## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0969- 07

D A V I D C LY D E B I LL O D EA U , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FI RST CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY J OHN S ON , J., delivered the opinion for a un animous Court. O P I N I O N Th is C ourt

g ra nte d a pp e lla nt’ s p e tit ion

fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w t o d e c ide a

sin g le iss ue : When a def

endant is ac cused of

ag g ravated sexual a s s au lt, and the only evidenc e in the ca se consists of the testimony of the c omplainant and the testimony

of the a ccuse d, s hould the trial court pr event the defe nse fr om presentingeviden ce about t hreats and false , simil ar alleg ations made by

the complainant a fter the date of the cha rg ed of fe ns e , b ut b e fo re the date of the c omp la ina

nt’ s te sti mony

at tr ia l? App e ll an t’ s ar g u me n t to th is Co urt is th at h e w a s p r e v e n te d f r o m qu e s ti o n in g the
c omp la ina

nt, J.B ., a bo ut thr e ats he ma de to ne ig hb or s whe n the y ang e re d him, that he wo uld fa lse ly
acc use them of molesting him. Outside the prese nce of the jury , appellant questioned J .B. a bout the2

D ep en d i ng o n the w i t ne ss, ap p ell an t l i ve d wit h the B asse s b etwe en 2 we ek s and t w o an d a ha l f m o nths. 1 A p p e llan t as se rte d tha t he b o u g h t t h e c a rs a ro u n d the ti m e o f t h e b irthd a y o f J.B .’s sister b e c a u se he d id 2 no t b uy J.B
. an yt hing fo r his b i rthd ay an d , i nd ee d , d i d no t kno w wh en his b i rthd ay wa s.

J. B
. t est i f

i ed t hat he accused ap p el l ant of sexual l y ass aul t i ng hi m t he d ay af t er app el l ant recl ai m ed t he 3 re m o te -co n tro l ca rs . T h e d e p u ty’s re p o rt ind ic a te s a d a te o f Ju ly 2 9 , a T u e sd a y. T h e d o c to r w h o e x a m ine d him th t est i f i ed t hat t he m ed i cal exam i nat i o n was perf o rme d on July 30 , a W ed nesday. T hi s t end s t o put t he d at e o f t he th recl am at i o n as M o nd ay, t he 2 8 of Jul y . M r. B ass ass ert ed t hat t he car i nci d ent t o o k place af t er t he accusat i o n, but th t hat wo ul d requi re t he B ass es t o have al l o wed ap p el l ant i nt o t hei r hom e af t er an accusat i o n t hat he had m o l est ed one o f t hei r chi l d ren. threats, and J .B. de nied makingthem. The t ri al co urt ruled that a ppellant could not pre sent that
e vid e nc e to t

he jur y be c a us e the a lle g e d thre ats h a d b e e n ma de a ft e r t he c ha rg e d o ff e ns e . B e c a

us e appellant was not permitted t o ask t hose questions in front of the j ury and g et J .B.’ s denials bef ore it, he was ther efor e not per mitted to present his defe nse, which w as co n t ained in the testim ony of those neig hbors, the Klines, that the thre ats denied by J .B. w ere , in fac t, made. We re verse . The re cord r efle cts that appe llant moved to Texas in l at e 2002. Shortly afte r ar riving , he moved into the Ba

y town home of Robert and Edith Wolfe. The Wolfes introduced a ppellant to the Ba sses, the complaina

nt’s famil y . I n M ay

2003, appellant wa s injured in a bicycle a ccide nt and stay ed in t he hospi tal overnig ht. When appellant was rele ased from the hospital, the B asses invited him to sta y in the ir ho me wh ile he re c up e rate d. Duri ngthi s ti me , a pp e lla nt s pe nt a lot of tim e wi th the t hen -eig ht- y e ar- old

c omp la ina

nt, J.B . App e lla

nt l ate r m ov e d into h is o wn a pa rtme nt i n Channelview a

nd then to L ouisiana. At some point, a ppellant boug ht J.B. two remote- control ca rs 1

a s a g if t. J.B .’ s mo the r d isa

pp ro ve d a nd insi sted that a pp e lla nt r e c la im the c ars and

take the m to 2 the Wolfes’ home. When appellant attempted to t ake the m back, J.B. went into ra g e, thre w the ca rs
at a pp e lla nt, hittin ghim

in t he ba c k, and

sw or e at hi m. 3 In late Jul y 2 0 0 3 , J
. B. visited the home of his neig hbor, Mar ily n J ordan, to play

with her3

M s. Jo rdan wa s t he m anager o f t he t rai l er park. She t est i f i ed t hat s he i nq ui red b ecause i t was agai nst t he 4 t r ai l er - par k pol i cy f

or a ppel l an t t o r es i de wi t h t h e B as s es . T h e B as s es w er e l at er e v i ct ed. T he r ecor d re f

