### NUM BER 13-07- 0040 4-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
RIC HA RD ESP INOS A , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 19t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

Ju stice B en av ide s On J une 8, 2007, a j ur y found R ic hard E sp in osa, appel lan t, g uil ty of ag g ra v ated
a ss aul t on a peac e off ic er ( countone) , as saul t on a publ icse rv ant ( counttwo) , and “a ttempt ing to tak e w eapon from a pol ic e off ic er” (c ount three)

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 01( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009) ( ass aul t on a publ icse rv ant) , § 22. 0 2 (b )(2 )( B) ( Ver non Supp. 2009) ( ag g ra v a te d a ssaul t on a publ icse rv ant) , § 38.14( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009) (a ttempt ing to tak e w eapon from peac e off ic er ). The tr ial co urt as ses sed puni shmentasI n hi s br i eft o t hi s C our t , Espi nosa addr esses h i s f i r st and second i ssues as one i ssue; we wi l l do 1 t he sa m e i n t hi s opi ni on, and we wi l l i ncl ude hi s t hi r d i ssue a s par t of ourdi scussi on o fhi s f i r st t wo. 2 follo w s: on c ount one, life i m p ris o n ment i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ceIns ti tuti onal D iv is ion ( “TD CJ -I D” ); on counttw o, ten y ears’ impri sonmentin TDC J- ID ; and
on c ount three, tw o y ears’ i mpri sonmenti n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce- Stat e Jai l Di v is ion

. The sent ences are to ru n c oncur re ntl y . On ap peal , Es pin osa ra is es fiv e iss ues, w hic h c an be more proper ly ch aract er iz ed as three : ( 1) the trial cou rt abuse d its discretion by failing to g rant a m istrial aft e r false 1 tes ti mony

w as present ed to the jur y , and the use of such fals e and per jured te sti mony
v iol ated his due proces s a nd due course of law r ig hts ; (2) Espin osa’ s due proces s r ig hts
w ere v iol ated w hen tes ti mony from a pr ior , s eparate, and unrela ted c ompetency hear ing
w as admitte d dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase of the u nder ly ing tr ial ; and ( 3) dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase , t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by al low ing tes ti mony

that Es pi no s a i s o n pret r i al s up er v i s i on i n a s ep arat e an d un rel at ed c as e. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On Au gust 7, 200 5, Esp inosa w as drivin g a car nea r the Pad re Stap les Mall i n Cor pus Chr is ti , Nue ces Cou nty , Tex as. R ic hard Perez , an off ic er w it h the C or pus Chr is ti Pol ic e D epar

tment, w as sto pped ata s top light near the mall

. W hil e Officer Perezw as stop ped at the lig ht, Espinosa ramm ed his v ehicle into the back of Of f icer Perez’s police
c a r
. O ffi c e r

P e re zt h e n s a w

E s p i n o s a b a c kh i s c a r u p a n d ra m t h e p o l i c e c a r a g ain

. Off ic er Pereznoti ced Espi nosa attempt ing to back hi s c ar up a se cond ti m e , b u t t he c ar was e m b e d d e d un d e r th e po lic e c a r’s r e a r b u m p e r an d Es p in o sa w a s u n a b le to di slo d ge his v ehi cl e. Looki ng in his re ar v iew m ir ro r, Of

ficer Perezsa w

thatEs pin osa appeared to hav e “ been on dr ug s, aw ake for days.” Of f icer Perez called police dispa tch and t hen e x ited h is v ehicle. Once he ex ited h is3

v ehi cl e, he w as abl e to see in si de Espi nosa’ s car , w here he saw Es pin osa “s creaming and y ell ing , ” b u th e c o u l d n o th e a r w h a tw a s b e i n g s a i d

. E s p i n o s a e x i t e d h i s o w n v e h i c le, sta rt ed “ w av ing his ar ms in the a ir ,” and ra n at Off ic er Perezat a “ full spr int .” Es pin osa w as y ell ing , “ Ki ll m e, mother f**** *. Ki ll me.” Es pin osa then “s w ung se v eral ti mes w it h bot h of his fist s” and str uck

Officer Perezse v eral ti mes i n the sh oul der area. Espi nosa g ra bbed hold of Of f icer Perez’s prote ctiv e v est an d pu lled him to the g roun d. W hile the y w ere
w re stl ing on the g ro und, Espi nosa attempt ed to g ra b Officer Perez ’s firear m. O ff ic er Perez wa s e ve n t u a ll y a b le t o p u s h E s p in o s a o f f a n d s p ra y h im in t h e fa c e wit h p e p p e r s p ra y. Aft er d ep l oy i ng t he p ep pe r

s pray , Offi c er

P erezw as a bl e to w res tl e Es pi no s a off of hi m, and w it h the hel p of an uni denti fied pass er by , he w as abl e to handc uff Espi nosa. An other off ic er ar riv e d at the s cene and pl aced Espi nosa in the b ack of Off ic er

Perez ’s v ehi cl e. Espin osa was arrested an d indicte d on three co unt s: agg rav ate d as s a u lt o n a pea ce off ic er ( countone) , as saul t on a publ icse rv ant ( counttwo) , and “ attempt ing to t ake w eapon from a po li ce off ic er” (c ount three)

. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 01( b) , § 22.02( b) (2 )( B) , § 38.14( b)

. Dr. Joel Kutn ick, the cou rt-appo inted psy chiatrist, initially det ermin ed that Esp inosa
w as inc ompetentto st a n d tr ial

