NO. 07-05 -030 7-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D SEPTEM BER24, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JONAT HAN JOEY MENDOZA, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ER COU NT Y; TH NO . 50, 762- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and PI RTLE, JJ

. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Jona tha n Joe y

Mendo z a app eals his conviction of agg rav ate d assa ult against his
m o t h e r . T h e j u r

y a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n ta t2 0 y e a rs c o n f i n e m e n ta n d a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 f i n e . W e affi r m. Appel lan t doe s n ot contes t t he ev ide nce he as saul ted h is mother i n J anuar

y 2005. His compla ints on app eal cha llenge the suf f iciency of

the evidence thathe used a de adly
w eapon, the a g g ra v ati ng factor i n the as saul t, see Tex . Pe n. C ode An n. § 22.02( a) (2 )2

(V er non Su pp. 2 006) , and admi ss ion of ev ide nce suppo rt ing that ele ment. He als o as si g ns er ro r to t he admi ss ion of extraneous offense ev ide nce.
T he e v ent s giv ing rise to app ellant ’s p rosecu tion began when ap pellan t and his fo ury ear-o ld son, Ac e, w ent t o the home of appel lan t’ s mother , Yo lan da Garc ia. Garc ia ask ed appel lan t abo ut a mark

on A ce’ s face and w as tol d appel lan t had sl apped Ace. Garci a and appel lan t beg an to arg ue ov er hi s t re atment of Ace. D ur ing thatarg ument ap pel lan t grabb ed Ga rcia’s hair and presse d a hard obje ct against her hea d and told her notto “call the cops on me. ” App ellantreleased Garcia and t ook h er mo bile ph one as she left to pick up h e r d a u g h t e rs . W i t h i n mi n u t e s G a r c i a r e l a t e d t h e e v e n t s t o h e r s i s t e r w h o c a ll ed th e police. W h e n of

f icers arriv ed so me tw ent y minu tes late r, Garcia w as still upset a nd to ld them app ell ant h ad pl aced a g un to her head. G ar ci a prov ide d a w ri tten sta tement all eg ing app ellantpulled a sma ll g raypistol on h er and had threat ene d to kil l her if she reporte d him to t he pol ic e. At tr ial Gar ci a admi tted tel li ng pol ic e appel lan t had a g un butsa id she had only assume d it w as a gun and n ever saw the o bject. T he St ate introdu ced a pistol police found on a dr ess er

i n appel lan t’ s h ouse loc ated across the street from Garci a’s hous e. Appel lan t’ s first is sue chal len g es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce that he us ed
or ex hib it ed a deadl y

w eapon. Appell ant’ s four remaini ng i ss ues chal len g e the admi ss ion of ev ide nce.As the Stat e’s bri ef puts it, Gar ci a w as a relu cta nt w it ness at her so n’s tr ial

. She 1 ack now led g ed s he “ did not w ant t o s ee [a ppel lan t] in troubl e.” 3 Appel lan t’ s fact ual su ff ic ien cy ch all eng e i s b ased on th e di scre p a n cybetw een Gar ci a’s st atement to po li ce that appel lan t us ed a fire ar m and he r tr ial tes ti mony thatsh e did not see a firear m. S he te sti fied s he w as “n ot s ur e i f it w as a pi sto l or not. ” 1
Ev ide nce suppo rt ing g uilt, t h o ug h l eg all y su ff ic ien t, maybe fact ual ly i nsuffici ent becau se iti s s o w eak that the jur y ’s v erdic t seems cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly unj ust , or becau se ev ide nce cont ra ry to the v erdic t i s s uch that the j ur y ’s v erdic t i s a g ain st the g re at
w e i g h t a n d p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v ide nce. Ma rs hal l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 25 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; W ats on v . St ate , 204 S .W .3d 4 04, 4 14-1 5 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06); Johns on v

. St ate , 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 1 1 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). I n a fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c y re vie w,
w e cons ide r all the ev ide nce, i n a n eutral li g ht. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414

. Al thoug h an appel lat e c our t’ s author it y

to re v iew

f act ual su ff ic ien cy

per mits the court to disa gree wi th th e fact f inde r’s determ inatio ns, th e ap pellat e cou rt mustaccord them due defe re n ce , p a rt icu la rly th o se de te rm in a ti o n s co n ce rn in g th e w e igh t a n d credi bil ity of the ev ide nce. Johns on , 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d a t 9

. W h e n t h e re is a c o n f li c tin t h e e vid e n c e , we ma y not f ind th e evidence factu ally insuf f icient simp ly

beca use we disa gree wi th th e jury ’s resolut ion of

the con f lict. Rathe r, w e mu st f irst be able to sa y , w ith som e objective basis in the rec ord, t hat t he g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of all the ev ide nce cont ra dic ts the jur y ’s v erdic t. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417

. Here, t he ev ide nce appel lan t us ed a deadl y w eapon i ncl ude d Garci a’s st atement to po lice shortly af

ter the ev entand app ellant ’s threat to kill Garcia w hile he held th e object4

to h e r h e a d , s u p p o rt i n g a n i n fe r e n c e t h e o bj e c t w a s a d e a d l y w e a p o n . Th e r e i s no evidence in th e record cont rary t o the ju ry

f inding app ellantused a dea dly w eap on. Garcia
n e v e r t e s t i f i e d a p p e l l a n td i d n o th a v e a f i r e a r m , o n l y t h a ts h e d i d n o ts e e t h e o bj e c t

. We
see no basis on w hich to disturb t he jury ’s a ppa rent acce pta nce o f the sta tem ent s Garcia
ma de a t the time o f

the of fense . Th e evidence supp orting the de a dly w eap on f inding is factual ly su ff ic ien t. Appel lan t’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. Each of appel lan t’ s remaini ng i ss ues c h a ll eng e ev ide nti ar y r uli ng s. W e rev iew

a t ri al
cour t' s a dmis si on or ex cl usi on of ev ide nce for abus e of di sc re ti on. Cun nin ghamv. Sta te , 877 S.W .2d 310 , 313 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1994 ). U nde r that sta nda rd, w e up hold a trial court's
ru li ng i f it is cor re ct under any theo ry of law appl ic abl e to the c ase. C ar ra sc o v . St ate , 154 S.W .3d 1 27, 1 29 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) ; Jones v. Sta te , 833 S.W .2d 1 1 8 , 125 n. 15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 92) ("th e me re f act tha t a correct ruling is giv en for t he w rong rea son wi ll not resul t i n a rev ersal ").
In his secon d issue app ellantco mp lains of t he adm ission of

f iv e ph oto graph s of

his
son. The ph otog ra phs show ed th e mar k left on the boy ’s cheek from the sl ap by appel lan t and an inj ur

y to his upper li p. Each inj ur y w as depi cte d by

tw o phot og ra phs from di ff er ent angles. T he f if

th p h o t o gr a p h simp ly

shows Ace sta ndin g by a fence . Appe llant initially obj ect ed to th e r e le vance of the photog ra phs. O n ov er ru li ng of that obj ect ion he chal len g ed admi ss ion on t he bas is the p re jud ic ial effectoutw eig hed t he probati v e v alu e. See Tex . R . Ev id. 403. This obj ect ion als o w as ov er ru led

. Appel lan t now co mplai ns the trial court failed to balan ce the proba tiv e v alue of the evid ence against the risk of unf air5

pr eju dic e as req uired by Rul e of E v ide nce 403. The Stat e c or re ctl y note s t hat t he req uired bal anci ng need not be af firmat iv ely

show n on the rec ord. See Par m er v. Sta te , 38 S.W .3d 661, 670 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2000, pet. ref’d)

. See al so W il son v. State , 7 S.W .3d 1 36, 1 44 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)

. Appel lan t di d not re q uest the tr ial cour t to arti cul ate i ts bal anci ng o f t h e re le va n tfa c t o rs a n d n o t h in g i n d ic a t e s t h e t ri a l c o u rtfa il e d t o we ig h t h e p ro b a t ive
v alu e ag ain st the r is k o f unfair preju dic e. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue as si g ns er ro r to ad mis si on i nto e v ide nce of G ar ci a’s w ri tten state me nt to police. His argum entin su ppo rt o f t he issue cont end s t he sta tem entshou ld nothave been adm itted as extr insic ev iden ce of a prior inconsiste nt st a t e m e n t beca use she uneq uiv ocal ly

admitted maki ng the sta tement. See Tex . R . Ev id. 613( a) ( est abl is hin g procedu re for e x amini ng a w it ness co ncer nin g pr ior incons is tent sta tements made by the
w itness and stating extri nsic evidence of the state me nt i s inad missible if t h e witness uneq uiv ocal ly

admi ts hav ing made s uch sta tement) ; Br oden v. State , 923 S.W .2d 1 83, 1 88 (Tex .App. – Amar il lo 1996, no pet .) ( if w it ness eq uiv ocat e s o r qual ifies her ans w er , t he
extr ins icev ide nce is admi ss ibl e) ( appl y ing former r ule ).
Dur ing Garci a’s test im o n y t he prosec utor sh ow ed her

a c opy of her w ri tten state me nt an d she adm itted she ha d giv en the statem ent to of f icers. W hen asked if th ere
w er e di ff er ences betw een t he sta te m ent a nd her tes ti mony , G ar ci a ans w er ed “ may be I
re phrased itdiff er ent or someth ing , but it[‘ ]s al l to t he s ame thi ng .” H e the n q uest ion ed her about spec ificdi ff er ences betw een t he w ri tten sta tement and her tr ial tes ti mo n y

c oncer nin g appel lan t’ s u se of a fir ear m. G ar ci a s oug ht t o ex pla in the difference s b y tes ti fyi ng sh e had6

ass umed the obje ct a p pel lan t us ed w as a pi sto l but s he nev er sa w the obj ect . The prosec utor

al so q uest ion ed Garc ia about other as pect s o f her w ri tten sta tement inc lud ing that appel lan t had sa id he w oul d k il l Gar ci a i f she c all ed th e pol ic e on him.
W hen t he State off er ed the w ri tten st atement in to ev ide nce appel lan t as ser ted t he follo w ing obj ect ion : Judg e, I ’m goi n g to obj ectto the i ntroduct ion of Stat e’s Ex hib itN o. 7. I understa nd i t w as her

statementthat w as g iv en th at da y . She ha s t est ified tod ay in regards to t he bestsh e recalls a nd rem em bers tha t day. I mean , if Mr . Pr ice wa n ts to as k h er aboutsp eci fics aboutdi ff er ences betw een t he statem ent a nd w hat s he s aid toda y , and g iv e her a c hance to ex pla in it , I don’ t hav e a p ro ble m w it h tha t. I don’ t t hin k t hat’ s g oin g to be hel pful to the jur y as far a s S tate’ s E x hib itN o. 7.
W hen t he trial c o u rt j udg e ag re ed w it h the prosec utor thathe h ad “ already

done that, ” appel lan t s tated , “ W ell , th e n I j u st o bje ct to t he admi ss ion of Stat e’s Ex hib itN o. 7 then, becau se her

tes ti mony

se rv es as ev ide nce for this jur y . Theydon’t need to see i t.” The Stat e i nit ial ly

arg ues appel lant’ s a rgu m ent o n appea l that extr ins icev ide nce of the sta tement w as ina dmis si ble bec ause Gar ci a had uneq uiv ocal ly admi tted maki ng the sta tement w as not p re ser v ed for our

rev iew , and w e mustag re e.
Unl e ss t he s peci fic g ro und of obj ect ion to the a dmis si on of ev ide nce is apparent f rom th e con text, a time ly object ion sta ting the spe cif ic g roun d i s a p re requisite for a compl ain t on appeal to it s admis si on. Tex

. R. App. P. 3 3.1; Tex . R . Ev id. 103( a) (1 ); Di xon
v. State , 2 S.W .3d 2 63, 2 73 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999) (o p . o n r ehear ing ). I n addi ti on, t he obj ect ion at tr ial mustco mportw it h the er ro r compl ain e d o f o n a ppeal

