T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 32. 21(d ) ( Verno n 20 03). 1 In its brief , the State g ene rally q uest ions th e suf

f iciency of

some of

app ella nt’s 2 obj ect ions to preser

v e er ro r. W e find appel lan t s uff ic ien tl y ca ll ed hi s c omplai nts to the NO. 07-08 -031 4-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 OC TOBER30, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ PET ER J. TE LLO , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 8- 419,430 ; H ON ORABLE CE CI L PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Aju ry c o n vic t e d a p p e ll a n t P e t e r J
. T e ll o o f fo rg e ry a n d se tp u n is h m e n ta ttwe n t y-

1 four mont hs in a s tate jai l. Throug h thi rt een i ss ues, appel lan t c omplai ns that at t he g uil tinn ocenc e phas e of tr ial t h e courter ro neous ly admi tted ev ide nce of sev eral extraneous acts an d of

fens e s . T h e S tate conce des e rror on nine issue s but argues th e errors, inc lud ing co nst it uti onal er ro r, w ere nothar mf ul. Becaus e w e are unabl e to say bey ond a 2a t t e n t io n o f t h e t ri a l c o u rtt o p re s e rve t h e c la im e d e rr o rs h e n o w p re s e n t s fo r ou r r e vie w. See Te x . R. App. P. 33. 1(a). T hese comp lainan ts are iden tif ied he rein by initials. 3 2 reaso nab le dou bt th at th e accu mu lated ef fect of the errors did no t cont ribute to app ellant ’s conv icti on, w e rev erse and remand for a new tr ial
. Back g ro und Husba nd a nd wi fe, A.H. a nd V. H., order e d p erson aliz ed b ank ch ecks by mail. 3 W hen t he c heck s d id not a rr iv e and thei r bank acc ount debi t c ard w a s d e cli n e d they dis cov ered unau thor iz ed w it hdraw als from t hei r acc ount. They re p orted t he s it uati on to pol ic e. Abo ut th re e m o n t h s later, on Sept em ber 20 , 200 7, a bla ck Pont iac Sun f ire automobi le entered th e dr iv e- throug h l ine of a Lubbockarea c onv eni ence sto re . The dr iv er w as male and t he frontse at pa ss eng er female. They

ordere d tw o c ases of beer
. The sto re att endant pla ced th e b e e r in the v ehi cl e. It appeared th ey di d nothav e s uff ic ien t cas h to p a y f o r the purc hase so the female beg an w ri ti ng a c heck
. The chec k s he prep ared was f rom the shipm entordered byA.H. and V.H. Th e att end anttold the fem ale the check w ould be electronica lly v erif ied. W hen he ste ppe d inside the sto re to proce ss the c heck , the v ehi cl e depart ed. The chec k w as decl ine d. As the v ehi cl e drov e aw ay , t he atte nda nt no ted its color, make , mo del, a nd licen se plat e nu mb er. He teleph one d po lice and an inv est ig ati on foll ow ed.3

The v ehi cl e des cr ipt ion and li cens e pl ate number l ed pol ic e to appel lan t’ s mot her w ho ex pla ine d tha t s he l oaned a ppel lan t her car. Later , a detec ti v e s poke w it h appel lan t. Acc ordin g to the detec ti v e, appel lan t i nit ial ly deni ed k now led g e of the September 20 e v ent. W hen c onfronte d w it h the i nformati on abou t t he v ehi cl e and that his mother tol d pol ic e s he autho riz ed hi s u se of her v ehi cl e, ap pel lan t recal led g oin g to the c onv eni ence sto re . Appel lan t w as ind icted for forg er y . At trial, the Sta te called the convenien ce store clerk w ho d escribed the forgery . He iden tif ied ap pellan t in a police ph oto lineup and in open court as the driv er of the vehicle on Sep tember

