NO. 07-05 -033 2-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 C MA RC H 29, 2 007

_________

_________

_________

___ CH RI STIAN BJ OR GAAR D, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DA L L AM COU NT Y; TH NO. 386 8; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Chr is ti an Bj org aard ( appel lan t) appeal s h is co nv ic ti on for attempt ed s ex ual as saul t. Vi a fo u r issue s, he c ontends that1) the tr ial co urt er re d i n al low ing the Stat e to present evidence, during the guilt phase o f the trial, of

a prior convi ction, 2) the trial court erred in
ov er ru li ng his re q uestto dis mis s a member of the j ur

y dur ing tr ial after

the juror di sc los ed tha t he w as acquaint ed wi th th e v ictim’s fath er, 3) the e v iden ce w as insuf f icient to supp ort his co nv icti on, a nd 4) the tr ial co urt er re d by fail ing to hol d a h ear ing on h is moti ons for newAccor di ng t o t he a ff i ant , sev er al j ur or s sai d “ t hat [ appel l ant ] was l i k el y gui l t y of t hi s cr i m e be cause 1 h e h a d d o n e th i s b e fo re .” 2 tr ial and to ar re st jud g ment. W e consi der the is sues in an order

opposi te t o tha t present ed by appel lan t and i n doi ng so rev erse the j udg ment. Iss ue Four –

Hearing on Mot

ion for New Trial

and to Arrest Judgment Und er thi s i ss ue, a ppel lan t as ser ted t hat t he tr ial co urt erred i n fail ing to hol d a hear ing on h is moti ons for new tr ial and to arrestj udg ment. Thro ug h tho se moti ons, he all eg ed th at t he jur

y had eng ag ed in mis condu ct by 1) findi ng hi m g uil ty bec ause he w as prev iou sl y

co nv icted o f a si mil ar

offense and 2) se ntenc ing hi m w it h an ey e tow ards the amount o f time h e w oul d ac tua lly se rv e. These al leg ati ons w ere founded upo n the comments appear ing in an affidav itex ecut ed by one of the j urors. In that aff ida v it , t he j uror pur por ted to desc ri be w hat some of hi s fel low j urors c onsi dered i n reachi ng thei r deci si on. 1 W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. It is cl ear

that the deci si on w hether

to g ra nt or

deny a n e w tr ial l ies w it hin the dis creti on of t he tr ial co urt. W all ace v. State, 106 S.W .3d 103 , 108 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03). Si mil ar ly undi sput ed i s t hat w hen new tr ial i s founded upon mat ters not d is cer nib le from the record, the allegations in th e mo tion m ust be supp orted b y a f f idavit i llustrating their
acc uracy before the mov ant i s e nti tl ed to a he ar ing

. Ma rt ine z v. Sta te , 74 S.W .3d 1 9, 21
- 22 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002)

. Impl ic itw it hin thi s r ule i s t he req uire m e n t t hat t he pur por ted evidence co nta ined in the af f idavit be co mp ete nt and a dm issible for if it is notit can hardly il lus trate t he tr uth o f w hat i s b ein g sa id. Next, appl ic abl e r u le o f ev ide nce bars a j uror

from t est ify ing aboutany matte r or sta tement made dur ing the jur y ’s del ibe ra ti ons or about a juror ’s mental proces ses . SeeW h ile th e r e a r e e x c e p tio n s to th is r u le , a p p e lla n t d o e s n o t c o n te n d th a t t h e y a p p ly. 2 3 T EX . R. E V ID . 606( b)

. W it h thi s r ule i n mi nd, w e not e that the ev ide nce proffered i nv olv ed, 2 as stat ed bythe aff ian t, the “c oll ect iv e thoug ht [of the jurors] in the del ibe ra ti on room . . . .” Descri bi ng t he c ol l ec ti v e th ou g hto f t he j urors i s n ot hi ng mo re th an i mp ar ti ng their del ibe ra ti v e proces ses . Gi v en this , Rul e 606(b) barred the tri al cour t from cons ide ri ng the cont ents of the a ff ida v it

. And, w it hout thos e cont ents , not hin g remaine d i n the aff ida v itto suppo rtthe all eg ati on w it hin the pendi ng m o ti o n s. Con seq uentl y , t he tr ial co urt di d not abu se its discretion in fa iling to con ducta hea ring on th ose m otion s.

