i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 31 3- CR Dw ig ht BYRD , Appellant
v . STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 81st J udicial District Court, Kar nes County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 07 -1 2- 00 17 1- CRK Honora ble Ron Carr, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 1, 2009 AFF I RMED Dwig ht By

rd appe als his convictions for a g g ravated as s au l t of a public se rvant a nd possession of a deadly wea pon in a penal instit ution. By rd conte nds the trial cour

t erre d in admitting
e vid e nc e in v iol a tio n o f T e xas R ule of Ev ide nc e 40 4( b) . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04

- 08

- 00 31 3- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND By rd wa s an inmate at the Connally Unit of the Tex as Depa

rtment of Criminal J ustice – Institut ional Division, servi n g a s entenc e for robber y . By rd wa s housed in the administrative
se g re g a tio n unit

in o ne of on ly thr e e c e lls a t th e pr iso n wi th sp e c ia l de sign fe a tur e s to p re ve nt i nmate
c on ta c t wi th pr iso n g ua

rd s. On e of

the fe a tur e s w a s a

“ se c ur ity bo x,” wh ic h w a s atta c he d to the c e ll door and ha d a series of closures that allowed g uards to leave items, including food, in the box and the n s e c ur e a

do or , p re ve nti ng the inm a te fr om re c e ivi ng the ite m wh ile it w a s in the g ua rd ’s ha nd s. By rd wa s a “le vel three secur ity ” inmate, the most strictly supervised level of offe nder in the prison. Two cor

rec tions officer s were utiliz ed to transpor t By rd wh en ev erhe wa s require d to be
re mov e d f

rom hi s cel l. B e c a

us e of c ir c ums tanc e s uniq

ue to B y rd , a thi rd of fi c e r w a s r e qu ir e d to videotape B y

rd’s intera ctions with the g uards as he was moved wit hin the prison, and a supervisor
wa s p re se nt a s w e ll. Se c ur ity pr oc e dure s w ere emp loye d e a c h ti me B y rd wa s ta ke n f ro m hi s c e ll. These pr ocedur es included the require ment that By rd strip off a ll his clothi ng , pass them to the g uards f or inspection, and a llow the g uards to co n duct a visual inspec tion of his mouth and other body cavities. He would also be re quired to knee l or squat with his hands behind his ba ck and pla ce the m in to t

he se c ur ity

bo x to a llo w a

g ua rd to h and c uf

f h im. On Octobe r 3, 2007, Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice cor rec tional office r Jos e Ramirez was sent to pre pare By

rd for a sche duled cour

t a ppear ance on an unre lated ca se. Off icer Ramirez
wa s a c c omp anie d b y

tw o o the r c or

re c tio na l of

fi c e rs , on e op e ra

tin g a vid e o c ame ra

and a se rg e ant. Utiliz ing the proce dures de scribed a bove, the tea

m removed B y

rd fr om his cell and took By rd to a dif fe re nt c e ll s o h e c ou ld s ho we r. Th e te am the n re mov e d By rd fr om the sh ow e r c e ll a

nd too k h im back into his orig inal cell. When he was returne d to his original c ell, By rd plac ed his hands into the04

- 08

- 00 31 3- CR

1 ... W i t n es s es de s cr i bed t h e bl ade a s on e t h at w as or i g i n al l y c on t ai n ed i n a di s pos abl e r az or , bu t r emov ed f r om t h e r az or ’ s h ea d.

- 3- se c ur ity bo x to a llo w O ff

icer Ra mi rez to r e le a se the ha nd c uf fs . Wh e n O ff

ic e r R amir e z tr ie d to unlock the sec ond handcuf f, B y rd turned a

nd sliced Off

icer Ramirez’s hand with a r azor blade. Of fi c e r R amir e z ra

n to the inf

ir mary wh e re he re c e ive d in iti a l me dic a l tr e a tme nt. Th e tr e a tin g nurs e descr i b ed t h e wo u nd as a “ very deep w ound” with muscle a nd tendons exposed. He wa s later transporte d to the emer g ency room of a loc al hospital for tre atment. Duringthe subsequent investigation, a razor blade 1 was discove red two- to-three fee t from the door of By rd’s c ell. By rd wa s char g ed in a two- count i n d i ctment, which a lso included an a lleg ation of a pr ior felony conviction. Afte r a jury

