For ease of r ef er ence, any i ndi v i dual wi t h t he L opez sur nam e wi l l be r ef er r ed t o by hi s orherf i r st 1 nam e orby r el at i onshi p wi t h K. L. orJose. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0012 7-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
JOSE M A NU EL L OPEZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 57t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza A j ury co n victed appe ll ant, Jos e M anuel Lopez , of tw o first- deg re e felony co unts 1 of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a child and one secon d-de gree felon y coun t of indece ncy
w it h a chi ld, and it ass ess ed as puni shment three ter ms of c onfinement for tw enty , ei g htand- one- hal f, and fou r years for e ach count , respecti v ely

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.11 (V er non 200 3) , § 22.021 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. The tr ial co urt s ign e d a j udg mentT he g ui l t / i nnocen ce ph ase o ft hi s case was t r i ed bef or e a j ur y on O ct ober 17, 18, and 19, 200 6. T he 2 j u r y h e a r d te s tim o n y f r o m , a m o n g o th e r s , K .L ., th e c o m p la in a n t, K .L .’s f a m ily m e m b e r s , J o s e ’s f a m ily m em ber s, and a f or ensi c sci ent i st

. Jo se di d no t t est i f y . Because t he p ar t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s and t he l egal i ssues a r e wel l set t l ed, we ou t l i ne a br i efbackgr ound t hat dr aws upon k ey t est i m ony and i s no l onger th a n n e c e s s a ry to a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e c o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .4 . W e w ill a d d r e s s a d d itio n a l, s p e c if ic te s tim o n y w h e r e n e c e s s a r y. 2 of conv ic ti on and sent ence acc ordin g to the jur y ’s ve rd ic t and ass ess ment and ordered th e impos ed s entenc es to r un c oncur re ntl y . By tw o i ss ues, Jose c ontends that : ( 1) the
ev ide nce is f act ual ly

insuffici ent to suppor

t his conv ic ti on; and (2) the tr ial courtabus ed i ts d is c re t io n b y d e n yin g h is m o t io n fo r a m is t ri a l a tp u n is h m e n tb a s e d u p o n m id -t ri a l p u b li c it y. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 2 A . Before the A llege d Incident K.L. i s t he daug hter

of Jose’ s brot her

. Al thoug h her mother and father w ere mar ri ed
w hen t he i nci dent occ ur re d, the coupl e had been s eparated for y ears a nd i nformal ly sh ared
cus tody of K.L. D ur ing the sc hool y ear , K. L. l iv ed w it h her mother i n Baytow n, Tex as, and she sp entsumm ers w ith he r fa the r and he r pat erna l fam ily me mb ers in Brow nsvil le, T exas. In F ebr uar

y 2004, K.L ., w ho w as then thi rt een y ears old , attempt ed to r un aw ay w it h her boyfrie nd. K.L. ’s mother immedi atel y sent K.L. to li v e w it h her father bec ause she w anted to k eep K. L. aw ay

from her

boyfrie nd. At t hat t ime, K.L .’ s fat h e r d id not hav e an est abl is hed resi dence

. Therefore, he r fa t h e r as k e d J o s e if

h e a n d K

. L

. co u ld li ve wit h Jo s e a n d h is wife , T in a L o p e z, in t h e ir two bedroom, tw o bat hroom co ndomin ium in Ran cho Vi ejo , T e xas
. J ose and Ti na obl ig ed. K.L. w as g iv en her

ow n bedroom i n the co n domini um, and her father ei ther sl ept o n the
couc h i n the liv ing room or at hi s mot her ’s hous e. After K.L. mov ed i n w it h J ose and Ti na, she enroll ed in middl e s chool

. But, K.L . di d nothav e many fri ends outs ide of Baytow n and3

w as not inv olv ed in extracur ri cul ar act iv it ies w hen s he l iv ed i n R ancho Vi ejo

. K.L. mis sed Baytow n and freq uentl y tel ephoned her

mother , boyfrie nd, a nd A. C. , her co usi n. B. The A llege d Incident K.L . testif ied th at on the m orning of Fri day, April 23 , 200 4, she w oke u p w ith a cold and t old her

father , J ose, and Tina t hat s he w as not feelin g w ell and w as g oin g to sta y home from s chool

. K.L. w ent back to sl eep, then w oke up around 10 or 11 a.m. to f ind that her father and Tina h ad l eft. Jo se of fered K .L. “a peni ci ll in pil l, ” ask ed i f she w anted to
w atc h a mov ie in Jos e and Tina’ s bedroom, and sug g est ed that K.L. tak e a show er beca use sh e w as feeling hot . K.L. testif ied tha t she sho w ered , puton a pa ir of u nde rw ear, g re en at hle ti c s hor

ts, and a t- shi rt , an d w ent i nto J ose and Ti na’ s b edroom to w atc h the
mov ie. At fi rs t , K

