### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00153-CR Cindy Ann Mendoz a, Appell ant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-98-0372, HO NORABLE JACK RO BISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

A j ury f oun d a ppe l l an t Ci nd y A nn Mend oza gui l ty of murd er and asse ssed punishment at impriso nment fo r l i f

e an d a $1 0,000 f

i ne . See Tex . Penal

Code A nn . § 19.02(We st 1994 ). Appe llantbr

i ng s f orwa rd f i ve poi nts com pl ai ni ng of er ro r d ur ing jury selec t ion, in the a dmission a nd excl us i on of e vi dence , a nd in t he jur y charg e. We will over ru le the se c ont ent ions a nd affirm t he co nvictio n. A

pp el l an t, h er fian ce e J o e M ar t ine z, an d h er se ve n- yea r - o ld s o n live d w it h C as t ulo Martin ez, Joe’s f ather. Appel

la nt and Joe returned hom

e about 9:00 p.m. on October 10, 1998, after spe nding th e day

dr i n ki n g b eer a n d te qui l a w i

th a friend . Ap pellant and Castulo argued. Later, under ci rcumstances not entirel

y c le ar from the

record, appell ant fatal

ly stabbed Ca st ulo Ma r t ine z, t o o k h is wal l et, and f

le d. A ppe l l an t wa s tri ed f or ca pi tal m urder a nd con vi cte d of the le sser i

ncl uded off ense. The suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence is not in

dis pute.1 The statements were supportive of appella nt. Mar tinez indi cated that he w as tryi ng to r aise moneyfor appellant’s bail. He also told her, “ [Y]ou need to face what you did . . . [but] God being with us, we can lower that sentence . . . . ” 2 In po int o f err or five, ap pellant contends the court erro neousl y a dmi tt ed “pr os ecu t ionma nuf actured evidence to im

pro perly im peach a witness.” Joe Mart in ez test if ied as a State witness. Dur inghis t es t imo ny , M arti nez a ck now l edge d that he s ti l l

ha d “ ve ry stron g . . . f ee l i ng s” f or appe l l an t, an d th at he h ad i n f

act marri ed her two months af ter t he m urder. The prosecuto r then showed Martin ez State’s exhi

bi t 55, which

contain ed enl arged quotat ions

taken from

recorded t elepho ne co nver sat ions be t wee n Mar t inez and appella nt. Martinez s ai d he recogni zed th e s tate men ts as hi s. 1 T he St at e t he n o ffer ed t he ex hibit in evi dence. A ppel la nt objec ted that t hi s was n

ot proper i m pe ac h men t; t hat t he prosecuto r should read e ach quoted passage and a sk t he wit ness w het her he ma de the stat emen

t. Appell ant also objec t ed t o t he exhibit it self, o n t he gr ou nd t hat it w as c umulat ive of the wi tness’s testim ony. The se obj ections were over rul ed. T he pr os ecu t or t hen r ead t he statements contai

ned i n the ex hi bi t, each of whi

ch Marti nez ackn owledged m

aki ng. Appe llantdo es no t co mpla in o f t he pr o se cu t o rr ea din g the statements to Martinez, orof hav in g Martin ez adm it bef ore t he j ury that he m

ade t he st at ement s. I nst ead , a ppe llant co mplains o nly of the ad m i ss i on of t he ex hibit co nt aining t he enlar gement of t he st at ement s. Ap pellant contends t ha t t he ad miss io n o f t he ex hibit violated evi dence rule 613(b ) because Martinez a dmi tt ed having a b i as i

n f av or of ap pel l an t. See Tex. R. Evid. 613(b) (exami ni ng witness

con ce rni ng bi asor i ntere st). In

app ellant’ s view, exhibit 5 5 wa s ext rinsic evide nce s how ingan adm i tted bi as. See id. Wh atever the m eri ts of th i s arg ume nt , it wa s n

ot mad e to the di stri

ct c ourt a

nd the ref ore n ot preserved fo rap pe al. Tex. R. Evi d. 33.1(a); Tex. R. Evid. 103 (a ). Fur t her , w e ar e sa t isfied tha t any2 The recor d reflects that this encounter took place about for ty-five minutes after the victim

was stabbed. 3 err ori n the adm

i ssi on of ex hi bi t 55 was ha rm l ess und er t he c i rcum stan ces . See Tex. R. A