trial duringwhich B y

rd t es t i fi ed in his own defense , he wa s found g uilty on both c ounts a

nd sentenc ed to life on the ag g ravated assault cha rg e and twe nty

y ear s on the
wea pon char g e. A N A L Y SIS In four issues, B y

rd asse rts the trial could e rre d by permitting the State t o p l ace evidenc e befor e the jury

about B y rd’s possession of r azor blades on dates other than the date c harg ed in the indictment. Be cause eac h issue turns on the propriety of t he trial c ourt’s dec ision to admit evidenc e of extraneous a cts, we discuss a ll four issues tog ether
. Applicable Law We reviewthe trial cour t’s decision to admit the evidenc e under an abuse of discre tion standard. Cam e ro n v . S

tate , 241 S.W .3d 15, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We w ill uphold t he trial judge ’s dec ision unless it is outside the z o n e o f reasonable disagree ment. Id. Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence prohibits admission of crimes, wrong s, or ac ts ex trane ous to thos e for which a person is on trial to prove the defe ndant’s chara cter or that he a cted in conf

ormity with the04

- 08

- 00 31 3- CR

2 ... B yrd o b je c te d to tes tim o n y a b o u t the u se o f a re ta ine r i n his m o u th, c la im ing the S ta te w a s a ttem p ting to i nt rod uce “ i l l i ci t 404( b) e x t r an eou s of f en s es . ” H owe v er , t h e j u r y n ev er h ea r d e v i den ce f r om wh i ch i t c ou l d have c o n c lud e d the w e a rin g o f a re ta ine r w a s a “b a d a c t.” A c c o rd ing ly, w e fi n d no e rr o r b a se d o n this te stim o n y.

- 4- p ri or misconduct. T EX . R. E V ID . 4 0 4 ( b )
. H o w e v e r , e v i d e n c e o f p r i o r m i s c o n d u c ti s a dm i s s i b l e if it has releva

nce a part from char acte r confor mity , such as to prove intent, establish motive, or rebut a def ensive theor

y . Moses v . State, 10 5 S. W.3 d 6 22 , 6 26 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Montgomery v. Sta te , 810 S.W .2d 372, 387-88 (Te x . Crim. App. 1991) (op. on re h’g ).

Rule 40 4( b) Ev idenc eElic ite d D urin g Cros s- Exa minatio n of

By rd D ur i n g i t s c r o s s - e xam i n a t i o n o f B y r d , th e S t a t e a s k e d w h e th e r h e w o r e a r e t a i n e r i n h is
mouth 2 and whether ra zor blades had be en found in his mouth during the time he wa s incarc erated. By rd conte nds the trial cour t erre d in permitting th e State to elicit such evidenc e bec ause it wa s inadmissible under Rule 404(b). We disagree . Be fore By

rd testified, the de fen s e ca l l ed s ever al inmates to testify on his behalf. The consistent theme portra

y ed by the def ense w as that B y

rd did not cut Office r Ramirez with a ra zor bla de . Rathe r, the de fe ns e c la ime d O ff ic e r R amir e z cut hi mse lf

on sh arp e dg e s w ith in t

he se c ur ity bo x whe n h e and

B y rd str ug g le d d ur ingthe re mov a l of

the ha nd c uf fs
. Inmate Doug las J ones testified he wa s in a ce ll with a security box simil ar to that on B y rd’s cell and ha d cut his hand seve ral times on jag g ed edg es within the box . He a lso tol d t h e jury he witnessed the alterc ation betwee n Offic er Ramire z and By rd using a small mirror, a

pproxi mately

the siz e of a “small pinky

fing er,” place d under his ce ll d o o r. He cl aim ed it “def ie[d] logic al pr ob a bil ity” that B y

rd c ou ld h ide a we a

po n and us e it to c ut the of fi c e r b e c a us e he wa s su

bje c te d to
a fu ll c avit y se arc h b e fo re he wa s r e mov e d f ro m hi s c e ll.04

- 08

- 00 31 3- CR

3 ... M aj o r D ar r en W al l ac e s u bs equ en t l y t es t i f i ed B y r d w as n ei t h er a l l owe d n or a u t h or i ze d t o pos s es s r az or b la d e s.