. Tex . R . Ap p. P

. 33.1; Goff

v. Sta te , 931 S.W .2d 537 , 551 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 6).Inde ed, a readi ng of the record l eav es one unc ertai n tha t St ate’ s E xhib it7 w as 2 v iew ed by

ei ther co unsel at tr ial purely

as i mpeachment ev ide nce. No menti on w as made of an i nst ru cti on l imi ti ng i ts use by the jur y to that pur pose. See Ham m ock v. St ate , 46 S.W .3d 8 89, 8 95 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) ( in absen ce of timel y req uestfor l imi ti ng i n s t r u cti on, evidence is adm itted for all purpose s); Te x . R. Ev id. 10 5(a). 7 App e l l a n t ’ s o bj e c t i o n t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i d n o t ma k e r e fe r e n c e t o R u l e 6 1 3 ( a ) or ass ert t he g ro und t hat t he ex hib itw as ina dmis si ble bec ause Gar ci a admi tted she made the state me nts con t aine d in it. Hav ing caref ully rev iew ed th e con text in w hich ap pellan t’s obj ect ion w as ass erted, nei ther ca n w e s ay

thatthe g ro und of objec ti on as ser ted o n appea l
w as apparent from the cont ext. Ac cordin g ly , i ss ue th re e i s o v er ru led

. 2 Byhis fourth i s s u e a p p e l l a n ta rg u e s t h e t r i a l c o u rts h o u l d n o th a v e a d mi t t e d an audi o recordin g of tel ephone conv ersat ion s b etw een Gar ci a and appel lan t bec ause the
re cordin g w as not p ro per ly auth enti cat ed. See Tex . R . Ev id. 901.
Al thoug h Garci a ac know led g ed s he had tel ephone conv ersat ion s w it h ap p e llant
w hil e he w as in jai l, the source of t he re cordin g s pr esent ed is not cl ear ly sh o wn in the record. N oth ing indicat es the recordings w ere made by app ellant or Garcia. Af ter the f irst of thr ee s eg men ts w as pla y ed for Gar ci a outof the p re senc e of the jur y , s he w as ask ed if i t was a t e le phone c onv ersat ion sh e had w it h appel lan t w hil e he w as in jai l. Sh e re spond ed: “ I’ m sure i t i s, if y ou’ v e g ot i t recorded.” W e are l eft to i nfer the recordin g w as made by jai l personne l. Authen ti cat ion of an audi o recordin g does not re q uire proof of w ho made the re cordin g or

the detai ls of how

i t w as made. Angleton v. State , 971 S.W .2d 6 5, 68 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998) ( ci ti ng ca ses applyin g c or re spond ing federal r ule on aut hen tication ).8

Rul e of Ev ide nce 901( a) prov ide s t hat t h e req uirement of aut henti cat ion or ide nti ficat ion as a c ondi ti on precede nt t o admi ss ibi li ty i s s ati sfied by

ev ide nce suffici ent t o supp ort a f inding tha t the mat ter in question is w hatits propo n e n t c la im s. Th e spe cif ic is sue ra is ed by

appel lan t’ s t ri al obj ect ion w as to the s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce est abl is hin g tha t the v oices on the reco rding w ere those of Garcia and app ellant

. W e revi ew for abu se of di sc re ti on the tr ial co urt’ s a pparent fin din g thatthe v oic es w er e the irs. See Guz m an v. State , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) (recog niz ing tr ial cour t’ s broad di sc re ti on in evi den tiaryrulings)

. As noted, before the tr ial co urt r ule d on it s a dmis si bil it y , t he recordin g w as pla y ed
w hil e Garci a tes ti fied out si de th e presenc e of the ju ry. W hen t he prosec utor pl ay ed th e firs t s eg ment of the re cordin g , Gar ci a ack now led g ed the recordin g “ sound s l ik e my v oic e” and t he ot her

vo ic e “sou nds li ke [appel lan t]. ” She ex pr ess ed unc ertai nty thatthe v oic e on the s econd se g ment w as hers, but a g re ed th at t he v oic e on the t hird seg ment, li ke the first, “s ounds l ik e my

voic e .” Sh e al so ack now led g ed s he w as “a par ty to that conv ersat ion ,” and respon ded to one q uest ion byindi cat ing that the conv ersat ion rel ated at that po intto appel lan t’ s respon se to a ple a neg oti ati on offer made t o h im

. T h e tri al cour t hea rd both Gar ci a’s tes ti mony

and the recordin g , and co uld proper ly co nsi der

si milar it ie s o r differenc es betw een her v oic e and thos e on the s eg ments of the recordin g i n maki ng i ts
ru li ng . See T ex. R. Evi d. 901(b)(5). Th e con ten ts of the reco rding concerne d ap pellan t’s prosec uti on and matters to w hic h Garci a tes ti fied, s er v ing to further

auth enti cat e the
re cordin g . Angleton , 971 S.W .2d at 68. T here w as evidence from w hich the trial co urt
re asona bly

co uld hav e c oncl uded the v oic es on th e recordin g w er e tho se of Gar ci a andThe St ate reit er ates thi s c ontent ion on a ppeal

. W e do not a ddr ess i t. 3 W e reje ct the S tate’ s a ppel lat e arg ument t hat i nje cti on of t he extraneous offenses 4 w a s p e r mi t t e d u n d e r

t h e h o l d i n g s o f Gar

ci a v . St ate, 454 S.W .2d 4 00, 4 05 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1970) , and Cr

eekm or e v . St ate, 860 S.W .2d 8 80, 8 92 (Tex .App. –San Antoni o 1993, pet

. re f’d) , t hat “ [w]hen a defendant pr esent s e v ide nce he w oul d nev er eng ag e in the c harg ed condu ct, he h as ‘op ened t he door ’ to i mpeachmentt h ro u g h ev ide nce of rel ev ant extraneo us of

fense s.” Tha t hold ing has no ap plication w here , as here , the e viden ce creati ng a fals e i mpres si on w as int ro duced by the Stat e throug h it s ow n w it ness and not by the def ense . Our courts have consiste ntly held thatto justif y use of extrane ous o f

fense evidence to correct a false i mp ression, the testim ony creating the false imp ression m ust be el ic it ed by

the defense and not the S tate. See W heeler v. St ate , 67 S.W .3d 8 79, 8 85 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) ; Bl ack well v. Sta te , 193 S.W .3d 1 , 28 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] st 2006, pet. re f’d)

. 9 appel lan t, and G ar ci a’s unc ertai nty w it h respec t to one seg ment doe s n ot s ug g estthe tr ial
cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by so dec idi ng . Mo re ov er , w hen t he recordin g lat er w as pla y ed for th e j ur

y w hil e Garci a remaine d on the s tand, sh e ag re ed th at w hil e s ome of the
re corded c onv ersat ion w as in Spani sh, the “ major it y of it is in Eng li sh betw een [ Gar ci a] an d [appel lan t]. ” W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s four th i ss ue. App ellant ’s fifth issue challen ges adm ission of “testim ony of prior assau ltiv e acts” commi tted by appel lan t ag ain st Gar ci a s ev en to ei g ht y ears b efore t he c harg ed offense. W hen t he iss ue w as ra is ed out si de th e presenc e of the jur y , t he defense arg ued any pr ior acts w ere not relevant and suggested the prose cuto r question Garcia on v oir dire to perm it the cour t to determi ne rel ev ancy . The Stat e arg ued the ev ide nce w as rel ev ant to th e i ss ue of appell ant’ s i ntentto threaten immi nent bodi ly i nju ry and to c or re ct the fal se impress ion

3 left by Garci a’s tes ti mo n y that the c harg ed as saul t w as unl ik e any of appel lan t’ s p ri or condu ct tow ard her

. The S tate further arg ued i t s houl d be per mitt ed to “i mpeach [Garci a] 4 on th ose inst ance s.”10

Durin g v oir dire, Garcia testif ied she did notrecall telling police o f f icers in March 1997 ap pel lan t had att empted t o hi t her and in Ma y

1997 he had str uck her

. N or di d s he
re cal l tel li ng a de tec ti v e after the Ma y inci dent she did not w ant t o s eek prosec uti on. W hen ask ed w hether

sh e had tol d pol ic e appel lan t punch ed her i n the face i n J anuar

y 1998, sh e emphati cal ly

deni ed th at ha d ev er happened. The Stat e c ontende d i t s houl d be all ow ed to as k t he s ame q uest ion s s o Garci a “ can deny them and s ay

she doesn’ t remember them in front of the jur

y .” Appel lan t rei terated his object ion s, ass erti ng the “p re jud ic ial ef

fect of thos e q uest ion s, Judg e, ou tw eig hs the probati v e v alu e,” the pr ior act s w er e not rele v ant, and the po lice repo rt s we re hea rsay . Th e cou rt ov erruled th e objection s, citing Garcia’s prio r t e s timo ny tha t app ellanthad never engaged in any acts of v iolence tow ard he r. Before the jury

the St ate q uest ione d Garcia abo ut the March and May 199 7 an d Jan uary 1998 ev ents