Issu e T hr ee – L egal an d Factual

Su ff icien cy Next, appel lan t as ser

ted t hat t he ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rtthe v erdict. W e di sag re e and ov er ru le the i ss ue. The appl ic abl e sta ndards of rev iew are w ell se ttl ed and w il l not b e reit erated. N ext, the S tate acc used appel lan t, v ia it s i ndi ctment , t hat h e did then and there, w it h the sp eci fic i ntentto commi t t he offense of Sex ual Assau lt of

[H.D.], do a n act, to w it : p la c in g his han d un dern eat h [H.D.’s] shor ts, w hic h amount ed to more than mere preparati on th at t ended b ut fail ed to effect t he c ommis si on of the offense int ended;

. . . . Ev ide nce of re cord i ndi cat ed th at ap pel lan t ( H. D. ’s unc le) v is it ed w it h H .D . and her thirtee n-y ear-old b rothe r w hile the ir parents w ere g one . H.D. w as app rox ima tely ten y ears old at the t ime. The t hree beg an w atc hin g a mov ie w hen app ell ant d irect ed H .D . t o s iton his l ap. She c ompli ed, a nd appe ll ant b eg an ti ck li ng her on her st omach and l eg s. D ur ing thi s t ime, appel lan t reache d under her sh orts and t ouche d the outs ide of her “ pr iv ates .” This al leg edl y

oc cur re d th re e ti mes, and eac h ti me i t di d H .D . di re cte d hi m to “ sto p.” I n re spons e to the direct iv es, appel lan t all eg edl y ask ed “w hy ?” Thereafter, sh e j umped from4

his l ap, w ent to the b athroom, ent ered th e s how er , s tay ed i n the sh ow er for a n hour , and did so bec ause she feared w hat a ppel lan t w oul d “d o to [her ] next.” Ev entual ly , s he l eft the shower, w entto her room and began dre ssing. Before she could f inish and w hile she w ore onl y underg ar ments, appel lan t l ooked int o her ro om and sai d “

. . . he w as onl y [her ] unc le. ” This i s s ome ev ide nce upon w hic h a factfinder cou ld r a ti o nal ly

co ncl ude bey ond
re asona ble doubtthatappel lan t c ommitt ed the cr ime all eg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. Si mply put,
a ra t io n a l j u ry c o u ld h a ve co n c lu d e d t h a th a d H. D. n o tle f th is la p , a p p e ll a n two u ld h a ve penetrated her

v ag ina w it h hi s fin g er , and thatw oul d hav e c onst it uted sex ual as saul t. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §22.011 (V er non Supp. 2006) (d efini ng sex ual ass aul t as, among oth er things, the insertion o f a f inger into the fem ale sex org an). T h a tH. D. wa s t h e o n ly wi t n e s s t o t e s t ify a b o u tt h e a s s a u lta n d t h a tsh e m a y h a ve prev iou sl y

i ndi cat ed th at ap pel lan t di d nottouc h her “ pr iv ates ” did not alo ne vi ti ate t he
ev ide nce of appell ant’ s g uil t. Conv ic ti on can be had on the t est imony of the v ic ti m al one. Se e G ar ci a v . St ate , 563 S.W .2d 9 25, 9 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1978) ; O z u n a v . S ta te, 199 S.W .3d 6 01, 6 06 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.)

. And, any di sc re panci es in her testim ony merely creat ed o ppo rtunity fo r the jurors to asse ss h e r credibility. T hey w ere f ree to b elieve the test imo ny she p rof fered a t trial, a s o ppo sed to tha t utte red before trial. In s um, th ere w as ample ev ide nce of gu il t, and t hat e v ide nce w as not s o w eak as to render the v erdict suspe ct. So, the ev ide nce w as both leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o suppo rtthe v erdict. Iss ue Two – Jury Disqual

ifica tion Next, appel lan t c ontends that the tr ial co ur t er re d w hen i t fail ed to remov e a j uror from the panel onc e it w as dis cov ered that the juror knew H.D .’ s father

