The c urre nt code is cited f or conve nience
. 1 

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

NO. 03-03-00250- CR

Da nie l B. Da vis , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. CR2002- 138, HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Da

niel B. D avis was c onvicted of se x ual assault on D.L .S., a child y oung er than seve nteen y ear s. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.011 (West Supp. 2004-05). The jury found 1
a pp e lla nt guil ty and he ple a d “t rue” to t

he a lle g a tio ns of

thr e e pr ior

fe lony burg lary c on vic tio ns . Appellant’s punishment wa s assessed by the jury at ninety y ear s in prison.
P oints of Error Appellant adva

nces e ig ht p o in ts o f e r r o r . F ir st, appellant complains that the tria l court failed to c onduct a f

u l l evidentiar

y hear ing a fter pr ivilege d attorney -client c ommunications were
se ize d fr om him by ja il e mpl oy e e s wi tho ut jus tif ic a tio n. Ne xt, a

pp e lla nt pr e se nts a s e rr or six2

evidentiar y ruling s by the t rial cour

t. L astly , appellant r equests that this Court perfor m a cumulative
err or ana ly sis. W e will aff irm the conviction.

Bac kgr ound The suff iciency of the e vidence is not challeng ed. The complainant, D.L .S., was born October 6, 1985. Her

mother, L ois, married a

ppellant in 1999. I n the summer of 2000, a ppellant b e g ana s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h D
. L
. S
. i nT r a v i s C o u n t y an d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s c o n t i nu e d i nH ays and Comal counties. Comal County Deputy Sheriff Mike Hammes re sponded to a c all on November 7, 2001, from L ois Davis, who re ported that she h ad l earned that a ppellant had e ng ag ed in sexual int e rc ours e wi th D .L .S. De puty Ham mes ref e rr e d D .L .S. to t

he Chi ld P ro te c tiv e Se rv ic e s. Cari e Macke y , a Comal County

CPS employ ee testified that she interviewe d D.L .S. on Nove mber 7, 2001. She fo un d D .L .S. re luc tant to re late many e ve nts to he r a nd wa s “ pr ote c tiv e ” of

a pp e lla nt. De pu ty Sheriff Sea

n Preuse testified that on November 14, 2001, he answ ere d a call from L ois Davis who repor ted that D.L .S. was missing and a ppellant, her

husband, could not b e l o cate d. A “missing juvenile” r eport wa s filed. Another deputy , Mike Waddel, related that on December 18, 2001, he
rec eived a

call that D.L .S. had re turned home. H e intervie wed D.L .S. who stated that she had le ft home with appellant.

L ois Davis acknow ledg ed that she ha d marrie d appellant in 1999 and that they had a child. She admitted that her relationship with her older child, D.L .S., be g an deter iorating in 2001,
and in N ov e mbe r 2 00 1, sh e re a d D .L .S. ’s dia ry , and learn e d D .L .S. ha d h a d s e xua l c on ta c t w ith
sever al per sons including a ppellant. The dia

ry reve aled D.L .S. had been dr inking a lcohol and smoking mar ihuana. L ois Davis contacted law enfor ceme nt personnel a nd D.L .S. was interviewe d3

by CPS . L ater , L ois Davis repor ted that D.L .S. and appellant we re missing
. On December 18, 2001, D.L .S. returned home and still later that month appellant wa s arr ested.

D.L .S. testified as to the beg inning of the sexual re lationship with appe llant in 2000. She considere d him “her boy friend.” She and appellant lef t Comal Count y

on November

14, 2001. Th e y tr a ve lle d to Ne w M e xico and Ar izon a . Sh e return ed ho me on De c e mbe r 1 8, 20 01 . D .L .S. admitt ed that she voluntarily went with appe llant and had c alled home se vera l times to assure her mother of he r saf

ety . F irst P oint of Error I n h is f ir st p oint of

e rr or a pp e lla nt a sse rt s: Appellant’s Six th Amendment rights to counsel were violate d when jail employ ees s eized privileged, attorney- client communications from a ppellant without justification, and the trial c ourt failed to c onduct a f ull evidentiary hear ing, r equiring the State to neg ate ha

rm for violation of appellant’ s rig hts to c ounsel. See a rticle 1, section 10, Texas Constit ution.
I mmediately prior to trial, appe llant’s counsel stated that he had “ [o] ne matter to put on the re co rd.” Counsel informed the trial cour t that three e nvelopes (a ppare ntly containing communications) fr om counsel’s off ice a ddresse d to appellant in the county jail had b e e n