l ect s t hat , at s om e t i me bef ore appel l ant kn ew t hem, J. B
. an d hi s s i s t er ha d been r emo ved 5 f ro m t he i r ho m e b ec au se o f o t he r sexu al- assa ult ch arg es. A pp el l ant was ar r es t ed i n Loui s i ana i n J anu ar y 200 5, 18 m ont hs af t er t he i ni t i al out cr y , an d t hen 6 e x tra d ited to T e x a s. H e w a s c h a rg e d w ith a g g ra v a te d se x u a l as sa u lt o f a c h ild . T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 2 2 .0 2 1 (a )( 1 )( B ), (a )( 2 )( B ) (S u p p . 2 0 0 6 ). y oung son. During the visit, Ms. J ordan asked J .B. if appellant still lived with his family , but J .B.’ s 4 react i o n t o her que stion was “odd.” Ms. Jordan testified that “he hunghis head down a nd started cry ing.” She asked him wha t was wrong , but he rema ined silent. She pr essed him, and he told her that appellant ha d taken him to a motel and ha d made J.B. touch his “thing ,” and that appellant had stuck his “thing” into J .B.’ s anus. J .B. asserted that he had told only Ms. J ordan of the incident. She instructed J.B. to go home immediately and to tell his parents. J .B., howeve r, stated that he did not
wa nt t o in fo rm

his pa re nts of the inc ide nt b e c a

use he was a fr a id o f b e ingtake n a wa y fr om t he m. 5 Afra id t h at J. B
. w o u ld n o t te ll h is p ar e n ts , M s . Jo r d an c a ll e d th e s h e r if f th at e v e n in g . A f

te r the deputies had c ome and g one, Mr. a n d M rs. B ass went to Ms. J ordan’ s home, upset that she ha d repor ted J .B.’ s acc usation to the Sheriff’ s Offic e. 6 Ab out an h our a ft e r M r. B a ss a rr ive d h ome fr om work th at eveni ng , h e no tic e d a de puty sh e ri ff at Ms . Jor da

n’ s h ome . J.B . w a s r idi nghis bic y c le c los e by , a nd Mr . B a ss b e c ko ne d to him
. He sa id t hat he fi g ur e d that the po lic e vis it inv olv e d J.B ., so he a sk e d J.B
. why the de puty wa s at Ms
. J ordan’ s house. J .B. te are d up and, af ter seve ral minutes of probing by his f ather , told him about the
a lle g e d o ff

e ns e . T he de puty late r ca

me to spe ak to Mr. B a ss a bo ut t he inc ide nt. Th at e ve nin g , M rs . Ba ss took J .B. to Te x as Children’s Hospital. Dr . Erin Endom , the ex amining doc tor, testified that the r e w e r e n o s i g n s o f tr a u m a , b u t th at i t i s v e r

y c o m m o n f

o r a c h i l d s e xu a l

- a s s a

u l t v i c t i m n o t to4

M r . Bas s t e s t i f

i e d t h a t J
. B
. h a d t a k e n Ad de r a l l a n d Re s t or i l f or a t t e n t i on - de f

i c i t di s or de r a n d a t t h e t i me 7 o f t ri al was t aki ng l i t hi um and R est o ri l plus t wo other m ed i cat i o ns. J. B
. t est i f i ed t hat he was t aki ng f i ve d i f f erent m e d ic a tio n s, e a c h twic e a d a y, i n c lud ing li thiu m , R e sp irito l, a n d P a x il.

J.B . also tes tif

ie d tha t sinc e the a g e o f f o u r h e ha d se e n a p syc h ia trist o n c e a m o n th b e c a u se o f his 8 b e h a v io r a n d tha t he ge ts a n g ry “a ll o f t h e ti m e .”

Q . [S ta te ] N o w , w h e n
– h o w d id yo u ge t t o the m o te l? 9 A. M y da d. At t r i al , n ei t h er a ppel l an t n or t h e s t at e as k ed M r . B as s h ow J. B
. g ot t o a ppel l an t ’ s a par t men t a n d ba ck h ome or w h e the r h e ha d d ro p p e d a p p e llan t an d his so n o ff a t t h e P a lm s M o te l. Q
. [ Stat e] And where did D avi d t ake y o u? 10 (continued...) have a ny phy sical injuries bec ause ma ny child victims were too small to resist forc e, and r esistance is what produce s phy sical damag e. The nex t day , Child P rotec tive Service s (CPS ) re moved J .B. a nd his sist er f

rom the B asses’ home due to the alleg ed cha rg es. They rema ined in state custody for approximately

11 months. At tr ia l, M r. B a ss t est if

ied that J.B . h a d b e e n d ia g no se d at th e a g e of se ve n w ithbo th attention-def

icit disorder and bipolar di sorder , which contr ibuted to his fits of rag e, and that, af ter 7 returninghome from