. W e ov er ru le the is sue.5

Acc ordin g to the record, t he j uror knew H. D. ’s father for s ev eral months but onl y by t h e n a m e “B e a r. ” H e d id n o tre c o gn ize h im b y h is a c t u a l n a m e . No r we re t h e two int imat ely

ac q uai nted. They

w ere s impl y

tw o of a g ro u p wh o r ode moto rcy cl es tog ether several times. T hey n ever discusse d the ca se. A nd, w hen asked w het her the relationsh ip
w ould inf luen ce his v erdict, th e juror answered, “I don ’t think so.” He al s o r e plied “[y]es, si r” to the q uest ion of

w hether he (t he juror ) coul d decid e the cas e bas ed upon w hat w as heard i n the co urtroom as oppos ed to anythi ng he “may know about” the v ic ti m’s father “ or anyco n v e rs a t i o n [ t h e j u ro r ] ma y h a v e h a d

. . . re g a rd i n g t h i s s i t u a t i o n [

. ] ” F i n a ll y , w hen ask ed if he w as “fr ien ds w it h [H .D .’ s father ] eno ug h tha t i t w oul d i nfluenc e . . . ” him, the juror said “no.” The deci si on to remov e or retai n a juror li es w it hin the dis creti on of the tr ial co urt. Ander son v. State , 633 S.W .2d 851 , 853 -54 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 2). Moreover, neithe r a juror ’s fri endsh ip or

i nti mate ac q uai ntanc e w it h a witn e ss a lone i s s uff ic ien t t o w ar ra nt dis q ual ific ati on from the p a nel

. Id

. Gi v en Ander son , t he ev ide nce of the s poradi c a nd atten uated re lat ion shi p betw een H .D .’ s father and the juror , and the juror ’s respon ses to the trial court, w e can not say tha t the trial court abuse d its discretion in opt ing to retain him on th e pa nel. Iss ue One – Extraneous Convic tion Next, appel lan t al leg ed th at t he tr ial co urt er re d i n admi tti ng ev id e n ce o f hi s 1 999
conv icti on for ind ecency w it h a c hil d dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce p h a se o f the tr ial

. The
ev ide nce pur por

tedl y w as ina dmis si ble under Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 401, 403, and 404

. W e s ust ain the is sue.6

T h e pertine nt standa rd of rev iew is one of abu sed discretion. In other w ords, we
canno t i nter

fere w it h the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admi t the e v ide nce unl ess i t fell outs ide the
z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Mo ntgom er y v . St ate , 81 0 S. W .2 d 37 2, 391 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1990) ; W

inn v. Sta te , 937 S.W .2d 124 , 127 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 1996 , no pe t.). Next, that the e v ide nce in q uest ion co nst it uted an extraneous offense is bey ond doubt. Thus , to be admis si ble , it must be re lev ant for reason s o ther

than su g g est ing that the a ppel lan t acted i n c onformanc e w it h his charact er . Al ba v . St ate , 905 S.W .2d 5 81, 5 85 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ( so sta ti ng ). An d, t o be re lev ant, the ev ide nce need only prov ide a “ smal l nudg e” tow ard prov ing or d isp ro vi ng a factof some c onseq uence . Ste wa rt v. State , 129 S.W .3d 9 3, 96 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ; Levar io v. State , 964 S.W .2d 2 90, 2 97 (Tex

. App.–E l Paso 1997, no pet .)

. Fi nal ly , s uch ev ide nce, i f show n to be rele v ant, may sti ll be e x cl uded if it s prej udi ci al impact is g re ater than i ts probati v e v alu e. Al ba v . St ate , 905 S. W .2d a t 585

. W ith this said, w e turn to the case before us. As prev iou sl y

menti oned, the d is puted ev ide n ce consi ste d of appel lan t’ s 1 999
conv icti on for ind ecency w it h a chi ld. The i ndece ncy i nv olv ed hi s t ouchi ng the v ag ina of a four- y ear-o ld g ir l. Acc ordin g to the chi ld, appell ant “w as ti ck li ng her w it h his fing er .” The actresul ted i n a smal l “o oz ing abrasi on” w it hin her g eni tal ia. Thi s e v ide nce w as deemed
re lev ant b y

the Stat e bec ause it pur por tedl y ind ic ated that appel lan t had the s peci fic i ntent to s ex ual ly