. She ad mitt ed c all ing pol ic e and re por ti ng appell ant as a ru naw ay in 1997 but did no t recall telling off icers on eithe r occasio n he h ad struck h er or attem pte d to strike he r. She again den ied ap pellan t struck her in the f ace in Jan uary 1998. No extrinsic ev iden ce of the ev ents w as off er ed.
The Stat e now

arg ues no ex traneous of fense ev ide nce w as pre sent ed so no er ro r can b e pred icated o n introd uction of such evidence . It cites Pear ce v. State , 513 S.W .2d 539, 543 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1974) , in w hic h the cour t sta ted re v ersal for “a n im p ro per q uest ion ” is rar e. W e find Ar m ste ad v . St ate , 977 S.W .2d 791 (Tex .App. –For t W orth 19 98, pet. re f’d) , more c los ely resembl es the c ase at bar

. In Ar m ste ad , t he c our

t c onsi der ed a claim a wi tne ss called by the Sta te w as imp rope rly imp each ed w ith state me nts th e w itness had made dur ing a pretr ial i nter v iew w it h prosec utors, but d is re memb e re d at tr ial

. TheA p ri or writ ten c onfessi on by the w it ness and his l etter to prosec utors w as 5 subs eq uentl y

admi tted int o ev ide nce by the defense. 11 sta tements made t o prosec utors w er e pr esent ed in front of the j ur y onl y throug h l eadi ng q uest ion s a sk e d b y t h e Sta te on di re ct ex aminat ion

. Id . at 79 6. Like th e cou rt in 5 Ar m ste ad , w e w ill evaluate app ellant ’s claim of error und er case law add ressing the Sta te’s mis use of its abi li ty , und er R ule of Ev ide nce 607, to i mpeach it s o w n w it ness . Appel lan t’ s t ri al obj ect ion that the S tate’ s i mpeachmentq uest ion ing of Gar ci a w as mo re prejud icial tha n prob ative provides the p rope r fram ework for ana ly sis of any error in the t ri al cour

t’ s r uli ng per mitt in g the li ne of q uest ion ing

. In Hug hes v. State , 4 S.W .3d 1 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1999 ), the court adop ted a Rule 403 ana ly sis for evaluation of a trial court ruling allow ing the Sta te to impe ach its w itness wi th prior inc o n sistentstate me nts. Appl ic ati on of thatanal y si s l eads to t he c onc lu sio n t h e tri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by

per mitt ing the Stat e to q uest ion Garc ia about her pr ior st atements to pol ic e.
Th e c o u rti n Hu ghes found that a tr ial cour t abuse s it s dis creti on under R ule 403
w hen i t per mits the Stat e to int ro duce other w is e i nadmis si ble i mpeachmentev ide nce for the p ri mary

pur pose of

p la cin g i t b efore t he j ur y w it h the hope the j ur

y w il l mis use itby
cons ide ri ng i t for it s t ru th. Id . at 5. W e f ind little risk of prejudice to app ellantf rom m isuse by j urors o f informati on l ear ned from the Stat e’s impeac hment q uest ion ing of Gar ci a. The q uest ion ing deal t w it h her pr ior st atements referr ing to ass aul ts by appel lan t. Ther e w as li ttl e di sput e at t ria l th a t a ppel lan t had as saul ted h is mother i n the i nci dent at ba r. The dis pute w as ov er

his use of a fir ear m. A s d esc ri bed dur ing the Stat e’s q uest ion ing , non e of the extrane ous incid ent s inv olved a f irearm. The line of question ing serv ed the Sta te’s12

cas e by prov idi ng the jur

y a reas on to disc ount Gar ci a’s testi monial ef fort to mi ti g ate h er son’s of fense , notbyprovi ding the jury w ith evidence of guilt the State could no t introdu ce other w is e. See, e.g., Hug hes , 4 S.W .3d at 3 (impe achm entev iden ce includ ed o the rw ise ina dmis si ble tes ti mony of appel lan t’ s c onfessi on)

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue.
Fi ndi ng no rev ersi ble er ro r in the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment, w e aff ir m thatj udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.