- 5- In mate Cl e o ti s Jo n e s a ls o te s ti f ie d h e h a d c ut hi s h an d o n s h ar p e d g e s w it

h in a s e c ur it y b o x. He told the jury i t was common for the sec urity

box es to have jag g ed edg es. Inmate Joe L aws testified he wa s housed in the s ame cell as By rd after the incident. He told the jury the sec urity

box
w a s e v e n tu a ll y

r e p a ir e d b e c a u s e c o r r e c ti o n a l o f

f ic e r s k e p t s c r a tc h in g th e ir h an d s o nth e b o x. By rd denie d cutting O ffice r Ramirez with a razor and told the jury the office r cut his hand on the sec urity box
. By

rd admitted to posse ssing sever al razor blades in his cell simil ar to the one found on the floor outside his c ell afte r the attack. Howeve r, he testified he threw at least one ra zor bla de out of

his c e ll a ft e r O ff

ic e r Ramir e z wa s c ut in re sp on se to the de mand s o f t he oth e r o ff

ic e rs . B y rd te sti fi e d th a t at any tim e he ha d “f ive to te n ra zor bla de s” in his c e ll, wh ic h he us e d to c ut h is ha ir . H e a lso c la ime d p ri so n a uth or iti e s a llo we d h im t o h ave the bla de s. 3 Inl i gh to f t h e d ef

en s e t h eo ry

an d th e t es t i m o n y ad d

u ce d t o s u p p o rt i t , we h o l d

th e t ri al j u d ge did no t abu se its dis c re tio n in per mittin g the State to que sti on B y rd a bo ut h idi ngra zor

bla de s in his mouth. The evidenc e wa s used by th e S t at e i n an ef

fort to re but By

rd’s e vidence that it was impossibl e for

him to possess a razor blade be cause of the secur ity measure s employ ed by

the prison and that the injury

was c aused by

sharp e dg es in the sec urity box
. Rul e 404(b) Evidence Elicited from Nur ses By rd also conte nds the trial cour t erre d in allowing two nurses to testify about By rd hiding
ra zor bla de s in his mouth. Te rr i Sa uc e da te sti fi e d sh e fo un d tw o ra zor bla de s in B y rd ’s m outh
sever al months before the incident involving O ffice r Ramirez. Sauceda told the jury

that in Febr

uary 2007 By rd cla imed to have swallowed a la rg e quantity

of pills. I n the proc ess of a dminist ering medical attention to By

rd, Sauce da witnessed a

nother nurse remove two razor blade s from B y rd’s04

- 08

- 00 31 3- CR

- 6- mouth. Shi rley

Pfeil testified there wer e two episode s in Aug ust 2007 where she obser ved that B y

rd had ra zor blades hidden in his mouth. Be cause both wi t n es s es provided this testimony afte r B y rd testified a

nd duringthe State’s rebuttal, we hold the testimony went to r ebut By rd’s defe nsive theory , and the trial court di dn ot abuse its discre tion in admitt ing the evidenc e.

Rul e 404(b) Evidence Elicited from C orrections Office r By rd next argues the trial c ourt err ed in per mitti ng Major Da

rre n Wallace to testify

about other incide nts in which By rd possessed r azor blades a nd his ability

to hide them from the staf f. Major Wallace was the State’s first witness. He first testified about the secur ity prec autions taken by the prison staff

with reg ard to B y

rd. On c ross-examination, and i n re s ponse to questions from the def ense, Ma jor Wallace told the jury

the assault ag ainst Offic er Ramire z took pl ace on a day B y rd wa s to a pp e ar i n c ourt

to a ns we r f or c ha rg e s he as sa

ult e d an oth e r co rr e c tio ns of fi c e r. De fe ns e counsel also elicited testi mony from Major Wallace showing the othe r trial involved a “ a piec e of metal” that was considere d a deadly wea pon. On redirect, Major Wallace testified w ithout objection that By rd wa s able to possess the we ap o n u s ed in t he prior a ssault despite the fa ct his cell wa s
se arc he d e ve ry tw o hou

rs . Maj or Wal la c e ne xt te sti fi e d B y rd wa s “ ve ry

a de pt” a t hi din g we a

po ns , he kn e w o f p ri or

“ inc ide nc e s w he re [B y

rd ] ha d a razor bla de in h is m outh, ” and By rd wa s a ble to hide the ra zors from the cor rec tional staff. It is the last portion of Ma jor Wallace’ s testimony

