See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3 7 .0 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ); see a lso id. § 3 7.02 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 1 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0051 1-CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
EL ISEO B A RN HA RT , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt o f

Kleb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z A p p e ll a n t , E li s e o B a rn h a rt , wa s co n vic t e d o f two co u n t s o f

a ggr a va t e d p e rj u ry. 1 A p p e ll a n t wa s s e n t e n c e d t o two ye a rs ' c o n f in e m e n t fo r ea c h c o u n t t o r u n c o n c u rr e n t ly; how ev er , hi s s entenc e w as sus pended and appe llant w as pla ced on c ommunityT h e re i s n o th i n g i n th e re c o rd c o n c e rn i n g th e d i s p o s i ti o n o f th e c i v i l l a w s u i t. 2 See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3 7 .0 3 ; see a lso id. § 37. 02. 3 2 super v is ion for a pe ri od of fiv e y ears. By s ixteen is sues , app ell ant c ontends that : (1 ) the
ev ide nce w as leg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti ons (i ss ues 1- 10 and 13- 16) ; (2 ) "[t] he tr ial cour t er re d in ins tr uct ing the jur y that proof o f t he fa lsi ty of any state me nt w as suf

f icient" (issue 11); an d (3) "[t]h e trial court erred in denying app ellant 's request tha t the nam es of the g rand jurors be disclosed to app ellant " (issue 12 ). W e af f irm in par t and rev erse in par

t and remand.

I. B A CKGRO UND And rea Esp inosa w as in a train in g program wi th a justice of the pe ace in W illacy Coun ty. Appe llant, a not her j ustice of the pea ce, worked in the sam e of f ice w here Espino sa
w as be ing trained. After tem pora rily w orking w ith app ellant , Espin osa rep orted to police tha t app ellanthad , am ong oth e r t h in gs, en gaged in unwelcome touch ing of her breast s. A grand jury w as imp ane led to det ermin e w het her charg es w ould be brough ta gainst app ellant . Appe llant te stif ied atthe grand jury proce edin g and allegedlyden ied Esp inosa 's allegation s. T h e g ra n d jury did notindict app ellant . Espino sa also f iled a civ il l awsuit ag ain st appel lan t. Appel lan t t est ified at a depos it ion for t hat c ase. 2 After appel lan t made a statementto the Tex as Rang ers all eg edl y admi tti ng thathe h a d co m m it t e d so m e o f t h e a c t s a ll e ge d b y E s p in o s a , t h e S t a t e ch a rg e d a p p e ll a n twit h two count s o f agg ra v ated per jur y . C ount one all eg ed that appell ant made a fals e s tatement 3
w hen he tes ti fied before the g ra nd j ur y reg ardin g Es pin osa' s s ex ual as saul t al leg ati ons that he di d not touch Espi nosa' s brea sts , he did not become sex ual ly arous ed or ex ci ted d ur ing the e ncoun ter , and he d id not k is s E sp in o sa. C ount tw o al leg ed th at ap pel lan t made a3

false sta tem entat his dep osition by statin g tha t he did not tou ch Espin osa's breasts, he did notb e c om e sexually

arouse d or exci ted during the en coun ter, an d he did notkiss Espin osa. At rial w as he ld w here the St ate presen ted testim ony from , am ong oth ers, Espi nosa, U bal do M ung ia, F re d Gi lbe rt , Al omar Mo re no, R ola n d o C ast aneda, Juan Gue rra, Eliz abe th T orres, an d Javier Villalobo s. Espi nosa tes ti fied th at s he w as w or ki ng at the "J P's off ic e" for "Judg e Sol is " i n 2006. Espin osa sta ted thaton Feb ruary 3, 20 06, app ellantw as training h er to pe rform a w orkre lat ed ta sk

. At 5 :00 p .m., Espi nosa left, pic ked up her ch il dren, a nd w ent t o purchas e a pie for a bir thday party she w as attend ing that ev eni ng . Espi nosa real iz ed that s he di d not ha ve h e r pu rse. Af

ter search ing v arious pla ces for her purse , Espino sa eventu ally cont act ed appe ll ant a nd as ked him to unloc k the door of the bui ldi ng so thatsh e c oul d g et her purse. Es pin osa tes ti fied th at "around 6: 00 or 6:30 ," s he met appel lan t at the bui ldi ng and he unl ock ed the bac k d oor for h er . Espi nosa entered th e bui ldi ng and proceed ed to app ellant 's of

f ice, w hich w as locked

. E spino sa aske d ap pellan t to un lock his of f ice doo r, and he did so. Espin osa te stif ied th at w hen she got her pu rse, app ellant"reach ed wi th his hand an d he g ra bbed .

. . [ her ] breas t area." Acc ordin g to Espi nosa, appel lan t t hen "put his hand under

[her ] s hir t and under

[her ] bra." Espi nosa sta ted that she pushe d appel lan t
aw ay and tol d him she w as "not l ik e tha t" and thatappel lan t repeated ly tol d her , "I kn ow how y ou are." Accordin g to Esp inosa , she at tem pte d to lea ve t h ro ugh the back do or; howev er, unbek now nstto her , app ell ant h ad al re ady l ock ed it. Espi nosa st ated that she w ent t o a hallway and app ell a n t" p in n ed [h er] back a gainst the hallw ay" and to uche d he r breasts, "g ro in area," and "buttock s." Espi nosa tes ti fied that appell ant stat ed, "I hav e my peni s real hard " an d tha t he " rubb ed h imse lf against" h er. According t o Espin osa, app ellantund id4

his z ipp er

and "pul led out his peni s." Es pin osa sta ted t hat w h e n appel lan t attempted to ki ss her , s he mov ed and he kis sed her neck. Espi nosa tes ti fied that s he l ied to appel lan t, sta ti ng thatC PS woul d remov e her chi ldren bec ause she left t hem home al one and that
once she pic ked up her chi ldren, s he woul d c ome bac k. Es pin osa then left an d di d not
re tur n. Mungia t e s t if ie d thathe w as a m em ber of the grand jury in app ellant 's case
cons ide ri ng Espi nosa' s sex ual as saul t al leg ati ons. M ung ia re cal led thatEs pin osa sta ted that appel lan t ex posed hi s p eni s t o her ; how ev er , M ung ia coul d notrecal l w hether Espi nosa sai d appel lan t touc hed her ina ppropr iat ely

. The Stat e reminde d M ung ia that he had t est ified before the g ra nd ju ry i n appel lan t' s p er

jur y ca se and had st ated that "[Es pin osa's ] m a in c o mplai nt was that he had, I g uess , g ra bbed he r or touc hed her ina ppropr iat ely ." The Stat e tol d Mung ia, that the distr ict attor ney then asked, "Touched her breast s . . . . D o y ou recal l that? ", and M ung ia re pli ed, "Y es. " W hen as ked if that
re freshe d hi s memor

y , M ung ia re spond ed, "Y eah, I g uess . If I s aid i t t hen, I g uess ." Mu ng ia st ated that appel lan t v olu ntar il y tes ti fied before the g ra nd j ur y and infor med the g ra nd j urors t hat h is att orn e y h a d adv is ed hi m not to t est ify

. Mu ng ia tes ti fied th at app ellantdid notd eny th e allegation s beca use a ppe llant did not m ent ion th em . How ever, on re- directex aminat ion , t he foll ow ing co ll oq uy oc cur re d: [The Stat e]: As far as y ou re col lect, y ou- all knew w h a t t h e a cc u sa ti ons w ere by M s. Espi nosa? [M un g i a] : W el l , y es , th at ' s w ha t I to l d hi m. [The Stat e]: And he [appel lan t] knew w hat the acc usat ion s were , a nd he

w as q uest ion ed bythe Grand Jur y as to his ac cus ati ons, i s t hat cor re ct? [M ung ia] : There w ere q uest ion s a sk ed reg ardin g that

. [ Th e S t a t e ] : And, basi cal ly , the gi st of his t e s t i mo n y , w a s h e d eni ed

anythi ng i nappropr iat e?5

[M ung ia] : Ri g ht. [T he Sta te]: Denied tou ching her, den ied exposing him self , all of tha t, isn't

that cor re ct? [M ung ia] : Ri g ht. [The Stat e]: And the sta tement that he g av e lat er cont ra dicts his tes ti mony

b e fo re yo u , is n ' tt h a tfa ir t o sa y? [Mungia]: T he sta tem ent s thatcame out late r, y es. [The Stat e]: If he admitted to ki ss ing her and t o u ch in g he r breast s and

tell in g h e r, hey, you got m e excited, tha t cont radicts his tes ti mony

before y ou- all , i sn' t t hat c or re ct? [Mungia]: Yes. Gi lbe rttes ti fied th at he w as a mem b e r o f t h e s ame g ra nd j ur

y and that he
re membered that Espi nosa made all eg ati ons of sex ual harass ment or se x ual mis condu ct. Gi lbe rtdi d notrecal l the s peci fics , and wh en as ked by the Stat e i f he recal led w hether there w ere al leg ati ons that appel lan t t ouche d Es pin osa' s b re ast s o r ex posed hi s peni s t o her , G il ber

t s tated he d id not recal l. H ow ev er , G il ber t t estif ied thathe remembere d tha t there w as an al leg ati on of some touc hin g , buthe d id not re cal l the d etai ls