. L

. w a t c h e d t h e m o v i e fro m t h e b e d w h i l e J o s e s a to n a c o u c h i n t he bed room . K.L. state d tha t abo ut ten m inute s in to the m ovie, Jose mo v ed o nto the be d, laid
next t o her , s mell ed her hai r, and caress ed her ar ms. K.L . furt her st ated that Jos e the n put his han ds un dern eat h her shorts, in serted a f inger into her v agina, an d mo v ed it. K.L . also sta ted t hat: ( 1) Jo se put h er hand on hi s p eni s; ( 2) she could feel thro ug h his cl othes that itw as hard; an d ( 3) sh e mov ed her hand aw ay
. Acc ordin g to K.L. , J ose then took off her shor ts and und er

w ear and his pants a n d i n se rt ed hi s p eni s i nto h er v ag ina and “l ik e, sta rt ed humpi ng me.” W hen J ose sto pped, he w ent int o the bathroom. K.L. f eltl ik e s he had “peed h e rs e l f” a n d n o t e d t h a tw h e n s h e fe l th e r p r i v a t e a r e a , s h e fe l t“ r e a l l y s t i ck y .” She pu t her

sh orts on and w ent i nto t he kit chen. Shor tl y thereafter , K.L. encount ered J ose, and h e t o l d h e r “ d o n ’ t t e l l a n y o n e o r I ’ m g o i n g t o h a v e t o k i l l my s e l f. ” J o s e t o o k t he cordless te leph one f rom th e liv ing room into h is bedroo m. K.L., th erefore, cou ld notcall for hel p.K. L. ’ s m ot her t est i f i ed t hat she pl aced t he gr een shor t s i n a bag once K. L. gav e t hem t o he r
. She 3 e x p la in e d th e d e la y in g iv in g th e s h o r ts to th e p o lic e a s b e in g c a u s e d b y h e r b u s yn e s s w ith w o r k a n d s c h o o l. F u rth e rm o re , K .L . s ta te d th a t s h e c o u l d n o t re m e m b e r w h i c h p a i r o f u n d e rw e a r s h e w a s w e a rin g o n th e d a te oft he i nci dent ; t her ef or e, no underwear wer e sen t t o t he p ol i ce f or t est i ng. 4 C. A fter the A llege d Incident After the a ll eg ed i nci dent, Tina r etur ned home and then ran an errand w it h J ose and K.L. W hen t he th re e re tur ned, K.L. ask ed Tina for per mis si on to us e the tel ephone, and K.L. ca ll ed her

boyfrie nd i n Baytow n, bu t he w as not there. That ev eni ng , K. L. c all ed her mother , and t h e tw o s p o k e fo r o n l y fi v e mi n u t e s
. Th e n e xt d a y , J o s e a n d Ti n a l e ft for V ic t o ri a , T e xa s , a n d K

. L

. s p e n tS a t u rd a y a n d S u n d a y wi t h h e r fa t h e r a n d O m a r R o d ri gu e z, a famil y fri end. At 2:30 a.m. o n Sund ay , Ap ri l 25, 2 004, K.L. ag ain att empted t o c all her boyfrie nd, b ut ins tead, spoke to her boyfrie nd’ s si ste r, w hom K.L. knew as a frie nd. K.L. tol d her boyfrie nd’ s sis te r a b o ut t he al leg ed i nci dent. Later on S unday

mor nin g , K. L.
re count ed th e al leg ed i nci dent to A .C . and K.L .’ s a unt. On Su nda y , April 25, 20 04, K.L.’s au nt relayed K.L .’s allegations to K.L.’s m oth er,
w ho then telepho ned K.L. After speak ing w it h K.L., her m other as ked her

father to put K .L.
on a pla ne to Houst on, Tex as. Aroun d 9 o r 10 p. m. tha t ev eni ng , K. L. ar ri v ed i n H oust on,
a n d accordin g to her

mother , s he l ooked “ sc ared” and “k ind of ner v ous. ” K.L .’ s mot her took K.L. to a Hou sto n area hospi tal , w here K.L. w as ex amined bya phy si ci an, h ad a ra pe ki t per formed, a nd g av e a v ide otaped int er v iew to a forens ici nter

v iew er
. At a pprox imat ely

1 a. m. the next day , K. L.’ s mot her sp oke to a Ran cho Vi ejo patrol off ic er
. The off ic er