20. The S ta te a l s o c al l ed M ar i v el S al da na . S al da na , a c on v i c te d fel on , an d att ha t ti me under tw o pendi ng ind ictments , deni ed any “d eal ” w it h prosec utors. She tes ti fied s he met appel lan t ata ni g htc lub three or four months before Septemb e r 2 0
. Theybeg an l iv ing togeth er. Appe llant on e da y told he r, “‘ I’v e got a lick for you.’” Accordin g to Sa ldan a, “lick” me ans a sca m, a n illegal sche me to obt ain f ree be er. Appe llant sele cted the con v enie nce sto re as the targ et be caus e, ac cordin g to Sal dana, he and a fri end prev iou sl y pas sed a chec k t here and bel iev ed “ itw as a g ood l ic k.” Sa lda na ex pla ine d how sh e and appel lan t w orked the de cept ion in the store driv e-throu gh. The y played the p art o f

A .H. and V.H. si nce thei r names appeared on the chec k. They dis pla y ed cas h w hen order ing beer , but not e noug h for the t otal . Sal dana then beg an w ri ti ng a chec k. T he attendantaccept ed th e chec k, tel li ng them to w aitfor v er ific ati on and a recei pt. Sal dana k new the chec k w oul d be decl ine d and w it hout a w ord appel lan t drov e aw ay from t he s tore. The chec k w as admitted4

in ev ide nce. Sal dana ex pla ine d tha t s ome of the w ri ti ng on t he i nst ru ment w as hers a nd som e ap pellan t’s. After the S tate re ste d, ap pel lan t t est ified i n hi s d efense. He ack now led g ed he and Sal dana ha d a rela ti onshi p. And on September 20 he met a female at a Lubbo ck bar but she w as not S ald ana. H e di d notkn ow the w oman’s name. She a sk e d f o r a r ide to the conv eni ence sto re and then home. He obl ig ed. In t he s tore dr iv e -t h ro u gh, s h e ordered beer and pai d by

ch eck
. He did not re cal l the s tore att endant say ing the chec k w oul d be v er ified
. After lea v ing the sto re , appel lan t drov e the female to a re si dence acc ordin g to her direct ion
. He did not see her ag ain
. Di sc uss ion In h i s fi ft h a n d s i xt h i s s u e s , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d b y admi tti ng ev ide nce of an extraneous burg lar y charg e from Oct ober 11, 2 007, ov er hi s R ule 404( b) and Rul e 403 obj ect ion s. T ex . R. Ev id. 404(b) , 403. On these is sues , the St ate c onced es error. As n o te d , appell ant d eni ed th at S ald ana w as the female he d ro v e to the conv eni ence sto re and then to a re si dence on September 20. Appe ll ant s aid he b eli ev ed Sal dana w as moti v ated to t est ify fals ely bec ause he s aw

othe r w omen. Appel lan t a greed on cross -e x aminat ion thathe w as ar re ste d for burg lar y at Sal dana’ s a par

tment on October

11. H e w ent t o the apar tment to re tr iev e it ems of cl othi ng and hi s c ell phone but c oul d notg ain admi ss ion
. He broke a door hin g e by bang ing on t he5

door and beg an s oundi ng hi s c ar hor n. Pol ic e w ere s u mmoned and ar re ste d hi m at t he apa rtme nt do or. Appel lan t ac know led g ed a one- month rela ti onshi p w it h Sal dana. H e tes ti fied on directex aminat ion theym et in mid- Aug ust2007 and spent ti me toget her w hil e he w as not w or ki ng . W hen asked byhi s c ounse l if appel lan t and Sal dana ha d a d ati ng rela ti onshi p, appel lan t repl ied , “ pretty much, y ou k now , i t w as jus t a g ro w n- up th ing .” On cross-examina ti o n , a ppe llant ackn owl edged keep ing cl oth ing at Salda na’s apa rtme nt as he “spent th e night over there” sev en o r eig ht tim es. Othe rw ise, crossex aminat ion on t he burg lar y ar re st focused larg ely on t he f a cts of the all eg ed offense, inc lud ing damag e to the a par tment door , app ell ant’ s a rrestand transpo rtto j a il, and an a t t e mp tb y