as saul t H .D . as w ell

. How or w hy i t di d, ho w ev er , w ent u nex pla ine d bel ow and on appe al. N or

i s t he l ink

betw een app ell ant’ s p ri or co nv ic ti on and m ens rea viz H.D.
re adi ly di sc er nib le to us. Of course, one coul d s ay thatbec ause he di d i t i n the pas t, heI n so s t a t i n g , w e r e c o g n i z e a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n r e l e v a n c e a n d a d m i s s i b i l i t y . To b e a d m i s s i b l e, 3 ev i dence m ust be r el ev ant , but not al l r el ev ant ev i dence i s adm i ssi bl e.

H

. D

. t est i f i ed t o ap pel l ant so act i ng a nd r espond i ng. 4 7 must hav e des ired to do i t ag ain ; y et, that is si mply i nv oki ng the conc ept of ch aract er confor mity

w hic h c annot leg all y

be d one. Non et h e l e s s , i t c a n n o t b e d e n i e d t h a t u n d e r c e rt a i n c i r c u ms t a n c e s p r i o r b ad ac ts coul d el uci date the m ens re a of t he acc used w hen commi tti ng a subs eq uent act

. For that
reaso n the conviction at issue he re ma y indee d be relev ant

. Yet, tha t still doe s notmake it adm issible for several reaso ns. 3 First, the evidence w as un nece ssary . An adu lt male touch ing the out side genita lia
o f a t e n - y e a r- o l d c h i l d t h re e t i me s aft e r di re c t i n g he r

to si ton hi s l a p ( o n c e he r p a re n t s l e ft the hou se) and then a s k in g “w hy” w hen told to sto p by the child, itself tend s to suggest 4
w hath e had o n his min d. S imp ly p ut, the a cts spea k for t hem selves an d provide b asis (if bel iev ed) for o ne to reason abl y i nfer t hat a ppel lan t cons ci ousl y soug ht t o fondle H. D. ’s se x org an. And, becau se the act s speak for t hemsel v es, any

su g g est ion thatthe extraneous cr ime w as needed to prov e appel lan t’ s s peci fic i nten t to assa ultr ing s h oll ow . See K is er
v. State , 893 S.W .2d 2 77, 2 82 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 5, pe t. re f'd) (h old ing that the S tate had no need t o presentev ide nce of the extraneous offense for pur poses of est a b l i s h i n g t h e i n t e n t b e h i n d t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t i n g a n d c h o k ing the compl ain ant b ecaus e hi s i ntentw as ev ide nt fro m the condu ct it sel f). Seco nd, the pro bat iv e v alue of t h e e xtrane ous co nviction w as sub stan tially outw eig hed by

i ts preju dic ial i mpact. See T EX . R. E V ID . 403 (s tati ng that“ alt houg h rele v ant,
ev ide nce maybe e x cl uded if it s probati v e v alu e is subs tanti all y outw eig hed by the d ang erW hen i ni t i al l y i nt er v i ewed by t hi r d par t i es at t he Br i dge, t he g i r l den i ed b ei ng t ouched by app el l ant 5 on t he v agi na. I nst ead, he al l egedl y t i ck l ed her ar ound her hi ps an d st om ach, and she l ef t hi s l ap b ef or e he c ou l d t ou c h h er “pri vates

. ” 8 of unfair preju dic e, c onfusio n of the is sues , or mis lea din g the jur

y , . . . . ”). It cannotbe dispu ted thatsex ually- related miscon ductand misco ndu ct involv ing a child are inheren tly infla mmator

y . Mo ntgom er

y v. State , 810 S.W .2d a t 397 ; Book er v. Sta te , 103 S.W .3d 5 21, 535 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 03, p et. re f’d)