adv is ed her to sav e anyclot hin g that K.L. mig ht hav e w or n dur ing the inc ide nt an d s end i t t o the pol ic e depar tment. I n Aug ust 2004, K.L. ’s mail ed a pai r of green shor ts to t he pol ic e depar

tment that K.L. had all eg edl y w or n on th e day of the i nci dent. 3 Later , K. L. w ro te a note sta ti n g t h e foll ow ing : “I w ant a [s ic ] 35 mil li on to 2 s ay5

nothi n happe n [s ic ].” Attr ial K.L . ex pla ine d tha t: A. I w as in the c ar w it h my dad and he w as tel li ng me that [Jo se’ s] lawy ers w as [si c] ask ing him to conv inc e me to j ustsa y —w ri te a note or

w ri te a letter to say nothin g happen ed. The other la wye rs , n o tyo u a ll , I d o n ’tt h in k

. I d o n ’tkn o w. And I w as li ke— li ke, he k ept h arass ing me abouti t s ay ing that I needed to w ri te i t dow n. I nee d to w ri te i t dow n, w hen I w as g oin g to w ri te i t do w n an d? [ s i c ] Th e da y h e c am e to s ee me in, I don’ t k now , t his l ast—I thi n k it w as around Decem ber or Janu ary , he to ld m e t hat[Jose’s] lawy ers was [ sic] g oing to take —clear my record and thatthey w ere going to—w hat , the y w ere g oin g t o g iv e me money or so methi ng i f I w ro te dow n s omew here tha t I said nothi ng happen ed. Q

. [ D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ] So y ou’ r e s a y i n g t h a t y o u r d ad .

. . made y ou w ri te t hat? A. Yes. Q. Oka y , but my q uest ion sti ll w as: After y ou w ro te it , w hat d id y ou do w it h i t? A. He [he r fa the r] g ot i t. I had w rote it on th e mid dle thi ng of the tr uck , li ke the—that thi ng thatco mes up and dow n. And I l eft—after I fini shed w ri ti ng it , he g ot i t and put iti n hi s p ock et.

. . . . A. W ell, be c au s e I al r ea dy k ne w t ha t th atw as n’t g oin g to be able t o s top i t bec ause the S tate had alread y picked up the case . It w asn’t u p to m e if I s ay thati t’ s g oin g to d rop auto mati cal ly

. So I w as jus t s ay ing —I jus t w ro te t hat so he coul d g et off my bac k a bout itand lea v e me al one. Both K.L. and her

mother tes ti fied th at K .L.’ s father rarely v is it ed K. L., and K. L.’ s mot her sta ted t hat K .L.’ s father press ured her

to drop th e c harg es ag ain st Jos e.In h e r re p o rt, Z a v a l a n o te d th a t: 4 [ Jose] cann ot be excl uded as t he co nt r i but or of t he st ai n. T he p r obabi l i t y of sel ect i ng a n unr el at ed p er son a t r andom who coul d be t he sour ce oft hi s D N A pr of i l e [ t he sper m sam pl e] i s app r oxi m at el y 1 i n 9. 940 qui nt i l l i on f or C aucasi ans, 1 i n 5. 974 qui nt i l l i on f or Bl acks and 1 i n 39

. 40 q ui nt i l l i on f or H i spani cs. T o a c ert ai n de gr ee o fsci ent i f i c cer t ai nt y , [ Jose] i s t he s o u rc e o f th e s e m e n s ta i n o n th e s h o rts (e x c l u d i n g i d e n ti c a l tw i n s ). 6 D. Fo ren sic E v id ence After the Ranc ho Vi ejo pol ic e depar tment re cei v ed th e g re en s hor ts, the it em w as sentto a D epar

tment of P ubl ic Safety (D PS) lab orator y for anal y si s. Edna Zav ala , a DP S foren sic scientist, test if ied that she performe d a polylig ht test on the inside of the sho rts, and the te st did not rev eal any sem en stains. Zavala the n teste d the crotch area for acid phosp hatas e, a chemi cal co mmonly found i n s emen. Aci d phosphata se w as detec ted o n a por ti on of the crotc h area. Ne xt , Z a v a l a ra n a D N A p ro fi l e o n s a mp l e s c o l l e c t e d fro m t h e c ro t c h a re a of the green shorts an d de term ined thatit contain ed e pithe lial cells from K.L. a n d s perm cells from an u nknow n male

. R a n ch o V iejo pol ic e obt ain ed a search w ar ra nt for a s ample of J o s e ’s b lo od, successf ully collected a sam ple, a nd forw arde d it to the DPS labora tory. Zav ala tes ti fied th at “[ t]he DN A profile obtai ned from the sper m cel l fract ion of the s emen sta in on the [green] shor ts is consi ste nt w it h the DNA profile of [Jose]