S a l d a n a ’ s s i s t e r , w h o w a s i n t h e a p a rt me n t , t o p ro t e c th e rs e l f. W e re v iew a tr ial cour t’ s deci si on to admit or ex cl ude ev ide nce fo r ab u se of dis creti on. Shuff

ield v . St ate, 189 S .W .3d 782 , 793 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 6). A trial court does not abuse it s dis creti on if it s deci si on is w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Mo ntgom er

y v . St ate, 810 S. W .2d 3 72, 3 91 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1991) ( op. o n reh’ g ). Und er R ule 401, ev ide nce is rele v ant i f it makes the ex is tenc e o f a f a ct that i s o f cons eq uence to the d eter minat ion of the acti on more probabl e tha n i t w oul d be w it hout the ev ide nce. Tex . R . Ev id. 401; Mo ses v. Sta te, 105 S .W .3d 6 22, 6 25 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 200 3). Und er R ule 402, there is a pres umpti on of admi ss ibi li ty of re lev ant e v ide nce. Tex . R . Ev id. 402; Mo ses, 10 5 S. W .3 d at6 25
. U nd er R ul e 40 4( b) , ev i de nc e of o th er c r i me s , w ron g s,The ju ry ch arg e c ontai ned a law of par ti es ins tr uct ion
. Und er

the law of par ti es, a 4 p e rs o n i s cr im in a ll y re s p o n s ib le fo r t h e o f fe n s e o f a n o t h e r, a n d ca n b e co n vic t e d a s a p a rt y, if , actin g wit h in ten t to prom ote or assist the com mission of the of fense , he solicits, encou ra g es, di re cts , ai ds, or att empts to ai d the othe r person commi tti ng the offense. See T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . §§ 7. 01, 7.02 (a)(2) ( Verno n 20 03). 6 or acts is inadm issible to prov e a perso n’s chara cter for the purpo se of showi ng action in confor mity

therew it h. Tex . R . Ev id. 404( b) ; Mo ntgom er y, 810 S. W .2d a t 387 -8 8. Ev ide nce of the October 1 1 b u rglary

w as present ed w it h the apparent i ntentof re b u t t in g a p p e ll a n t ’s e f fo rtt o d is t a n c e h im s e lf f ro m S a ld a n a a n d h is t e s t im o n yh e d ro ve another w oman to the conv eni ence sto re on S eptember 20. The t est imony

of appel lan t 4 and Sa lda na es tabl is hed t hat a t a ti me near th e o cc u rrence of the ch arg ed offense on September

20 t hey sh ared a cl ose, dati ng rela ti onshi p. W hil e e v i d e nce appel lan t’ s c lot hin g and c ell phone sti ll w ere locat ed at Saldana’ s apartment on October 11 w oul d hav e been re lev ant t o i ndi cat e the durati on a n d n a tu re of thei r re lat ion shi p, t he ev ide nce of the burg lar y focuse d ins tead larg ely on appel lan t’ s c ri minal behav ior
. Thus, ev ide nce of w hat transp ired at Saldan a’s apa rtme nt on Octob er 11 did not have a ten den cy to ma ke mo re probabl e a c los e rela ti onshi p betw een appe lla nt an d Sal dana on Sept ember 20 a nd her presenc e i n hi s v ehi cl e at the c onv eni ence sto re on that date. R ather i ts tendency

w as to show a p p e lla n t w as a bad person or hi s c haract er

co nformed t o tha t of a pe rs on from w hom cr imi nal co nductmig ht be ex pect ed. W e ag re e w it h appel lan t and the Stat e that the tria l cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by admi tti ng ev ide nce of the October 11 b urg lar

y ar re st. That c onc lu sion makes itunnec ess ar y to re ach appel lan t’ s R ule 403 arg ument rais ed throug h hi s s ixth i ss ue. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 47. 1.7