CP S c u s to dy , J .B.’ s behavior w orsene d, and he displayed intense a ng er towa rds some adults. Mr. B ass also testified that J .B. liked appellant a nd that he allowe d J .B. to spend a lot 8 of tim e wi th a

pp e lla nt. Af te r a pp ell ant mo ved out, M r. B a ss a llo we d J.B . to vis it a pp e lla nt at hi s Cha n n e lv ie w a

p artm e n t a lm o s t e v e r

y w e e k e n d
. J. B
. w a s w it

h a p p e ll an t o n th e w e e k e n d th at the alleg ed offense took place. Mr. B ass said that he did not know whe re J.B. and a ppellant wer e, but that he had spoke n with J .B. on a pp el l an t ’s ce ll phone duringthat wee kend. J.B. “sounded f ine,” but did not say

wher e they wer e. Mr. B ass conf irmed that appe llant did not own a car at that time. J .B., te n y ear s old at the time of trial, testified both that his dad dropped him and appellant off at the P alms Motel in Ba y town and that appellant took him there
. He a lso testified both that 9 1 05

(...continued) 10 A . P a lm s M o te l.

. . . Q . [A p p e llan t] W h e n d id yo u d isc o v e r th a t t h e na m e o f t h e m o te l wa s the P a lm s M o te l? A . W h e n I lo o k e d a t t h e sign
. Q
. W hen y o u l o o ked at t he si gn? A
. Y es. Q . O k a y. A n d w h o w a s it tha t yo u to ld tha t D a v id ha d tak e n yo u to the P a lm s M o te l? A. M y da d. Q. Ok a y . Do y ou r e me mb e r w h e n y ou t ol d h i m? A. Ye a h
. W e w e r e i n t h e ba t h r oo m. Q. Ok a y . You w e r e i n t h e ba t h r oo m? A . [M o v ing he a d up a n d d o w n .] Q
. I n t he bat hr oo m at y our hous e? A. N o. Q
. I n t he bat hr oo m wher e? A . A t t h e P a lm s M o te l. Q
. [ Stat e] O kay. D i d [app el l ant ] have a car? 11 A. N o.

. . . Q
. [ Appel l an t ] O k ay . D i d y ’ al l g o ou t a n d g et a n y k i n d of f ood? A
. Y es. Q
. W h er e di d y ou g o? A
. M cD o na l d ’ s. Q
. H ow di d y ou ge t t her e? A. [ A pp el l ant ] drove
. appellant did not have a ca r at that time and that, later that evening , appellant drove them in his c ar to g e t f oo d, but th at th e y

c ame ba c k to the mot e l to e at. 11 J.B . te sti fi e d th at, b e fo re he fe ll a sle e p in the a ft e rn oo n, a

pp e lla nt b e g an to F re nc h- kis s h im and that, while he was sleeping on his stomac h, appellant a ppare ntly pulled down J .B.’ s shorts and climbed on top of him. J .B. stated that he aw oke whe n appellant put his “tally whac ker” into J .B.’ s anus. He further

stated that he eventua lly pushed appellant off, ran into the bathroom to dress, and then ra n to the front off

ice, but it was c losed, so he we nt back to the r oom. He testified that a ppellant was fully dresse d when J .B. returne d and that appellant threatened to kill him if he told any one about the incident. Ac cordingto J .B.’ s testimony , no other sex ual activity occur red that evening , his father pic ke d h im u

p e arl y the ne xt mor

nin gat th e mot e l, a

nd a pp e lla nt r e ma ine d at th e mot e l.6

Ap pel l ant al s o want ed t o pres ent t he t es t i mo ny of M at t hew K l i ne t hat J. B
. ’ s al l ega t i on t hat appel l ant ha d 12 mo l es t ed M at t hew was f al s e. De fe ns e c ouns e l ma de re pe ate d atte mpt s to qu e sti on J.B
. a bo ut t he thr e ats a g a ins t th e Kl ine s, but eac h time the s tate objected t hat s uch inqui ry was not rele vant, and the t rial cour t sustained eac h ob je c tio n. Outsi de the pres ence of th e jur y , d e fe ns e c ouns e l qu e sti on e d J.B . a bo ut t hr e ate nin gto mak e fal se ac cus ati on s o f m ol est ati o n a ga in stth e Kl in es, andJ .B. d eni ed b ot h i nci den ts . J .B. admitted to making one ac cusation–that appe llant had molested Matthew K line–but maintained that the ac cusation wa s true. The trial court ref used to allow appe llant to question J .B. a bout the alleg ed thr e ats a g a ins t th e Kl ine s in fr on t of the jur y , im pli c itl y ru lin gthat, bec a