pp. P. 44.2(b). Point of error fi

ve i s overruled. Ne xt, appe l l an

t con ten dsth e c our

t er re d b y ad m i tti n g e xtr aneo us m

is conduct t est imony by a w it ne ss wh o co uld no t ide nt ify ap pe llant . Sa let us Smit h t es t ified t ha t he an d h is girlfriend encountered a drunken woman out si de thei

r apartment on the ni

ght of October 10, 1998. 2 Sm i th test if ied that the wo man

was extremely

in to xicated, accuse d him o f st ea ling he rfo o d s t amp card, and threatened

t o s hoo t him. Smith and his girlfriend mana ged t o g et awa y from t he wo man, and cal le d the police from

a nearb y s to re. At t he co nclusio n of S mith’s t est imony, t o w hich app ellant voic ed no o bject ion, the wi

tness was as

ked i f the wom

an he enc ou nt er ed o n Oct obe r 1 0 wa s pr ese nt in the cou rtroom . Sm

i th s ai d he c oul d n ot mak e a pos i ti ve i de nti f i ca ti on. Th e p ros ec utor

then asked Sm i th if anyone in t he co ur t ro om “loo ks s imi lar” t o t he wo man. Ap pellant voic ed her onl y obj ec ti on at this poi nt: “That’s an

im pro per q uest ion, whet her o r not he can identif y her or no t. He’s al

ready answered th e q ue sti on .” Th e ob

j ec ti on wa s ov er ru l ed . Th

e q ue sti on wa s rep ea

ted an d S m i th an swe red, “I coul

dn’ t tell .” Appe llantargu es

th at th e c our t sh oul d n ot h av e p er m i tte d test imony reg ar ding extraneous miscond uct t hat co uld no t be af f i rm ati ve l y l i nk ed to he r. Th i s ob j ec ti on wa s n ot m ade to t he di stri ct court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33. 1( a) . I n any event , t he next wit ness fo r t he St at e wa s t he police of f i cer w h o re sp on de d to Smi

th’s cal l. The off ic er positiv

el y i dentif ie d appella

nt as the pe rs on4

he arrested at Smith’s apa rt ment c omp lex aft er Smith ide nt ifi ed he r a t t he sc ene a s t he wo man who threatened hi

m. Poi nt of error four is overruled. In point of error one, appell ant contends the di strict court erred b y pr o hibit in g her f rom i m peach i ng a St ate witness , San Marco s police off icer Dan Misiaszek. Durin g cro ssexam i na ti on by defen se counsel , Mis ia szek was as ked if he ever t old app ellant s he wo uld “ge t t he needl e” i f sh e d i d n ot co n f es s. Th e of

f i cer re pl i ed th at h e n ev er pers on al l y sp oke to ap pe l l an t. Later, dur ingher owntestim

ony, appel

la nt to ld the j ury that a detective who “l ooked like

the sam e guy that wa s u p h er e t he o t he rda y, b ut ex ce pt his h air was co mbed differe nt ” sp ok e t o he r w hile she wa s in jail. The St at e’s o bject ion t o t he r elevanc e o f this co nver sat ion wa s su st ained, and a ppe llantwa s n ot permi tt ed to tel l th e j ur y th at th i s dete cti v e s ai d “ h e k n ew wh at h appen ed an d th at I bet t er say t he t rut h a nd t ell t he m t ha t Jo e w as in it wit h me be ca us e if not I wa s g oi ng to l i f e or dea t h pena lty no
matter what I sai

d, an d tha t he k new I di d i t, and that he kn

ew wh y , and he sca red m e.” In the trial

court , appell

ant urged that the excl

uded statement was adm

is si ble under evi den ce rul e 613 (a), which pe rmits impeachment by pr oo f of a p rio r inco nsist ent st at ement . T ex. R. Evi d. 613(a). Appell ant does not now cont end that her pr off er ed tes ti mony wa s a pri or incons iste nt st at ement by

t he de t ect ive. I nst ead , she ar gue s o n app eal t hat t he dist rict co ur t ’s r uling in fri nged on her c on sti