c o n f is c a ted by jail pe rsonnel, violating the attorney -client privileg e. Counsel believe d the communications had been r e a d an d p h o to c o p ie d
. H e h a d

o n e o f th e e n v e lo p e s in

h is h an d a t t h e ti me . Ap p e lla nt persona lly

interrupted to sa

y that “[t] hey

wer e re turned last night.” Counsel then stated that in the courtroom on the pr evious day appellant ha d written counse l a letter a nd had it in an e nvelope whe n appellant lef

t the courtroom a

nd the letter w as conf

iscated that very

morning
.4 Counsel then stated that he “ would just sim ply ask the c ourt ” t o i n s t ruct the pr os e c uto rs no t to us e any inf or matio n fr om “ pr ivi le g e d a tto rn e y -c lie nt c omm un ic a tio ns ” and to instruct “the jail” to discontinue se izi ng such communications.

T h e l ea d p ro s ec u t o r r es p o n d edt h at h e d i d not learn o f t h e s i tu at i o nu n t i l t h at m o rn i n g, and had not r ead the letters. In response to the trial court’ s inquiry , the prosec utor ag ree d not to read the l e tt e r s . Co u n s e l t

h e na s k e d f o r th e r e tu r no f th e le tt e r s e iz e d th a t m o r n in g an d th e tr ia l c o u rt order ed its return.

The for eg oing is a ll that the rec ord re flec ts. Appellant rec eived a ll the relief reque sted. He did not re quest the full evid en t iary hear ing which he now c laims he was de nied. Ap p el l an t u rge s t h at t h e tr i al co u rt h adt h e du t y t o o rd er s u ch h ea ri n g su a s

po nte placingthe burde n
on the State to s ho w the la c k o f h arm wh ic h is pr e sume d. Couns el nev er ask e d th e tr ia l c ourt to examine the letters in came ra, to order them seale d for the pur pose of the r ecor d, nor wa s there a ny tr ia l ob je c tio n th a t th e State wa s ma kin g us e of

any of the c omm un ica tions . T he le tte rs and the ir contents ar e n o t i n t h e re cord in any form. We ar e not in a position to judge whether the communications wer e cle arly privileg ed informatio n. Appellant has not pre serve d any err or for
re vie w. Ap pe lla

nt c ite s Mu rp hy

v . S tate , 112 S.W .3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), but in l i g ht of t h e r e c o r d w e ar e u n a

b l e t o a p p l y Murphy

to the instant case. T he point of er ror is over

ruled.
Second Point of Error I n th e se c on d p oint of

e rr or , ap pe lla

nt as se rt s that the “ tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in fa ili ngto sustain appellant’s objec tion to the St ate’ s admission of an extraneous unadjudicated offe nse, i.e., delivery of marihua

na to the complaina

nt [ D.L .S.] .”5 On re -direc t examination, Deputy Hammes wa s asked to re ad fr o m D.L .S.’s diary wh ic h h a d b e e n intr od

uc e d into e vid e nc e . He te sti fi e d th a t th e dia ry state d “
. . . my

da d [a pp e lla nt] g ot me some wee d and I

smoked it in the car w ith him and Perry . Ig ot so stoned and it was hilarious b/c [because ] i t was my

first.” The re w as no objec tion to this testimony and nothing is preser ved for revie w. See Tex. R. App. P . 33.1.
Thi rd P oint of Error I n the third point of err or, appe llant complains that the t rial cour t erre d in excluding evidenc e at the punishment pha se of the tr ial from the complainant conce rning her thoug hts about
a pp ro pr iate punis hme nt f

or a pp e lla nt. Both pa rties brief the contention but neither ref ers us to a pla ce in the vo l u m inous
rec ord wher e the evidenc e was excluded at the punishment hea ring
. See T e x. R. Ap p . 3 8
. 1 ( h )
. We fi nd that a pp e lla nt r e c a lle d D .L .S. a s h is w itn e ss. Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts: Q. Ok ay , w hat . . . te ll this jur y wh a t, a s th e vic timin t

his c ri me , is an a

pp ro pr iate punis hme nt f

or Mr . D avis ? Mr. J endrzey (prose cutor): I t is up to the jury to det er m i n e w h at t h e punishment should be. Iobject to the question. The Court: Sustain that objection. Appellant’s tria l counsel took no furthe r ac tion but continued his interrog ation. No informal bill of exception was per fec ted nor wa s an off er of proof made t o show the trial cour t what the witness’s answ er w ould have be en. SeeTex. R. Evi d. 103(a) (2). Nothing has bee n prese rved for r eview. T he third point of er ror is over