. [Jo se] ca nnot be
ex cl uded as the cont ri butor of the s tai n.” H ow ev er , on cross ex aminat ion , Z av ala admi tted

4 that the “ sta ins ” she desc ri bed w ere not v is ibl e to the n aked ey e and that a c oncen trated stain o n a pa ir of sh orts w ould be dilute d by w ashin g the shorts. E. Jose ’s D ef

ense Omar , Tina, and Ni nfa L eti ci a Lopez , Jos e’s si ste r- in- law , tes ti fied tha t K .L. app e a re d “ fine” i n the hours a nd day s a fter t he al leg ed i nci dent. Ti na te sti fied th at K .L.
seem ed sad w hen she liv ed wi th he r and Jose beca use sh e ha d no f riends in Ran cho Viejo7

and mi ss ed her

boyfrie nd i n Baytow n. Tina’ s t est imony

di re ctl y or i ndi re ctl y

co ntradi cte d K.L .’ s test imony i n tha t Ti na tes ti fied to the follo wing : (1 ) on th e after noon of F ri day , Ap ri l 23, 2 004, Tina, Jos e, an d K.L . did no t leave the house to r un errands, but instea d, w entto a fam ily mem ber’s hou se for di nner ; ( 2 ) K. L

. h ad a tel ephone in her bedroom thatsh e c oul d freel y us e; ( 3) on Saturday , Ap ri l 24, 2004, K.L. w anted to ac company Jo se and Ti na to Vi cto ri a, Tex as; ( 4) T ina did all the ho usework, including t h e l aun dry , and K.L. d id notdo very much house w or k; and ( 5) the Ra n ch o Vi ejo Pol ic e St ati on w as w it hin one hundred feet of the
co n d o mi n i u m. T i n a fu rt h e r t e s t i fi e d t h a to n t h e m o r n i n g o f t h e a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t , s he per formed oral sex

on Jos e before dis cov er ing thatK.L . had st ay ed home from sc hool

. At a di ff erent p oin t i n Tina ’s tes ti mony , s he s tated that she w oul d c lea n off Jo se’ s s emen w it h
a w et t ow el, w hic h she put in the house hol d’s laundr y basketand w hic h w as w ashed w it h th e res t o f

th e ho u se h o ld ’s d irt y lau n d ry, in clu d in g K. L .’ s cl o th in g. F. Post-Verdi ct Mot ion and Punishment The ju ry ch arg e c ontai ned tw o first- deg re e felony co unts o f

ag g ra v ated sex ual
ass aul t of a chi ld and one sec ond- deg re e felony co unt o f indec ency

w it h a c hil d. See i

d. §§ 21. 11, 2 2.021. On October 19, 2004, the jur

y found J ose g uil ty

on a ll co unts

. The tr ial court acc epted the j ur

y ’s v erdict and se t t he puni shmentphas e of tr ial for O cto ber 30, 2004. At t he puni shmentphas e of tr ial , J ose’ s c ounse l orall y mov ed for “a mis tr ial at puni shment ” on th e g ro und t hat p ubl ic ity w oul d adv ersel y

affectth e j u ry’ s a ss ess ment. Spec ific all y , J ose poi nted out t hat D av id Dew hurst, a c andi date for l ieu tenantg ov er nor , ran a tele v ision com me rcial publiciz ing his supp ort for “Jessica’s Law,” a legisl ative mea sure8

t hatimpo sed m and ato ry tw ent y -f iv e-y ear prison terms for indivi dua ls convi cted of child moles tati on ( herein afte r “the D ew hurst commerci al” ). J ohn W esl ey Ki ttl eman, g eneral manag er of an AB C tel ev is ion aff il iat e, t est ified thatthe commerci al aired thi rty -e ig ht t imes on h is station be t we e n Octo ber 20 and Octob er 29, 2 004 . Th e trial court de nied Jose’s moti on. Dur ing the puni shmentphas e of t ria l, the Stat e c all ed: (1 ) D. S., a w oman w ho cl aimed Jos e raped her in 1977; (2 ) N. J., a w oman w ho c lai med sh e had sex ual rela ti ons
w it h J ose w hen s h e wa s fourteen y ears o ld and g av e bi rt h to his ch il d; ( 3) Officer Loray Tay lor , a San M arco s p o lice off ic er w ho c lai med Jo se w as ar re ste d on mari huana posse ssion ch a rg es in 200 1; an d (4) Chris Lawrence, a p atrol de put y w ith the Klebe rg Cou nty Sher iff’s Depar

tment w ho arrest ed Jose for il leg al poss ess ion of mar ihu ana after p u ll in g J o s e o ve r fo r va ri o u s t ra f f icvio la t io n s o n No ve m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 5