tutional rig ht to confront the w

i tness es through

cross-exam

i nation. U.S. Co nst. amend. V I; T ex. Co nst. art . I , § 1 0; see Da visv. Alaska , 41 5 U. S. 308 , 31 5 (1 974 ); Rankin v. State , 41 S.W .3d 335 , 344 (Tex. A pp.—F ort Worth 20 01, n o pet. hist.). The conten

tion appe l l an t now ad va nc es d oes n ot comport wi

th her t r ia l object ion. Te x. R. App. P. 33.1 (a). Mor eover, he r ar gum en t to this C ourt doesnot c om port wi th th e ru l i ng of5

whi ch she compl

ai ns. The district court ’s rul in g excl uded ap pe llant ’s o wn t es t imo ny; t he co ur t did not l i m i t her cross-exa

m i na tion of O f f i cer M i siasz ek. I nfact , a ppe llant d oe s no t re fer u s t o a ny l i m i tati onpla ced on her cross-exam

in ation of the of

fi cer. Fi nal ly , we note t hat appella

nt was permi tt ed to testify that a detect iv

e who “l ooked like

[h i m]” tal ke d to her , t her eby impeaching t he officer’s t est imony

de ny i ng su ch a c onv ers ati on. No re ve rs i bl e e rror i s p res en ted an d poi nt of err or one i s overruled.

In po intof er ror t h re e, appe l l an

t com pl ai n s th at th e r ep orter’ s rec ord

doe s n ot i n di ca te t he nam e of sev eral veni re m em bers who ma

de statements duri

ng voi r dire. Appe ll

ant contends that t he pr ose cu

to r shoul d have i

ndicated the nam

e of each ven ire m em ber wi th whom h

e spoke. Appe llantcomplai

ns that without the names, i t is i mpossi bl e to deter mi

ne i f the panel

ists w h o in dic ated that t hey

could n ot fol low the l aw were i n f act struck from the j ury. She concedes that t her e is no aut hor ity sup po rt ing her co nt ent ion.

Af ter bo t h a t t o r ne ys co mplet ed t heir q ues t ioning o f the pane l, t he St at e c ha lleng ed six pa n el i sts by nam e. Appel la nt agreed to four of t he cha llenges, which we re imm ediat ely grant ed. The two ot her pane li

sts chal le nged b y the Stat e were questioned

i ndi vi dual l y and the ch al l engeswere

then granted. Appe llant vo iced no objec t ion and do es no t now co nt end t hat any of the State’s chal

le nges were er ro neo usly gra nt ed. Appe llantal so chal le nged three pan el i sts. Two of

thes e ch al l engeswere granted, and the other panel is t did not serve on the j ury b ecause h e was outside the stri

ke zone. The record refl ects that appell ant had a fu ll and f

ai r oppo rtunity

both to chal

le nge pa n el i sts and to object to t he State’s chal le nges. The f

ai lure to record t he n

am es of pan el is ts as they6

spoke to the

attorn ey s d uri ng voi r di re of the panel hasn ot b een

sh own to h av e h ar med appe l l an t. Point of error three is overrul ed. Fin ally, appella

nt contends the court’s jury charge “ omi

tt ed the proper standard o f proof ap plic ab le t o t he affir mat ive de fen se o f se lf-d efe nse . ” A pp ella nt ur ge s t ha t t he co ur t sho uld have inst ruc t ed t he jur y t ha t she ha d t o pr o ve t he ex ist en ce o f t he affir mative de fen se by a prepon deran ce of the evi den ce. See Tex . Penal

Code A nn . § 2.04( d) (West 199 4). T his point of error is prem is ed on a m

is taken understandi

ng of the appl

ic ab le la w . Sel f- defense

i s a j usti f i cation. Id . § 9.31(a) (West Supp. 2001) . Justif ic ation i s a def

ense, n ot an affirmative def

en se. Id . § 9.02 (Wes t 19 94 ). I f th e e x i ste

n ce of a def ense i s s ub m i tted to t he ju r y, t he cou rt m us t charg e that a

rea son ab l e d oubt on

t he is sue requi

res that the defen

dant be acqui

tt ed. Id . § 2.0 3(d) . The d istrict co urt ’s jury charge i n thi s cause properly

pla ced the burden

on th e S tate t o p ro ve beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat app ellant did no t act in self-defe nse w hen she st abbed t he vi ctim . Point of error t wo is overruled.

The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: August 30, 2001 Do No t Publis

h