. So, itca n be sai d tha t app e lla n t’ s p ri or c o n vic t io n fo r i n d e c e n c y wit h a ch il d h a d t h e p o t e n t ia l fo r i m p ro p e rl y in f lu e n c in g t h e ju ry. Fur ther more, tw o w it ness es w ere call ed bythe Stat e for no reas on ot her

than to dev elo p the p ri or co nv icti on. So, itca nnot be s aid thatl ittl e att enti on w as focused upon t he
extraneous cr ime, and thi s enhanc ed th e pot enti al for th e ev ide nce improper ly i nfluenc ing the j ur y . W e furt her

note thatthe chi ld tes ti fied attr ial thatappel lan t pl aced his hands under her sh orts and touche d the outsi de of her v ag ina approx imat ely three ti mes w hil e ti ck li ng h e r . S o , w h i l e t h e e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s g uil t w as con t ra d i c t e d b y t h e v i c t i m h e rs e l f, 5 ample evide n ce n o n e thel ess ex is ted t o s uppor t c onv ic ti on. This , i n tur n, meantthatthe need for the ev ide nce of appell ant’ s p ri or co nv ic ti on w as sl ig ht. Addi tio nal ly , t he pur por ted rele v ance of the pr ior co nv ic ti on w as fair ly

depend ent upo n con cluding tha t app ellant ’s a ctions su rround ing that con v iction w ere similar to th ose inv olv ed i n the cu rrent p ro sec uti on. That i s, it wa s n o t si mply the fact th at ap pel lan t inserte d his f inger into t he vagi na o f his prior v ictim tha t w as pu rported ly indicative of

his inten t to assa ult he r. R ath er, it wa s b e c a u s e h e w as sup pose dly tickling the prior v ictim
w hen he assaulte d her that ma de it relevant to the issue of app ellant ’s inten tions at b a r. Thus, the ev ide nce w as used in a w ay to il lus trate a m odus oper andi , one cou ld say . Y et,N e i th e r p a rty a d d re s s e d th e p o te n ti a l h e a rs a y n a tu re o f th e m o th e r’s s ta te m e n t. 6 9 that he as saul ted t he four- y ear-o ld w hil e ti ck li ng her w as it sel f far from cl ear . Inde ed, t he evidence u sed to arriv e at th e inferen ce con sisted o f noth ing more tha n a single sente nce pur por tedl y uttered by the v icti m’s mother w hil e the v ic ti m w as underg oin g a m e d ic al examina tion. Via that sent ence , the mo the r reiterate d w hatthe victim allegedly told he r, that is , t hat a ppel lan t w as tick lin g o r ti ck led her

. W hether thi s mean t t hat h e w as doi ng 6
so as a prelu de to the ass aul t or w hether the ass aul t its elf consi ste d of appel lan t’ s t ouchi ng the c hil d’s se x

org an i n a mann er

thatti ck led i s unkno w n. It coul d w ell hav e been the l atter for notonl y

di d the four- y ear-o ld desc ri be the sw abbi ng of he r v ag ina by medi cal personne l dur ing her

ex aminat ion as ti ck li ng , butone of the w it ness es used at ba r to il lus trate t he pr ior co nv icti on c onced ed th at t he c hil d c oul d hav e s o meant. An d, i f it w as the l atter then the s imi lar it ies between th e p rio r conv ic ti on and cur re nt ac cus ati on w oul d be further mini miz ed. S o , u s e o f t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n w a s fra u g h tw i t h t h e r i s ko f c o n fu s i o n or mis int er pretati on of fact du e to the c onj ect ure s ur ro undi ng w hat t he chi ld act ual ly meant, and t his , i n tur n, further min imi z ed th e rele v ance of the extraneous co nv ic ti on. The ci rc umstan ces of w hic h w e jus t spok e are factors to be w eig hed i n as ses si ng
w hether rele v ant e v ide nce can nonethe les s be ex cl uded v ia Tex as Rul e of Ev ide nce 403. S e e Mo n t

g o m e r y v . Sta te , supra ( so hol din g ). I n w eig hin g them at ba r, w e c annot but
conc lud e tha t t hey

preponderate i n fav or of ex cl udi ng the ev ide nce of app e lla n t’ s pri or conv icti on. Its probati v e v alu e w as far outw eig hed by i ts potent ial to confuse the j urors o r other w is e i nduce them to c onv ict for re asons othe r than act ual g uil t. As prev iou sl y note d,
cr imes of a s ex ual natu re i nv olv ing ch il dren are i nherentl y i nflammator

y . And, w hil e s ex ual10

pred ation of

our children m ust no t be count ena nced , caut ion must be used to avoid again
conv icti ng a de fendant s impl y bec ause he may