us e J.B . ma de the thr e ats afte r the date on which the offe nse on trial was alleg ed to ha ve occur red, testimony about them was not admissible. App ell anttes ti fi ed and con tr adi cte d J .B.’ s tes ti mo ny . He den ied th at he h ad ev er t aken J .B. to a mot e l and state d that J.B .’ s a sse rt ion that a pp e lla nt d ro ve the m Mc Do na ld’ s to g e t f oo d whil e staying at a motel was fa lse bec ause he did not have a c ar at the time. A ppellant stated that he used the se ttl e me nt f

un ds fr om the bic y c le a c c ide nt to mov e ba c k to L ou isi ana , d ri vin gwi th a

re lativ e in the re lative’s ca

r. Nanc y and Nathan Kline ea ch testi fied that they wer e ac quainted with J .B.’ s reputation for tr uth fu lne ss a

nd tha t it wa s bad
. Ap pe lla

nt sou g ht to pr e se nt the ir te sti mony tha t J.B . h a d b e c ome
ang ry wi th e a c h o f t

he m and ha d th e n thre ate ne d to a c c us e e a c h o f t hem of mo lest inghim
. 12 Ap pe lla nt a rgue d th at he ha d a ri g ht to pr e se nt the Kl ine s’ te sti mony un de r the Con fr on tatio n Cl a us e and thus to impeach J .B.’ s cre dibilit y . The trial judge ref used t o admit the Kli nes’ testim ony , but permitted counse l to make a bill of exceptions.7

T he reco rd i nd i cat es t hat J. B
. had be en m o l est ed by s o m eo ne o t her t han ap p el l ant t wo y ears b ef o re he 13 acc us ed appel l ant an d t hat hi s s i s t er ha d been mol es t ed by s om eone ot her t han appel l ant s hor t l y bef ore J. B
. ac cus ed a p p e llan t. In that bi ll o f e xce pti on s, te sti mony sh ow e d th at th e Kl ine s and the B a sse s w e re ne ig hb or s. J .B. sometimes played with Ms. Kline’s y oung er children. One day about a y ear afte r J.B. acc used
a pp e lla nt, J.B
. and his sis te r vis ite d Ms. Kl ine ’s tw o young e r c hil dr e n. Whil e J.B . w a s p layingwi th her c hildren, Ms. Kline hea rd J.B. call his sister a bad name. She immediately repr imanded him for his behavior. She testified that, on sever al occasions befor e that day , she had w arne d him that she was g oing to wa sh his mouth out with soap if he used bad languag e, so she grabbe d her dish soap and put some in his mouth. Accordingto Ms. K l i n e, J .B. be came enra g ed and be g an to kick and
scre am. In an ef

fort to ca lm him down, Ms. Kli ne g rabbe d his shoulder s. She testified that J .B. sa id,

“ Iam g oin gto c a ll the c op s and te ll the m th at you ’r e mol e sti ngme .” She tol d h im, “ Wel l, o bv iou sly y ou don’t know what molested means.” Howeve r, he g ave he r an a ccur ate de finition. Ms. Kline 13 testified that J .B. ha d a smirk on hi s fac e when he threatene d her a nd that when he left her

house, he
was a ng ry , but stil l smirking. In November

2004, a simil ar incident occur red betwee n J .B. a

nd Nathan K line, Ms. Kline’s 20 -ye ar- old

so n. Na nc y Kl ine wa s p re se nt a

nd a lso wi tne sse d the inc ide nt. J.B . a sk e d N atha n if his y oung er sibling s could come out to play . Nathan told him that they wer e not home. Convinced that the y we re at ho me , J.B . b e c ame ang ry , c a lle d N atha n a li ar, and tol d h im that he wa s g oin gto t e ll his parents that Nathan was molesting him. The state’s only questions to eac h Kline per tained to the fa c t th at J.B .’ s thre ats again st the m w e re ma de a ft e r t he date of the a lle g e d o ff

e ns e . N on e of

thi s te sti mony wa s h e ard

by the jur y . App e lla

nt w a s c onvic te d a

nd se nte nc e d to 30 y e ars ’ c on fi ne me nt.8 The Court of App eals’s Opin ion On appea l, appellant conte nded that, pursua nt to Lop e

z v . S tate , 1 8 S. W. 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 2 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2000), the exclusion of the proff ere d testimony

violat ed appellant’s rig hts under the Confrontation Clause. Bi llo de au v . S tate , 263 S.W .3d 318, 322-23 (Te x . App.–Houston [1stDist.] 2007). Appe llant argued that testimony about J .B.’ s threats to fa l s ely acc use the Klines of mol e statio n w e re re le va

nt an d sho uld

have be e n a dmi tte d. He a sse rt e d th at hi s c a se wa s si mil ar t o Thomas, a previous case from the court of a ppeals, a nd that the cour

t should have followed Thomas
. The state contende d that, based on Rule 608(b), the testimony of appellant’ s proffe red w itnesses was inadmissible. The c ourt of appeals held that the trial cour t could have r easona

bly conclude d that, “in light of the re moteness in time and the dissimilarity betwee n” the thre atene d ac cu s at ions ag ainst the Klines and the a ccusations ag ainst appellant, the probative value of the Klines’ testimony was low and the r isk that the jury

would be unduly

prejudice d or conf

used wa s high. Appellant’s issue state s that these thre ats wer e made “ar ound the same time a s the acc usations in the alleg ed off ense.” As st ated above, the r ecor d clea rly shows that any threats by