that By rd conte nds was admitted in violation of Rule 404(b). By rd objec ted to the testimony conce rning his alleg ed “adeptness” at hi ding weapons on the basis that the “question calls for speculation and is argumentative.” We will not consider a ny err or ba se d o n th is t e sti mony

be c a us e the g ro un d f

or c omp la int on a

pp e a l is no t th e same a s th a t ur g e d in04

- 08

- 00 31 3- CR

- 7- t h e trial court. Se e Br ox ton v . S tate , 9 0 9 S. W. 2 d

9 1 2 , 9 1 8 ( T e x. Cr im
. Ap p . 1 9 9 5 )
. T h e r e s t of Major Wallace ’s testimony came b ef

o re By rd’s ope ning statement and be fore any evidenc e
conce rning the defensive theory descr ibed above. We theref ore disagree with the State’s ar g ument that t h e t es t i m o n y

was prope r re buttal to By rd’s de fensive the ory . The State a sserts that by qu e sti on in g Ma

jor Wal la c e a

bo ut s e c ur ity

me a sure s e mpl oy e d b y

the pr iso n s ta ff

, in c lud ingstr ip
sear ches, B y

rd had pr esente d his theory to the jury befor e it elicited the disputed testimony . By rd’s questions a

b o u t s e c ur it

y me a s ur e s ma

y h av e f o r e s h a d o w e d

h is d e f e n s e , b u t t

h e r e c o r d d o e s n ot support the State’s conte ntion. Accor dingly , we hold the tria l court er red in a llowing Ma

jor Wallace to testify about prior instanc es whe n By rd had hidde n razor blade s in his mout h. Be cause we have deter

mined the trial court err ed, we deter mine the har

m, if any , cause d by the er ror. The admission of evidenc e in violation of Rule 404(b) is not const i t u t i o nal er ror, a nd there fore we r ever se only if the err or aff ecte d By rd’s substantial r ights. Se e Cole ma n v . S tate , 188 S.W .3d 708, 726 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, pe t. ref’ d), cert. de nied, Coleman v. Tex as , 549 U.S. 999 (2 00 6) ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( b). Stated another way , we will af

firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment “if we have f air a ssuranc e fr om an examination of the rec ord as a whole that the e rror

did not influence the jury , or had but slig ht effe ct.” Tay lor v . S tate , 268 S.W .3d 571, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Ba sed on our review of

the entire rec ord, we conclude the er ror ha d but slight eff

ect on the jury . Dur i n g his testimony , By rd admitted to possessing “five to ten” ra zor blades in his cell and admitted he re moved the blade s from the dispos ab l e ra z o rs issued by the State for his use. H e essentially

confe ssed to the wea

pon char g e for

which he w as on trial. And, it did no t m at ter if he ob ta ine d th e ra zor

us e d to a tta c k O ff

ic e r R amir e z fr om h is m outh or so me oth e r loc a tio n in h is c e ll. The g rava men of the a ssault was t he use of t he ra zor blade to ca use injury to the victim and whether04

- 08

- 00 31 3- CR

- 8- the ra zor blade wa s a dea dly wea pon. Sev er al wi t n esses, including Major Wallac e and a nurse, stated t he razor blade was a deadly wea pon. Nurse Sauceda told the jury she worke d on case s where people died from injuries inflicted by a similar ra zor blade. The jur y also hea rd seve ral witnesse s testify By rd cut Of fice r Ramirez with a ra zor blade, and it viewed photogr aphs from the videotape that showed a

small metal object in By rd’s ha nd at the time of the attack. The d ef en s e elicited te sti mony that B y rd wa s a c c us e d o f p re vio us ly a tta c kin g a g ua

rd wi th a de a dly we a po n a nd his c e ll
was sea rche d ever

y two hours. The jury

also hea rd of the spe cial pre cautions take n with By rd, inc lud ingvid e ota

pin g a ll int e ra c tio ns and ho us ing him in o ne of on ly thr e e c e lls in t

he pr iso n w ith
a se c ur ity bo x. Ma jor Wal la c e ’s te sti mony me re ly e c ho e d e vid e nc e fr om l a te r w itn e sse s, pr op e rl y befor e the jury , that By

rd had hidde n razor blade s in his mout h.

C ONCL US I ON We overrule By

rd’s issues and a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice

Do No t Pu

bli sh