W e turn n ow to ha rm. A trial c o u rt ’s erroneo us ad mission of extrane ous o f

fense ev ide nce is non- cons ti tuti onal er ro r. Roe thel v. State, 80 S. W .3d 2 76, 2 80 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2002, no pet.)
. Acc ordin g ly , w e mustdi sreg ard the er ro r unl ess i t affects appel lan t’ s s ubst anti al ri g hts
. See Tex
. R. App. P. 4 4.2( b)
. A s ubst anti al ri g ht i s a ff ect ed w hen the error had a su bsta ntial an d injurious e f fect or inf luen ce in det ermin ing the jury ’s v erdict. Ki

ng v . St ate, 953 S. W .2d 2 66, 2 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)
. Con vers e ly, if after ex amini ng the enti re record w e hav e “ fai r a ssurance that the e rror di d noti nfluenc e the jur y , or had but a sl ig ht effect,” the er ro n e o u s a dmis si on of ev ide nce did not affecta subs tanti al ri g ht. Johns on v . St ate, 967 S. W .2d 4 10, 4 17 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998)
. The Stat e’s present ati on of the all eg ed burg lar y , al thoug h factual ly

deta il ed, w as br ief and re cei v ed only

passi ng m enti on in clo si ng arg ument. And the pros ecut or i nformed th e j u r y t h a t t h e s o l e q u e s t i o n fo r i t s d e t e r mi n a t i o n w a s a p p e l l a n t ’ s g u i l t o f the c har g ed off ense of S e p t e mb e r 2 0
. Th e p ro p e n s i t y a n d p o t e n c y o f t h e O c t o b e r 1 1 e v i d e n ce to charact er iz e appell ant as a cr imi nal w as blun ted bythe prev iou s, unoppos ed, a dmis si on of ev iden ce of

app ellant ’s prior conv iction for ma nslau ghter. From ou r review of the en tire re cor d, w e c o n c l u d e t h i s e r ro r d i d n o t i n fl u e n c e t h e j u r y , o r h a d b u t a s l i g h t e ffe ct on i ts v erdict of g uil t. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue. T hr o u gh h is ninth, tent h an d eleventh issues app ellantcomp lains the trial court errone ously admitt ed a 199 3 j u d gm e nt con v icting him of misde me ano r assault over his Rule 40 4(b), Rule 40 3, an d Rule 60 9 objection s. Th e Sta te con cede s adm ission of this evidence was error.Rul e 609( b) co ntai ns a ten- y ear ti me li mita ti on and a bal anci ng tes t for admis si bil ity 5 of temporall y

remote c onv icti ons. See T ex. R . Evi d. 60 9(b). 8 The Stat e of

fered the 1993 judg ment duri ng its cross -e x aminat ion of appel lan t. The jud gm e nt reci tes the ass aul ti v e ev ent o cc ur re d F ebr uar y 20, 1992. Puni shmentof appel lan t w as ass ess ed atthree day s i n the co unty j ail
. The jud g ment and record do not i de nt i fyt he v i c ti m. Adm is si bil it y u nder R ule404(

b) Und er the facts present ed, w e ag re e w it h the Sta te an d appel lan t t hat t he 1993 jud g ment w as not admis si ble under Rul e 404(b)
. It had no re lev ance apar t from proof of charact er

co nformity . W e do not reach appel lan t’ s t enth is sue throug h w hic h he compl ain s the t ri al cour

t er re d by

admi tti ng the 1993 j udg ment ov er hi s R ule 403 obj ect ion
. See T e x. R. App. P. 47.1. Adm is si bil it y a s i m peach m ent e videnceunder R ule609(

a) Rul e 609( a) prov ide s t hat a w it ness may be impeac hed byev ide nce of conv icti on of a felony

or a c ri me i nv olv ing moral tu rp it u de w hen t he c our t det er mines thatthe probati v e v alu e of the ev ide nce outw eig hs it s prej udi ci al effect
. Tex . R. Ev id. 609( a)
. A 5 tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on th e admi ss ion of impeac hment ev ide nce is g enerall y rev iew ed for abuse of di sc re ti on. T

heus v. State, 845 S. W .2d 8 74, 8 81 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992)
. The burden of demons trati ng the admis si bil ity of the i mpeachmentev ide nce is on i ts proponent
. Id. at 88 0.Prior to the 197 3 revi sion of the Pe na l Co d e , agg rav ate d assa ult w as a 6 mis demeanor
. Har