J .B. towa rd the Klines we re ma de over a y ear after

the instant offe nse, and it w as on this g ro un d th at th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d a dmi ssi on

of the Kl ine s’ testimony . . . in light of the r emoteness in time and the dis s i m i l ar ity betwee n the alleg ed thre ats toward the Klin es and the acc usation in the char g ed off ense, the Klines’ testimony was not r eleva nt be cause it wa s not pr obative reg ard i n g J
. B.’ s c re dib ili ty

at th e tim e of

the ins tant of

fe ns e . We hold that th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se i t s d i s c r e t i o ni ne x c l u d i n gth e K l i n e s ’ t e s t i m o n y.

. . . Appellant has not c ited any authority for his proposition tha t ev i d ence that the complainant in a se x ual assault may have ma de threats of false a ccusations toward others a year after th e ch ar ged o ff en s e is re l ev an tt o d et erm i n i n g th e c o mp l ai n an t 's cre dibilit y

at the time of the of

fense . To support his c ontention that the evidenc e wa s rele vant, appellant relies on Tho ma s v . S tate , 669 S.W .2d 420 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Di st. ] 1984, pet . r e f’ d) . H ow e ve r, a s d isc us se d a bo ve , th e c omp la ina

nt i n Thomas ma de fa lse a c c us atio ns of ra pe or atte mpt e d r a

pe in t he mo nt hs pr ior

to9

claimingthat she had be en ra ped by the def endant. Id. at 421-23. Billodeau , 263 S.W .3d at 326 (e mphasis in origina l). The court of a ppeals a ffirme d his conviction. Stand ard of Review We reviewa trial c ourt’s ruling under the Rules of Evidence for an abuse of discre tion. Page

v . S tate , 2 1 3 S
. W
. 3 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 7 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Sa uc e da v . S tate , 129 S.W .3d 116, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)). We consider the ruling in light of what w as befor e the tria l court at the time the rulingwas made and uphold the trial co u rt ’s judgme nt if it li es within the zone of
rea sonable disagree ment. Ro dge rs v . S tate , 205 S.W .3d 525, 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (quoting W e ath e rre d v . S

tate , 15 S.W .3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)).

Rul e of Ev ide nc e 60 8( b) Rul e of Ev ide nc e 60 8( b) pr ov ide s th at a wi tness’s cred ibi lity

may no t be imp e a c he d w ith sp e c if ic ins tanc e s o f t

he wi tne ss’ s c on du c t ot

he r t ha n a c ri min a l c onvic tio n as pr ov ide d in Rul e 609(a) . T EX . R. E V ID . 608(b). None theless, this Court has acknowle dged t h at the Confrontation Cla us e of the Sixth A mendm ent may re qu ir e a dmi ssi on

of e vid e nc e tha

t Ru le 60 8( b) wo uld otherwise ba

r. See Lopez , 18 S.W .3d at 225. Rul e 61 3( b) Rul e of Ev ide nc e 61 3( b) , whic h c re ate s a n e xce pti on

to R ule 60 8( b) , p ro vid e s th at a wi tne ss
may be imp e a c he d b y

us inge xtri ns ic e vid e nc e to s ho w b ia s o r i nte re st. In impeachinga witness by proof of circ umstances or

stat ements showing bias or i n t er es to n

th e p art o f s u ch wi tn es s , an d b ef o re fu rt h er

cr o s s -e x am i n at i o nco n ce rn i n g, or e xtri ns ic e vid e nc e of

, s uc h b ia s o r i nte re st m ay be a llo we d,
. . . the wi tne ss m us t be g iven an oppor

tunity to expl ain or to deny such circ umstances or statement. . . . I f t he wi tne ss u

ne qu ivo c a lly

a dmi ts su c h b ia s o r i nte re st, e xtri ns ic e vid e nc e of same shall not b e admitt ed. A pa rty shall be per

mitted to present evidenc e re butting any evidenc e impeac hing one of said par ty ’s witnesses on g rounds of bias or interest.10