hav e c ommitt ed a cr ime before. In s hor t, admitti ng appel lan t’ s pr ior conv ic ti on w as er ro r. Y et, that does not e nd our inq uir y for w e must now ass ess w hether the er ro r har med hi m. That anal y si s i s c onduc ted
w it hin the fram e worko f T ex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 44.2 (b ). Pe r the l atter r ule , er ro r maybe i g nored unl ess i t affects a r ig ht of the ac cus ed. Next, itso af f e ct s a r ig ht
w hen it subs tanti all y and inj ur iou sl y influ ences the jur y 's v erdict. Ki

ng v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (T e x. Crim . A p p .1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Kotteakos v. U nited St ates , 328 U. S. 750, 776, 66 S.C t. 1239, 1253, 90 L. Ed. 1557 ( 1946) ); Coggesha ll v. Sta te , 9 6 1 S

. W

. 2 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 3 (T e x. App.–F ort W o rt h 1 9 9 8 , pet . ref’d)

. And, to de ter mine w hether thatl ik eli hood ex is ts depends upon a rev iew of the e nti re record and the reason abl e i nferenc es that can be
extrapol ated from i t. See Johns on v. State , 967 S.W .2d 410 , 417 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98). T his, in turn, obligates us to not on ly w eigh the evidence of

app ellant ’s g uilt butalso assess the c h a ra c t e r o f t h e e r ro r , t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e tw e e n t h e i n a d mi s s i b l e e v i d e n c e and ot her
ev ide nce, and it s e m p h asi s b y the Stat e. See Moti

ll a v . St ate , 78 S.W .3d 3 52, 3 58- 59 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2002)

. Regarding the quant um of ev iden ce illustrating app ellant ’s g uilt, en ough w as the re to sup port con v iction. B ut, as previously n ote d, it w as no t f ree of contrad iction. Moreover, the comm ent s of

the victim herself

resurrected the con tradictio n. And , sinc e t h e re w ere no w it ness es to t he i nci dent sav e for H. D. and appel lan t, iti s d if f icu lt to say

thatthe
ev ide nce of ap pel lan t’ s g uil t w as ov er w hel ming

. Next, and as menti oned before, the e rror inv olv ed th e i ntroduct ion of ev ide nce that w as inh erentl y i nflammator

y . And, w hil e the tr ial11

cour t i nst ru cte d the j ur

y to cons id e r itonl y

for a l imi ted p ur pose, i ts re lev ance to t hat pur pose, to the fact s i n di sp u te , a n d to the o ther ev ide nce w as q uit e s uspect. In other
w ords, if the jury did heed the trial court’s admo nishm ent , the adm onish me nt itself could b e vie we d a s p e rm it t in g c o n s id e ra t io n o f t h e e vid e n c e fo r a n im p ro p e r p u rp o s e . Fi n a ll y,
w hil e the Sta te may

not hav e me n ti oned ap pel lan t’ s p ri or co nv ic ti on el sew here i n the guilt/innoce nce p hase of the trial, tw o of

t he f iv e prose cution witnesses w ere used solely to prov e i t. Thus, i t c annot be reason abl y di sput ed th at t he inadmi ss ibl e ev ide nce g ar nered atten ti on. So, from this amalg am, w e c annot dis countthe li kel iho od th at ap pel lan t’ s p ri or conv icti on s ubst anti all y i nfluenc ed hi s c ur re nt c onv ic ti on. Si mply put, t here w as enoug h ev ide nce to w ar ra nt c onv ic ti on w it hout use of the extraneo us con v iction. Yet, tha t is not the test mand ate d by our Court of Cri min al App eals fo r the ev ide nce of gu il t mus t be ov er w hel ming

. See Motilla v. State , supra . A nd , s ince itw as n o t here, w e hav e l ittl e c hoi ce but t o recog niz e the hi g h l ik eli hood t hat t he pr ior
conv i c t i o n i n fl u e n c e d o n e o r mo r e o f t h e j u ro rs . S o , a p p e l l a n t w a s h a r me d byi ts admis si on. Hav ing su sta ine d appel lan t' s first is sue, w e rev erse the j udg ment and remand th e caus e for further

proceed ing s.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.