v . S tate , 8 1 0 S. W. 2 d

3 7 2 , 3 9 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1990); J

oh ns v . S tate , 236 S.W. 2d 82 0, 82 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 51 ). Ev ide nc e that is
re le va n tu n d e r art i c l e 3 8
. 3 7 s t i l l i s s u

b j e c tt o e xc l u s i o ni 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 an t i a lly outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr eju d i ce , confusion of the issues, misleading the jury , or
ne e dle ss p re se ntatio n o f c umu lativ e e vid e nc e . T e x. R. E vid . 4 03 ; Hi tt v . S tate , 53 S.W .3d 697, 706 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). We reviewthe admission of evidenc e for an abuse of discre tion. Sa laz ar v . S tate , 38 S.W. 3d 14 1, 15 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); Mo ntg om e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 378. Rulings on re levanc e should be left lar g ely

to the trial court, r elying on its own observations and ex perie nce, and will not be re verse d absent a

n abuse of

discretion. Mo re no v . S

tate , 858 S.W .2d 453, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 93 ); Cor le

yv . S tate , 987 S.W .2d 615, 618 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). I f the trial c ourt’s ruling was within the “zone of r easona ble disag ree ment , ” t h er e i s no abuse of discretion, and w e must uphold t he trial c ourt’s ruling
. Salazar , 3 8 S. W.3 d at 15 3- 54 ; Mo ntg om e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 391. To find an e rror

in the admission of evidenc e, we must be able to “ say with c onfidenc e that by no
re a so na ble pe rc e pt io n of comm on e xpe ri e nc e c an it

be c on c lud e d th a t pr of

fe re d e vid e nc e ha s a te nd e nc y to m ake the e xiste nc e of a fact of con se qu e nc e mor e or le ss p ro ba

ble tha n it wo uld otherw i s e be . . . .” Mo ntgom e ry , 8 10 S.W. 2d a t 39 1. Up on

fi nd ingsu c h e rr or , w e mus t a sse ss whether the er ror wa s harmful. Id
. Nesby argues that the e x trane ous-offe nse evide nce w as i rre levant because it was not
ne c e ssa ry to p ro ve e le me nts of the of fe ns e that we re e sse nti a lly un c on te ste d, su c h a s id e nti ty , in te nt,MF-118 testified that MF-124 rebuff ed Nesby ’s attempts to fondle or have sex with her, 1 but that testimony

was va g ue about what actually occur red. 7 plan, p re p ar ati on, and opportunity . Yet these elements ha d been c alled into question by Nesby ’s statements to police. In his init ial statement to police, he denie d h av i n g sex wit h MF-118 a nd
a c c us e d he r of makin g the a c c us a tio ns in re ta liatio n for his re fu sa l to a llo w h e r t o mo ve in w ithhim and his wife. H e then por

tray ed himself as the victim of sexual touching a nd hara ssment by

MF-118 and of a partic u lar sexual assault by the g irls; he also alleg ed that MF -118 had se x with other relatives and ac cused others of sexual a ssault. These state ments raised que stions such as whether the assault cha

rg ed occ urre d, occur

red as M F- 1 1 8 d escr ibed (includingwhether Nesby was the relative who had sex with her and whether he intentionally or knowing ly had sex with her), or w as the cr eation of a

vindictive child’s mind. The e vidence was re levant under article 38.37 to show the re l ationship betwee n Nesby and MF-118 and their respe ctive states of mind. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.37, § 2. I t w as also rele vant to show Nesby ’s intent in the encounte r for which he w as convic ted. See Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 394. This is true both of evidence of incidents that involved only Nesby and MF-118 and of evidence of incidents that also involved other children. Whil e the events that other c hildren witnessed or participated in a lso ma y have involved c rimes ag ainst them, MF-118 w as prese nt at and the f

ocus of a ll the incidents testified about in this rec ord. The testim ony about such 1
e ve nts wa s thu s wi thi n art ic le 38 .3 7 e ve n th ou g h o the r c hil dr e n w e re pr e se nt a nd , in so me ins tanc e s, involved in the extraneous ac t. The incidents involving othe r children cast li g ht on the s tate of mind of Ne sby and of MF -118, as we ll as their re lationship.8 Nesby contends that the evidenc e of extraneous offe nses was so unfairly prejudicia l that it should not have be en admitted. SeeTex. R . Evid. 403. This jury was a sked to deter

mine whether Nesby committed one assault of MF- 118, but hear d evidenc e fr om multi ple witnesses a bout multipl e assa