T EX . R. E V ID . 613(b). Relevant fac ts that oc curr ed befor e the witness testifies at trial are admissible i f p er mitted by the Rules of Evidenc e or the Con fr o n t at i o n C lause. A w itness’s cre dibilit y does not esca

pe
sc rutiny be c a

us e he c an be sh own to hav e dis pla y e d the un

pr inc ipl e d qua lit ie s of his c ha ra c te r o nly
a ft e r t he date of the c ha rg e d o ff e ns e . The fa c t th at th e c omp la ina nt a lle g e dly

ma de su c h thre ats after
a c c us inga

pp e lla nt o f m ole statio n is not di sp os it iv e. I f i t w e re so , th e fi rs t pe rs on a bo ut who m a complainant lied would be r ender ed unable to challeng e the complainant’s credibility and re putation for truthfulne ss even if the complainant had sinc e bee n shown to be a ve ritable Pinocchio. Ana lys is On pe tit ion to th is Cour

t, a pp e lla nt a sse rt s th at th e Con fr on tatio n Cl a us e of the Sixth Am e ndme nt g ua

ra nte e s him the ri g ht to c on fr on t J.B
. a bo ut the su

bs e qu e nt fa lse all eg atio ns . Appellant asse rts that, beca use the only

direc t evidence of the off ense w as the testimony

of J.B., the Klines’ testimony

was hig hly

probative a

nd that the trial cour

t err ed in denying its admission on the basis that the threats occurr ed af ter the c harg ed off

ense. The state responds that the te stimony was not probative beca

use i t did not involve the complainant’ s cre dibilit y at the time of the of

fense and that the excluded evidenc e did not e ntail “ proven acc usations or alleg ations simil ar to the a ccuse d of fe ns e .” Th e state a lso a sse rt s th at, i n li g ht o f t he rem ote ne ss i n ti me and dis sim ila ri ty of fa c ts b et wee n the cha

rg ed off ense a nd the alleg ed thre ats towards the Klines, their testimony had little, if any , probative va lue re g ardingJ .B.’ s cre dibilit y at the time of the pr esent off ense. We point out t hat, in Lop e z, the extraneous o ff

en s e–an a lleg ed non-se x ual assault on the complainant by

the complainant’ s mother–was sig nificantly differ ent from the c harged offe nse of11

sexual assault of a child, and that the holding of Lopez is not based entirely on the truthfulness of the
acc usations, but also on the dissim ilarity of them. Lop e

z at 226. Her e, the tria l court pre vented
a pp e lla nt f ro m pr ov ingthe f

a l s i t y o f t h e a c c us atio ns , e ve n th ou g h J.B .’ s a c c us atio n a g a ins t a pp e lla nt, and his threatened a lleg ations ag ainst the Klines, wer e the same–molestation. The c ourt of appe als co n du ct ed a deta iled analy sis pursuant to the Lop e z g uidelines

. Howeve r, the trial c ourt in this case did not u s e t h e p ri n ciples ar ticulated in Lop e

z to determine whether it should admitthe evidenc e. Instead, it ba sed its re asoning on a sing le fa ct–the thre ats of makinga fa lse ac cusation occ urre d after the cha rg ed off ense. [Defense counsel]: Ihave witnesses,
. . . Nanc y Kline, Matthew K line, and Nathan Kline, all of whom a

re g oing to be broug ht forwa rd to impeac h the testimony of [J .B.]. All on the issue–specific to the issue of what the child’s cr edibility is. And the y wi ll a ll s ay

that he did , in fa c t, make tho se a c c us atio ns that I a sk e d [J.B .] a

bo ut. F or tho se re a so ns , b oth

a s a matte r o f c re dib ili ty

and un de r the Con fr on tatio n Cl a us e o f th e U n i t e d

S t at e s C o n s t i tu t i o n , . . . I b e l i e v e th ati ti s , b o th , r e l e v an tm at e r i a l [ l y]

. . . and fo r a tr ie r of fa c t to be a ble to ma ke a ratio na l de c isi on a

bo ut the c re dib ili ty of an in div idu a l.

. . . [Trial Court] : Now, when is it that y our witnesses a re g oing to say that statement occur red? [Defense counsel]: The times that Ijust put i nto the rec ord, Judge. Summer of 2004, which [J .B.] ag ree d to. [Trial Court] : Okay . And that would be a y ear afte r the a lleg ed conduc t in this case , c or re c t? [Defense counsel]: Yes, sir. [Trial Court] : All right. Go a head. [Defense counsel]: And the other one occur red this y ear . That wa s Nanc y Kline.