. Gi lbe rttes ti fied tha t app ellantsaid, "h e didn 't do it," and G ilbert believed ap pellan t w as de nying Espino sa's allegation s. Mo re no te sti fied th at s he w as a member of th e s ame g ra nd j ur

y thati nv est ig ated Espi nosa' s a ll eg ati ons ag ain st appel lan t. M oreno s tated thatEs pin osa tes ti fied th at appel lan t t ouche d her

bre a st s a n d s h ow ed her hi s p eni s w hen s he w ent t o retr iev e her purse at the of

f ice. Moreno te stif ied th at ap pellan t den ied to uchin g Espin osa's bre asts, ki ss ing her , and ex posi ng hi msel f to her

. How ev er , Mo re n o could not recal l w hether appel lan t t est ified thathe was not s ex ual ly aroused

. W hen as ked if i t w as poss ibl e tha t an ind ictment ste mming from Espi nosa' s sex ual as saul t al leg ati ons coul d hav e been is sued if appel lan t had tes ti fied that he "w anted to ki ss her and our li ps touc hed for a sec ond; II t app ear s f r om t he r ecor d t hat app el l ant had accuse d Espi nosa ofext or t i on. 4 G ue rr a d i d n ot rec al l sp ec i fi c al l y w ho a dm i ni s t ere d t he o ath, b ut s t ated i t w ou l d h ave be en t he ba i l i ff 5 on d ut y at t hat t i m e. 6 to uc he d bo th of he r brea s ts an d I di dn ' t ta k e ou t my pe ni s , bu t I di d te l l he r , ' mi ra c om o me deja stes', m ean ing she had turne d me on" , Moreno replied , "Prob ably would ." On crossexamina tion, More no state d tha t she w as "p retty sure" t hata ppe llant w as sw orn in be fore t e s t ifyin g b e fo re t h e gra n d ju ry. G u e rr a , t he d istrict attorne y for W illacy

Count y at the time o f

app ellant 's trial, tes ti fied th at t he reason the g ra nd jur y met on Ma y 18, 2006, w as to i nv est ig ate w hether ch a rge s o f indec ency

and sex ual as saul t woul d be broug ht ag ain st appel lan t and to inv est ig ate w hether

so meone attempted to extor t money from appel lan t. Guer ra st ated 4 that appel lan t had not been summoned to appear before the grand jur y and that he di d not b e lie ve th a t a p p e lla n t wou ld te st if y. Gu e rra exp la in e d th a t p rio r to th e gran d ju ry me e ti n g, appel lan t had as ked him if he coul d tes ti fy, so Guer ra co ntacted a ppel lan t' s a ttor ney , w ho t o ld G u e rr a t h a ta p p e ll a n two u ld n o tt e s t ify. Guer ra re cal led that at that g ra nd j ur y proceed ing , Es pin osa sta ted t hat a ppel lan t "g ra bbed" he r, "penned [s ic]" her ag ain st the wall , attempted to g ra b her breast , "t ook out" his peni s, and t ri ed to ki ss her

. W hen the g ra nd jur y "finis hed" and t he c our t repor ter had l e ft , G u e r ra fo u n d a p p e l l a n ts i t t i n g o u t s i d e . A p p e l l a n tt o l d G u e r ra t h a the w a n t e d t o t e s t i fy before t he g ra nd j ur

y ; Guer ra infor med appel lan t that his attor ney had sta ted he shoul d not tes ti fy and adv is ed appel lan t to follo w his lawy er 's adv ic e. Guer ra sta ted th a t a p p ell ant "ins ist e d " on t est ify ing ; s o, after Guer ra "w ar ned" app ell ant t hat h e woul d be tes ti fyi ng under oath , a p p e ll ant t est ified before the g ra nd j ur y w it hout a c our

t repor ter present

. Acc ordin g to Guer ra , app ell ant made hi s s tatement s t o the g ra nd j ur y under oath

. 57

Guer ra tes ti fied th at t he g ra nd j urors a sk ed "s pec ificq uest ion s, w hic h [ap pel lan t] keptden y ing ev erything, saying , 'Nothin g hap pen ed. Nothing inapp ropriate hap pen ed. '" Gu e rra rec a lle d th e fo llo wing: I reme mb er one of

them [the g rand jurors] , s pecif ically , it w as a fem ale Grand J uror , w as v er

y , very sp eci fic a bout ask ing hi m, "D id y ou g ra b her breast s a nd di d y ou tr

y to ki ss her ," and he sai d, "No. N othi ng i nappropr iat e happened. " H e kept say ing that, "I j ustw ent t here, op ened t he door , s tood there. She w ent and gother purse, ca me bac k a nd I loc ked it ." And he sa id, "No mo re t han m aybe three , four min ute s. T hat 's w hatit took. I'm n ot sure w hy sh e's doi ng thi s t o me." Guer ra st ated that one of the g ra nd jurors a sk ed i f appell ant h ad "ta ken out h is peni s" a nd th a t a p p e lla n t s a id , " No . I d id n ' td o t h a t. An d I d id n 'tto u ch he r an d I d id n 'tdo an yth in g. I' m not sure w hy

sh e's doi ng —w hy

sh e's sa y ing w hat s he's sa y ing ." Guer ra tes ti fied th at one of the g ra nd j urors ask ed if appel lan t w as sex ual ly aroused

. Al thoug h Gue rra di d not sta te ho w

appel lan t respon ded t o the q uest ion , G uer ra sa id that ap p e llantdeni ed
ev er ythi ng and ins is ted t hat n othi ng i nappropr iat e happe ned. Guer ra tes ti fied that the ques ti ons that the g ra nd j urors a sk ed w ere mater ial and that thos e q uest ion s w ere "per ti nent" becau se "[they] w ere l ooki ng at the s ex ual as sa u ltand the d efini ti on of sex ual as saul t v ersus i ndece ncy , w hether or not he actual ly

pen e trated her

. . . ." Guer ra bel iev ed th at i f appell ant h ad admi tted any of the a ll eg ati ons made by Espino sa , a ppel lan t woul d hav e been ind icted. Guer ra co ncl uded, therefore, that appel lan t' s a ll eg ed fals e s tatement s t o the g ra nd j ur y affect ed the o u tc o m e of the g ra nd ju ry pro ce e d in g. Guer ra st ated that he bec ame aw are of t he sta tement appel lan t made to the Tex as Ran ger s— a statementGuer ra des cr ibe d as "tot all y the oppos it e of w hat [ appel lan t] had sai d [atthe g ra nd j ur

y proceed ing ]." Guer ra tes ti fied th at t he s tatementappel lan t made to t he Tex as Ran g ers was cons is tent w ith E sp in o sa 's tes ti mony . Guer ra st ated that heA p p e lla n t o b j e c te d to G u e r r a ' s s t a t e m e n t o n th e b a s is th a t it in v a d e d th e p r o v in c e o fth e ju r y; 6 howev er , t he t r i al cour t ov er r ul ed h i s obj ect i on.

Appel l ant ' s at t or neyi nf or m ed T or r es t hat an er r at a she et al l ows a p er son t o cha ng e hi s orher 7 r esponse s t o qu est i ons t aken at a deposi t i on. T or r es st at ed t hat she had hear d at t or ney s say t hat a per son m ay co rr ec t a m i s s pe l l i ng " or s om ethi ng t ha t w as i na c c ura t e l i k e t ha t , at t he t i m e, no t t es t i m on y . " H ow eve r, T or r es ad m i t t ed t hat she di d no t know what t he r ul es al l owed.

