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

NO. 03-04-00130- CR NO. 03-04-00131- CR

De r e k Ri c e , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS . 50204 00 & 20241 70, H ONO RAB LE FRED A. MO ORE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appellant Der ek R ice guilty of ag g ravated kidnappingand ag g ravated sexual assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 20.04 (West 2003), § 22.021 (West Supp. 2005). The district c ourt assessed punishment in both c ases, enhanc ed by a pre vious felony

conviction, at life imp ri so nm e n t
. I nh i s o n l y p o i n to f e r r o r , a p p e l l an tc o mp l a i n s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r o n e o u sly excluded evidenc e tendingto impeach the complaining witness. We will overrule this contention
and a ff ir m th e c on vic tio ns . The c omplainant was marri ed to appellant at the time of the off enses, but divorc e proce eding s were pendingand they wer e li ving apar t. She was e mploy ed by

a janitorial ser

vice, a nd
on the ni g ht in question was wor king a lone in a building oc cupied by a construc tion supply

company2

in Pfluge rville. The complainant testified that appellant e ntere d the building throug h the unlocked door, conf

ronted he r, and se ized her in a “he adlock.” He then took he r to a stora g e ar ea, r emoved most of her c loth i n g, an d forc ed her to eng ag e in ana l and ora l sex acts. When the c omplainant resisted, appellant place d a st rap around her neck and bega n to strang le her . Appellant then tied the complainant’s ha

nds with a shoelac e, put a shi rt over he r hea d, and took her to his car. He drove he r to a hotel in Ma

nor wher e he was living, took he r inside, and continued to se x ually assault her . The complainant esc aped when appellant fell aslee p. The c omplainant’s ac count was c orrobor ated by other e vidence , including the testimony of the off icer who re sponded to the complaina nt’s call and the nurse who conducte d the sexual assault examination.

Appellant testified that he and the c omplainant planned the me eting at her workplac e. He sa id t hat sh e c on se nte d to a ll the se xua l a c ts, bo th a t th e of fi c e bu ild ingand

in h is h ote l r oo m. He de nie d s tr ang lin g the c omp la ina nt b ut a dmi tte d ty

inghe r ha nd s, wh ic h he a lso sa id w a s d on e wi th her c onsent. Ap pe lla

nt c la ims that his Sixth Am e ndme nt c on fr on tatio n ri g ht wa s vio late d b e c a us e th e tr ia l c o u rt r e f

u s e d to a dmi t e v id e n c e s h o w in g th a t t h e c o mp la in an t h a d

a b ia s o r mo ti v e f or te sti fy inga g a ins t hi m. A

pp e lla nt s ou g ht t o p ro ve that in 19 99 , the c omp la ina nt wr ote tw o le tte rs to the B exar County

District Attorney ’s office reca nting an acc usation of sex ual assault she had ma de ag ainst appel lant in that county . He a lso sought to prove that the complainant testified at a bond reduc tion hear ing in the B exar County case that her a lleg ations ag ainst appellant we re f alse. The
rec ord re flec ts that despite these re cantations by the complainant, appe llant pleaded no c ontest in the Be x ar County

cause pursuant to a plea barg ain for defe rre d adjudication, which w as later revoke d.3 As part of the Six th A mendment confr ontation r ight, a defe ndant must be g iven g reat latit ud e to s ho w fa c ts te nd ing to es ta bli shill fe e lin g , b ia s, mot ive , o r a nim us on the pa rt of a wi tne ss testifying a g ainst him. De law ar e v . V an Ar sd all , 47 5 U. S. 67 3, 67 8- 79 (1 98 6) ; Davis v. Alask a , 415 U. S. 3 08 , 3 16 -1 7 ( 19 74 ). Rul e 61 3( b) re c og nize s thi s ri g ht by pe rm itt ingimp e a c hme nt o f a wi tne ss b y p r o o f o f c ir c u ms ta

n c e s o r s tate me n ts s h o w in g a b ia s o r inte r e s t on th e p art o f th e w it n e s s . T e x. R. E vid . 6 13 (b ). Ap pe lla nt r e lie d o n r

ule 61 3( b) in the tr ia l c ourt , b ut d id n ot m e nti on the Sixth Amendment. The complaint on appea l must comport with the trial objection. Se e Re za c v . S tate , 782 S.W .2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Tex. R . App. P. 33.1. Even constitutional error may be wa ived by

the fa ilure to object. S

e e B rig gs v . Stat e , 7 89 S.W .2d 918, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 90 ). Ev e n if

we a ssume tha

t a pp e lla nt’ s r e lia nc e on ru le 61 3( b) wa s su ff

icien t to pres erv e his constitutional claim, we conc lude t hat the evide nce in que stion did not demonstrate that the complainant had a

bias or motive to testify ag ainst appellant. The ref ore, the exclusion of the evidenc e did not violate either the Six th Amendment or the r ules of evide nce. Appellant’s ar g ument is premised on the a ssumption t hat the complaina nt’s letters and testi mony

at the bail hea

ring proved that the Be x ar County acc usation was fa lse. S

e e La pe v. Sta te , 893 S.W .2d 949, 958 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1994, pet. re f’d) (holding evidenc e of pr e vio us fa lse a c c us a tio n ag a ins t def e nd ant ad mis sib le to s ho w w itn e ss’ s b ia s) ; Tho ma s v . S tate , 6 6 9 S. W. 2 d

4 2 0 , 4 2 3 ( T e x. Ap p . — H o u s to n[1 s t D is t. ] 1 9 8 4 , p e t. r e f ’ d ) ( s a me )
. B u t a

p p e lla nt pleade d no contest in the B exar County case , and the trial court could rea sonably conclude that it was th e c o mp la in an t’ s r e c an tati o n , an d n o t h e r o r ig in a l a c c u s a ti o n , th a t w a s f a ls e . Under

the circ umstances, the e v i d ence that the complainant ha d soug ht to reca nt the previous ac cusation of4

sexua l as s au l t wa s not a circ umstance te nding to show that she had a bias or improper

motive for testifying a g ains t appellant in the pre sent ca use. Se e Hu

gh es v . S tate , 8 5 0 S. W. 2 d

2 6 0 , 2 6 3 ( T e x. App.—For

t Worth 1993, pet. ref’d) (holding that without a showing they wer e fa l s e, witness’s previous ac cusations ag ainst defe ndant did not demonstrate bias)
.

I t could be ar g ued that re g ardle ss of wher e the truth mig ht lie, the mere fac t that the complainant had a ccuse d appellant of sexual assault only

to rec ant later

demonstrated that she was not a cr edible witness. B ut such an a rgument would be an a

ttack on the complainant’s g ener al
c ha ra c te r f or tr uth fu lne ss, and

the us e of

sp e c if ic ins tanc e s of c on du c t f or that pu rp os e is imp e rm iss ibl e . T e x. R. E vid . 6 08 (b ); se e Di x on v . S tate , 2 S.W .3d 263, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (op. on re h’g ) (discussingdistinction between impea chment of w itness’s char a c te r a n d impeachme nt ba se d o n w itn e ss’ s b ia s o r i nte re st) ; Go nz ales v. S tate , 9 29 S.W. 2d

54 6, 54 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 1996, pet. re f’d) (same)
.

Findingno err or in the trial court’s ruling , we overr ule the point of err or and a ffirm the judg ments of conviction.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: De cembe r 1, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh