NO. 07-08 -015 5-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RO NA LD W AY NE H AR RI SON , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 27 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF J AC K CO UNT Y; ST NO. 420 5; HON. JOHN H. F OST EL, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Ron ald W ay ne H ar ri son appeal s h is co nv icti on for ind ecency w it h a c hil d by ass erti ng that1) the ev ide nce w as leg all y ins uff ic ien t, 2) the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on in ov er ru li ng appell ant’ s objecti on to testi mony f ro m a deputy , and 3) the tr ial co urt er re d in faili ng to g ra nt ap pel lan t’ s mot ion for mi str ial

. W e aff ir m the jud g ment.2

Iss ue 1 - Suff

icien cy of Evi denceto Suppor

t En hance m ent F

ind ing In his f irst issue , app ellantchallen ges the legal suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort th e ju ry’s f in d i n g w i t h res p e ctto an en h a n ce m e n t p a ra gra p h in th e in d ict m e n t. Th ro u gh the i ndi ctment , t he St ate a ll eg ed th at ap p e ll ant p re v iou sl y had been c onv icted o f burg lar iz ing a ha bit ati on “ on th e 9 day of N ov ember , 1994, in caus e number F -9 430228- th MVi n the 292 Ju dic ial D is tr ict C our t of D all as Cou nty , Tex as. ” Appel lan t pl ed not tr ue to nd the a ll eg ati on. The Stat e the n ten dered ev ide nce il lus trati ng that he had i ndeed c ommitt ed the o ffense. How ev er , referen ce to the c ounty i n w hic h the co nv icti on oc cur re d c hang ed from D all as to Tar ra nt i n the j ur y ch arg e. The ju ry , non ethel ess , found the enhan cement parag ra ph to be t ru e. Now appel lan t arg ues that becau se there was no proof that he was conv icted i n Tar ra nt C ounty , no ev ide nce suppo rt s t he findi ng . W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. W e tes t t he l eg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce v ia the s tandard s et forth i n Jacks on v. Vi rgini a, 443 U .S. 307, 99 S.Ct . 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1 979) and ag ain st the a ll eg ati ons cont ain ed i n a h y p o th e ti call y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Gol

li har v. Sta te, 46 S. W .3d 2 43, 2 52 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ; Ma li k v . St ate, 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 23 4, 24 0 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7). Mo re ov er , t hese re q uirements appl y i rrespecti v e of

w hether the appel lan t attac ks the suffici ency

of the e v ide nce under ly ing the cur re nt c onv icti on or the est abl is hment of the all eg ati ons in an enha ncementparag ra ph. Y o u n g v. Sta te, 1 4 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2000)( sta ti ng that Ma l i k ’s pri n cip le s a p p ly equ a lly to th e af f irm a ti ve f in d in gs neces sar

y to sus tai n the i mposi ti on of an en hance d puni shment ). Next, the h y pothet ic all y co rrectcharg e at bar

woul d hav e as ked w hether the pr ior of fense w as com mitt ed in Dallas as opp osed to T arrant Cou nty. F urthe rmore , the record3

is repl ete w it h ev ide nce il lus trati ng thatthe si tus of the e ar li er cr ime w as Dal las C ounty , a fa ctno on e de n ie s. So , up o n ap p lyin g Gol li har and Malik, we c annot but c oncl ude t hat t he findi ng as to the e nhanc eme n t p a ra g ra ph enj oy ed th e s uppor t of l eg all y

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. Iss ue 2
- Tes ti

m ony of D eputy Next, appel lan t q uest ion s w hether the tr ial co urt er re d i n ov er ru li ng hi s R ule 403 obje ction. Tha t obje ction was directed atthe te stimo ny of a dep uty sherif

f w ho p urpo rtedly heard appel lan t s tate, se v eral months before tr ial , that if he coul d make ey e c ontact w it h the c hil d v icti m, he w oul d notbe found g uil ty

. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. The deci si on to admit ev ide nce is rev iewed unde r the s tandard of abus ed di sc re ti on. Mo ses v. Sta te, 105 S.W .3d 6 22, 6 27 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 3). And, such an abu se occu rs onl y w hen t he dec is ion fall s o uts ide the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Montg om ery v. State , 810 S .W .2d 3 72, 3 91 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 1) (dealing w ith a Rule 40 3 objection ). Next, Rul e 403 of the Tex as Rul es o f Evid e n ce p e rmits the ex cl usi on of rel ev ant evidence when its proba tiv e v alue is substan tially outweig hed bythe da nger of unfair preju dic e. T EX . R. E V ID . 403

. Here , a ppel lan t arg ues that the e v ide nce in q uest ion w as preju dic ial and had l ittl e probati v e v alu e. Y et, one can re asona bly i nter pret t he c omment overheard b y

the de puty as a threa t of intim idatio n directe d towards the child v ictim i n ef fort to prev ent h er

from t est ify ing

. It has lon g been re cog niz ed th at effort by a de fend a n t t o p re ven t a w it n e ss f ro m te st if ying is gen e ra lly ad m iss ib le as c o n d u ctsh o wing a cons ci ousne ss of g uil t, w hic h c onduct t ends to prov e c ommis si on of t h e offense. Rod ri guez v. Sta te, 577 S. W .2d 4 91, 4 92- 93 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1979). Bei ng ev ide nce of
a con sciousn ess of

guilt, app ellant ’s u ttera nce w as bot h relevant and proba tiv e, esp eciallyT he su bst ance oft he e xchange between t he co ur t and coun sel f ol l ows: 1 C O U R T : L e t t h e r e c o r d r e f le c t th e C o u r t h a s a d v is e d t h e a tt o r n e ys t hat dur i ng t he br eak one oft he j ur or s app r oached m e an d st at ed t hat t he pr osecut i on h ad a sk ed whet hert heyknew one oft he n am es of one of t he pr osecut i on’ s wi t nesses, t hat he di dn’ t re cogni z e t he nam e. T hat he k new and t hat he had seen a wi t ness, tha t h e t hough t he di d know. And he basi cal l ysai d I don ’ t kno w i f I can m ake a goo d j ur or . W her eupon , t he C our t adv i sed h i m t hat he had al r eadybee n qu al i f i ed a nd h e was o n t he ju ry. Pr osecut i on? [S T A T E ]: N o q u e s ti o n s o r c o m m e n ts

. [ D E F E N S E ] : Yo ur H on or - - C O U R T : D e fe n d a n t? [D E F E N S E ]: Y o u r H o n o r, I a p p re c i a te th e C o u rt b rin g i n g th a t i n fo rm a ti o n to m yat t ent i on. T he Def endan t m ov es f orm i st r i al att hi s t i m e. 4 si n c e t h e c o n v i ct i o n re s t e d i n l a rg e p a rt o n t h e t e s t i mo n y o f t h e v i ct i m h e propose d to in t im id a t e . An d , wh il e t h e s t a t e m e n ti s p reju d ic ia l, i ti s n o tu n fa ir

. T h a tis , itd o e s n o tgi ve ri se to t he ty pe of preju dic e c onte m p la te d b y R ule 403, su ch as preju dic e ar is ing from emoti on or

bi as. Kar

nes v. State, 127 S. W .3d 1 84, 1 9 1 ( T ex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 03, n o pet.)

. Rat her , the chanc e of har m itpos ed i s n o di fferent t han t he har m pose d by any othe r adm issible evi den ce illustrating g uilt

. So , af ter consid ering it w ithin th e f rame w ork dis cus sed in Mo ntgom er y v . St ate , supra , w e cannot say that the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to admitthe sta tement fell outs ide the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Iss ue 3 - Mo ti

on fo r Mi str ial In hi s l asti ss ue, a ppel lan t c omplai ns of the tr ial co urt’ s fai lu re t o g ra nt hi s mot ion for mi str ial

. That moti on w as made after the jud g e rev eal ed to the par ti es that a j uror

had approache d and infor med hi m thatthe juror bel iev ed he maykn ow so meone w ho may

be a w it ness . In l ieu of ask ing for o ppor tuni ty to ex amine the j uror

i n effort t o det er mine 1C O U R T : A ll r ig h t. I’m - - I’m g o in g to d e n y yo u rm o tio n f o rm is tr ia l. T he Cour t f i nds t hat t he - - base d up on t he co nv er sat i on, he di d no t r ecogni z e a nam e an d di d no t pur posel ywi t hhol d t hat i nf or m at i on f r om t he C o u rt. I t was up on v i ewi ng a n i ndi v i dual w hi c h m ay o r m aynotbe a j ur ori n t he case - - I m ean, wi t ness i n t he ca se. I don’ t k now i fhe woul d know whet her o r n o t i t w a s o r w a s n o t b u t a t a n yra te , t h a t’ s th e C o u rt’ s ru l i n g . T h a n k y o u . [D E F E N S E ]: T h a n k y o u , J u d g e . 5 w het her the relationsh ip would impa ct his ability to be fair and im partia l, app ellantsimply ask ed for a mi str ial

. The la tter w as deni ed. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Lik e q uest ion s reg ardin g the admis si on of ev ide nce, thos e c oncer nin g dec is ion s t o deny mis tr ial are rev iewed unde r the stan dard of abused dis creti on. Ar

chi e v . St ate, 221 S.W .3 d 6 95, 6 99 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. Fur ther more, w e not e tha t w hen a juror w it hhol ds mater ia l in fo rm a ti on dur ing v oir di re , mi str ial may

be a ppropr iat e. Franklin v. State, 138 S.W .3d 3 51, 353 -54 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 4). W hen the informa tion wi thh eld is imm ate rial and th e record do es no t show that the d efend antwas d enie d an impa rtial jury or a fair tr ial , deny ing mis tr ial is not er ro r. Decker v. St ate, 7 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 7 -0 8 (T e x. Crim. App . 198 6). Additio nally, a juror’s m ere fam iliarity with a witness is not ne cessarily mater ial i nformati on. Fr ankl in v. State, 12 S.W .3d 473 , 478 (Te x . Crim. A p p . 200 0); Decker v. Sta te, 717 S. W .2d a t 907

. Its m ater ial ity depends up on w hether the nature of the rela ti onshi p ca rrie s with it a potent ial for b ias or preju dic e s uff ic ien t t o war ra nt t he juror ’s ex cl usi on from t he pane l. Sype rt v. Sta te, 1 9 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 0 (T e x. App .–T exarkana 20 06, pet. ref’d).6

Here, all w e ha v e be fore us is evi den ce tha t a juror recogniz ed so me one in the ha ll outs ide the cour

troom. Mi ss ing i s e v ide nce il lus trati ng w hether the in div idu al act ual ly

was a pot enti al w it ness or

merely a s pect ator . Undo ubtedl y , t hat c oul d affectour anal y si s o f the i ssue. So too d o w e lack any record developing the exten t of the juror’s relation ship with t h a t p e rson. That t oo c oul d i nfluenc e how w e v iew

the impact, if any , of the relation ship upon the juror’s delibe ration s. Again, appellan t simp ly asked fo r a m is trial. Neithe r li tigant ma de ef fort to investig ate o r de v elop t he situ ation , accordin g to th e record before u s. Gi v en th is , we c annot say thatappel lan t i ll ust ra ted t he rela ti onshi p i n q uest ion
w as mater ial i n any

w ay . Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h.