T he e r r at a she et , whi ch was adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence as def ense exhi bi t num bert hr ee, shows t hat 8 appel l ant chan ged hi s answer s f r om " N o" t o " Yes" t o t he f ol l owi ng t wo quest i ons: ( 1) " H av e y ou e v erhad a r el at i onshi p, sexua l i n nat ur e— and what I m ean by ' sexual i n na t ur e, ' I m ean t he t ouchi ng, st i m ul at i on o fei t her in d iv id u a l p r iv a te p a r ts o r r e p r o d u c tiv e o r g a n s e ith e r w i t h a h a n d o r th e m o u th o r th e r e p r o d u c tiv e o r g a n in i t sel fsi nce y ou' v e be en m ar r i ed?" ; and (2 ) " H av e y ou ev erk i ssed any ot herw om an ot her

— anywom an o t her th a n y o u r w i fe , a n a d u l t w o m a n s i n c e y o u 've b e e n m a rr i e d ."

Vi l l al obos st at ed t hat he no l ongerr epr esent ed Espi nosa i n t hat case. 9 8 bel iev ed th at appell ant committed ag g ra v ated per jur y w hen he tes ti fied before the g ra nd ju ry. 6 Torres, a c our

t repor ter , t est ified thatsh e w as the c our t repor ter for d eposi ti on tes ti mony

g iv en by appel lan t on Aug ust21, 2006 i n Es pin osa' s c iv il ca se ag ain st appel lan t. T orres state d tha t Espin osa's civi l case w as brou ght in the 19 7th Judicial District of W illacy Cou nty , Tex as. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Tor re s a ck now led g ed th at de fense ex hib itnumber three w a s an "er ra ta s heet" pur por ti ng to chang e appel lan t' s a nsw ers t o s ev eral of the question s aske d d u ri n g the dep osition

. How ever, Torres did n ot explain w hatanswers 7 appel lan t t ri ed to co rrect

. 8 Villalobo s, an at torne y , testif ied that he had represe nte d Espin osa in a civ il l awsuit t h a tE s p in o s a f il e d a ga in s ta p p e ll a n tfo r n u m e ro u s ca u s e s o f a c t io n i n c l u d i n g b a t t e ry, ass aul t, false impr is onment, and poss ibl e sex ual harass ment. Vi ll alo bos sta ted t hat h e 9 depos e d appell ant for

thatl aw sui t. Ac cordin g to Vi ll alo bos, appel lan t w as aw are of the all eg ati ons that Espi nosa w as maki ng ag ain st him w hen he depos ed appe ll ant. Vi ll alo bos te st if ie d th a t t h e "t h e cru x of th e m a t te rs was w h e th e r th e re ha d be e n to u ch in g, inap prop riate t o uchin g, and w het her—we had ple ad [sic] false imp risonm entand those9

matters." Vi ll alo bos sta ted t hat a ppel lan t den ied any i nappropr iat e behav ior and deni ed ki ss ing any

w oman oth er

than h is wife . Vil lal obos tes ti fied th at t he q uest ion s h e as ked app ellantw ere m ate rial to the case b ecau se it was im porta nt to det ermin e "whethe r there
w as actu al tou ching, inap prop riate be havior." Th e S t ate then asked , "Oka y . And his sta tement in the d eposi ti on w here y ou ask ed him, 'D id itex ci te you', referr ing to the way that [Es pin osa] w as dress ed and his respon se 'no' , w oul d that in y our opini on be a mater ial sta tement?" Vi ll alo bos re pli ed, "It w oul d hav e been. W hat w e w ere tr y ing to do, s inc e he
w as deny ing , w e w ere try ing to see— ki nd of g o throug h the l ittl e hi sto ry of the i nci dent and part of thatw as w het her—why he w ould have co me b ack tw o hou rs late r when he initially did n'tw ant t o be there i n the first pla ce. So , pre tt y muc h the q uest ion ing , ot her than , of
course, the name and all that ty pe of deal w oul d hav e been mater ial to the p ro sec uti on of the c ase. " On cross-examina tion, Villalobos sta ted tha t app ellant 's dep osition in the civ il case
w as take n in Hidalgo Count y , Te x as. W hen asked , "Now, if the ind ictme nt alleges tha t this sta tement w as g iv en in W il lacy , that' s n ot t ru e, i s t hat c or re ct? ", Vi ll alo bos re spond ed, "The proceed ing s w ere i n W il lacy , butthe act ual statement w as— I bel iev e i t w as in Hi dal g o." Villalobo s state d, "T hat[w het her the perjured testim o n y w as in Hidalgo or W illacy Coun ties] w ould dep end on ho w the cou rt s wo uld inte rpret. T he p rocee dings w ere in W illacy , butthe sta tem ent w as over the re, so I don 't know w het her they w ould const rue it
as a proceed ing i n W il lacy or H ida lg o." On re- directex aminat ion , Vi ll alo bos tes ti fied th at app e lla nt was fully aw are of Espi nosa' s a ll eg ati ons w hen he deni ed th em. Vi ll alo bos sta ted t hat h e bel iev ed th at, in the cont ext of t he depos it ion , appel lan t w as deny ing all of E spi nosa' s all eg ati o n s a n d w as cl aimi ng thatal l he di d w as open t he door for E spi nosa, w ho g ot he r purse, and left.A s n o te d , i n h i s e rr a ta s h e e t, a p p e l l a n t c h a n g e d h i s a n s w e rs to th e s e q u e s ti o n s to "y e s ." 10 Appel l ant ' s at t or neyat t he t i m e was p r esen t w he n he m ade t he se cond st at em ent t o Ranger 11 C ast aneda

.

Appel l ant den i ed t he a l l egat i ons when he was i nt er v i ewed byR angerEscal on. 12 10 The tr ial co urt admi tted int o ev ide nce ex cer pts of appel lan t' s de p o sit io n . In t he excerpts, app ellantstate d tha t he "prob ably" told one mem ber of the m edia thatEspino sa's all eg ati ons w ere nottr ue and that w hen ano ther member

of the medi a as ked about the all eg ati ons, he d eni ed th em and s tated that"noth ing had happened. " W hen ask e d how his famil y

w oul d reacti f the a lle gat io n s w ere prov en to be t ru e, ap pel lan t s tated thatthe all eg ati ons w ere nottr ue. Espi nosa' s c iv il att or ney as ked appel lant i f he li ked how Espi nosa "loo ked. " Ap p e ll ant respon ded t hat E spi nosa w as not a "bad loo ki ng l ady ." Espi nosa' s a ttor ney

then as ked, "D id itex ci te you?" and a p p e lla n t repl ied , "N o." Dur ing the d eposi ti on, t he foll ow ing ex chang e oc cur re d: 10 [Esp inosa 's atto rney]: Have y ou e ve r h a d a re la t io n s h ip , se xual in nature—and w hat I mean by "se x ual i n nat ure," I mean the touching , s ti mulat ing of eit her ind iv idu al pr iv ate par

ts or re product iv e org ans eit h e r with a hand or the mouth or

the re product iv e org an i n i tse lf si nce y ou'v e been marr ied ? [Ap pellan t]: No, sir. [ E s p i n o s a ' s a t t o r n e y] : Hav e y o u e v e r ki ss ed anyothe r w oman oth er—an y

w om an o the r than y our w ife, an adu lt w oman s inc e y ou'v e been marr ied ? [Ap pellan t]: No, sir. Cas taneda, a s erg eant w it h the Tex as Ran g ers, tes ti fied th at he i nter v iewed appel lan t on September 11, 2006. This w as the s econd st atement appel lan t made to t he 11 T exas Rangers—the f ir s ts tate me nt w as ma de to Ranger Victor Escalon

. Appe llant's 12 state me nt to Ranger Castane da was read into the record. In this sta tem ent , app ellantsaid11

that he "woul d l ik e to add" t o the first sta temen t ta ke n b y E sc alo n bec ause he "l eft out" some i nformati on i n order to "t alk to his w ife" before rev eal ing i t. In his se cond sta tement, appel lan t c lai med thatw hil e at his of fice, Espin osa ask ed hi m to t ouch her and admitted that he "c onsen sual ly " touc hed her shoul der and both her breast s ov er her cl othi ng . In t he sta tement, appel lan t ex pla ine d tha t he w anted to ki ss Espi nosa, thatthei r li ps touc hed "for
a b o u t a se co n d ," an d th a t E sp in o sa tu rn e d h e r he a d away. Ap p e lla n t s ta te d th a t a lt h o u gh he di d not"pul l out" h is peni s, h e told E spi nosa, "' mira c omo me dej ast es' meani ng that she had t ur ned [ him] on." The defense present ed th e foll ow ing w it ness es: Pa ul W ittw orth, Bi ll ie Pi ck ard, Teres a "Ter ry " F lores, Z achar y Gonz ale z , Lau ro Os car Gut ier re z , Au ro ra Pedraz a, U v ald o Zam ora, Sy lv ia Frescas, Gil bert Lozano, and C hristina Caldera. W ittwo rt h , Flores, Guti er re z , Z amora , and Loz ano t est ified thatGuer ra 's reputat ion w as "bad." Pi ck ard, Pedraz a, F re sc as, and Cal dera tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t had a "g ood" reputat ion