dem an v. State, 868 S.W .2d 404, 406 n.1 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1993, pet. dism issed). The ti m e l im itati on and ex cept ion for o lde r conv icti ons of Rul e 609( b) are, 7 accord ingly , of

no imp ort to th is analysis. 9 It has been held that mis demeanor as saul t of a female is a c ri me of moral tur pit ude. See Jack

son v. State, 50 S. W .3d 5 79, 5 92 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 01, p et. re fused) (c onsi der ing mis demeanor as saul t of

f e m a le v icti m by

mal e) ; Har

dem an v . St ate, 868 S.W .2d 4 04, 4 05- 06 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1992, pet. dismi ss ed) (conv icti on for mis demeanor ass aul t by

man of a w oman i s c ri me i n volving moral tur pit ude and admi ss ibl e as impeac hment ev ide nce under R ule 609)
. And w e hav e notbeen ci ted t o, no r do w e find, any co ntroll ing ca se author ity for t he c oncl usi on th at mi sdemeano r a ss a u lt by a mal e of anoth e r male is a c ri me i nv olv ing moral tur pit ude. C f. Valdez v. Sta te, 450 S. W .2d 6 24, 625 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1970) ( in cas e predati ng the 1973 rev is ion of the P enal C ode and the ru les of cr imi nal ev ide nce, co urt s tated , “ [a]g g ra v ated ass aul t ( not c ommitt ed on a female) is not a misd em ean or inv olvi ng moral turp itude ”); Patter son v. State, 783 S.W .2d 2 68, 2 71 6 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 1989, pet. refused) (“m isdemeanor as saul ti v e offenses w hich do not involv e v iolence against w om en a re not crime s inv olvi ng moral turp itude ”). T he reco rd conta ins no evidence the victim of the 19 92 a ssault was fe ma le. Th ere is therefore no proo f this w as a m isdem ean or inv olvi ng moral turp itude . Ev iden ce of this conv icti on w as not a v ail abl e for impeac hment un der R ule 609. 7 W e co n s id e r t h e q u e s t io n o f h a rm , a p p lyi n g t h e n o n -c o n s t it u t io n a l s t a n d a rd
. T e x. R. App. P. 44.2( b)
. The 1993 c onv icti on w as re mote. Itco ncer ned a mis demeanor for10

w hic h appel lan t w as puni shed by three day s’ co nfinement in the c ounty j ail
. Asi de from admitti ng the jud g ment and as ki ng appel lan t i f he w as conv icted of ass aul t, the S tate made no furt her

menti on of the 1993 c onv icti on. The Stat e did not rel y on the 1 993 c onv icti on for i ts cas e- in- chi ef. Itm ay hav e intende d the judg ment as i mpeachmentev ide nce, but as not ed, a ju dgme nt convicting ap pellan t of man slaughte r w as previously adm itted . W ith fair ass urance on th is record, w e find the e v ide nce of the 1993 co nv icti on di d noti nfluenc e the jur y , or had but a sl ig ht effect on it s v erdict. Johns on, 9 6 7 S
. W
. 2 d a t4 1 7
. Ac c o rd in gl y, appel lan t’ s i ss ues nin e and ele v en are ov er ru led
. App ellant ’s sev ent h, eighth , tw elf th an d thirtee nth issues arise f rom th e trial court’s adm ission of evidence of app ellant ’s alleged 1997 check fo rg ery and altera tion of h is em ployer’s time record. T he St ate conce des a dm ission of this evi den ce w as error. On cross -e x aminat ion , app ell ant t est ified he h ad notco mmitt ed forg er y or been charg ed w it h forg er

y . On rebutt al, the Stat e c all ed a former L u b b o ck pol ic e off ic er w ho tes ti fied ov er

appel lan t’ s o bje cti on th at i n 1997 he i nv est ig ated a r e p o rt e d forg er y at a Lub bock co nveni e n c e s t o re . The of f icer said a represe nta tiv e of the sto re told him appel lan t attempted to c ash a pay ro ll ch eck at the store that w as alt ered by addi ng $400 to t he to tal
. A re present ati v e of appel lan t’ s for mer employ er co nfir med the alt erati on for the o ff ic er . The off ic er al so lea rn ed from the former empl oy er