. . .12

[ T r i a l C o ur

t ] : O k ay. I’ mg o i n gt o d e n y i ti f yo uc an ’ ts h o wm e a

c a s e th ats ays y ou ’r e e nti tle d to that. You g ot [J.B .] f or c ro ss- e xami natio n p ur

po se s a s to the se events. You w ere specific in your arguments to the Court y ou don’t want a ny thing else to come in, but now y ou’re g oing to le ap forwa rd to br ing in othe r conduct of the complainant without even br inging in c onduct of the def endant within a se ven-da

y period. S o y ou’re g oing to need to bringme a c ase to show me that y ou can do that or the a nswer is no. [Defense counsel]: W ell, J udg e, I think the prim ary differ ence is that [J .B.] is not the defe ndant in this case. So since he ’s not the def enda n t in this case and he is the person wh o i s m akingand leve ling the a ccusations, then his credibility is at issue bo th [s ic ] at

the tim e that he mad e th os e accu satio ns . A nd it a lso sh ow s h is propensity

towards makingalleg ations of sex ual m olestation whene ver he g ets mad ats o m e b o dy. [ T r i a l C o urt ] : O k a

y. [ Def e ns e c ouns e l]: A nd

Ithi nk that’ s so me thi ngthat a

jur or wo uld fi nd he lpf ul i n m ak i n g[ a ] d e t e r

m i n at i o nw i thr e f

e r e n c e t o c r e d i b i l i ty. [Tr ia l Co ur

t]: O ka y . A ll that you

ne e d to do is f

ind me a c a se that sa

y s th at and

I ’l l let it in. Whil e cr oss-examining the Klines dur ing the bill of ex ception, the state raised only one issue with both Nancy

and Nathan Kline: [S tate]: Ms. Kli ne, both of these occa sions that Mr. Ba rr has discussed with you ha pp e ne d a ft e r t

he po lic e ha d co me out to inv e sti g ate and ta lke d to the B a ss f

amil y in late J uly

of 2003? [Ms . Kline]: Yes. [S tate]: That’s all, Your Honor
.

. . . [State ]: Mr . K lin e , ju st t o c lari fy , th is w a s in a bo ut N ov e mbe r o f 2 00 4, c or re c t? [Nathan Kline]: About a y ear ag o. [S tate]: About a y ear

ag o?13

T he t ri al co urt i n Al

f or d had pr ohi bi t ed def

ens e c ouns el f

r om as ki ng t he def

endan t ’ s f

ormer empl oy ee 14 a b o u t his c u rr e n t ad d re ss– a fed e ra l d e te n tio n fac ili ty. C r oss - exa mi nat i on of

a w i t nes s i s a mat t er of r i gh t
. I t s per mi s s i bl e pur po s es , among ot her s , ar e t hat t he wi t ness m ay b e i d ent i f i ed wi t h hi s co m m uni t y s o t hat i nd ep end ent t est i m o ny m ay b e sought and o ff e re d o f his re p u ta tio n fo r v e ra c ity in h is o w n ne igh b o rh o o d ; t h a t t h e ju ry m a y inte rp re t his t es t i mon y i n t h e l i g h t r ef l ec t ed u pon i t by k n owl edg e of h i s e n v i r on men t ; a n d t h at f ac t s ma y be br ou g h t ou t t en di n g t o di s cr edi t t h e wi t n es s by s h owi n g t h at h i s t es t i mon y i n c h i ef w as u n t r u e or bi as ed. A l f o rd , 282 U
. S. a t 692. [Natha n K lin e ]: Ye s. [State ]: Th is w ou ld b e a ft e r t he tim e that th e po lic e c ame out to the pa rk to t a lk t o th e B a s s f am i l y a b o u twh ath a

p p e n e d ? [Natha n K lin e ]: Ye s. [S tate]: Nothing fur

ther, Judge. In many sexual-assault case s, the only evidenc e linking the acc used to the off ense i s the complainant’s a ccusations. That is true here
. Whil e the court of appea ls a g ree d with the trial court that the t es t i m o n y o f the Klines wa s not probative of the complainant’s c redibility at time of the
c ha rg e d o ff e ns e , th is i s a

mis un de rs tand ingof

wh e n a wi tne ss’ s c re dib ili ty

is r e le va nt. The c ourt o f ap p ea l s interpre ted Lopez to r e qu ir e a

pp e lla nt t o s ho w that th e fa lse thr e ats
oc c ur re d b e fo re the off

ense at is su e , b ut t

his int e rp re tatio n is inc on sis te nt w ithc a se law f ro m th is Court and t he S upreme Court. Both Courts have indicated that a witness’s ac tion that occurr ed af ter the indicted off

ense, but be fore trial, is admissible to show a bias or motive. Se e Al for d , 2 82 U. S. at 682 ; Maxwell v. State, 48 S.W .3d 196, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 01)(witness’ s defe rre d