. Zamora, t he c hie f of

p o lic e for t he R ay mondv il le Pol ic e D epar tment, tes ti fied th at he hel ped i nv est ig ate w hether Es pin osa and her

famil y att empted t o e xtor

t money from app ellant . According to Zam ora, th e investig a t io n h a d be en " com prom ised" beca use someone had i nformed Es pin osa that appel lan t had repor ted t he extor

ti on attempt to t he Tex as Rang ers. Zamora st ated that he pl anned t o c onduct an inv est ig ati on to dete rmi ne
w ho h ad informe d Espin osa th at ap pellan t cont acte d the Te x as R a n ge rs . How ever, acc ordin g to Zamora, G uer ra tol d hi m not to c onduct t he i nv est ig ati on. Af ter bot h sides close d, app ellantobject ed to the trial court's instruct ion in the jury charge w hich sta ted , "W hen a person is ch a rg e d w ith ma king more tha n on e false sta tement, the proof of the fals ity of any one or more o f sa id sta tements i s s uff ic ien t t o su p p o rta f in d in g of

guil ty. " Sp e cif ica lly, a p p e lla n t' s d e fe n se co u n se l a rgu e d th e fo llo wing:H o o p e r v . S ta te , 214 S. W

. 3d 9, 13 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 7) ( ci t i ng J a c k s o n v . Vir g in ia , 443 U

. S. 307 , 13 3 1 8 -1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); P o w e ll v . S ta te , 1 9 4 S .W .3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); G u e v a ra v . S ta te , 152 S. W

. 3d 4 5 , 4 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 )) ; E s c a m i lla v . S ta te , 14 3 S

. W

. 3d 81 4, 81 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ). Kin g v . S ta te , 2 9 S .W .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (e n b a n c ); B e c k h a m v . S ta te , 29 S. W

. 3d 14 14 8, 15 1 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t

. ] 20 00 , pe t

. ref' d).

Beckham , 29 S. W

. 3d a t 151

. 15 12 A ga in , we ' re a s k in g t h a tt h e S t a t e e le c twh a tm e a n s t h e y' re go in g t o p ro ve thei r cas e. They 'v e—t hey 'v e—t hey i ndi cte d my

cli ent w it h al leg edl y

maki ng three statement s. T his i s t hei r oppor tuni ty to say , w ell , w e aband on th is and w e're g oin g to prov e our ca se by prov ing that , y ou k now , he did n't—he li ed about not k is si ng [Es pin osa] , he li ed abou t nottouc hin g her breast s or he l ied about him not b ecomi ng se x ual ly aroused

. And s o, w e obj ectto that state me nt be c a u s e, I m ean , the State is required to p rov e in the ir case ev er ythi ng thatthey

al leg e i n the ir

i ndi ctment

. If they

ch oose to prov e three wa ys o f co m m it t in g t h e o f

fe n s e o f P e rj u ry, we ll , t h e n t h e y' re re qu ir e d t o p ro ve itt h re e wa ys . T h a tis t h e p u rp o s e o f o u r a s k in g t h e Co u rtt o m a k e — h a ve them mak e an ele cti on, J udg e, s o w e obj ectto that parag ra ph. The tr ial co urt ov er ru led the obj ect ion

. The ju ry co nv icted a ppe lla n t o f tw o c ounts of ag g ra v ated per

jur y . Appel lan t w as sent enced to two y ears' co nfinement for each count ; how ev er , t hat s entenc e w as su spend ed and appel lan t w as pla ced on c ommunity super v is ion for a per iod of fiv e y ears. This appeal ens ued.

II. L E GA L A ND F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY By hi s first throug h sixth is sues , appell ant conte nds that the e v ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he v erdict. A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw In c onducti ng a leg al suffici ency re v iew , w e v iew the rele v ant e v ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict to deter mine w hether a ra ti onal tr ier of factco uld hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of t he cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt. W e do not reev alu ate 13 the w eig ht an d cred ibi li ty of the ev ide nce, and w e do not s ubst it ute o ur ow n j udg ment for the t ri er of fact. I nst ead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal dec is ion

. 14 15 In a factual suff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht t o det er mineW a ts o n v . S ta te , 20 4 S

. W

. 3d 40 4, 41 4-1 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 06 ). 16 I d. at 417

. 17 M a likv . S ta te , 9 5 3 S .W .2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); A d i v . S ta te , 94 S. W

. 3d 1 24, 131 ( T ex. 18 A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , pe t

. ref' d).

T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 37. 03. 19 I d. § 37. 02. 20 C ou nt on e al l eg ed tha t a pp el l an t m ad e a fal s e s t atem en t w he n he tes t i fi ed b efo re t he gran d jury 21 t hat he had not ki s s ed E spi nosa, t ouched herbr east s, and beco m e sexu al l y ar oused orexci t ed d ur i ng t he en c ou nter. 13 w het her the ev iden ce is so w eak that the jury 's v erdict seems clearly w rong and man ifestly unj ustor ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the ev ide nce. Thi s C our t w il l not 16
re v erse the j ur

y 's v erdict unl ess w e c an s ay , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is in the record, t hat the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. 17 Both leg al and fact ual su ff ic ien cy are meas ured by

the ele ments of the offense as defined b y a h ypo theti cal ly co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. "A person commi ts an offense [of

18 aggravated p erjury] if

he com mits pe rjury

as def ined in Section 37.0 2, a nd th e false state me nt: (1) is made during or in c o nne ction wi th an of f icial proceed ing; and (2) is
ma t e r i a l

. " S e c t i o n 3 7

. 0 2 o f t h e p e n a l c o d e s t a t e s t h a t"[ a ] pe rs o n co mm i t s an o ffe n s e i f,

19
w ith inte nt to dece iv e an d w ith kno w ledge of the s t a t e m e n t 's mea ning: (1) he m akes a false sta tement under

oath

. . . ." 20 B. False State ment By hi s first throug h si xth is sues , appel lan t cont ends that the ev ide nce is leg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t a findi ng that, before the g ra nd jur y and in his depos it ion , he m ade th e f o ll o win g false sta tem ent s: (1) he was not or did no t beco me sex ually
arou sed o r ex cited; and (2) he did nottouch Espino sa's brea sts. 1. Cou nt 1 21See H ooper , 214 S. W

. 3d at 14- 15 ( " Jur i es ar e per m i t t ed t o m ake r easona bl e i nf er ences f r om t he 22 ev i dence pr esent ed a t t r i al , and ci r cum st ant i al ev i dence i s as pr obat i v e as di r ect ev i dence i n est abl i shi ng t he gu i l t of an ac t or. " ).

See id. ; P o w e ll , 1 9 4 S .W .3 d a t 5 0 6 ; G ue v ara , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 9 ; E s c a m illa , 143 S. W

. 3d a t 817

. 23 C ount t wo al l eged t hat appel l ant m ade a f al se st at em ent w hen st at ed at hi s dep osi t i on t hat he had 24 no t k i s s ed E s pi no s a, t ou c he d h er bre as t s , an d b ec om e s ex ua l l y arou s ed or ex c i t ed du ri ng t he en c ou nter. 14 By hi s first is sue, appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o s how that w hen he tes ti fied before the g ra nd jur y , he made a false sta tement w hen he sta ted t hat he w as not s exua lly arouse d. Appel lan t doe s n ot c hal len g e the l eg al suffici ency of the
ev ide nce suppo rt ing a find ing thathe made a false sta tement before t he g ra nd j ur y w hen he d e nie d k is si ng Es pin osa or tel li ng her

he was sex ual ly

aroused

. W e c onst ru e appel lan t' s i ss ue as ch all eng ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing a find ing th a t a p p e lla n t m a d e a fa lse st a te m e n t a t t h e gran d ju ry pro ce e d in g. Guer ra tes ti fied th at a g ra nd juror as ked appel lan t i f he w as sex ual ly aroused ; and , altho ugh Gue rra did not state how app ellant replied to that specif ic quest io n , G u e rra tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t "k ept d enying ev er ythi ng " and sta ti ng that"noth ing i nappropr iat e hap pen ed. " Furthe rmore , all three grand jurors t estif ied th at ap pellan t den ied Esp inosa 's all eg ati ons. From thi s ev ide nce, a ra ti onal tr ier of fact coul d hav e reason abl y i nferred th at
w hen app ell ant was ask ed by the g ra nd j uror if he w as sex ual ly aroused , app ell ant d eni ed it

. Ho we ve r, in h is s t a t e m e n t t o Ca s t a n e d a , a p p e ll a n t s t a t e d t h a t h e " c o n s e n s u a ll y" 22 tou ched both of

Espino sa's b re a s ts, the ir l ips tou ched "for abo ut a seco nd, " an d he told Espi nosa, "' mira c omo me dej ast es' meani ng thatsh e had tur ned [ him] on." Therefore,
v iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the jur y , w e concl ude that a ra ti onal tr ier of factco uld hav e found tha t w hen app ell ant t est ified at the g ra nd j ur y proceed ing , he made a fal se sta tement. W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s first is sue. 23 2. C ou nt

T wo 24D ef ense exhi bi t num berone shows t hat t he gr and j ur y di sappr ov ed t he com pl ai nt agai nst app el l ant 25 on M ay 18, 200 6, and St at e' s exhi bi t one r ev eal s t hat app el l ant was de posed on Augu st 21, 200 6.