thati t onc e ter minat ed appel lan t for falsi fyi ng ti me sl ips but re ins tated hi m under an a g re ement t o make up t he falsel y repor ted t ime. I t w as after re tur nin g to w or k t hat a ppel lan t allege d lyal tered th e pay ro ll ch eck

and attempt ed to pas s it at the conv eni ence sto re . No re present ati v e of the sto re or appel lan t’ s for mer employ er testi fied. Nor

does the record indi cat e s uch w it ness es11

w ere unav ail abl e to tes ti fy and had prev iou sl y bee n s u bject t o c ro ss -e x aminat ion by appel lan t on the i ss ue. Appel lan t w as not c o n vict ed of the all eg ed 1997 forg er y or for altering time records. T hrou gh issues tw elve an d thirtee n, app ellantco nte nds the t rial court erroneo usly adm itted testim ony of

the 19 97 forgery

and alteratio n of

his emp loye r’s tim e records in v iol ati on of hi s s tate and federal cons ti tuti onal r ig hts to confro nt ad v erse w it ness es. The Con frontat ion Cl ause of t he Si xth Amendment bars the “a dmissio n of tes ti monial sta tements of a w it ness w ho di d notappear at tr ial unl ess he w as unav ail abl e to tes ti fy and the defenda nt

h ad h ad a prior oppo rtunity fo r cross-examina tion. ” Cr awfor d v . Washi ngton, 541 U .S. 36, 5 3- 54, 1 24 S. Ct . 135 4, 13 65, 1 58 L. Ed .2 d 1 7 7 ( 2004)
. In Davis v. W ashi ngton , t he C our

t refrai ned from fashion ing a l it mus t estfo r id e nti fyi ng tes ti monial sta tements but did offer g uid ance: Sta tem e nts are n ont estim onia l w hen mad e in the course of police interrogation und er circumsta nces o bjectively indicatin g tha t the primary pur pose of the i nter ro g ati on i s t o enabl e pol ic e as si sta nce to meet an ong oin g emerg ency . They are tes ti monial w hen t he c ircums tanc es obj ect iv ely

i ndi cat e t h a t there i s n o s uch ong oin g emerg ency , and thatthe pr imar y pur pose of the i nter ro g ati on i s t o es tabl is h or p ro ve pastev ents potent ial ly

rele v ant t o l ater

cr imi nal prosec uti on. 547 U .S. 813, 822, 126 S. Ct . 226 6, 22 73- 74, 1 65 L. Ed.2d 224 (2 0 0 6 ). To de ter mine w het her the state me nts to w hich the of f icer testif ied w ere testimo nial, w e look to ev iden ce of an ong oin g emerg ency at the t ime they

w ere made.12

In Davis , t he C our

t not ed non- ex cl usi v e factors for co nsi derati on w hen det er mini ng w hether st atements w ere made d ur ing an o ng oin g emer gency : 1) w hether the si tuati on w as still in progress; 2) w het her the q uest ions sou ght t o d ete rmine w hatis presently hap pen ing as oppo sed to w hath as hap pen ed in the p ast; 3) wheth er the p rimary purp ose of the i nter ro g ati on w as to render ai d rather

than to memori ali z e a p o ss ibl e c ri me; 4) w hethe r t h e q u e s t i o n i n g w a s c o n d u c t e d i n a s e p a ra t e ro o m, a w a y fro m t h e a l l eg ed attac ker ; and 5) w hether the ev ents w ere del ibe ra tel y recoun ted i n a ste p- by -s tep fashi on. Davis , 547 U. S. at 829- 30, 126 S.C t. a t 2 2 7 8; Vi nson v. State, 252 S. W .3d 3 36, 3 39 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2008)
. From th e r e c o rd before us, th e prima ry purpo se of