. Upo n the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er , Es pin osa w as pla ced in the
care of Ver non’ s Stat e Hos pit al, in Ver non, Tex as. Ev entual ly , t he s taff at Ver non’ s S tate Hos pi t a l d e t e r mi n e d t h a t E s p i n o s a h a d b e c o me c o mp e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l , a n d o n M ay8, 2007, a j ur

y t ria l was hel d to re sol v e the co mpetency i ss ue. The ju ry

dete rmi ned t hat Espin osa was comp ete nt to stand trial. Dur ing the tr ial on t he mer it s, the o nly co ntes ted is sue w as w hether Es pin osa w as legally insane at the time o f

the incide nt. Esp inosa presen ted the testim ony of his mo the r, fath er, and sister, all of w hom conf irmed thatEspino sa en gaged in v erybiz arre beh avior,4

inc lud ing ch ang ing hi s n ame to emulat e a ro ck star ; paint ing his fing er nai ls ; hav ing di ff ic ulty g etti ng al ong w it h oth ers; li v ing i n a h ome i n tot al di sar ra y w it h Arabi c w ri ti ng s a ll ov er the
w all s; and dress ing as a C athol icpr ies t, then in mil it ar y fatig ues, w ear ing a be re t, then as a Bud dhist o r Hi ndu priest, an d the n as a na v al of f icer. Espi nosa als o c all ed D r. Kut nic k t o the s ta n d, an d he tes ti fied th at, among othe r things, Espin osa is schizophren ic and bi-po lar. Dr. Kut nick state d tha t Espino sa told him dur ing hi s i nit ial ev alu ati on that a mic ro chi p had been impl anted in his brain w hil e he w as in the Navy

and thathe w as ab le to com mu nicate w ith Cond olee z a Rice and Donald Rums fel d

. E s p i n o s a t o l d D r
. K u t n i c k t h a t , w h i l e h e w a s c o mm u n i c a t i n g w i t h R i c e and Ru m s fe ld , h is fo o tgo tst u c ko n t h e a c c e le ra t o r, ca u s in g h im t o sm a s h in t o O f f ic e r P e re z. Ini ti all y , Es pin osa w oul d notans w er D r. Kutn ick ’s questio n reg ardin g w hy he a ttac ked Off ic er Perezouts id e o f

t h e ve hic les , buthe l ater admi tted that he di d notremember atta c k i ng O ffic er

P erez . D r
. Ku tn i c kb el i ev ed t ha t Es pi no s a ha d a de l us i on al b el i ef s y s te m, at l eastas far a s t he pur por ted mi crochi p w as conc er ned. Dr. Kutnick also d iscussed his second ev alua tion o f Espino sa, du ring w hich Espi nosa offered atl e a st one more the or y to ex pla in w hy

he ran i nto t he bac k o f Off ic er Perez ’s ca r. Es pin osa cl aimed that he rammed Of ficer Perezbecause he w anted to g et help and g et Pe rez ’s atten tion “be cause he ne ede d to tell som ebo dy abo ut th e microch ip in his brain. ” Espin osa th en b egan discu ssing that he w as in a rage, and thatis w hy he h it Off i c e r P e re z ’ s v e h i c l e
. F ro m h i s c o n v e rs a t i o n s w i t h E s p i n o s a a n d h i s re adi ng of the
v a rio u s pol ic e repor

ts, D r. Kut nic k s ur mis ed th at t he rag e s temmed from e it her a recent breakup w it h a g ir lfri end or from a prev iou s a rrest

. Dr . Ku tni ck bel iev ed th at E spi nosa w as a ma lingerer, or someo ne who is “ conscio usly dece ptive. In l ay term s, lies.” Dr. Kut nick5

tes ti fied th a t th e “rag e the or y ” w as the mos t l ik ely ex pla nati on for Espi nosa’ s a cti ons tow ards Off ic er

Perez , and therefore, in his opi nio n, E spi nosa w as sane at t he ti me of the
acc ide nt. Dr . R ober

t Jimene z , a psy chi atr is t, test ified on Espi nosa’ s behal f. D r. Ji menezmet
w it h Es pin osa at t he N ueces C ounty j ail for a bout t wo h o u rs and al so spentti me w it h Espin osa’s fam ily

. He examine d Espin osa’s ho use a nd Esp inosa ’s med ical records. Dr. Jime nez diagnosed E spino sa as ha v ing “ [c]hro nic schiz oph renia, paran oid type,” w hich “is
a v er y maj or di sabl ing di seas e of the mind, and the b ra in. ” “ [B]a si cal ly w hat i t af

fects in the brain i s t he abi li ty

to li v e i n real ity . Theyca nnot tes t real ity . Theyl iv e i n anot her
w orld[;] . . . [t]hey have this fa nta sy w orld w here it operat es o ft e n
. . . based on the ir del usi ons and t hei r bel iefs

. . . .” Dr

. Ji menez tes ti fied about Espi nosa’ s strang e behav ior and med ical history, w hich da ted back to high schoo l and includ ed various diagnose s such
as sc hiz oid di sorder , s chi z oaffect iv e, bi pol ar , and sc hiz ophreni a. Espi nosa w as p re s cr ibe d my ri ad medi cat ion s, inc lud ing anti -p sy chot ic s, li thi um, and mood sta bil iz ers. D r. Ji menez ex pl ai ne d th att he v ar i ou s d i ag no s es a re a res ul t of E s pi no s a be i ng a p arano id schizophren ic: [I] t i s e x ceedi ng ly

di ff ic ultto know

w hat’ s go ing on w it h tha t i ndi v idu al [si c], espec ial ly

i f they ’re bri g ht. Because theyv iew the w or ld v er

y di fferentl y , and hav e suspi ci ons of the outsi de w or ld and others, and they liv e i n ths pr iv ate fantasy w or ld that they

don’ t s hare w it h any one, and th ey dev elo p a w ay

of deal ing w it h oth er

peopl e in the outs ide w or ld that w e cal l a fals e s elf. Y ou know , t hat i s t hat i t’ s a put on. It’ s ki nd of l ik e a v eneer of a personal ity

that they adapt , and thatpersonal ity i s l ik e a c hamele on. Y ou k now , itca n chang e depen din g on w here theyf ind themsel v es and w ho they ’re talk ing to, and und er w hatcircumsta nces. Dr. Jim e n e z als o di sc u ss e d hi s o p in io n rega rd in g Dr. K u tn ick ’s “r a ge t h e o ry,” st a ti n g: W ell , I w oul d thi nk that he [E spi nosa] w oul d hav e to know thi s man [Officer Perez ] t hat h e s mashed int o and hav e a par ti cul ar reaso n w hy

he s mashed6

int o and hav e a p arti cul ar reason w hy

he woul d w ant t o hur

t t his par ti cul ar ind iv idu al, and a histor y of [hi s] hav ing done ra g eful th ing s o f this natu re ; attac ked other peopl e, y ou know , w it h aut omobil es bei ng us ed as a w eapon. If y ou had a patter n the re and he k new thi s p erson and w anted to g o after him, thatw oul d be understa ndabl e. But as far as I’m aw are, he didn’ t k now w ho th is police of

f icer w as, an d—th ere’s no p atte rn of [him] doing these sort of thin g s i n the pas t. So I—I don’ t s ee any ev ide nce or

rag e the or

y , but

— Espin osa’s cou nsel th en asked, “One of the theo ries w as tha t ma y be—you kno w , beca use Richard Esp inosa had bee n arreste d be fore . . . . T hatm aybe he w as ma d at th e po lice off ic ers b ecaus e he had bee n ar re ste d before.” Dr

. Ji menez re spond ed, “W ell , peo ple g et
arre st e d a ll th e t ime

. . . for traff icti ck ets and all

. . . and they don’ t w ant t o s mash i nto pol ic e off ic ers. I mean, t his i s rare. This i s w eird. And i t doe sn’ t ma ke a n y se n se
. . . . Y ou j ustdon’ t s ee th is ki nd of thi ng .” Reg ardin g the ev ents i n the under ly ing ca se, D r. Ji menezst ated: W ell , t he—t he w ay

thathe e x pla ine d to me the ev ents of that par ti cul ar day is that he h ad bee n going throu gh th ese bizarre episo des in his ho use where he w oul d s mash t he w ind ow s and w ri te i nsc ri pti ons and s mash fur nit ure and do al l ki nds of t hin g s in his house

. And he c lai ms he w as bei ng co ntroll ed by thes e c hip s[, ] and he woul d s ort of g o mad[, ] and t his w as the reason he did n’tg et out of

hi s h ouse and di dn’ t g o any w here. And t hat p arti cul ar day he s eemed to be free of some of these epi sodes , and he g ot i nto h is ca r and beg an to dr iv e around. And he c ontends thathe s tar ted feel ing thes e—t he act ion s of t he chi p ag ain ; namely , the tremors ins ide his body , and he [be cam e] an gr

y a nd upse t and e nraged, a nd the n he doe sn’t really recall all the d etai ls of w hat h appened after that unti l he w as tol d l ater , y ou k now , of the e v ents

. And he is c onv inc ed th at he w as operati ng under the cont ro l of thes e al ien forc es throug h the se chi ps, y ou k n o w, wh e n he did w hat h e all eg edl y d i d

. A n d i n h i s v i e w , h e d i d n ’ t d o i t , y o u k n o w . I t w a s d o n e by pe op l e w ho w ere c on trol l i ng h i s b rai n. Th ey d i d i t, a nd n oth i m.

. . . . In m y med ical opinio n, in term s o f proba bility , it is my v iew thatMr . Espino sa has been—y ou know , f it s the def ini ti on of i nsani ty pr ior to the i nci dent, dur ing the inciden t, an d sub sequen tly af ter the inciden t, and things have notreally chan ged tha t mu ch for him. I ti s m y vie w thathe w as op eratin g und er this delu siona l sy stem thatI m ent ione d at the t ime o f t he crime, th at it w as pa rt and a re spons e to that del usi onal sy ste m, and therefore he di dn’ t hav e moralT he St at e asse r t s t hat Espi nosa f ai l ed t o pr oper l y pr eser v e t hi s i ssue f or ourr ev i ew, cont endi ng t hat 2 h i s m o ti o n fo r m i s tri a l w a s n e i th e r ti m e l y n o r s p e c i fic

. S e e G rig g s v . S ta te , 2 1 3 S .W .3 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 7 ( T e x . C r im

. App. 200 7)

. Espi nosa m ov ed f ora m i st r i al dur i ng and af t erD r
. Ji m enez ’ s t est i m onyand af t ert he t est i m ony ofhi s r ebut t al wi t ness, Jason Luca s. L ucas f ol l owed i m m edi at el y aft erD r
. Kut ni ck ’ s r ebut t al t est i m ony , and bot h of t hese t wo wi t nesses di scussed t he si t uat i on co ncer ni ng Espi nosa’ s pr i oroff ense. I n r esponse , Espi nosa asser t s t hat hi s m ot i on f ol l owi ng Lucas and D r
. Kut ni ck was t i m el y beca use h e di d no t l ear n of t he f ul l ci r cum st ances sur r oundi ng t he p r i oroff ense unt i l aft er D r
. Kut ni ck f i r st t est i f i ed as Espi nosa’ s own wi t ness. D u rin g th e h e a rin g o n h i s m o ti o n , E s p i n o s a a rg u e d th a t i t s h o u l d b e g ra n te d b e c a u s e a l l o w i n g D r. K u tn i c k to t est i fy t hat E spi nosa had been “ ar r est ed” was “ i m pr oper ” beca use a ccor di ng t o Espi nosa, i t was no t t r ue, and because such t est i m onywas “ hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al

. ” Because “ appel l at e c ou rt s s ho ul d r each t he m er i t s of an a p p e a l w h e n e v e r r e a s o n a b ly p o s s ib le ,” w e c o n c lu d e th a t, u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o ft h is c a s e , E s p in o s a ’s m o ti o n fo r m i s tri a l w a s ti m e l y a n d s p e c i fic ; th e re fo re , h e d i d n o t w a i v e th i s i s s u e
. Per r y v. C ohen , 272 S. W

. 3d 58 5, 58 7 (T ex
. 20 08 ).

7 c u lp a b il it y. After hear ing thi s t est imony and the t est imony

of Espi nosa’ s family a n d othe r
w it ness es, the jur

y found Es pin osa g uil ty

on a ll three c o u n ts i n the in dictment. The t ri al
cour t as ses sed puni shment , and thi s a ppeal ens ued.

II. F A LS E A ND P E RJ URE D T E S TI MONY In his f irs t is sue, Es pin osa cl aims thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by not g ra nti ng a mist ri al w hen Dr . Kutni ck testi fied reg ardin g Es pin osa’ s p ri or ar re st and t hat t he Stat e v iol ated his due proces s and due course of law r ig hts w hen i t us ed s uch false and p e r j u r e d t e s t im o n y. See E x p ar te C astell

ano , 863 S.W .2d 4 76, 4 81 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 199 3) (en ban c) ( “To summ ariz e, th e Sta t e vio lates a defend ant ’s ri ghts to due process
w hen it activ ely or passively use[s] perjured testim ony to obtain a con v iction.”). Espino sa ass erts that he w as nev er actual ly ar re ste d on the pr ior offense, ev en thoug h he had been ind icted a nd ar ra ig ned. A . A pp licab le L aw W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s d eni al of a moti on for mis tr ial under an abuse of dis creti on sta ndard. Yates

v. Sta te , 171 S.W .3d 215, 220 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 5, pe t.
re f ’d ) (ci ti n g Ladd v

. St ate , 3 S.W .3d 5 47, 567 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99)). W e “mu st uph oldN i na Espi nosa, Espi nosa’ s m ot her , st at ed se v er al t i m es du r i ng cr oss-e xam i nat i on t hat Espi nosa 3 k new r i ght f r om w r ong on t he day oft he a cci dent , at l east i nsof aras he knew t hat he m ust obe y t r aff i c l aws. 8 the t ri al cour

t' s r uli ng if that ru li ng w as w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement.” Wead
v. State , 1 2 9 S. W

. 3 d 1 2 6 , 1 2 9 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (ci ti n g Mo ntgom er y v . St ate , 810 S.W .2d 372 , 391 (Tex. Crim. App

. 199 0) (o p. on reh’g) ). U nde r this stand ard of rev iew , in t h e in s t a n tca s e , “[ w] e re vie w th e re c o rd t o d e t e rm in e if t h e S t a t e ‘u s e d ’ t h e t e s t im o n y,
w het her the testim ony w as ‘false,’ w het her the testim ony w as ‘knowing ly used ,’ and if th ese q uest ion s a re aff ir mati v ely ans w ered, wh e th er

there i s a reason abl e l ik eli hood t hat t he false te stimo ny could have af fecte d the ju dgme nt of

the jury.” Ram ir

ez v. Sta te , 93 S.W .3d 386, 394- 95 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2002, pet. ref’d)

. There is n o n e e d f or

a de fendant to show

the w it ness kn ew

the tes ti mony w as false or other

w is e harbored a suff ic ien t c ulp abl e mental st ate t o render the w it ness su bje ct to p ro sec uti on for per jur y . M oreov er , t he C our t of Cr imi nal Appea ls has made c lea r that w hether the ru le is v iol ated or

not does notdep end upo n the d efend ant 's a bility t o dem onst rate the witness's specif ic factual as ser

ti ons w ere tec hni cal ly

i ncor re ct or

“ false. ” It i s s uff ic ien t i f the w it ness 's tes ti mony

g iv es the t ri er

of fact a false impress ion

. Id. at 395 ( q uoti ng 42 Ge o rge E . D ix & R ober

t O . D aw son, T EX AS P RA CTI CE : C R I M I N AL P RA CTI CE A ND P R OC EDU R E § 22 .53 (2d ed. 200 2)). B. Discus sion Espi nosa cont ends that Dr . Ku tni ck ’s tes ti mony thathi s p ri or

ar re st caus ed him to be in a rage du ring the conf ronta tion wi th Off icer Perez is the on ly testim ony that Esp inosa
w as sane at t he ti me he c oll ide d w it h Officer Perez
. Es pin osa ass erts that he w as nev er

3 “arres t e d ” fo r t h e prior of fense , and argues thatbeca use h e w as ne v er arrested , Dr. Kut nick’s testim ony w as false an d mislea ding to the jury . W e disagree tha t Dr. Kutnick’s te st im o n y w a s fa lse or m isl e a d in g. At t he out set , w e not e tha t Es pin osa cal led D r. Kut nic k a s a w it ness and the9

t estim ony reg arding the p rior arrest cam e in during Espino sa’s direct ex am inatio n of

Dr. Kut nick. W hile Dr

. K u t n ic k w as be ing q uest ione d by Espinosa , a ben ch con feren ce oc c ur red ou ts i de of th e pres en c e of th e j ur y to di s c us s th e c on fi ne s of D r
. Kut nick’s tes ti mony re gar d in g hi s t heor y thatEs pin osa act ed outof ra g e due to t he pr ior ar re st. Espi nosa’ s c ounse l ag re ed th at D r. Kut nic k c oul d tes ti fy reg ardin g the ra g e theory so l ong as Dr . Ku tni ck

di d notmention wh a t t he pr ior offense w as and avoid ed menti oni ng any det ails of the of fense . Follow ing the ben ch con feren ce, Esp inosa ’s counse l promp ted Dr. Kut nick to con tinue discussing the rage the ory . Dr . Kutn ick testif ied as follows: So as I’ m tr

y ing to, as I s aid , det er mine if a pe rs on i s i nsane , I ’m t ry ing to recon struct the ev ent s. O ne, d o the y h ave a m ent al illness? Yes, he ha s a me nta l il lness th at cou ld so conf use him. Butdid it? And so[,] esse ntially in the tw o i nterv iews I had[ ,] I g ot t hree di fferent e x pla nati ons from hi m as to w hat h appened. O ne, h is ac cel erator g ot s tuc k o n the pedal bec ause he w as hear ing the g ov er nment offici als

. The sec ond ex pla nati on w as [that] he hitthe off ic er

bec ause he w anted to g et attenti on and g et thi s mic ro chi p out of [his ] hea d. And the— and he als o s tar ted t alk ing aboutthathe h ad broken up w it h his gi rlfrien d an d he —this an ger w as bu ilding up in h im, the rage. But I also knew f ro m all of

the document s h anded t o me t hat h e had prev iou sl y been ar re ste d a few months ag o. And he sta rt ed tal ki ng aboutthi s rag e. And he als o tol d me t hat he di dn’ t—h e deni ed th at t he pol ic e off ic er i mplant ed c hip s in his head so that the ra g e did n’t come from there, and I beg an to sp ecul ate, w ell , w as he ang ry at pol ic e off ic ers becau se he g ot ar re ste d pre viously [,] and he saw

the cop and hi t hi m[?] Now , outof those t h re e e xpl anati ons, at lea st the fact s a s I kn ow i t, the rage i ssue m akes th e mo st sense
. S o he hit the of f icer[,] ba cked u p, hit him again, the n att acked him. Tha t is rage. He doesn ’t shou t to the of f icer, a tle a s ta s f a r a s I kn o w, p le a s e h e lp m e
. I h a ve a m ic ro c h ip , yo u kn o w. W hy w oul d y ou attac k t he officer i f y ou’ re sa y ing y ou w ant h elp [?] So as I loo k at it , at lea st as much as I know about w h a t happened, it ’s the rage react ion thatse ems t o be— ex pla ine d the acti ons that nig ht[, ] and [ they

di d] no t hav e anythi ng to do w it h thi s mi crochi p. And ag ain , as I sai d, l it erall y ov er the y ears I ’v e done thous ands of thes e c ases [,] and whe n I found so mebody to be i nsane , and I hav e, w hat10

t h e y t o l d m e a l s o fi tt h e fa c t s o f t h e c a s e
. A s a n e x a mp le, I decl ar ed a pers o n i n s a n e
. H e h a d s t a b b e d tw o w o me n t o d e a t h i n t h e h o s p i t a l h er e. This w as tw o y ears ag o. Beca use he th oug ht t hey w ere w it ches and put a hex on h im [ si c]. And the nurs es came as he w as stab bin g them[,] and he s h o u t s t o t h e n u rs e s , “L o o kwh a t h a p p e n s t o wit c h e s
. ” He d o e s n ’tru n a wa y. T he se curityof

f icer at the hosp ital, he g iv es the g uy the knife, an d he doe sn’t tr y to esc ape. The pol ic e come, he te ll s t hem that“ I k il led the w it ches ,” and he d oesn ’t den y

it. All tha t f its, y ou know

. But he actua lly believed the y

w ere w it ches

. And, I mean, a ter ri ble trag edy happened, bu t i t al l fits the fact s o f w hat h appened. W it h M r. Es pin osa, the onl y ex pla nati on s o far that I k now of that fits the fa c t s i s t h e ra g e , a n d ra g e i s n o t

— i n my o p i n i o n , d o e s n o t mean a perso n is insane . Now , if it w as rage ov er the police put ting th e microch ip in his head, y eah. But h e d e nie s t hat t he pol ic e had anythi ng to do w it h the p la n t in g o f

t h e m ic ro — a n d t h a t ’s wh y— a lt h o u gh I d o t h in kh e ’s il l—wh y I don’ t t hin k h e meets the ins ani ty defini ti on[,] w h ich s a ys that y our thi nki ng h a s t o be so di st o rt e d by you r illn e ss th a t you do no t k n o w th a t it ’s wro n g. And he al so tol d me t hat h e hi t the pol ic e car bec ause he k new

that he w oul d be ar re ste d, an d tha t of co urse sug g est s t hat he understo od th at itw as w ro ng
. So peo ple ca n be si ck , but[t hat d oesn’ t] neces sar il y mean t hat they ’re actual ly

i nsane , ac cordin g to the d efini ti on of the Stat e of Tex as. Lat er during E spino sa’s direct examin ation , he aske d Dr. Kutnick to conf irm tha t his
conc lus ion thatEs pin osa w as sane w as based on E spi nosa ’s rag e ov er hi s p ri or ar re st. At no point dur ing his directex aminat ion of Dr. Kutnic k did Espi nosa obj ectto the t est imony
or as k th e t ria l cour

t t o i nst ru ct the j ur

y to dis re g ard the tes ti mony on t he g ro unds that Espi nosa had notprev iou sl y been ar re ste d. In fact , w hen D r. Kut nic k w as cal led by the Stat e as a rebutt al w it ness l ater i n the tr ial , t he foll ow ing di sc uss ion oc cur re d: [Es pin osa’ s Cou nsel ]: Oka y . W ell , do y ou know w hen he w as ar re ste d by the pol ic e? D r
. Ku tn i c k : I’d have to l oo k[ i t] u p. I d on ’ t know—I don ’t reme mb er the e x act da te. It’s— Cou nsel : Or do y ou ev en k now

i f he w as ar rest ed by

the pol ic e? Dr . Ku tni ck : W ell , I kn ow he h as a c harg e.11

Cou nsel : Do y ou know if he w as ar re ste d or if hi s lawy er tur ned hi m in ? D r
. K u t n i c k : I d o n ’ t k n o w t h e e x actci rc umstan ces of that prev iou s c harg e. The first ti me Es pin osa ex pli ci tl y as ser ted t hat h e had not actua ll y been ar re ste d for the prior of

fense w as during the testim ony of his rebu ttal w itness, Jam es Lu cas, on e of his defense attor ney s o n the pr ior offense. Luc as sta ted t hat his c o- couns el “w alk ed [Es pin osa] up t o the [t ri al co u rt] w hen t hey found out there w as an i ndi ctment .” Luc as further tes ti fied th at w hen hi s c o -counsel w alk ed Es pin osa int o the co urt for the arraignme nt on the prior of fense , Espino sa
w as in ci v il ian clot hes, so he w asn’ t under ar re st, and had a re li g iou s b ook w ith him [,] an d he w a s asking me an d [his co-de fense coun sel] if he cou ld br ing i t i nto t he c our

tro o m. S o I don’ t bel iev e he w as under —te chni cal ar re st, y es. There w as an i ndi ctment , t here w as an i ndi ctment

. After sta ti ng thatEs pin osa “o btaine d a b o n d” at the a rraig nment, Lucas i ndi cat ed th at Espi nosa w as not free to l eav e at that ti me, n o ti ng , “ W ell , I mean, I t hin k y ou hav e to tech nica l l y g o do w n to th e j ai l s ti l l an d proc es s
. I me an , th ere’ s s ti l l s om e—th ere’ s this legal fictio n of an arrest, but the re’s not w hatthe com mo n pe rson thin ks of custod y .” This tes ti mony

i s t he onl y

ev ide nce in the record s peci ficall y d etai li ng the ev ents su rroundi ng the a rraig nment on the pr ior offense.

“‘ [I] t i t i s not t he actual , physi cal tak ing i nto c ust ody thatw il l cons ti tute an ar re st. An
ar res t i s c om pl et e w he ne v er a p ers on ' s l i be rty

o f mo v em en t i s res tr i c te d or res trai ned.’” Me dfor d v . St ate , 1 3 S. W .3 d 76 9 , 7 7 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (qu o ti n g Har din ge v . St ate , 500 S. W .2d 8 70, 8 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1973) ). “A n a rre st of a pe rs on c ar ri es w it h i t an elem ento f

d ete ntion , custo dy or cont rol o f t he accuse d

. . . .” Id. (quo ti n g Sm it h v . St ate ,W e no t e t hat ar t i cl e 46

. 02 o ft he co de o fcr i m i nal pr ocedur e was r epeal ed e ff ect i v e Jan uar y 1, 200 4. 4 See A ct ofA pr
. 30, 2003, 78t h R

. S. , ch. 35, § 15, 200 3 T EX
. S ESS
. L AW S E RV
. 5 7 , 7 2 (V e rn o n ). But see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar t

. 46B. 007 ( Ver non 2006) (co nt ai ni ng pr ot ect i ons ofpr i v acy of com pet encyhea r i ngs s i m i l a r to f o rm e r a rti c l e 4 6 .0 2 ); M i tte n v . S ta te , 145 S. W

. 3d 225, 227- 28 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 2004) ( r ecogni z i ng t hat ar t i cl e 46 B. 007' s pr ohi bi t i ons ar e m or e br oad t han t hose cont ai ned i n ar t i cl e 46

. 02)

. T he co ur t of cr i m i nal appea l s has hel d t hat adm i t t i ng su ch st at em ent s i s “ cl ear l y er r or” a nd tha t “t he e r r orcann ot be wai v ed be c au s e t he s t atut e i s too c l ea r a nd a bs ol ute t o be h el d s ub j ec t t o w ai ver. ” C a b a ll e ro v . S ta te , 587 S. W

. 2d 74 1, 7 43 ( T ex
. Cr i m
. Ap p. 1 97 9)

. Es pi no sa d i d no t r ep l y t o t he St at e’ s wa i v era r gu m en t s, b ut b ecaus e we c o n c l u d e th a t n o vio l a ti o n o f t h e s ta tu te o c c u rr e d , w e d o n o t a d d re s s th e S ta te ’ s w a i v e r a s s e rti o n s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1.

12 153 Tex

. C r i m. 2 3 0 , 2 1 9 S

. W

. 2 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 ( 1 9 4 9 ) )

. W h i l e E s p i n o s a ma y n o t h a v e been handc uffed by

a pe ace off ic er

and led i nto t he cour

t in a “p er p w alk ,” thati s n ot req uired for an arrest to have occurred in this case. Here, the jury hea rd Espin osa’s ow n de fense couns el tes ti fy

thatEs pin osa w as ind icted, ar ra ig ned and su bje ct to a “l eg al ficti on of an
ar re st. ” As Luc as noted, E sp in o sa w as not free to l eav e upon obtai nin g a bo nd atthe arraig nm en t; h e ha d to “ g o do w n to t he j ai l s ti l l a nd p roc es s .” W e c on c l ud e th atD r. Kutni ck ’s tes ti mony w as nei ther false, mis lea din g to the j ur y , nor per jur iou s; thus , t he tr ial
cour t’ s d eci si on i s w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. See Wead , 129 S. W .3d at 129. Beca use the tr ial courtdid not abuse its disc re ti on, Espi nosa’ s f irst, se cond and thi rd i ss ues are ov er ru led

.