See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt

. 2 1.14 (V ern on 2 00 9) (provi di ng tha t "an i nd i c t m en t for pe rj ury 26 oragg r av at ed p erjury nee d no t char ge t he p r eci se l angua ge o ft he f al se st at em ent , but m ay st at e t he s ub s t an c e o f t he sa m e . . . . " ).

See H ooper , 214 S. W

. 3d a t 14- 15. 27 15 By his third an d fourth issues , a ppe llant con ten ds tha t the ev iden ce is legally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t a findi ng thatdur ing hi s d eposi ti on, h e made a false sta tement w hen he s tated thathe did not touch Espin osa' s brea sts . By hi s fifth a nd s ixth i ss ues, appel lan t cont ends that "ev ide nce that [he] sta ted i n the depos it ion that he w as not s ex ual ly aroused is l eg all y [and factual ly] ins uff ic ien t." Appel lan t does not chal len g e the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing a c oncl usi on th at he made a false sta teme n t a t hi s d eposi ti on
w hen s aid he d id not k is s E spi nosa. W e c o n st ru e a p pel lan t' s i ss ue as ch all eng ing the ag g ra v ated per

jur y el ement of maki ng a fals e s tatement

. Espin osa a lleged tha t app ellant grabb ed her brea sts, kissed he r, and sta ted thathis peni s was "hard." Vi ll alo bos tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t w as aw are of Esp ino sa' s a ll eg ati ons ag ain st him. M oreov er , t he record rev eal s t hat a ppel lan t w as depos ed after he tes ti fied before t he g ra nd j ur

y , w here the g ra nd jurors s peci fical ly as ked appel lan t i f he touc hed Espi nos a 's b reasts , k is sed her , or w as sex ual ly

aroused

. Atthe depos it ion , app ell ant

25 sta ted t hat E spi nosa' s a ll eg ati ons w ere nottr ue and deni ed k is si ng any w oman oth er

than his w ife sinc e he had bee n mar ri ed. Su bseq uentl y , app ell ant t old R ang er C ast aneda t hat 26 he "to uched " l ips w it h Es pin osa, touc hed bot h her breas ts, and he told Espi nosa that "she had turned [him] on." From the evidence presen ted , th e j u ry c o uld ha v e reaso nab ly infer re d tha t w hen app ell ant s tated thatthe all eg ati ons w ere not tr ue, he w as deny ing that he g ra bbed E spi nosa' s b re ast s, ki ss ed he r, and w as sex ual ly aroused

. Vi ew ing the

27 evidence in th e lig ht m o s t favorable to th e v erdict, we conclude thata rationa l jury couldSee id. ; P o w e ll , 1 9 4 S .W .3 d a t 5 0 6 ; G ue v ara , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 9 ; E s c a m illa , 143 S. W

. 3d a t 817

. 28 See W atson , 204 S. W

. 3d a t 414
- 15. 29 W e no t e t hat at t r i al , V i l l al obos t est i f i ed t hat appel l ant w as awar e ofE spi nosa' s al l egat i ons, whi ch 30 E s p in o s a te s tif ie d in c lu d e d a lle g a tio n s th a t a p p e lla n t t o u c h e d h e r b r e a s ts , k is s e d h e r , a n d s ta te d h is p e n is was " har d. " Dur i ng h i s d ep osi t i on, whi ch was h el d aft ert he g r and j ur y pr oceedi ng, app el l ant st at ed t hat Espi nosa' s al l egat i ons wer e no t t r ue.

Appel l ant st at es i n hi s br i eft hat pr i v at e pa r t s onl y i ncl ude t he g eni t al i a, anu s, and but t ocks. 31 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38

. 1(i ). 32 16 hav e reason abl y

found thatat his d eposi ti on, a ppel lan t made a fals e s tatementunder oath. F urther more, v iew ing the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e cannot conc lud e tha t t he 28 jur y 's v erdict s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly unj ust or is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev iden ce . W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s t hird, four th, fifth, and si xth 29 issues. C. M ateria l Stateme nt By hi s s ev enth, ei g h th , n in th, and t enth is sues , app ell ant c ontends thatthe "ev ide nce that the sta tement[ s] made by appel lan t in the depos it ion concer n in g k is si ng [Es pin osa and t ouchi ng her breast s were] mat er ial i s l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent." W it hout ci tati on to auth or ity , app ell ant a rg ues that if Es pin osa' s a ttor ney had ask ed
w hether appel lan t k is sed Espi n o sa, then hi s s tatementw oul d hav e been mater ial to the proceed ing s; how ev er , t he actual q uest ion as ked— w hether appel lan t k is sed any

w oman other than hi s w ife—w as not mat er ial

. Appel lan t als o all eg es that he w as not a sk ed at 30 his dep o siti on w hether he t ouche d Es pin osa' s b re ast s a nd th at t he q uest ion reg ardin g
w hether appel lan t t ouche d Es pin osa' s p ri v ate p arts w as not mater ial

. Appel lan t has not 31 prov ide d a c lea r and c onci se arg ument w it h appropr iat e c it ati on to au thor ity . Therefore,
w e c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan t has w aiv ed th is i ss ue. W e o verrul e appel lan t' s s ev enth, 32 eighth, n inth, and tent h issues.See H ooper , 2 1 4 S .W .3 d a t 1 3 ; P o w e ll , 1 9 4 S .W .3 d a t 5 0 6 ; G ue v ara , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 9 ; E s c a m illa , 33 143 S. W

. 3d a t 817

.

B u t s e e S u d d s v . S ta te , 1 4 0 S .W .3 d 8 1 3 , 8 1 7 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D is t.] 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.) 34 ( " T hough v enue m ust be est abl i shed, i t i s not a "cri m i nat i v e f act " and t hus n ot an essent i al el em ent of t he off ense. " ) ( ci t i ng B o yl e v . S ta te , 8 2 0 S .W .2 d 1 2 2 , 1 4 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ), over rul ed o n other

gr ounds , G o rd o n v . S ta te , 80 1 S

. W

. 2d 89 9, 91 1 n

. 13 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 90 ))

.

See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38

. 1(i ). 35 M or eov er , i f t he j ur y m ay r easona bl y concl ude t hat t he o ff ense was com m i t t ed i n t he co unt y al l eged, 36 th e n e v i d e n c e o f v e n u e i s s u ff i c i e n t. R i p p e e v . S ta te , 384 S. W

. 2d 717, 718 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 1964)

. For t he off ense of aggr av at ed per j ur y , v enue i s pr operei t heri n t he co unt y wher e t he f al se st at em ent was m ade or

17 D. Un der Oath By hi s t hir teent h i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends that "[t] he ev ide nce that [he] w as pla ced under oath before the g ra nd j ur y i s l eg all y i nsuffici ent." W e di sag re e. Guer ra tes ti fied th at appel lan t w as under oath w hen he tes ti fied before t he g ra nd j ur y . Therefore, v iew ing the evidence in th e lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdict, w e conclu de tha t a ration al trier of fact coul d hav e found bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatapp e llant w as under oath w hen he tes ti fied before the g ra nd j ur y . W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s t hir teent h i ss ue. 33 E. A ppeara nce in Wi llac y County Appel lan t br iefs his fifteenth and si xteent h i ss ues tog ether

. By hi s fifteent h i ss ue, app ellantconte nds, w ithou t citation to autho rity , tha t "[t] he e v iden ce tha t [he ] app eare d in W illacy Count y for his dep osition [as alleged in the indictm entand the jury charge] is legally insuf f ici e n t " ; b y his sixtee nth issue app ellantconte nds th at th e evidence is fact ually ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t s uch a findi ng . How ev er , app ell ant c onced es that v enue was proper in W illacy