ruled.6 F ourth P oint of

Error Next, appellant urg es that the trial c ourt err ed in limiti ng the cr oss-examination of L ois Davis, D.L .S.’s mother. Appellant’s counsel was having L ois Davis rea d from D.L .S.’s diary which had be en i n t ro d uced into evide nce. Counsel ha d her r ead a sentenc e, “We f

renc hed 4 or 5 times and at t h e end he fing ere d me but he wa s narve s [s ic] as hell.” Counsel then aske d if the ref ere nce w as to Be n, or Mi chae l or Ke nny . The prose cutor objec ted to injecting the sexual history of the c omplainant as it was not re levant to any issue as to wheth er ap p el l ant had se x with an

“ un de ra g e c hil d. ” B oth

pa rt ie s a g re e d that the dia

ry wa s in e vid e nc e but a

pp e lla nt argue d th a t hi s interrog ation was admissible on the bases of bias and interest. The prosec utor urg ed it was n ot rele vant and a

waste of time. The State’s objec tion was sustained. Appellant did not perfec t an informal bill of ex ception nor make an of fer of proof
. See T ex. R . Evid. 103(a) (2), ( b). Nothing has bee n prese rved f or re view. S

e e T r a c yv . Stat e , 14 S.W .3d 820, 827-28 (Te x . App.—Dallas 2000, pe t. ref’ d). On appeal, appellant urg es t hat t here was a violation of the Six th Am en d m en t t o the United States Constitut ion rig ht of confr ontation of witnesses. A c om p l ai n t o n appeal must comport with the trial objection. Se e Re za c v . S tate , 782 S.W .2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Hu rd v . S tate , 725 S.W .2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), cited by appellant is distinguishable on the fa cts and the l aw fr o m the instant case . Moreove r, appellant was not questioning L ois Davis about her per sonal knowledg e. SeeTex. R. Evi d. 602, but h e r in te r p r e tati o n o f c e rta in r e f

e r e n c e s in h e r d a

u g h te r ’ s d ia

r y . D
. L
. S. , th e c o mp la in ant, later testified at leng th about t he entries in her diar y . The jury

was a ble to rea d the diary

themselves. The fourth point of er

ror is over

ruled.7 F if th P oint of

Error Appellant contends in his fifth poi nt of error that the t rial court err ed in l imiti ng the
cross-e x amination of Carie Macke y , an investig ator for the Child P rotec tive Service s , wh o had int e rv ie we d D .L .S. on

No ve mbe r 7 , 2 00 1. On

c ro ss- e xami natio n, the re c or d r e fl e c ts: Q. Di d you

ta lk t o h e r [D .L .S. ], e ith e r h e r o r her mo th er, abo ut t he iss ue of

bir th c on tr ol? A. Ye s. Q. What w a s d isc us se d a nd wi th who m?
The trial c ourt then sustained the St ate’ s objection of re levanc y and that “it’s taking up time.” Appellant’ s counsel obser ved that the issue had bee n mentioned duringL ois Davis’s direc t testimony , but he took no further action. He re a g ain, no informal bill of exception w as per fec ted nor
was a ny offe r of pr oof made
. SeeTe x. R. Evi d. 10 3( a )( 2)
. No thi ng is pr e se nte d for re vie w. As wi th the other points of e rror , the re cord doe s not show ho w t h e witness would have a nswere d the question. Se e W

ill iam s v. S

tate , 937 S.W .2d 479, 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The fif th point of
err or is overr

uled.
Sixth an d Seventh Points of Error I n these two points of err or, appellant c omplains that the trial court e rre d in limi ting the examination of the complainant duringthe p u n i s h ment phase of the trial as to “unde rg oing
co un s e li n g ” an d

a s to th e le tt e r s w r itte nb y th e c o mp la in an t t o a

p p e ll an t a f

te r h e w a s ar

r e s te d.8

Appellant ar g ues that h e wa s d eprive d in eac h instance of his Si x th Amendment rig ht to confront witnesses ag ainst him.