. Jo s e d id n o tt e s t ify, but h e c all ed tw o of hi s c hil dren and Bel ind a Gue rra, a lon g ti me family frie nd, to tes ti fy as to hi s g ood nat ure. The ju ry as ses sed as puni shmentthree t e rms of confin ement for tw ent y , eight-and -one -half , and four years fo r each cou nt, resp ectively . Th e trial court si g ned a jud g ment of co nv ic tio n a n d s entenc e ac cordin g to the j ur y ’s v erdict and
asse s s me nt. T he trial cou rt certif ied Jose ’s ri ght to app eal on Februa ry 21, 20 07. This appeal ens ued. II. F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY In hi s first is sue, Jo se chal len g es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy su ppor ti ng hi s c onv ic ti on. Spec ific all y , J ose cont ends th a t: ( 1) K.L .’ s t est imony w as not c re dib le becau se she fabri cat ed th e al leg e d i n cid e n t in order to re tur n home a nd bec ause she re q uest ed $35 mil li on in ex chang e for

droppi ng the charg es ag ain st Jos e; ( 2) Tina’ s t est imony reg ardin g9

h e r s e x l if e w ith Jose and the disp osal of Jose’s sem en greatly out w eighed th e foren sic
ev ide nce suppo rt ing Jo se’ s c onv ic ti on; a nd ( 3) N infa’ s, Rod ri g uez ’s , and Tina’ s t est imony abo ut K.L .’s dem ean or af ter the a lleged inciden t f urthe r ou tw eighed K.L .’s t estim ony. Jose
arg ues that for th e forg oin g reason s, the j ur y ’s dete rmi nati on of gui lti s mani festl y unj ust

. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W h e n re vie win g t h e fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c y o f

t h e e vid e n c e t o s u p p o rta co n vic t io n , we
v iew al l the e v ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, fav or ing nei ther par ty

. Nea l v. State , 256 S.W .3d 264, 275 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ; W ats on v. State , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 6). W e the n ask w het her the ev iden ce sup p o rt in g the conviction, altho ugh legally suffici ent, is nev erthel ess so w eak that the fact f ind er ’s determi nati on i s c lea rl y w ro ng and
ma nifestly unju st or w het her con f licting evi den ce so greatlyoutweig hs the ev iden ce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on that the fact finder ’s deter minat ion is manifest ly unj ust

. Lanco n
v . S ta te , 253 S.W .3d 6 99, 7 04 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5, 417 . To rev erse un der the secon d ground, w e mu st det ermin e, w ith som e objective basis in the record, that the greatw eight and prepo nde rance of all the evidence , tho ugh legally suffici ent, cont ra dicts the v erdict. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417

. In de ter mini ng w hether the ev ide nce is f act ual ly insuffici ent to s uppor

t a conv ic ti on tha t is nevertheless sup porte d by l egally suf f icient ev iden ce, i t is not eno ugh tha t this cou rt “harbo r a subjective lev el of reason able dou bt to ov erturn [t he] conviction.” Id

. W e c annot conclu de th at a con v iction is clearly w rong or man ifestly unju st simply becau se w e w ould hav e dec ide d di ff erentl y than the jur

y or bec ause w e di sag re e w it h the j ur y ’s resol uti on of
a c onfli ct in the e v ide nce. Id . W e ma y not sim ply subst itute our judgme nt for the fact finder ’s

. Johns on v

. St ate , 23 S.W .3 d 1 , 1 2 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 2000) ; Cai n v . St ate , 95810

S.W .2d 4 04, 4 07 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997)

. Unl ess the re cord c lea rl y rev eal s t hat a di ff erent
re sul t i s a p p ro p riate, w e mustdefer to t he j ur y ’s dete rmi nati on of the w eig ht t o be g iv en cont ra d ictory

tes ti monial ev ide nce becau se re sol uti on of the confli ct “o ften tur ns on an
ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor , and thos e j urors w ere in att endanc e w hen t he testim ony w as de liv ered .” Johns on , 23 S. W .3d at 8. T hus, unle ss w e conclu de that it is
nece ssaryto correct ma nifest injust ice, w e mu st gi v e du e de feren ce to th e fact f inde r’s deter minat ion s, “p arti cul ar ly those deter minat ion s conc er nin g the w eig ht and credi bil ity of the ev iden ce.” Id . at 9. Our deferenc e in this reg ard safeguards the defendant’s r ig ht t o a tr ial by j ur y . Lanco n , 253 S.W .3d a t 704