Co unt y . App ellanta ppe ars t o argue tha t the State failed to prove that the perjury act ual ly oc cur re d i n W il lacy

C ounty , w hic h he cl aims i s a n el ement of the o f fe nse of ag g ra v ated per

jur y . H ow ev er , appel lan t has not prov ide d a cl ear and c onci se arg ument 34
w it h appropr iat e c it ati on to auth or it ies su ppor ti ng hi s a rg ument. Therefore, w e c oncl ude 35 tha t he ha s w aived the se issues. W e overrule app ellant 's f if tee nth and sixtee nth issues. 36i n th e c o u n tyw h e re th e fa l s e s ta te m e n t i s u s e d o r a tte m p te d to b e u s e d

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
.

ar t

. 13. 03 ( Ver non 2005)

. " [ D ] eposi t i on t est i m ony by a par t y i n a ci v i l l awsui t i s ' used orat t em pt ed t o be used ' in th e c o u n ty in w h ic h th e u n d e r lyin g la w s u it is p e n d in g a s s o o n a s th a t p a r ty m a k e s a f a ls e s ta te m e n t in h is s w o rn d e p o s i ti o n w i th th e i n te n t to d e c e i v e a n d w i th k n o w l e d g e o f th e s ta te m e n t' s m e a n i n g ." S o li z v . S ta te , 97 S. W

. 3d 1 37, 138 ( T ex. C ri m . A pp . 2 003)

. I n t hi s case, Espi nosa' s ci v i l l awsui t was pe ndi ng i n W i l l acy C o u n ty. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38

. 1(i ).

37 T h is p e r s o n d id n o t t e s tif y a t a p p e lla n t's a g g r a v a te d p e r j u r y tr ia l. 38 18 III . C H A R GE E RROR By hi s e lev enth is sue, appel lan t cont ends that "[t] he tr ial co urt er re d i n i nst ru cti ng the j ur y thatproof of the fals ity of any st atementw as suffici ent." Appel lan t app ears t o argue tha t the State charged him w ith three sepa rate criminal act s and thatthe trial court
w as required to inst ru c tt h e ju ry that"it [cou ld] no t return a guiltyv erdict un less it unani mousl y

ag re e[d] upon t he c ommis si on of any one of the acts. " How ev er , app ell ant h as not p ro v ide d a c lea r and conc is e arg ument w it h appropr iat e citation s to aut hority supportin g his cont ent ion. The refore, we ov errule ap pellan t's 37 ele v enth is sue. IV. N A M ES OF TH E G RA ND J URORS By his tw el fth i s s ue , ap pe l l an t c on te nd s t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt er red b y d en y i ng his
re q uestfor t he St ate t o di sc los e the names of the g ra nd jurors w ho w ere presentw hen he allegedly ma de t he fal s e s ta te me nt s . A pp el l an t al s o c om pl ai ns t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt prohi bit ed him f ro m cont act ing a g ra nd j uror w hose ide nti ty

he k new . Ap pel lan t arg ues

38 that arti cl e 20.02 of t he Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re does not re q uire th a t t he ide nti ty of the g ra nd j urors b e k ept s ecret. In the a lt er nati v e, ap pel lan t arg ues that he
s ho w ed a p ar

ti c ul ar i z ed n ee d to k no w w ho t he g ran d j urors w ere an d to s pe ak t o th em . A . Relev ant Facts At a pre -t ria l h e a rin g, a p p e lla n t re que st e d se vera l " gra n d ju ry tra n sc rip ts ." Th e Sta te19

ack now led g ed th at i t had produce d s ev eral transc ri pts and sta ted t hat i t woul d prov ide a grand jury

transcript of

Espino sa's t e s t im ony, if it existed, be cause it w as "rela ted to this
cas e. " Ap pe l l an t th en ex pl ai ne d to th e tr i al c ou rt th at hi s te s ti mo ny at th e g rand jury proceed ing w herein he a ll eg edl y commi tted per jur y w as not recorded. Appel lan t arg ued that he w as therefore ata di sadv antag e a n d a sk ed th e tr ial co urt t o order the Stat e to prod uce a l is to f

the na me s of

the grand jurors w ho were not test if y ing and w ho were prese nt w hen he test if ied. Ap pellan t also aske d for perm ission to com mu nicate w ith tho se g ra nd j urors. The tri al cour t res ponded that all grand jurors must take an oat h to keep the proceed ing s s ecret, and den ied appel lan t' s req uest

. The foll owing e xchang e betw een appel lan t and the tr ial co urt oc cur re d: [ T h e T r i a l C o u rt ] : Y ou c a n n o tc o n t a c tt h e g r a n d j u r o rs b e c a u se they

re main under

the oath to k eep s ecret w hat t hey l ear ned a t a gran d ju ry pro ce e d in g. [D efense C ounse l] : Doe s t hat a ppl y to the [ S]ta te al so? [The Tri al Cou rt]: The [S] tate has deal t w it h the g ra nd j urors b efore. [D efense C ounse l] : Not[t his prosec utor ]. [T he Tr i al C ou rt] : T he St ate of Te x as ha s dea lt w ith the gran d jurors before. [D efense C ounse l] : W oul dn'tthatbe a n unfair adv antag e to the d efense? [T he T rial Court]: T hat 's w hatthe law says. [D efense Cou nsel ]: I understa nd that, but how am I to g oin g to know about Brady mater ial ? Are y ou g oin g t o o rd er the [Sta te] to interview each juror? [The Tri al Cou rt]: I' m not g oin g to ord e r th e [S ]t a te w h ich witn e ss es to

presentto the j ur

y thatdec ide s t he i ss ues here. [Defense Coun sel]: W ell, Judg e , i f yo u h a ve t we lve pote ntial w itnesse s, they 're i n a room, t h e y' v e heard the sa me q uest ion , the y 'v e he ard the same answer.20

[ T h e T r i a l C o u rt ] : This is w h a tI ' m g o i n g t o d o . I w i l l g i v e y ou the

oppor tuni ty to br ief the i ss ue.

. . . . [D efense C ounse l] : My firs t i nq uir y , J udg e, was w it h reg ards to B ra dy

. But myq uest ion i s a m I a ll ow ed to kn ow at lea st w ho th e grand ju rors w ere th ere s o th atI c an a t l ea s t ex erc i se m y ri gh tt o su b p o e n a a n d h a ve t h e m in co u rt ? No w, w hether y ou al low

them to t est ify

or not, that 's anot her matter

. That c an be tak en c are of on app eal , butI w ou l d be d en i ed t he r i g htt o, are y ou g oi ng t o de ny me that ri g ht? [ Th e Tr i a l C o u rt ] : I' m not g o i n g t o d o t h a t t o d a y . I ma y d o i t l a ter

. And

I' v e i n vi ted you to presentme aut hor it ies and w ri tten a rg u m e n tin a b ri e f

t h a tI wil l l o o ka tve ry c a re f u ll y. [ D e fe n s e C o u n s e l ] : W i l l y o u re q u i re t h e [ S ] t a t e a l s o , Judg e? B ecaus e I

me an , t his is a matt er I'm requestin g it, butshou ldn't they hav e also author ity

to say y eah, I' m not enti tl ed to it ? [ Th e Tr i a l C o u rt ] : I' m tel li ng y ou w hat y o u h a v e t o d o . If y ou w ant to

conv inc e me, to pe rs uade me, I' m tel li ng y ou w hat you have to do . Hav e I ma de m y self clear?

. . . . [D efense C ounse l] : C an y ou c lar ify the ru li ng . . . .