III . T E S T I MO N Y F R O M P RI OR C OM PETEN C Y H E A RI NG In hi s s econd appel lat e is sue, Espi nosa arg ues that he “w as deni ed due proces s o f law under the U n ited St ates C onst it uti on and due c ourse of law under the Tex as Con sti tuti on bec ause he reli ed on the p ro tecti on of arti cl e 46.02 [se cti on] 3 (g ), Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , and suc h protecti on w as not afforded to him. ” Es pin osa notes that he is raising this issue for the f irst time on app eal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1. W e c oncl ude 4 that no v iol ati on of the sta tute occ ur re d. Article 46B .00 7 of

the cod e of

criminal proce dure provi des:13

A s tatementmade by

a de fendant dur ing an e x aminat ion or tr ial on t he defendant' s i ncompet ency , t he te sti mony of a n ex per

t bas ed on that sta tement, and ev ide nce obtai ned as a re sul t of t hat sta tement maynot be admitted i n ev ide nce ag ain st the defendant in anycri minal proceed ing , ot her than at: ( 1) a t ri al on the defendant' s inc ompetency ; or ( 2) any proceed ing a twh ic h t h e d e fe n d a n tf irs tin t ro d u c e s in t o e vid e n c e a st a t e m e n t , t e s t im o n y, or ev ide nce desc ri bed by thi s a rt ic le. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 46B.007 (Ver non 2006). The rec ord i ncl udes tes ti mony tha t Espin osa had b een foun d com pet entt o stan d trial in a sepa rate an d un relate d case but d oes not conta in any statement s made by Esp ino sa, ex per t testi mony

bas ed on any suc h s tatement s, or

anyev ide nce obtai ned as a re sul t of any st atements made du ri ng the
com pet ency hearing in that se para te case . Further, Espinosa ’s argume nt does no t direct
us to an y

st atements , tes ti mony , or ev ide nce prohi bit ed by ar ti cl e 46B. 007. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(i). Because no vi olatio n of the ap plicable statu te occu rred, w e overrule Espi nosa’ s s econd i ss ue. IV. P RETRI A L S UP E RV I S I ON Espin osa a rg ues, in his third issue, tha t the trial court erre d in adm itting ev iden ce tha t he “w as on pretrial supe rv ision for a pen ding felon y in orde r for the St ate to prove [his] ‘mo tiv e’ for com mitt ing the indicte d of fense .” D uring a pretrial conferen ce, the trial court
ov er ru led Es pin osa’ s o bje cti ons to t he admi ss ib ili ty of ev ide nce that he had been on pretr ial su per

v is ion in a separate and unrel ated cas e. See T EX
. R. E V ID . 103 ( sta ti ng that
w h e n t h e c o u rt , out si de th e j ur y ’s presenc e, r ule s o n the admi ss ibi li ty of ev ide nce, re p e a t in g t h e o bje c t io n s wh e n t h e e vid e n c e is la t e r i n t ro d u c e d is u n n e c e s s a ry t o p re s e rve the i ss ue for appel lat e rev iew ). Es pin osa obj ect ed to the admis si on of hi s p re tr ial super v is ion under

r ule s 4 01, 4 02, 4 03, a nd 404 of the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. See i d. 401, 402, 403, 404. The tr ial co urt ov e rr ule d the obj ect ion s, but l imi ted t he St ate t oT h e tr ia l c o u r t a ls o in c lu d e d a lim itin g in s tr u c tio n in th e c h a r g e in f o r m in g th e ju r y th a t it w a s to o n ly 5 consi derev i dence oft he e xt r aneo us o ffe nse, i fi t chose t o con si deri t at al l , f ort he p ur poses ofev al uat i ng Espi nosa’ s m ot i v e f orcom m i t t i ng t he i ndi ct ed o ff enses. 14 discussing only the fact th at Espin osa had b een o n pretrial sup erv ision in a sep arate case and forb ade t he St ate from i ntroduci ng the charg e or su bst ance of that c ase. 5 To deter mine w hether the tr ial co urt er re d i n admi tti ng ev ide nce, w e rev iew i ts deci si on for an abus e of di sc re ti on. T r e v i n ov . S tate , 2 2 8 S

. W

. 3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 4 (T e x. Ap p .— Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 6 , p e t

. r e f ’ d ) (ci ti n g Mc Don ald v. Sta te , 179 S.W .3d 5 71, 5 76 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 5)). “ A trial court abu ses its discretion w hen its decision is so clearly
w rong a s to lie outsid e tha t z one w ithin w hich reaso nab le person s might disagree.” Id. (c it ing Montgo m ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 391 ). Und er r ule s 4 01 and 402, re lev ant ev ide nce is admiss ibl e. T EX
. R. E V ID . 401 , 402

. Rule 40 4(b) prohib its the ad mission of othe r cr ime s “to prove the chara cter of a pe rson in
order to show acti on in c o n fo rmity

therew it h,” but suc h ev ide nce is admi ss ibl e for other pur poses , i ncl udi ng to show moti v e. Id. 404 (b). How ever, ev en if adm issib le und er rule 4 0 4 (b ), e vid e n c e o f

o t h e r c ri m e s m a y st il l b e in a d m is s ib le u n d e r ru le 4 0 3 “i f it s p ro b a t ive
v alue is sub stan tially

o utweig hed b y

t he dan ger of

u nfair p rejudice , conf usion of the issue s, or m isleadin g the ju ry

. . . .” Id. 403. Addi ti onal ly , “ extraneous -o ffense ev ide nce maybe admis si ble w hen a defendant rais es an aff irm a ti ve d efense or a de fensiv e i ss ue th at negate s one of

the ele me nts of

the crime .” Ber

ry v. Sta te , 233 S.W .3d 847 , 8 5 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2007)

