See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21. 11(a )(1) ( Verno n 20 03). 1 NO. 07-08 -010 1-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 A JU NE 30, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ GEORGE DEMPSY NORW OOD, APP ELL ANT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 6 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L YNN CO UNT Y; NO . 06- 2835; HO NO RA BLE C AR TER T. SC HI LDK NE CH T, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Georg e Demps y Nor w ood, appeal s the tr ial cour t’ s j udg ment c onv icti ng him of indece ncy w ith a child an d sub sequen tl y s e n t encin g him to seven y ears inc ar cerati on i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of C ri minal Jus ti ce. It 1 i s from t hi s j ud g me nta nd s en te nc e th ata pp el l an t ap pe al s . W e affi r m.2 Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und App ellant doe s not cont est the legal or factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence to susta in his co nv icti on, t herefore, w e w il l onl y disc uss those fact ual elements thatare g er mane to our opi nio n. On M ay

8, 2007, Kei v a N or

w ood, appel lan t’ s b io log ic al g ra nddaug hter and adopted daug hter , repor ted t o the Tahoka P o l i c e D e p a r t me n t thatappel lan t bot h att empted to en gage i n inte rcourse w ith he r on one occasion and had , on o t h er occasion s, ina ppropr iat ely

touc hed her

. These i nci dents oc cur re d i n 2001 and 200 3 w hen Ke iv a w as a mi nor and li v ing i n the home of appel lan t. As a res ultof the a ll eg ati ons made by Kei v a, appel lan t w as cont act ed by C hie f Dorsey

of the Tahoka Poli ce Depa rt ment and ask ed to come i n and speak

to him about the a ll eg ati ons. On or abo utt he s am e da y t ha t Ke i v a ma de h er

a l l eg at i on o f i mp rop er c on du ct ag ain st appel lan t, appe lla n t fil ed for div orce from M ae D aw n N or w ood. Itbec ame the cont enti on of appel lan t’ s a ttor ney s t hat t he al leg ati o n s a gai nstappel lan t w ere i nst ig ated as pa rt of

the ef fort of Mae Daw n to acquire m ost, if n ot all, of

app ellant ’s and Mae Daw n’s communi ty

proper ty

. App ellant ’s primary cont ent ion regarding the cha llenged e xt rane ous o f fense e vide n c e i s t h a t, w h ile th o se of fe n se s m igh t h a ve so m e rel e van ce to th e pro ce e d in gs appel lan t w as bei ng tr ied for, the S tate had forc ed appe ll a n t’ s t ri al couns el to rais e the issue of the divorce throu gh the Sta te’s ope ning state me nt. During open ing statem ent s, th e St a te ’s a tt o rn e y ma d e th e fo llo wing re fe re n ce to th e di vorc e pro ce e d in g,3

Now , w hat I don’t ex pectyo u to hear i s– Ma e D aw n N or

w ood di dn’ t c all the police. I’ll tell y ou th at up f ront. And she shou ld have. A nd the sa d fact is, if i t w asn’ t for the fact th at t hey g ot a div orce, sh e w oul d be si tti ng on h is si de of the cou rtroom rig ht no w , beca use sh e didn ’t do an ything to stop this. Acc ordin g to appel lan t, thi s forced his co unsel to co u n te r the is sue of the di v or ce. Appel lan t’ s t ri al couns el re ferred to Ma e D aw n’s moti v e for ly ing on a t l easttw o oc cas ion s in her op enin g state me nt an d talke d a bou t the mot iv e for f iling the charges against appel lan t t hroug hout the o peni ng st atement. Kei v a tes ti fied abou t t he facts rela ti ng to the c harg es ag ain st appe lla nt. D ur ing cross -e x aminat ion , she deni ed maki ng thes e all eg ati ons as par t of a pl ot t o make su re that Ma e D a w n re c e i v e d mo s t , i f n o t a l l , o f t h e c o mm u n i t y p ro p e rt y d u r i n g h e r d i v o r ce from app ellant . K e iva t e stif ied th at th e imp rope r touchin g of her breast s occurred while appel lan t w as g iv ing her a back rub. Accordin g to Kei v a, ap pel lan t reache d under her and be g an fon dl i ng h er

b rea s ts

. As the fon dl i ng w as oc c ur r i ng , M ae D aw n ha pp en ed t o c om e int o the bedroom. Ma e D aw n tes ti fied th at s he c ame i n to the bedroom and caug ht a p p e ll a n tin t h e a c to f

fo n d li n g K e iva ’ s b r e a s t s . Du ri n g c ro s s -e xa m in a t io n , Ma e Da wn admitted s he di d notrepor t t his to the p oli ce. Chi ef D orsey then tes ti fied about his i nter v iews w it h appel lan t. Appel lan t t est ified tha t he ha d att e m p t e d t o d iscuss the se allegation s w ith the police de partm entearlier. Dorseyt e st if ied thatthe firs t t ime appel lan t c ame forw ard w as w hen D orsey ca ll ed appel lan t. Dorsey

testi fied that, dur ing his int er v iew w it h appel lan t, appel lan t s tated that the a ll eg ati on reg ardin g hi s t ouchi ng of Kei v a’s breast s w as not tr ue. Appel lan t s tated that4

he may hav e come cl ose to he r breast s o r hav e ac ci dental ly br ushed a breastw hil e g iv ing her a ba ck r ub. Af ter Kevia, Mae Daw n, and Ch ief Do rseyt estif ied, the S tate advised the trial cou rt that itw is hed to cal l tw o w it ness es to tes ti fy about extraneous offenses of a l ik e nat ure to tho se ap pellan t w as be ing tri ed for. Th e tw o w itnesse s w ere Rebe cca Aguero, app ellant ’s ste pdaug h te r, and Ros ale Bohan non, appel lan t’ s b iol og ic al daug hter

. Dur ing a he ar ing ab ou t t he admi s s i bi l i ty

of th e te s ti mo ny , t he S ta te o pi ne d th att he t es ti mo ny s ho ul d c om e in to prov e the is sue of i ntentand to rebut appel lan t’ s d efensiv e the or y thatthe all eg ati ons are an attemptby

Kev ia to as si st Ma e D aw n i n g etti ng most o f t h e co mmunity

proper ty throu gh the divorce. T he trial court r uled tha t the evidence w as relevant a n d m o re probati v e tha n preju dic ial

. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co ur t r ule d tha t t h e t e st imony w oul d be all ow ed. Bot h w itnesse s testif ied to improp er se x ual cond uct by ap pellan t w hen e ach w as a y oun g gir l. In both instance s, the alleged imp rope r sex ual con ductoccurred ap proximate ly 30 y ears e ar li er . A p p e ll a n tt e s t if ie d in h is o wn b e h a lf

. Du ri n g h is cr o s s -e xa m in a t io n t e s t im o n y, appel lan t s tated that , i f he had c ontact w it h the breastof Kei v a, i t oc cur re d w hil e he w as giv ing her a back rub an d the co n t a c twa s acciden tal an d tot ally unint ent iona l. Further, dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , app ell ant s eemed to al ter nate betw een say ing the in ci dents of extraneous co nductei ther di d notoc cur or thathe c oul d notremember the i nci dents

.Add itiona lly , app ellantalleged in his brief , und er the s e c t io n titled Ap pellan t’s 2 Poi nts of Er ro r, thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n notco nduct ing a hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion for new trial. How ever, that issue w as no t add ressed in the bo dy of t h e b ri e f

a n d is, thereby , w aiv ed for ins uff ic ien t br iefin g . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 .1(I). Furt h e r referen ce to th e T exas Rules of Ev iden ce w ill be b y

referen ce to “Rule 3 ___.” 5 Appel lan t w as tr ied under an i ndi ctmentthati ncl uded on e c ount of attempted se x ual a s s a u l ta n d tw o c o u n t s o f i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d

. Att h e c l o s e o f t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e - i n - c h i e f, the t ri al cour

t g ra nted a di re cte d v erdict as to the attempt ed s ex ual as saul t of a c hil d c ount. The ju ry subseq uentl y

acq uitted appel lan t of

Count 3 of the i ndi ctment , i ndece ncy w it h a chi ld, and conv icted a ppel lan t of C ount 2 of the ind ictment, al so all eg ing i ndecency w it h a child. Coun t 2 w as the coun t tha t inv olved the tou ching of the bre asts of

Keiva. The jury subs eq uentl y

as ses sed appel lan t’ s s entenc e at confine ment in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce for s ev en y ears. Ap p e ll a n tco n t e n d s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rta b u s e d it s d is c re t io n a n d comm itted rev ersible er ro r b y : 1 ) a l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e o f e xt ra n e o u s o ffe n s e s t o b e p l a c e d b e fo re t h e j u r y w h en suc h ev ide nce prov e d n o thing ex ceptch aract er co nformance and, 2) findi ng thatthe extraneo us of

fense ev iden ce w as no t subst ant ially more prejudicial th an p ro b a t ive in cont ra v enti on of R u le 4 0 3 o f t he Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. Se e T EX . R. E V ID . 403. 2 3 D i s ag ree i ng w i th a pp el l an t’ s c on te nt i on s , w e affi r m. Standa rd of Rev iew W e re v iew a tr ial cour

t' s deci si on re g ardin g the admis si bil ity of ev ide nce under an abuse of dis creti on sta ndard. See Cameron v . St ate, 241 S. W .3d 1 5, 19 ( Tex .C ri m.App.6

2 0 0 7 ). Be c a u s e t ri a l c o u rt s a re in t h e b e s tp o s it io n t o d e c id e qu e s t io n s o f a d m is s ib il it y, app ellate co urts w ill uph old a trial court's ad missibility decision w hen thatdecision is w ithin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Id. An appel late co u rtm ay not re v erse a tr ial court's de cision regarding the adm issibility of evidence solely beca use the ap pellat e cou rt dis ag re es w it h the dec is ion

. Id. A t ri al cour t abu ses i ts dis creti on w hen i ts deci si on l ies outs ide the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. See Mo ntg omery v. State, 810 S.W .2d 3 72, 391 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 0) (op. on reh’g)

. Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 404( b) Obj ect ion By hi s first is sue, appel lan t c omplai ns that the t ri al cour t i mprop er ly

al low ed th e introd uction of

ev iden ce regarding extrane ous o f fense s. Th e trial court allowed Rebecca A g u e ro , a p p e l l a n t ’ s s t e p d a u g h t e r , a n d R o s a l e Bo h a n n o n , ap p e l l a n t ’ s da u g h t e r , t o t e s t i fy about inc ide nts of sex ual mis condu ct on the par t of ap pel lan t w it h each of them thathad occ ur re d approx imat ely 30 y ears b e fo re. A ppel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce w as not adm issible beca use th e Sta te initially ma de a ssertion s reg arding the n atu re of the evidence involv ed in th e prese nt case tha t required app ellant ’s counse l to answer those sta tem ent s. T here fore, acco rding to app ellant , he did not o pen the do or for the a dm ission of ev iden ce of extraneous offenses . Ini ti all y , w e obs er

v e tha t, acc ordin g to th e r ule s o f ev ide nce, ev ide nce of other crimes, w ron g s , or

a c ts t ha t do n oth av e rel ev an c e ap ar t from c ha rac te r

c on for mi ty

is ina dmis sibl e . S ee R ule 404( b)

. How ev er , ev ide nce of extraneous offenses i s n ot ina dmis si ble i f it is rele v ant t o a factof cons eq uence apar t f ro m t h e t e n d ency

to show7

condu ct in confor mity

w it h c haract er . See C aseyv . St ate, 215 S. W .3d 8 70, 8 79 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)

. Fur ther , ev ide nce of extraneous offenses is not i nadmis si ble under Rul e 4 0 4 ( b ) w h e n i t i s o ffe re d t o re b u t a n a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n s e o r a d e fe n s i v e i s s ue th at neg ates one of the el ements of the c ri me. I d. T he record rev eals that the Sta te made a passin g referen ce to the d ivo rce proceed ing betw een appell ant and Mae Daw n in its opening statement . The re ferenc e w as direct ed to the re ason Ma e Daw n had not ini ti all y repor ted w hat she saw

on t he day

sh e found appel lan t g iv ing a backrub to Keiv a. The Stat e opi ned t hat i t w as becau se she w as marr ied to appel lan t. The St ate’ s a ttor ney en d e d h is re ferenc e to the d iv orce by st ati ng that M a e D a w n ’ s fa i l u re t o re p o rt t h e i n c i d e n t w a s i n e x c u s a b l e . S u b s e q u e n t l y , i n the appel lan t’ s o peni ng st atement, tr ial co unsel st ated: I think what the ev iden ce is g oing to show y ou is th a tM a e Daw n ha s a mo t ive t o lie in this case, th at she had a mo tiv e to bring these allegations, and t hat s he ta lk ed Kei va in to br ing ing thes e al leg ati ons ag ain st mycl ien t, Georg e N or

w ood. Tri al couns e l su b se quentl y st ated that the e v ide nce in the c ase is “ lay er after l ay er after layer of lies and lies.” Trial coun sel the n proce ede d to te ll the jury thatthe evidence w ould show that ap pellan t let it be kno w n, on May 1 , 2 006 , tha t he inte nde d to f ile for div orce ag ain st Ma e D aw n. Tri al couns el w ent on t o adv is e tha t, w it hin day s o f f ind ing out app ellantinten ded to f ile for div orce, his bio logical daughte r and his w ife f iled t h e police re por t t hat l ed to the ind ictment of appell ant. Tri al couns el the n a sk ed th e q uest ion , “W hy ?” An d ans w ered th e q uest ion , “ Lev erag e i n a d iv orce, may be.”8

From the re cord b e fo re us , i t i s a pparent t hat a ppel lan t’ s o peni ng st atement w as set ti ng forth hi s t heor

y of defense. Spec ific all y , t hat M ae D aw n and Kei v a w ere fabri cat ing the se allegation s in order for Mae D awn to g ain an advanta ge in the div orce proce edin gs. As not ed b y

the Cou rt of

Cri min al App eals in the recent ca se of Bass v

. Sta te, a defense openi ng statementm ay open the door

to the a dmis si on of extraneous offense ev ide nce. See B ass v . St ate, 270 S.W .3d 557, 563 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008) (In Bass , immedia tel y after the S tate’ s o peni ng st atement, the defense made an opening st atement in w hic h i t c lai med that the c omplai nant’ s a ll eg ati ons w ere “ pure fantasy ” and “pure fabr ic ati on,” w hic h led t o the Stat e bei ng all ow ed to int ro duce ev ide nce of tw o oth er extraneous offenses dur ing the Stat e’s ca se- in- chi ef.). As the Cou rt poi nted out, “W hen, as here, t he defense choos es to make i ts openi ng st atemen t im mediat ely after the Stat e’s openi ng st atement, the Stat e ma y reason ably rely on this def ensive ope ning state me nt as to w hat evidence th e de fense int ends to presentand reb ut this antic ipa ted defensiv e ev ide nce dur ing i ts cas e- in- chi ef as oppos ed to w ait ing unti l re butta l. I d. atn.7. I t is apparent from the re cord that the S tate w as, i n fact, reason abl y rely ing on t he ev id e n ce thatthe defense i ntended to produce

. Acc ordin g ly , w e h o ld t h at t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in admitti ng the ev ide nce of the extraneous offenses under R ule 404( b)

. Id. H ow ev er , t his does not end o ur i nq uir y as appel lan t al so obj ect ed on the b asi s o f Rul e 403. Se e R ule 403. Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 403 O bje cti on At the same time a ppe llant objected to the a d m issio n of the extrane ous o f

fense ev ide nce under Rul e 404( b) , he als o obj ect ed that, if the ev ide nce w as other w is e rele v ant, the p ro bati v e v alue of the e v ide nce w as far outw eig hed by the unfair

preju dic ial i mpact.9

How ever, appe llant no w conte nds th at the a dm ission of the extrane ous o f

fense ev iden ce v iol ates R ule 401 in that iti s n ot rele v ant, due t o the ag e of t he al leg ed extraneous offenses , 30 y ears. F urther , app ell ant c ontends thatthe dang er of unfair

preju dice far outw ei gh s t h e p ro bat iv e v alue of this evi den ce. As a result of these tw o con ten tions, appel lan t ins is ts thatthe tr ial courtco mmitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r in admitti ng the extraneous offense ev ide nce. In review ing the obje cti o n t h at ap pellan t lodged againstthe extrane ous o f fense evidence, w e do n ot f ind w here a ppe llant brou ght t he issue of relev ancy, pursua nt to Rule 401, to t he attenti on of the tr ial co urt. At best , al l w e c an sa y is t h a t a p p e llantmade a pass ing referenc e to the i ss ue w hil e arg uin g his R ule 404( b) obj ect ion

. How ev er , rather than ru le the is sue has been w aiv ed for failu re to preser v e, w e s hal l address the is sue. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3.1( a) (1 )( A)

. Unde r th e T exas Rule s o f E v iden ce, evidence is relevant if it make s the existence of a fact th at is of

conse quence to the dete rmina tion o f the act io n mo re proba ble th an it w ould be w ithou t the ev iden ce. See Rule 4 0 1 ; W atte rson v. Sta te, No. 07-07 -015 3-CR, 2009 Tex .App. LEX IS 2 938, at * 7 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo Apr il 29, 2009, no pet .) ( mem. op. not d esi g nated for publi cat ion ) ( ci ti ng Moses v. State, 105 S. W .3d 6 22, 6 25 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ). As ex pla ine d abov e, t he ev ide nce of the extraneous of fenses became rel ev ant t o combatthe defensi v e the or y of fabri cat ion by

M ae D aw n and Kei v a in order to s ecure for Ma e D aw n a more fav orabl e di v orce settl ement. F urther , t he ev ide nce w as re lev ant t o comba t a p p e lla n t’s c lai m thatthe cont actw as not i ntent ion al or w as the resul t of an acc ide nt. See Rul e 404( b)

.10

Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat t he ev ide nce w as re lev a n t, we next t ur n to asc ertai nin g w hether the probati v e v alu e of t his ev ide nce is su bst anti all y outw eig hed by

the dang er

of unfair prejudice . See Rule 403

. A s in the Rule 40 4(b) arena , w e w ill again ap ply an a buse of discretion sta nda rd in ana lyz ing the trial court’s decision to adm it t his evidence o v er a Rul e 403 obj ect ion

. See M ontgom e ry, 810 S. W .2d a t 391

. In c onduc ti ng the bal anci ng tes t reg ardin g admi ss ibi li ty , t he tr ial co urt mus t bal ance 1) the inh erent prob ati v e for ce of the prof fered item o f

ev iden ce alon g w ith 2) the propo nen t’s n eed for t hate v iden ce against 3) any tende ncy of

t he evidence to suggest d ecision o n an improp er basis, 4) an y tend ency of the ev ide nce to c onfuse or dis tract the jur y from the main is sue, 5) any tend ency

of the ev ide nce to be g iv en undu e w eig ht by a j ur y thathas not been eq uip ped t o ev alu ate t he prob ative fo rce of

the evidence , and 6) th e likelihood t hatpresen tatio n of the evidence w ill c o n s u m e a n in o rd in a t e a m o u n to f t im e o r r e p e a te vid e n c e a lr e a d y a d m it t e d

. Se e Ca s e y, 215 S. W .3d a t 880

. Havi ng revie we d t h e record, w e f ind th at th e evidence in q uest ion is strongly probati v e to re but t he appe ll ant’ s c ontent ion thatthe a lle ged offense w as fabri cat ed by Mae Daw n and K eiva. Furthe r, it is p roba tiv e to rebu t the state me nts by appe llant th at if he di d, i n fact, touc h Kei v a’s breast s, he di d s o ac ci dental ly

. The Stat e, as proponentof the e v ide nce, needed thi s e v ide nce to rebut the fabr ic ati on theor y of appell ant. This w as v ir tual ly the onl y ev ide nce that the S tate had t hat p lac ed th e defensi v e theory i n doubt

. It must, how ev er , be conc eded t hat t his ev ide nce did hav e a ten dency to sug g estco nv icti on on an improper

basis because the v er

y nature of the extraneous offenses co uld l ead t o a suggestion tha t, if

app ellanthad don e it before, he musth ave d one it this time . How ever,11

the record ref lects tha t the jury w as prop erly

charged ab outt h e irconside ration of this ev i d e n c e . T h i s c h a rg e fo c u s e d t h e j u r y o n t h e p ro p e r

c o n s i d e ra t i o n o f t h e e xt ra neous of fense ev iden ce. Finally , the prese nta tion of the extraneo us of fense evidence to ok on ly a mi nimal amount of time and di d noti nv olv e repeati ng ev ide nce that had prev iou sl y been adm itted . W hen all of

t hese facto rs are view ed in toto , w e f ind no abu se of d iscretion in ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s R ule 403 obj ect ion

. Mo ntg omery , 810 S. W .2d a t 391

. Therefore, appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.