14

a dju dic atio n a sse sse d a ft e r c ha rg e d o ff e ns e a dmi ssi ble a s im

pe a c hme nt) ; se e als o M

or e no v . S tate , 22 S.W .3d 482, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (e vidence involving unadjudicated cr imes or a pe nding criminal cha

rg e could be admis s i b l e to show a witness’s bias or interest in the par

ticular c ase) ;14

A t t ri al , J. B
. t est i f

i ed ab o ut hi s anger. 15 [D e fen se ]: O k a y. A ll rig h t. N o w , yo u to ld us tha t so m e tim e s yo u ge t so rt o f ma d; i s t h a t r i g h t ? [J .B .]: Y es. [D e fen se ]: O k a y. A n d yo u w e re m a d w h e n he to o k yo u r to y a w a y fro m yo u rig h t, rig h t? [J. B
. ]: Y eah. [D ef ense]: O kay. H o w l o ng was i t af t er he t o o k t he t o y away t hat y o u t al ked t o M ari l y n Jo rdan? [J .B .]: T h e ne x t d a y. Car ro ll at 498 (de fenda

nt should have been permitted to c ross-examine the state’s witness reg arding his pending char g es to demonstrate the witness’s pot ential m otive, bias, or intere st to testify for the state); Ev ans v . S

tate , 519 S.W .2d 868, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (def endants we re de nied the rig ht of eff

ective c ross-examination when prohibited from cross-e x amining a s tate’s witness a bout his pending char g e of sodomy ). In this case , there was testimony that J .B. ha d suffe red f

rom mental illness since the a g e of four a nd that the m ental illness contributed to his acts of r ag e and a ng er. J.B. testified that he had become ang ry

when a ppellant took back J.B.’s r emote-c ontrol car s, and t hat, t he very next day , he
a c c us e d a pp e lla nt o f m ole sti nghim
. Th e re c or d s ho ws that, whil e ang ry a bo ut p e rc e ive d in

jus tic e s, 15 J .B. both a ccuse d appellant of molestation and threatened to ac cus e t h e Klines of molestation. Consequently , th e f

a c t-finder might have found the Klines’ testimony helpful in dec ipheringwhether the inc ide nt r e g ard ingthe re mot e -c on tr ol ca rs c on tr ibute d to the se xua l- a ssa ult a c c us atio ns a g a ins t
a pp e lla nt. The possible animus, motive, or i l l will of a prose cution witness who testifies ag ainst the15

de fe nd ant i s n e ve r a

c oll ate ra l or

ir re le va nt i nq uir y , a nd the de fe nd ant i s e nti tle d, su bje c t to
rea sonable restrictions, to show any rele vant fact that might tend to esta blish il l fee ling, bias, motive, interest, or a

nimus on the part of a

ny witness testifying a g ainst him. Lon do n v . S tate , 739 S.W .2d 84 2, 84 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 87 ); Te xas Rule of Ev ide nc e 61 3( b)
. I t wa s immate ri a l in thi s c a se that the alleg ed fa lse threats occurr ed bef ore J.B. ac cused a

ppellant or a fter; both per iods may be
u s e d t o e v a l u at e J
. B
. ’ s b i a s , m o t i v e , o r i l l f e e l i n g s t o w ar d s a

p p e l l a n t , an d th e r e b y, h i s c r e d i b i l i ty. T EX A S R

U LE O F E VI DENCE 613(b). The trial court a bused its discretion by

denyi n g ap pellant the opportunity

to cross-e x amine J.B. about the thre ats ag ainst t h e Kl ines, thus preve nting a ppellant fr om p re se nti ng a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e –th e re butti ng te sti mony of the Kl ine s– to s ho w J.B .’ s p os sib le motive for ac cusingappellant of sexual mol estation. Thi s er ro r i s non-constitutional, so we ana ly ze harm under

Rule of Appellate Procedur e 44 .2 (b ): “ Any

oth e r e rr or , d e fe c t, i rr e g ula ri ty , o r va ri anc e tha t do e s n ot a ff

e c t su bs tanti a l r ig hts mus t be dis re g ard e d. ” Ap pe lla

nt wa s ent itl e d by Rul e 61 3( b) to c ro ss- e xami ne J.B . a bo ut t he fa lse thr e ats he had made aga inst the Kli nes, i n order to show J .B.’ s motive to testify untruthfully

and to pre sent to the jury J .B.’ s denials. Once J .B. had denied making the threats, a ppellant was e ntitled to present the Klines’ r ebutting te stimony about J .B.’ s threats to fa lsely acc use them of molestation, thus
e na bli ngthe jur

y to us e the te sti mony of a ll thr e e wi tne sse s in we ig hin gJ.B .’ s c re dib ili ty . B e c a us e appellant wa s n o t p ermitted to do so, he wa s unable to pre sent any evidenc e of J.B.’s purpor ted mot ive to f

a br ic ate a lle g atio ns of

se xua l mo le statio n. We f ind that the ina

bil ity to f ull y pr e se nt h is defe nse af

fec ted a substantial rig ht and is theref ore ha rmful er ror. The judg ment of the c ourt of appe als is reve rsed, a nd the cause is r emande d to the trial court fo r a ne w tri a l.16

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 11, 2009 Pub lis h