the of f icer’s role is readily apparent. H e i nvest igated a forg er y at an uns peci fied ti me after it s d is cov er y . In t he course of the i nv est ig ati on he lea rn ed of altered time records at ap pel lan t’ s w or kpl ace. An y alleged crime s w ere comple te. T he police purp ose w as notto rend er aid or oth erw ise quell an ong oin g emerg ency but to i nv est ig ate p astcr imi nal co nductand g a th e r ev ide nce for possib le prosecu tion. The record here doe s not ind icate a ppe llant, th e alleged pe rpetrat or, w as near by dur ing the q uest ion ing or that the q uest ion ing oc cur re d i n an env ironment t hat w as not t ra nq uil and safe. See D avi s, 547 U .S. at 82 7, 12 6 S. Ct . at2276- 77 ( inc lud ing such facto rs in analysi s). The State conce des th e trial co urt erred by ad mitt ing th e of f icer’s s t a t e m e n t s p e rt a i n i n g t o t h e 1 9 9 7 e xt ra n e o u s a c t s . A n d f ro m o u r a n a l y s i s w e a g re e . W e f ind the state me nts of the store repre sent ative regarding the altere d che ck and app ellant ’s forme r emp loyer regarding alte re d t ime records w ere test imo nial in nat ure an d w ere admitted i n v iol ati on of the Con frontat ion C lau se of the Si xth A mendment.13

A v iol a t i o n o f t h e C o n fro n t a t i o n C l a u s e i s s u bj e c tt o a h a r ml e s s e r ro r a n a l y s i s. Del aware v. Van A rs dal

l, 475 U.S
. 6 7 3 , 6 8 4 , 106 S. Ct . 143 1, 14 38, 8 9 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1 986)
. W e mustrev erse the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt unl ess w e det er mine bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatthe er ro r did not cont ri bute to ap pel lan t’ s c onv icti on. See Te x . R. App. P. 4 4.2( a)
. In ap ply ing thi s har m anal y si s to hearsay sta tements admitted i n v iol ati on of the Con f ronta tion Clau se, w e consid er the ent ire record, taking into a ccoun t such facto rs as: 1) the impor

tanc e of the hearsay

ev ide nce to t he St ate’ s c ase; 2) w hether the hearsay evidence was cumu lative of othe r ev iden ce; 3) the p resen ce or abse nce o f othe r ev iden ce corrobo rating or contrad icting the hea rsayev iden ce on mat erial point s; and 4) the overall streng th of

the Stat e’s ca se. Cl

ay v. State, 240 S.W .3d 895 , 904 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7). W e f urthe r con sider any o the r facto r pre sent ed by the reco rd t hatin dicate s the pro bab le impact of the er ro r on th e mi nds of av erag e j urors. Id. He re , t h e S t a t e re s t e d in t h e gu il t -i n n o c e n c e p h a s e o f t ri a l e a rl y o n t h e se c o n d d a y. W e w oul d notch aract er iz e the Sta te’ s p ro of of appel lan t’ s k now ing par ti ci pati on i n the c he c k s c he me as ov er w he l mi ng . The er ron eo us l y ad mi tt ed ev i de nc e fol l ow ed in fa irly ra pid se q uence throug h the cross -e x aminat ion of appel lan t and the S tate’ s rebutt al. An d the h earsay

st atements l ack ed i ndependen t c or ro borati on. Ass uming , ar

guendo , w e c o u l d fi n d t h e C o n fro n t a t i o n C l a u s e v i o l a t i o n s ra is ed by issues twelv e an d thirtee n, ta ken singularly, neverthe less to be harm less, the y w ould join the o ther er ro rs w e hav e thu s far di sc uss ed, all of

w hic h, al thoug h c onced ed by the Stat e, hav e prov en har mles s w hen t aken one- by -o ne. But w e may not take such a m y opi c v iewThe si tuati o n p re sent ed here mustbe d is ti ng uis hed from the a ttemptof an 8 appel lan t t o c umulat e non- er ro rs i nto error . See Cham ber lai n v . St ate, 998 S. W .2d 2 30, 238 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). See als o F eld m an v . St ate , 71 S.W .3d 7 38, 7 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 2) (op. on reh’g) (num ber of errors may be foun d ha rmf ul in their cum ulative ef fect). 14 and s ti ll fulfil l our