I n his brief unde r these points, appe llant makes cle ar that he ca lled D.L .S., the
c omp la ina

nt, a s h is w itn e ss a

t th e punis hme nt p ha se of

the tr ia l. She wa s no t re c a lle d fo r t he purp os e of further cross-e x amination. I mmediately afte r D.L .S. beg an to testify , appellant e stablished that
s h e w as u n d er go i n g co u n s el i n g “[ p ] re t t y m u ch fo r e v ery

t h i n g an d m ai n l y fo r w h at I ’v e b ee nt h ro u gh in t he pa st two y e ars .” She e xpla ine d th a t “ e ve ry thi ng ” me ant “ [a]ny

thi ngtha t I fe e l I ne e d to ta lk
a bo ut. ” Th e re c or d f

ur the r r e fl e c ts: Q. Okay
. Other than what’s occur red ove r the pa st two y ear s, as y ou say , with Mr. Davis, in y our re lationship with hi m, are there other issues that you’re discussing wi th your c ouns e lor

a s w e ll? A. Ye s. Q. Ok ay . In o the r w or ds , ju st i n g e ne ra l mo the r- da ughte r k ind s o f i ssu e s? The State then obje cted to g oing into other ty pes of c ounseling that the witness may want to discuss with her c ounselor. Appe llant’s counsel point ed out that the evidenc e re lated to the mitigation of punishment, bec ause h e wa s trying to de termine whe ther the c ounseling was for actions of appe llant or for othe r issues. The tria l court sustained the obje ction.

Appellant’s c ounsel then established when counse ling ha d commence d, h ow often D.L .S. at t en d ed sessions, the leng th of the sessions, and he r consistenc y in attendanc e. The n the
re c or d r e fl e c ts:9

Q. Ok ay . D id y

ou te ll y our c ouns e lor

that w hil e y ou

ha d s tart e d c ouns e lin g in J anuar y , that y ou felt it nece ssary to c ontinue writing love letters to my client at t h e j a i l ? M r . Je n dr ze y ( p r o s e c u to r ) : Actually , we w o u ld o b je ct to what she’ s telling her c ouns e lor . It’ s n ot r e le va nt. The trial court sustained t he objection. I n both situations presented by points of error six and seve n, appellant’ s trial counsel did not perf ect a n informal bill of ex ce p t i o n n o r make a n offe r of pr oof. See Tex. R. Evi d. 103(a) (2). Nothing is pre sented for revie w. Se e W

ill iam s v . S

tate , 937 S.W .2d at 489. Neithe r t h e t ri al court nor this Court are informed of what D.L .S.’s answer s would have been. More over, on a ppeal a ppellant claims a violation of the Sixt h Amendment’s r ight to confrontation of witnesses. This complaint on appea l does not comport wit h the trial objec tion. Nothing is pre sented for

revie w on this sc ore. Rezac , 782 S.W .2d at 870. Fur ther, D.L .S. was ca lled
as a w itness for appellant at the punishment pha se of the tr ial. Appellant’s points of er ror six and
seven a re ove rruled. Eigh th P oint of Error L a stl y , a pp e lla nt r e qu e sts thi s Co ur

t “ to p e rf or m a c umu lativ e e rr or

ana ly sis in t

his
case in order to ove rride individual finding s of harmless err or, assuming that err ors have occur red in t his tr ia l.” Ap pe lla

nt c ite s Cha mb e rla in v . S tate , 998 S.W .2d 230, 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). If t h e r e i s a

c u m u l a t i v e e r

r o r an a l y s i s , t h e r e m u s tb e e r r o r s t o c u m u l a t e . In Cha mb e rla in , the Texas Court of Criminal A ppeals stated that it was unawa re of any authority that
non-er rors may in their cumulati v e ef

fe ct ca u se er

ror. Id . at 238. The Chamberlain c ourt did
a c kn ow le dg e that it

wa s c on c e iva

ble tha t a numbe r o f erro rs ma

y be fo un d h arm fu l in

the ir10

cumulative ef

fec t. Id. I n doing so, the court c ited Sta hl v . S tate , 7 49 S.W. 2d

82 6, 83 2 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1988) (holding harm lies in the cumulative ef fec t of the outburst and the imprope r ar g uments). Appellant states that since the Texas Court of Crim inal Appea ls has never established
any ru le s o r s tand ard s f

or makin g c umu lativ e e rr or re qu e sts , he wi ll s tand

on the argume nts
su bmi tte d. As we have fo un d no e rr or in the c on te nti on s a dv anc e d and pe rf or me d no ha

rm ana ly sis , there are no err ors to be cumulate d. Appellant’s e ighth point of e rror is overrule d. The judg ment is affirme d.

J ohn F. Onion, Jr., J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Onion * Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 17, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh

Be fore J ohn F. Onion, Jr., Presiding Judge (re tired), Court of Criminal Appe als, sitting by * assig nment. SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) ( West 1998).