. B. A nal ysis Fi rs t, Jos e contends thatK.L .’ s t est imony i s n ot c re dib le becau se she w is hed t o return to Baytow n an d h e r b o yf riend, and she fabricat ed th e allegation s against Jose in orde r to return. As evidence of K.L.’s du plicity , Jose po ints to th e test imo ny of Rebecca Gi ra rd et, M. D. , a pedi atr ic ian at the C hil dren’ s A ss ess ment C enter w ho per formed a ra pe ki t ex aminat ion on K .L. On cross ex aminat ion by Jo se’ s c ounse l, D r. Girardet t est ified that K.L . did no t tell her tha t Jose eja culate d inside her or that“some thing cam e ou t.” At trial, how ev er , K. L. t est ified thatw hen J ose st o p p e d t he as saul t, she felt l ik e s he had “p eed herse lf” and no ted thatshe felt “really sticky .” Jos e al so arg ues that K.L. ’s note demanding $35 mil li on i n ex chang e for droppi ng the c harg es under mines the “v eraci ty of her all eg ati ons. ” How ev er , K.L. t est ified thather fa t h e r p re s s u red he r to w rite the n ote . In add ition, K. L.’s mo the r corroborate d K.L .’s tes ti mony

aboutK.L .’ s father ’s i nsi ste nce that the c harg es ag ain st Jos e be dropped. Se c o n d , J o s e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D N A e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e S t a t e does not11

“shore up ” K.L.’s testim ony. Jose highlig hts T ina’s test imo ny tha t: (1) she an d Jose enj oy ed a v ibrant sex

life; (2) she customar il y cleane d up Jos e’s ej acul ate w it h a t ow el and threw the towel i n the hou seho ld’s laund ry pile; and (3) she w ashe d all of the hou seho ld’s lau ndr y tog ether

. Jos e pos it s t hat h is D NA transfer re d ont o t h e s h o rt s t hat w ere tes ted
w hile the y

w ere in the la und ry

t ogethe r. Add itiona lly , Jose cont end s thatthe DNA evidence shoul d be dis count ed becaus e neither K.L .’ s mot her

nor K.L . ade q uatel y

ex pla ine d w hy

the shor ts w ere not turned ov er to the poli ce depar

tment unti l Aug ust2004, ev en th oug h the inc ide nt al leg edl y

oc cur re d i n Apr il 2004. O n the othe r hand, K.L. tes ti fied that she did her own l au nd r

y a nd n ev er

w as he d he r

c l ot he s w i th J os e’ s c l ot he s
. R eg ardi ng t he d el ay in send ing the shorts to the p olice, K.L .’s m oth er e x plaine d on cross e x am inatio n by Jose’s
couns el that she w as v er y bus y . W e not e tha t J ose did not presentany pos it iv e tes ti mony
re g ardin g hi s “ DN A transfer theo ry ,” and that the b ulk of the theor

y w as adv anced or sug g est ed by

q uest ion s from Jos e’s co unsel to Zav ala

. Third, J ose notes thatse v eral defense w it ness es tes ti fied that K.L. appeared “ fine” after the a ll eg ed i nci dent and t hat K .L. w anted to acco m p a ny hi m and Ti na to Vi cto ri a, T exas, the da y

af ter the inciden t. He conte nds th at these tw o piece s of ev iden ce cont ra dict K. L.’ s t ri al tes ti mony and outw eig h the ev ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv ic ti on. K.L. , how ev er , t est ified as to the i ncide n t and K. L.’ s mot her tes ti fied th at K .L. loo ked “s cared” and “ ki nd of ner

v ous” w hen s he first saw her after the all eg ed i nci dent. All of Jose’s factu al suf

f iciency argume nts to uch o n the jury ’s role as the fact f inde r. The ju r y i s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f t h e w e i g h t a n d c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n d i s e n t i t led to
re sol v e c onflicts i n the ev ide nce. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 36.13 (V er non 2007) ; Johns on , 23 S .W .3 d a t 7

. The j ur y w as thus enti tl ed to : (1 ) w eig h K. L.’ s t ri al12

testim ony ov er h e r interv iew w ith Dr. Girardet regarding the inciden t and w het her Jose eja cul ated; ( 2) w eig h the si g nific ance of K .L.’ s note demandi ng $35 mil li on i n ex chang e for droppi ng the charg es ag ain st Jos e ov er testi mony

i ndi cat ing K.L .’ s father ’s press ur ing of K.L. and K.L.’ s mother

to drop th e c harg es; ( 3) di sbel iev e the “ DN A transfer theo ry ”; and (4 ) dis bel iev e the defense w it ness es re g ardin g K.L. ’s demeanor i n l ig ht of K. L’s tes ti mony about the i nci dent and K. L.’ s mother ’s tes ti mony about K.L. ’s demeanor after the all eg ed inc ide nt. After cons ide ri ng Jo se’ s c ontent ion s a nd th e ev ide nce as a w hol e, w e canno t s ay th ati t i s s o w ea ko r

t ha t th e c on fl i c ti ng e v i de nc e s o g r ea tl y o utw ei g hs t he e v i de nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on th at t he j ur y ’s v erdict w as cl ear ly

w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust

. Lanco n , 253 S.W .3d a t 704 ; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -15, 41 7. Accordin gly , w e ho ld tha t the ev iden ce is factu ally su f f icient to sup port Jose ’s convi ction, and w e overrule Jose’s firs t i ss ue. III . M OT I ON FO R M IS T R IAL In his sec ond is sue, Jos e cont ends that the tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing hi s mot ion fo r a m is t ri a l a tt h e p u n is h m e n tp h a s e b e c a u s e t h e De wh u rs tco m m e rc ia l wa s a ir e d b y a loc al tel ev isi on s tati on and there w as a hi g h probabi li ty thati t i nfluenc ed th e j ur y and deni ed hi m a fair

tr ial

. The Stat e co n te nds that Jos e w aiv ed hi s s econd i ss ue by not
re q uest ing an i nst ru cti on from t he tr ial co urt. W e ag re e. To preser

v e er ro r for appe ll ate rev iew , an appel lan t mus t rais e the co mplai nt i n the tr ial co urt i n a t imel y

req uest, o bjecti on, o r moti on s tati ng the g ro unds for th e obj ect ion

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a)

. The usual seq uence for p ursi ng an o bje cti on to an a dv erse ru li ng is ( 1) obj ect ion , ( 2) i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard, an d ( 3) moti on for mis tr ial , but :13

t h is se qu e n c e is n o te s s e n t ia l t o p re s e rve co m p la in t s fo r a p p e ll a t e re vie w. T he e ssent ial requirem entis a timely, s p e c if ic request tha t the trial court ref uses.
. . . Similarly, the request for an in struction thatthe jury disregard an obj ect ion abl e oc cur re nce is e ss e nti al onl y w hen t he [s ic ] s uch an ins tr uct ion co uld hav e had the d esi re d effect , whi ch is to enabl e the cont inu ati on of the tr ial by a [ si c] impartia l jury

. The par ty who fai

ls to re quest an i nst ru cti on todi sr egar d wil l have for

feited appel

late revi ew of t hat cl ass of event s that could have been "cured" by such an ins tr uct ion

. Butif a n i nst ru cti on c oul d nothav e had suc h an eff ect , t he onl y su it abl e remedy is a mi s t r i a l , a n d a mo t i o n fo r a mi s t r i a l i s t h e o n l y e s s e n t i a l p r e r e q u i s i t e to prese nting t h e com plainton ap pea l. . . . Accordin gly , w hen a party's f irst ac t i o n i s t o mo v e fo r mi s t r i a l

. . . t h e s c o p e o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s l imi ted t o the q uest ion w hether

the tr ial co urt er re d i n nottak ing t h e m o st ser iou s act ion of endi ng the tr ia l; i n oth er w ords, an e v ent t hat c oul d hav e been prev ented by

ti mely obj ect ion or cured byinst ru cti on to the jur y w il l not l ead an appe ll ate cour

t to rev erse a judg ment on appeal bythe par ty w ho di d not re q uestthes e l ess er

remedie s i n the tr ial co urt. Li mite d as t h is sc ope of appel lat e rev iew

may b e , such an appel lat e rev iew i s a v ail abl e to suc h a p a rt y. Young v. State , 137 S.W .3d 6 5, 69-70 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2004) (emphasi s a dded) ( footnotes omit ted)

. In mos t c ases , a tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru ction to di sreg ard any outs ide i nformati on
conc er nin g the tr ial i s s uff ic ien t t o ens ure a fai r tr ial

. He r b s t v . S ta te , 941 S.W .2d 3 71, 3 7 7 -7 8 (T e x. Ap p .– Be a u m o n t 1 9 9 7 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Powell v. State , 898 S.W .2d 821, 82 8 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 4) (“A presu mp tion of prejud ice doe s not arise simp ly beca use a case has b een pub liciz ed in th e me dia . . . .”)). Only extreme circum stan ces, w hen the prejudice is i n cu ra b le , req uire a mi str ial

. Hawk ins v. Sta te , 135 S.W .3d 7 2, 77 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 4 ) (ci ti n g Si

m pson v. State , 119 S.W .3d 2 62, 2 72 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ( “The tr ial court is required to g rant a mo tion fo r a mistrial only w hen the imp rope r [actio n] is clearly preju dic ial to the d efen d a n t a n d i s of such ch aract er as to sug g estthe impos si bil ity of
w it hdraw ing the impress ion produce d on the mi nds of the j urors.” ))

. In Ladner

v. Sta te , t he Ty ler

C our t of Appea ls hel d t h a t in determi nin g w hetherJose di d r equest t hat t he j ur y be pol l ed a f t er t he p uni shm ent pha se; howev er , Jose di d no t r equest 5 t he t r i al cour t t o po l l t he j ur or s abo ut t he i m pact oft he com m er ci al on t hei r del i ber at i ons a s t o Jose ’ s sent ence.

T he puni shm ent r ange cor r espond i ng t o t he f i r st
- degr ee f el oni es was “ f or any t er m of not m or e t han 6 99 y ea rs o r l es s t ha n 5 y ea rs.” See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12. 32 ( Ver non 2003)

. M eanwhi l e, t he puni shm ent r ange f or t he second- degr ee f el ony was “ f or any t er m of not m or e t han 20 y ear s or l ess t han 2 y ea rs.” See i d. § 12. 33 ( Ver non 2003)

. C l ear l y , t he m axi m um sent ence i m posed was at t he l ower end oft he 14 outs ide new s medi a i nformati on is poss ibl y preju dic ial , the t ri al cour t mus t: ( 1) “ loo k a t t he nat ure of

the ne w s mat erial in q uest ion t o d ete rmine w het her it is innate ly prejudicial; factors s uch as the timi ng of the media cov erag e and it s poss ibl e ef fects on l eg al defenses
are to be c onsi dered” ; and ( 2) “ asc ertai n the l ik eli hood t hat t he publ ic ity has i n fact re ached the j ur y .” 868 S.W .2d 4 17, 4 23 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1993, pet. ref’d)

. The Ladner court further note d tha t “ [e]v er

y cl aim of jur

y preju dic e bec ause of media a ttent ion appea ring during a trial must tu rn o n its ow n facts.” Id. (cit in g Ma rs hal l v. United S tates , 360 U .S. 310 , 312 (1959 )). In t his ca se, Jo se’ s c ounse l mov ed for a mi str ial at the p unish ment pha se based upon t he D ew hurst commerci al. H e di d notreq uestan ins tr uct ion f ro m the tr ial co urt for the j ur y to dis re g ard the co mmerc ial

. Ki ttl eman tes ti fied that the c ommerc ial first aired on Oct ober 20, 2004, the d ay

after the jur y co nv ic ted J ose, a n d t h a t the c ommerc ial ai re d thi rty -e ig ht ti mes betw een Oct ober 20, 2004, and Oct ober 29, 2004. Ki ttlem a n f urther tes ti fied that the commerci al w as aired dur ing popul ar tel ev is ion sh ow s, suc h as D anci ng W ith the Stars , G re y ’

s A n a to my, and 20/20

. Ev en th oug h the co mmerc ial ai re d dur ing the broadca st of sev eral popul ar tel ev is io n s h o ws, t he record does not demonst ra te a
s u b s t a n t ia l li k e li h o o d t h a tt h is c o m m e rc ia l re a c h e d t h e ju ry. See La dner , 868 S.W .2d a t 5 423 . Furtherm ore, w e question the prejud icial v alue of the com me rcial becau se Dew hurst adv ocat ed for mandator y tw enty -fiv e- y ear

se ntenc es for conv ic ted chi ld moles ters a nd th e jur y asses sed a maxi mum puni shmentof tw enty ye ars’ incarcerati on. See id. Moreover, 6f i r st
- degr ee- f el ony puni shm ent r ange, t hus t em per i ng any not i on t hat t he co nt ent s of t he co m m er ci al i nf l am ed th e ju ry t o e n h a n c e J o s e ’ s s e n te n c e
. S e e i d

. § 1 2 .3 2

. 15 Jose h as no t dem onst rated thatthe com me rcia l im pact ed h is ability to def end himse lf dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase

. See i d. Base d on the record i n thi s c ase, w e c oncl ude t hat a tr ial cou rt ’s in str uct ion to disregard the comm ercial w ould have been suf f icient to “cure” the prejud ice of w hich Jose compl ain s. See Herbst , 941 S.W .2d at 3 7 7 -78; see als o Hawki ns , 135 S.W .3d a t 77; Si m pson , 119 S.W .3d a t 272 ; Powell , 898 S.W .2d at 82 8. T hus, w e ho ld tha t Jose’s failure to req uestan i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard i n this inst ance w aiv es his se cond is sue. See Y oung , 137 S. W .3d a t 69- 70. IV. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of co nv ic ti on and sent ence of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 14t h day

of Ma y , 200 9.