. . . . [Defense Coun sel]: Beca use we w e re , we we n ti n t o a d is c u s sion. My

re q uestw as the n ame of, the names of all the g ra nd jurors. That' s d eni ed. [ T h e T ri a l Co u rt ] : G ive m e a u t h o ri ty t h a t s u p p o rt s yo u r re qu e s t

. T h e n e xt

i te m. [ D e fe n s e C o u n s e l ] : Br adymater ial from t hese w i t n e s s e s , w hic h i s of

Con sti tuti onal mag nit ude, th a t it 's the obl ig ati on to the [S]t ate t o prov ide w it h reg ard to thos e g ra nd j urors. Is that g ra nted or

deni ed? [The Tri al Cou rt]: Gi v e me author ity w ith rega rd to th a t re que st. W hat

els e?T he r ecor d i s si l en t re gar di ng whet herapp el l ant f ol l owed t he t r i al cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons a nd f i l ed a 39 bri ef. 21 [D efense C ounse l] : But for now i t' s d eni ed? [T he T rial Court]: I told you I'm notgoing t o ma ke a ruling r ight now . I'm

g iv ing y ou th e oppor

tuni ty to persuade me.[ ] 39 At trial, app ellantre-urg ed h is req uestfor t he trial court to orde r the Sta te to disclose the i denti ti es of the ot her members o f the g ra nd j ur y w ho w e re p resentw hen app ell ant allegedly com mitt ed p erjury . Appe llant a rg u e d t h a t und er the p rinciples of due process, he w as enti tl ed to kn ow the ide nti ty of the members o f the g ra nd j ur y w ho w ere present

. Appel lan t t hen i nformed t he tr ial co urt t hat t he St ate h ad bee n al low ed to i nter v iew the other members of the g ra nd j ur y and that the S tate cl aimed that no "Brady mater ial " w as rev eale d. How ever, appe llant argued thatthe St ate did notdisclos e wh a tq u estion s it
as k ed t he n on - te s ti fy i ng me mb ers o f t he g ran d j ur y . A pp el l an t th en a s k ed for t he s am e oppor tuni ty thatw as g iv en to the Stat e. Outs ide the pr e se n ce o f the jur y , app ell ant tes ti fied th at he knew

the ide nti ty

of one of the non- tes ti fyi ng g ra nd j urors, but h e di d not know the ide nti ty

of the o thers; he th en req uest ed to su bpoena that g ra nd j uror . The Stat e then arg ued: I d o n ' tb e li e ve a wo rd t h is m a n sa ys , qu it e f ra n k ly, b u tt h e y h a ve n ' tsh o wn t h a tt h e re ' s a n yt h in g e xc u lp a t o ry, a n d wh il e t h e y' re e n t it le d t o b e , yo u kn o w, conf ronte d w ith the w itnesse s against the m, I'm not calling these peo ple ag ain st them [ appel lan t]. I' m c a ll ing w ho I w anna c all . Y ou k now , I dec ide w ho I wan n a s u b p o e na and w ho I w anna c all to the w it ness st and. They don' t dec ide for me. There's nothing ex cul pator y and they

hav e—i t' s j usta f is h in g e xp e d it io n , a n d t h e y' re n o te n t it le d t o ita n d t h e y h a ve n o a u t h o ri ty. The tr ial co urt den ied appel lan t' s req uest

. B. Error Appel lan t arg ues on appe al that the i denti ti es of grand jurors are not re q uired to be keptse cret as the tr ial co urt r ule d i n thi s c ase. The Stat e, on the other hand, appears t oT EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 20

. 02 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 09 ). 40 B L A CK ' S L AW D I CT I ON A RY 13 24 (9t h e d. 20 09 ). 41 I d. 42 I n r e Reed , 22 7 S

. W

. 3d 27 3, 27 5 (T ex . A pp . –S an A nton i o 2 00 7, no pe t

. , ori g. pro c ee di ng ). 43 W e n ote t ha t the L eg i s l ature l ater a m en de d 20

. 02 , a nd the stat ute no w provi de s t ha t a g ran d jury 44 subpoe na o r sum m ons r el at ed t o a gr and j ur y i nv est i gat i on i s secr et t o t he e xt ent nece ssar y t o pr ev ent t he u n a u th o rize d d i s c l o s u re o f a m a tte r b e fo re th e g ra n d ju ry. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 20

. 02 (h).

I n r e Reed , 227 S. W

. 3d a t 276

. 45 22 a rg u e t h a tb e c a u s e t h e i d e n t i t i e s o f t h e g ra n d j u ro rs a re p a rt of t h e " p ro c e e d i n g s " o f a g ra nd ju r

y , t h e i d e n t i t i e s m u s tb e k e p ts e c re tu n d e r a rt i c l e 2 0

. 0 2 o f t h e c o d e o f c ri minal procedu re and that there i s n o aut hor ity req uir ing the Stat e to dis cl ose the req uest ed infor mati on w it hout a c ourt o rder. Therefore, the S tate conc lud es that ev en i f appell ant showed a pa rticulariz ed n eed , as required und er 20.0 2, for disclosure of the grand jurors' ide nti ti es, i t w as w it hin the tr ial co urt' s d is creti on to deny appel lan t' s re q uestfor t he g ra nd jurors' identitie s. Unde r article 20.02 , "[t] he proce edin gs of the grand jury shall be secret." Black's 40 Law D icti onar

y defines the ter m "proceed ing s" as "[t] he reg ula r and order ly prog re ss ion of a law suit, includ ing all acts and ev ent s betw een the time of comm ence me nt an d the entry of judg ment." Bl ack 's stat e s th a t "'[p] ro ceedi ng ' is a word much us ed to ex press the 41 busi ness done in cour

ts. " I n In r

e R eed , the Bex ar

County Dis tr ict Attor ney

arg ued t hat 42 grand jury

summ onse s were se cret. T he court of a ppe als conclu ded thatthe grand jury 43
summons es w ere not"p ro ceeding s" u nder the sta tute and that the Tex as Cod e of

44 Criminal Proce dure , unlike t h e f e dera l rule, did notex pressly provide thata grand jury subpo ena or

su mmons w as sec re t. The S an Ant oni o C our t of Appea ls st ated: 45 Vi ew ed i n the co ntext of su rroundi ng prov is ion s, the ter m, "proceed ing s" a s used in Ar

ti cl e 20.02( a) coul d re asona bly be understo od as encompas si ng matters that take place before the grand jur y , such as w it ness tes ti mony andI d. 46 See id. 47 See O p . T e x . A tt 'y G e n . N o . G A
- 0 4 2 2 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( s ta tin g th a t " th e g r a n d ju r y o r g a n iz a tio n p r o c e s s is 48 conduct ed i n op en co ur t

. As a pr act i cal m att er , t hen, gr and j ur or s' i dent i t i es wi l l beco m e pu bl i c dur i ng t he gr and j ur y or gani z at i on p r ocess. . . . [ W ] e can f i nd n ot hi ng i n t he l aw t hat ov er com es t he p r esum pt i on t hat [ gr and j ur y l i st s] ar e pu bl i c i nf or m at i on; t her ef or e, a cl er k or a jud ge h as no dut y t o keep a gr and j ur y l i st c on fi de nti al aft er t he cl erk ha s op en ed t he en vel op e c on t ai ni ng t he na m es of pro s pe c t i ve g ran d jurors

. " ).

S e e W is d o m v . S ta te , 42 T ex. C r i m . 579, 61 S. W

. 926, 927 (1 901) (" So t he e v i dence oft he wi t ness 49 gi v en b ef or e t he g r and j ur y m ay be i nt r oduced aga i nst hi m und era char ge o fper j ur y , t hr ough t he m out h or m ou t hs of t he gran d jurors

. " ). 23 del ibe ra ti ons. F or

ex ample, ar

ticl e 20. 02( b) makes cl ear thata pe rs on "operati ng an e lectroni c record ing dev ic e" or "prepar ing a ty pew ri tten t ra n s c ri p t io n " m u s tn o td is c lo s e " a n yt h in g t ra n s p ir in g b e fo re t h e gra n d ju ry, re g ardle ss of w hether

the thi ng transpi ri ng i s recorded."[ ] 46 W e agree t ha t the term " proce edin gs" as used in article 20.0 2 en com passe s mat ters tha t take p lace be fore the g rand jury , includin g w itness te stimo ny and the grand jury's del ibe ra ti ons. W e concl ude that t he te rm "proceed ing s," as used in arti cl e 20. 02, d oes not refer to the ident ities of the grand jurors. T here fore, the id ent ities of t he grand jurors in 47 appel lan t' s c ase w ere not re q uired to be ke pt s ecret un der ar ti cl e 20. 02. Fur

ther more, the Stat e c it es to no author ity , and w e find none, suppo rt ing a c oncl usi on th at t he i denti ti es of the g ra nd j urors a re req uired to be keptsecret. Be caus e the re i s n o aut hor ity su ppor ti ng 48
a con clusion th at th e g ra n d j u ro rs' i den tities are secret , w e con clude thatthe trial court erred w hen it denied app ellant 's req uestfor disclosure of their iden tities. In t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u rt a l s o d e n i e d a p p e l l a n t ' s re q u e s t t o i n t e r v i e w the g ra nd jurors w ho w ere presentw hen he made the fals e s tatement s o n t he bas is thatthe proceed ing s w ere s ecret under arti cl e 20.02. H ow ev er , t he tr ial co urt al low ed th e St ate t o int er v iew ev er y g ra nd j uror

w ho w as presentat that g ra nd j ur y proceed in g , and present testim ony from those g rand jurors it det ermin ed su ppo rted its case of perjuryagainst appel lan t. W h e n t h e tr ial co urt al low ed th e St ate t o rev eal w hat t ra nspi re d before the

49S te rn v . S ta te , 869 S

. W

. 2d 614, 622 (T ex. App. – Houst on [ 14t h Di st

. ] 199 4, pet

. den i ed) ( pr ov i di ng 50 t hat gr and j ur y pr oceedi ngs a r e ge ner al l y secr et , but acknowl edgi ng t hat " T exas co ur t s hav e pe r m i t t ed t he v e i l o f g ra n d ju ry s e c re c y to b e p i e rc e d i n o n l y a fe w i n s ta n c e s ."); see I n r e 5 Byrd Ent er

s. , 980 S. W

. 2d 5 42, 543 ( T ex. App. –Beaum ont 199 8, no pet

. ) ( r ecogni z i ng t hat i n T exas, cour t s hav e pe r m i t t ed t he v ei l of gr and j ur y secr ecy t o be pi er ced i n a f ew i nst ances i ncl udi ng f or t he pur poses of , am ong ot herr easons, i m peachi ng a w i t ne s s or provi ng pe rj ury ).