respon si bil ity

to ev alu ate t he har m to a ppel lan t f ro m t h e co nst it uti onal er ro r. Er ro r mayac cumul ate t o s uch a l ev el that the acc used is deni ed a fair tr ial
. Br own v. State, 978 S.W .2d 708, 715 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1998, pet. re fused) ( citi ng St ahl v. Sta te, 749 S.W .2d 826 , 831 -32 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 88)). 8 Ind iv idua l errors, insuf

f icient in the mse lv es to ne cessitat e a ne w trial, may i n the a g g re g ate h av e a more debi li tati ng effect . In other w ords, a c olu mn of errors may some time s have a logarithmic ef fect, p rodu cin g a t o t al impa ct great er than the arith me tic sum o f its constitue nt pa rts. United S tates

v. Sepul veda, 15 F .3d 1 161, 1196 (1s t Cir . 199 3)
. See United State s v. W ood, 207 F.3d 12 22, 123 7 (10th Cir
. 200 0) (errors of trial court w ere individually harm less buttheir accum ulate d ef fect w as ha rmf ul). “If

a n y o f the errors bein g aggregated are cons ti tuti onal i n nat ure, t he c umulat iv e er ro r must be harml ess bey ond a re asona ble doubt , in acc ordance w it h Chapm an v . C ali for nia , 3 8 6 U
. S
. 1 8 , 8 7 S
. C t
. 8 2 4 , 1 7 L
. Ed. 2d 705 (196 7).” Uni

ted S tates

v. T ole s, 297 F .3d 9 59, 9 72 ( 10th Ci r. 2002)
. Acc ordin g to appel lan t’ s defensiv e theory , the female w ho ac compani ed hi m to t he conv eni ence sto re on S eptember 20 w as not Salda na, and he lac ked any kn ow led g e tha t the fem ale w ith him paid for b e e r wit h a f orged check. Amon g the State ’s ev iden ce, his theor y w a s count ered first, and pr imar il y , by the tes ti mony

of Sal dana he rs elf. But S a ld a n a ’s cr im in a l h is t o ry a n d u n fo u n d e d m o t iva t io n t o f re e ly i n c ri m in a t e h e rs e lf ga ve re ason for paus e. Into thi s t est imoni al sta ndoff ca me the er ro neous ly offered and admitted15

ev ide nce of the October 11 b urg lar

y ar re st, the 1993 misde meanor as saul t c onv icti on, a nd the 1 997 forg er ies
. In t his ci rc umstan ce, w e beli ev e the persuas iv e effectof the er ro n e o u s l y a d mi t t e d e v i d e n c e c a n n o t b e i g n o re d
. J u ro rs a re n a t u ra l l y i n c l i n e d t o i nfer g uil t of the charg ed offense from extraneous offense ev ide nce. Abnor v. Sta te, 871 S.W .2d 7 26, 7 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994)
. Our conce rn is not “w het her there w as suf f icient ev iden ce on which [app ellant ] could have bee n con v icted wi tho ut th e evidence co mp lained o f
. Th e question is w het her the re is a reason abl e pos si bil ity thatthe ev ide nce compl ain ed of mig ht ha v e c ontr ibu ted t o the conviction.” Fahy v. Co n n e cticu t, 375 U .S. 85, 8 8, 84 S.C t. 229, 231, 11 L. Ed.2d 171 (196 3). From ou r review of the en tire record, w e are un able to say beyond a reason able doubt that the er ro r dis cus sed, i n i ts cumul ati v e effect , di d notco ntr ibu te t o the co nv icti on of app ellant . W e are th us required to con clude it w as ha rmf ul. Te x . R. App. P. 44. 2(a). Con cl usi on App ellant ’s remain ing issues, ev en if ref lecting harm f ul error, w ould require no more than re mand for a new tr ial
. Their dis cus si on i s t herefore un neces sar y to our di spos it ion of this appeal
. Te x. R. App. P. 47.1. W e rev erse the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt and rema nd th e case for a new tr ial. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice
Do not p ubl is h.