. Fur ther , “[r ]ul e 403 fav ors a dmis si bil ity of re lev ant e v ide nce, and the presu mp tion is tha t relevant evidence w ill be m ore prob ative than prejudicial.” Montg om ery
v. State , 810 S.W .2d at 389 . Th us,
w hen und ertak ing a Rul e 403 anal y si s, [the tr ial co urt] must bal ance (1 ) the inh erent p ro bati v e forc e of the proffered i tem of ev ide nce alo ng w it h ( 2) the prop one nt's ne ed for t hate v iden ce against (3) a ny ten den cy o f t he e v iden ce15

to suggest decision on an improp er basis, (4) any tende ncy of the evidence to c onfuse or

di stractthe jur

y from t he mai n i ss ues, ( 5) any tend ency

of the ev ide nce to be gi v en undue w eig ht bya jur y thathas not been eq uip ped t o ev alu ate t he probati v e forc e of the e vi dence , and ( 6) the li kel iho od th at present a tion of the ev ide nce w il l cons ume an i nordin ate a mount of ti me or merel y repeat ev ide nce already admi tted Gi gli obi anco v. State , 210 S.W .3d 637 , 641 -42 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6). In t he presentca se, the fact th at E spi nosa commi tted the offenses at is sue w as not dis puted, so the onl y

real i ss ue at t ria l was Espinos a’s aff ir mati v e defense that he w as ins ane a t th e t im e the ev ent o cc ur re d. The Stat e arg ued tw o the or ies rele v ant t o our dis cus si on of the extraneous offense ev ide nce: ( 1) Es pin osa had bee n found c ompetent to s tand tr ial in the separa te case and therefore w as moti v ated to c ommit an out ra g eous act to rebut th e f inding of comp ete nce, and (2) as D r. Kutn ick testif ied, Esp inosa w as an gr y at t he pol ice fo r the p ri or ar re st. Es pin osa ass erts that thi s e v ide nce w as ir re lev ant a nd that it s p ro bati v e v alu e w as outw eig hed by the dang er

of unfair preju dic e. W e di sag re e. Ev ide nce of extraneous offenses “ maybe a dmis sib le wh en i t i s rele v ant t o a
n o n c h a ra c t e r c o n fo rm it y fa c to f co n s e q u e n c e in t h e ca s e , su c h a s re b u t t in g a d e fe n s ive theor y .” Po we ll v

. St ate , 63 S.W .3d 4 35, 4 38 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001)

. Here, t he St ate offered ev ide nce of Espi nosa’ s pret ri al super v is ion throug h the tes ti mony of Br y an Ga rc ia, a N ueces C ounty

probati on officer

. It further offered ev ide nce that Espi nosa had bee n found compet ent t o s tand tr ial i n the se parate c ase throug h the tes ti mony of Me li nda Mo li na, a N ueces C ounty di str ict c our

t c ler k. Garci a s tated thathe w as Espi nosa’ s p re tr ial
s u p e r v i s i o n o ffi c e r a n d t h a t a s re c e n t l y a s t h re e d a y s b e fo re t h e u n d e r ly ing ev ents
occ ur re d , E s p i n o s a w a s n o ta c t i n g c ra z y o r b i z a r re
. M o l i n a n o t e d t h e c o u rt
- a p p o i n ted psy chol og is t i n the separate cas e found Espi nosa compet ent t o s tand tr ial i n tha t c ase and tha t a statu s hea ring had bee n set. W e conclu de that the trial court could ha v e reaso nab ly16

deter mined that the t est imony aboutEs pin osa’ s pret ri al supe rv is ion and about his hav ing been found c ompetentto sta nd tri al in the separate c ase w as re lev ant rebutt al tes ti mony that Espi nosa w as moti v ated to commi t the under ly ing offenses to show thathe w as not compet ent t o s tand tr ial i n the othe r cas e. See i d. Re vie win g t h e ru le 4 0 3 b a la n c in g t e s t , we b e l i e v e t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtco u ld h a ve re asona bly

co ncl uded t hat e vide n ce that Espi nosa w as on pretr ial su per v is ion i n a sepa rate case in w hich he had bee n foun d com pet entto stan d trial wa s p roba tiv e in deter mini ng hi s mot iv e for commi tti n g t he offenses b efore us and, as su ch, w as needed by the State t o rebut Espi nosa’ s t heor y thathe w as ins ane atthe ti me the under ly ing
ev e n t s o c c u r re d

. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e t r i a l c o u rt t o o k c a re t o e x c l u d e a n y me n t i o n o f t he specif ic of

fense w ith w hich Esp inosa had bee n charged in the sepa rate case , w hich protected t he j ur

y from dec idi ng the presentca se on an i mprop er bas is

. See Gigliobia nco , 210 S. W .3d a t 641 ( ex pla ini ng thatthe phrase “u nfair preju dic e” i n r ule 403 “refers to a tendency

to sug g estdecis ion on an improper basis , commonly , thoug h notnec ess ar il y , an em otion al one . Ev iden ce might be unfairly p rejudicial if , for e x am ple, it a rouse s t he jury's host il ity or sy mpathy

for o ne s ide w it hout re g ard to the l og ic al probati v e f o rc e of the
ev ide nce. ”) ( int er nal ci tati ons omitted)

. Fur ther , there is no indi cat ion in the record tha t t he
ev ide nce of pret ri al super v is ion w oul d confuse or dis tractthe ju ry from t he mai n i ss ue of ins ani ty or thatthe jur

y w oul d g iv e undue w eig ht to the tes ti mony , and the tes ti mony w as not c umulat iv e, no r did i t t ake an i nordin ate a mount of ti me to present

. S e e id. W e
conc lud e, t herefore, that the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on to admi t t he te sti mon y co ncer nin g Espi nosa’ s p re tr ial su per v is ion w as w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement, and t he tr ial cour t did not abuse it s dis creti on in admitti ng thi s e v ide nce. See W ead , 129 S.W .3d17

at 12 9. W e ov er ru le Espi nosa’ s t hird i ss ue. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Es pin osa’ s f irst, se cond, and thi rd appel lat e i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

______ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES J u s t i c e Publ is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Di ss enti ng Opi nio n by J u s t ic e L in d a Re yn a Ya ñ e z. Del iv ered and filed the 5th d ay of Aug ust , 201 0.