U ni t ed St at es v. Mays , 46 0 F

. S up p. 57 3, 57 5 (E

. D

. T ex . 19 78 ). 51 T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 44

. 2(b ). 52 G a rc ia v . S ta te , 1 2 6 S .W .3 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 53 24 g ra nd jur y , the secrecy

of thos e proceed ing s h ad been pi erced. I n United State s v. Mays , 50 a federa l dis tr ict c our

t s tated : One w ell -recog niz ed, l ong -e stabli shed ex cept ion to the g eneral ru le that grand jury

testim ony is secret is tha t a defend anta ccused o f perjurybefore a g ra nd j ur

y i s enti tl ed to re v iew the enti re ty of hi s ow n tes ti mony before the gra n d j u ry . The reason for t his r ule i s o bv iou s. A s tatementor st atements tak en outof cont ext c an appe ar t o b e m is lea din g and false, w hereas the same t est imony

tak en i n i ts enti re ty

i s n ot fals e.[ ]

51 W e a gre e . Ho we ve r, in a p p e ll a n t ' s ca s e , t h e re wa s n o r e c o rd in g o f a p p e ll a n t ' s t e s t im o n y; appel lan t' s onl y opti on then w as to i nter v iew al l of the g ra nd j urors w ho w ere presentw hen he te stif ied. T here fore, we conclude thatthe trial court erred in de nying app ellant 's req uest to i nter v iew the g ra nd j urors w ho w ere pres ent w hen he tes ti fied before the g ra nd j ur y and allegedly com mitt ed a gg rav ate d pe rjury . Hav ing determ ined error, w e ne xt cond uct a ha rm ana ly sis. C. Harm An app ell ate c o u rtm ustdi sreg ard nonc onst it uti onal er ro r that does not a ffecta d e fe n d a n t's "s ubst anti al ri g hts ." Thi s C our t may not re v erse the j udg ment for 52
non const itution al error if, after examinin g the record as a w hole , w e have a fair assuran ce that the er ro r did not hav e a subs tanti al and inj ur iou s effect or influ ence in deter mini ng the jur y 's v erdict. 53 Ne it h e r p a rty

has the burden of proof under r ule 44.2 (b ). R ather , t heM i tte n v . S ta te , 22 8 S

. W

. 3d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , pe t

. di s m ' d). 5428 8 S

. W

. 3d 14 8, 17 8 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 09 , pe t

. ref' d). 55 I d. ( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. U ni t ed St at es , 32 8 U

. S

. 75 0, 76 5 (19 46 ))

. 56 I d. 57 G a m b l e v . S a te , 19 9 S

. W

. 3d 61 9, 62 4 (T ex . A pp . –W ac o 2 00 6, no pe t

. ). 58 25 ap pe l l at e c ou rt w i l l e x am i ne t he rec ord for p ur po s es o f de te rmin i ng h ar m. If th e er ror ha d no i nfl ue nc e or on l y a s l i g ht i nfl ue nc e on th e v erdi c t, it is har m le ss . H ow ev er , i f the rev iew ing co urt i s u nsure w hether the er ro r affect ed th e out come, the c our t s houl d treat t he er ro r as har mf u l, i .e., as having a sub stan tial and injurious ef fect or inf luen ce in det ermin ing the jury 's v erdict.[ ]

54 In Lopez v. Sta te , t his Co u rt ex pla ine d tha t i n a h ar m anal y si s "[w]e are not
conce rned

. . . w ith w het her there w as suf f icient ev iden ce on w hich [th e ap pellan t] cou ld h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d

. " Q u o t i n g fro m t h e U n i t e d S u p re me C o u rtc a s e o f Kot te a ko s v. 55 United S tates , w e s tated : [I] f one can not s ay , w it h fa ir a ss u ra nce, after ponder ing al l that happened w it hout str ipp ing the er ro neous acti on f ro m the w hol e, that the judg ment w as not s ubst anti all y

sway ed by

the e rro r, i t i s i mposs ibl e to conc lud e tha t subs tanti al r ig hts w ere not af fected. T he inq uir

y cannot be merely

w hether there w as enoug h to suppo rtthe re sul t, apar t from the p hase affect ed by the er ro r. I t i s rather , ev en s o, w hether the er ro r it sel f had sub sta nti al influ ence. If so, or i f one i s l eft in g ra v e doubt , t he c onv icti on c annot sta nd.[ ] 56 A "grav e do ub t" i s de fi ne d to "me an th at , i n th e j ud g e' s mi nd , th e ma tt er i s so evenly bal anced thathe feel s h ims elf i n v ir tual eq uip ois e as to the h ar mles snes s o f the er ro r. " 57 In ot her w ords, "in cas es of grav e doubtas to har mles snes s t he pet it ion er mustw in. " 58 In t his ca se, the tr ial cour t did all ow

the Stat e to presenttes ti mony from t hree g ra nd jurors a nd di d al low

the Stat e to int er

v iew the nontes ti fyi ng g ra nd j urors. The St ate reli ed hea v ily on the testim ony of the tho se three testif y ing grand jurors. How ever, the jury did not h ear tes ti mony f ro m t h o se grand jurors t hat t he St ate d id not c all to tes ti fy, and the record is silent regarding w hattheir testim ony m ay ha v e bee n beca use the t rial cou rt didSe e id. (c on c l ud i ng t hat " [ i ] n t he f ace o fa si l ent r ecor d, [ t her e wer e] gr av e do ubt s as t o whet her 59 G a m b le w a s h a r m e d b y th e [t r ia l] c o u r t's f a ilu r e t o a d m o n is h h im o fth e d e p o r ta tio n c o n s e q u e n c e s o fh is pl ea " ). See Mi t t en , 228 S. W

. 3d a t 696
- 97.

60 Appel l ant ' s r em ai ni ng i ssues ( t wo and f ou rt een) conce r n t he f act ual suff i ci encyof t he e v i dence 61 s u p p o rti n g h i s c o n v i c ti o n o f c o u n t o n e . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 26 not a ll ow appel lan t t o int er

v iew them. Al thoug h the Sta te' s c ase re li ed heav il y on t he g ra nd jurors' testim ony, the trial court did not allow appe llant to interv iew any of th e grand jurors. W e do not k now

w hat t he nont est ify ing g ra nd j urors woul d hav e rev eal ed to appel lan t. In the fac e o f

a si len t record, w e har bor g ra v e doubt s a s t o w hether appel lan t w as har med by the tr ial co urt' s fai lure to all ow hi m to i nter

v iew the nontes ti fyi ng members o f the g ra nd jury w ho allegedlyw itnesse d him comm it perjury

. The refore, be cause w e are un sure 59
w hether the er ro r affect ed th e out come o f appell ant' s t ri al, w e m u stt re at t he er ro r as har mfu l , i

. e . , a s h a v i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l a n d i n j u r i o u s e ffe c t o r i n fl u e n c e i n d e t e r mi nin g the jur y 's v erdict. W e s ust ain appel lan t' s tw elfth i ss ue.

60 IV. C ONCL US I ON W e rev erse the tr ial cour t' s jud g ment as to c ount one i n the i ndi ctmentand re mand for f urthe r proceed ings as to thatcoun t, an d w e af f irm the rema inde r of

the trial court's judg m e n t. Beca use we have reversed coun t one , w e ne ed n ot ad dress ap pellan t's
rema ining issues. 61

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv ered and filed the 31stday of Aug ust , 201 0.