u l t s involving more tha

n one child. Ne sby

complains that evidenc e (a nd argument bas ed t here on ) t hat he co erced MF-1 22 to hav e sex wi th MF-1 18 in th e pre sen ce of hi s s is ter , M F124, would be extremely

inflammatory

and unfa irly prejudicia l to a jury conce rned w ith a differ ent
a ssa ult on a dif fe re nt d ay

inv olv ingon ly MF-118. He c on te nd s th a t th e iss ue s c ou ld b e c ome confuse d and the jury

misled by

the ar ray of assa ultive incid en t s i n ev idence when Ne sby was
c ha rg e d w ithon ly

on e of fe ns e . T he lit any

of e xtra ne ou s eve nts c ou ld a lso be unne c e ssa ri ly cumulative. But the tria l court has discr etion in weig hing the conce rns of unfair pre judice. Mozon

v . S tate , 991 S.W .2d 841, 846-47 (Te x . Crim. App. 1999). Fa ctors in the dec ision include: (1) how compelling ly

the extraneous off

ense e vidence serve s to make a f act of conseque nce mor e or le ss probable—a fac tor which is related to the streng th of the evidenc e p re s ented by the propone nt to show the defe ndant in fac t committed the extraneous offe nse; (2 ) the po te nti a l th e oth e r o ff e ns e e vid e nc e ha s to imp re ss t he jur y “ in s ome irrational but neve rtheless indelible wa y ”; (3) the time the propone nt will need to develop the evidenc e, duringwhich the jury will be distracted f

rom consider ation of the indicted of fense ; (4) the forc e of the proponent’s ne ed for this ev i d ence to prove a fac t of c on se qu e nc e , i. e ., do e s th e pr op on e nt h a ve oth e r p ro bativ e e vi dence ava ila ble to him to help establish thi s fac t, and is this fact re lated to an issue in dispute.
Id . at 84 7; se e als o M

an nin g v . S

tate , 114 S.W .3d 922, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).9 The testimony

about t he ex trane ous offe nses was strong , and compe llingly showed t h e n a tu r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n N e s b y an d M F
- 1 1 8 , t h e i r s t a t e s o f m i n d , an d N e s b y’ s i d e n t i t y,
awa rene ss, and intent. No other e vidence illust rate d these factors as well. The offende r’s intent or knowledg e while c ommitt ing the act is a c ritical fa ct in the offe nse of a g g ravated sexual assault of a child. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.021( a)( 1)(B ).

The e vidence of the e x trane ous offe nses had g reat pote ntial to impress the jury in an ind e lib le wa

y . T he a c ts d e sc ri be d w e re re pu g na nt. B ut the re pu g na

nc e e vo ke d is ir

ra tio na l on ly

if it dist rac ted the jurors f

rom the off

ense c harg ed and impelled them to c onvict Nesby based on a ctions other than the one for

which he w as cha

rg ed. Th e re lativ e amou

nt of tim e sp e nt on t

he e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s h a d s ome po te nti a l to distract the juror s from the sing le eve nt for which N esby was c harg ed. As Ne sby

notes, testimony
a bo ut t he c ha rg e d e ve nt o c c up ie d s ome tw e nty lin e s o f te xt o n on e pa g e in a g uil t- inn oc e nc e ph a se repor ter’s r ecor d that cover s about 400 pag es. But the imbalance is not that extreme. The te stimony fr o m t h e three child witnesses occ upied less than six ty pag es, and ma

ny of those pag es did not
c on c e rn e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s. F ina lly , th e State ne e de d th e e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e e vid e nc e to s up po rt

its c a se a g a ins t Nesby
. The determination of Nesby ’s guilt or i nnocenc e hinged on the State’s ability to persuade jur or s th a t he int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

ha d s e x with

MF -1 18 . H is in ten t wa s a c ri tic a l is su e in dispute. Wit hout the evidence of extraneous offenses, the State ha d only the testimony

from MF -118
a bo ut t he inc ide nt i n th e kit c he n. Th is w a s b a lanc e d w ithe vid e nc e tha t MF -1 18 lie d a

nd fe lt motivated to harm Ne sby . The e vidence of extraneous off en ses—par

ticularly that from the other10

child witnesses—wa s compelling corr oboration of MF-118’ s version of her r elationship with Nesby and of his intentions toward he r.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its d i s cre tion by admitting the tes t i m o n y from MF-118, MF- 122, and MF -124 re g ardingextraneous ac ts committ ed by Nesby ag ainst MF-118.
CO NC LU SION

Con c lud ingthat th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in adm ittingthi s
e vid e nc e , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Mar ch 24, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh