### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 370 -CR

Jo se Luis Ag uir r e , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 3022 388 , HO NORAB LE DONALD LEO NARD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
J ose L uis Ag uirre appea ls following his conviction by a jury of ca pital murder. The trial court se ntence d ap p el l an t t o life in prison. I n four points of er ror, a ppellant cha lleng es the fac tual sufficie ncy

of the e vidence to support the jury ’s ver dict, and fur ther c ont en d s t h at the trial court e rre d in (i) refusing to allow i mpeac hment of a witness with a prior expunged c onviction, (ii) fa iling to allow appe llant to re-ope n the ca se with additional testimony afte r b oth sides had re sted, an d (i i i ) admitting a ppellant’s stateme nt. For the rea sons that follow, we a ffirm the judgme nt of conviction.
F AC TS

I n 2 00 3, a

g ra nd jur y ind ic te d a

pp ell ant f or the 19 95 mur de r o f 9 2- y e ar- old Jose Cantu. Cantu had re sided at 1700 Riverview Street in Austin with hi s diabetic son, Jose J r., who wa s2

on e of Cantu ’s te n a du lt c hil dr e n. Te sti mony a t tr ia l sh ow e d th a t th e fathe r a nd so n had a cl os e relationship and that Cantu cooked for and took ca

re of his son. At approximately

1 a.m. on Octobe r 6, 1995, J o s e J r. was a wake ned by

sounds of
scre aming coming from his fathe r’s room. He thought at first that Cantu was ha ving a nightmar e. When he chec ked on his f ather , he found him on the floor bleeding . He thoug ht his elderly fathe r had fa llen and injured himself. Jose J r. immediately called his sister, J uventina Martinez, who was
a n u r s e an d l i v e d n e ar

b y. H e t h e n c a l l e d e m e r g e n c y s e r v i c e s . T h e C an tu s ’ n e i g hb o r , R a f a e l M o n r o y,
was a lso awake ned by a noise, hear d Cantu’s voice, and went over to the Cantu house to investigate. As he approa ched the back door, he noticed a light g o on in Cantu’s bedroom and obse rved w indow
scre ens, as we ll as a knife laying underne ath a scre en, on the back porch. Monr oy moved the scr eens b u td i d n o tt o u ch t h e kn i fe
. He fo u n d C an tu o n t h e fl o o r of h i s b ed ro o m an d h ea rd J o s e J r. s ay i n g, “What happene d, que paso, da ddy , que paso, da ddy , how hurt? ” When Martinez ar riv ed, she ob se rv e d th a t Ca

ntu wa s b le e din g fr om w hat a pp e are d to be sta

b w ound s. Emerg ency service s arr ived and tra nsported Cantu to a hospital wher e he die d from
ma ssi ve int e rn a l bl e e din g fr om o ne of the sta b w ound s th a t pe ne tr a te d the le ft ve ntr ic le of

his he a rt
. Austin police offic ers a

rrived a t the Cantu home and secur ed the crime sce ne. The y found the wind o w s c r e e n s p u ll e d o f f th e w in d o w s an d th e kn if e . A lt h o u g h th e y f

o u n d th r e e f in g e r p r in ts on the kni fe, in the y ear s following the m urder they wer e unable to identify the finger prints or match the m w itha

su sp e c t. I n October 2 0 0 2 , fol lowing up on pr ior leads a nd the fing erpr int evidence , i n v es t i gat o rs m atche d one of the prints found on the knife thr oug h a new ly updated Automate d3

Fing erpr int I dentification Sy stem (A FI S). A thumbprint matched that of a ppellant who wa s then incar cer at ed o n a char g e of dr iving while intoxicated. I n November 2002, the local ne wspape r repor ted appe llant’s arr est, stating that the fing erpr int match led to his arr est for the 1995 murder. Sho rt ly the re a ft e r, on e of

the po lic e of

fi c e rs inv olved in the c a se re c e ive d a le tte r f ro m an inma te of fe ri nginf or ma tio n a bo ut t he c ri me and

la te r t e sti fy

inga t tria l th a t a

pp e lla nt c on fe sse d th e c ri me to him when they

wer e inca

rce rate d toge ther. Ap pe lla nt t e sti fi e d o n h is own beh alf . H e de nie d th a t he ha d c omm itt e d th e c ri me
or tha t h e h a d d i s c u s s e d t h e c r i m e w i t h t h e i n f o r m an t i n m a t e . A l t h o u g h a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a rr e st
a pp e lla nt d e nie d e ve r s e e ingthe kn if e , h e te sti fi e d at tr ia l th a t the kn if e be lon g e d to a

fr ie nd wi th wh om h e ha d li ve d. Ap pe lla nt w a s c on vic te d o f c a

pit a l murd e r a

nd se nte nc e d to lif

e imp ri so nme nt.
AN AL YSI S Factual S ufficiency

Appellant first c ontends that the evide nce w as fa ctually insufficient to support the verdic t beca

use the fing erpr int, as the only phy sical evidenc e that linked appe llant to the crime, wa s mis ha nd le d b y the po lic e and

c ou ld n ot h a ve be e n le ft a t th e mur de r scene du e to the mann e r i n which the c rime occ urre d. Be cause (i) the knife was not identified initially by family members at the time of the murde r, (ii) thre e prints wer e found on the wea pon—only

one of w hich was identified—and ( iii) the evidenc e wa s “improper ly handled” in 1995, appellant urg es that the proof of g uilt is “so obviously

weak as t o undermine confidenc e in the j ury ’s determination” and the pr oof of g uilt is “gr ea t l y o u t weighed by contra ry proof.” Se e J

oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).4 I n a fact ua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, we vie w the e vid e nc e in a ne utr a l li g ht a

nd a sk whether a jury wa s ra t i o n al l y

justified in finding guilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. See W atson v. Sta te , 204 S.W .3d 404, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We t h en deter mine whether

the evidenc e supporting the ver dict is so weak that the ver dict is clear ly wrongand manife stly

unjust or whether the verdic t is a g ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the conf licting e vidence
. Id
. We will not reverse a case on a fac tual sufficie ncy challeng e unless we can sa y , with some objective ba s is in th e r e c o r d , th a t th e g r e a t w e ig h t an d p r e p o n d e r an c e o f th e e v id e n c e c o n tr a d ic ts the jury ’s verdic t. Id
. a t4 1 7
. U n d e r e i t h e r r e v i e w , t h e f

a c tf i n d e r i s t h e e xc l u s i v e j u d g e o f t h e w i t n e s se s’
cre dibilit y

and the we ight to be g i v en t o t h eir testimony
. Cai n v . S tat e , 958 S.W .2d 404, 408-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

The State off

ere d extensive testimony

about t h e knife, which the e vidence showed
wa s th e mur de r we a

po n. Au sti n poli c e of

fi c e r Rob e rt

Jone s f ir st t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s d isp a tc he d to th e cr i m e s ce ne at 1700 Rivervie w Street shortly afte r 1 a.m. to assist emer g ency service s. He ob se rv e d the wi nd ow sc re e ns and the kn if e on the ba c k po rc h. Th e ne ig hb or , Ra fa e l Mo nr oy , a lso observe d the scre ens and knife on the bac k porch.

Gl e n U nnasch , a late nt p ri nt e xami ne r f or the Te xas D e pa

rtme nt o f P ub lic Sa fe ty
c ri me la bo rator y , te sti fi e d th a t he wa s the su pe rv iso r of the la te nt pr int se c tio n of the la bo rator y wi th over thirty -three y ear s of fing erpr int identification experience with the DP S. Unnasch e x plained that afte r latent prints ar e lifted they can be photog raphe d and dig itiz ed for prese rvation purpose s. He testified that the pre serve d latent print s are then compared to a se t of known impressions or ente red into the AFI S for database sear ches. On October 29, 2002, the AF I S showed a possible match of the5

knife print to appe llant. Unnasch the n identified the rig h t t h u m b p ri nt on the knife a s appellant’s ri g ht t humbp ri nt. Unna sc h tes ti fi ed th a t th e re we re thr e e fi ng e rp ri nts on the kn if

e : a partial fing erpr int and a par tial palm print that could not be identified and, on the base of the blade,
a ri g ht t humbp ri nt , wh ic h U nn a sc h h a d “ no do ub t” ma tc he d a pp e lla nt. Th e oth e r t

wo pr int s
rema ined unidentified. Unna sch testified that the identified print was f ound on the knife w here the metal blade joined the wooden ha ndle, consistent w ith someone g raspingthe handle a nd having their thumb on the kni fe blade. Unnasc h showed the jury the poi nts of i dentification on the print and how he analy

zed the print char acte ristics, and concluded that there wa s “no doubt in my mind” that the prints matched.

Unnasc h also explained that the evidenc e had be en improper ly handled in 1995:
When the knife first came to the DP S lab was, I believe, in 1995. And t here was a n analy st in the section that this case wa s assig ned to. S h e worked it, develope d the latents, had them photog raphe d. And then the photogr aphed latents, since ther e we re no suspects i n t h e case, the photog raphe d latents wer e sent to the AF I S section for a se a rc h o f t

he data ba se . A nd

the y we re no t hi t, s o th e la te nt w a s n ot h it. . . . And t h en i n 1998 we we re g oing to r e-r un—we ha d g otten some new softwar e, and f

rom time to time our AFI S technicians will pull old, unsolved cases and jus t r e ru n th e m. A nd

tha t is wh a t the y did in thi s ca se . An d the y c a me up wi th a hit. No, t hey

didn’t come up with a hit then. The y wer e g oing to r erun it, but they de c ide to g o g e t th e ha

rd c op y ph oto g ra ph and e nte r it ag a in dif

fe re nt w ay s, be c a

us e over the perio d o f y ea rs they g ained e x perie nce of

trac ing the latents, fre e-ha nd trac ing the m. And so they went to the files to look for the ph o t o gra p h
. An d that entire f ile was missing. So that is when the supe rvisor at that time told the ex aminer that orig inally

proce ssed the knife to call APD and ha ve them bringthe knife ba ck out to be rephotog raphe d, which they did. The fing erpr int evidence was then photog raphe d ag ain and e ntere d in to the databa se. Unna sch subsequently

discovere d that the ana ly st who had orig inally proce ssed the knife had take n the6

ph oto g ra phand ne g a tiv e s o f t

he kn if e to h e r r e sid e nc e . I t wa s det e rm ine d tha t she wa s not p ro pe rl y handling evidenc e, and she was subsequently prosec uted. Var ious items of evidence , including the orig inal photogr aph of the latent prints found on the knife , wer e turne d over to D PS by the ana ly st’s husband whe n a sea

rch w arr ant was obta ined for he r re sidence
. The State off

ere d into evidence the orig inal photogr aph of the print made in 1995 as well as the photog raph that was made in 1998. Unnasch te sti fi ed that the work perf ormed by the analy st was done unde r the super vision of the photogr aphy depar tment and that her c onduct did not
a ff e c t th e wo rk

pe rf or me d b y the of fi c e rs in i de nti fy

ingand matc hin g the fi ng e rp ri nts . O n c ro ssexamination, Unnasch t estified that the other two latent prints remaine d unidentified and that they
w e r e n o to f

g o o d qu a l i t y. Cantu’s family

members a lso testified about the knife. The knife was not identified by the fa mil y me mbe rs qu e sti on e d at th e tim e of the mur de r. On e da

ug hte r, Es pe ra

nza Cantu Ray os , ha d not been in ter vie we d b y the po lic e in 1 99 5. Whe n th e c a se wa s r e op e ne d, Ray os , a DPS employ ee, w as interview ed. At trial, she te stified that when she was int ervie wed she identified the knife a s her f

ather ’s knife. B eca

use she pr epar ed food ever y day in her father ’s kitchen a s she waited for he r childre n to arrive at his home from school, she rec og nized the knife as one her f ather used to cut meat take n from the f ree zer. She rec og nized the gr ooves on the top of the k n i fe cause d by Cantu hammeringon the knife to c ut frozen meat. And she rec og nized the t ape he wrapped a round the ha nd le of the kn if e and the fi lin g patte rn s p la c e d o n th e kn if e fr om h e r f

a the r’s us e of

a fi le in sh arp e nin g the kn if

e . B a se d on its uniq

ue c ha ra c te ri sti c s and

he r f a mil iari ty wi th h e r f

a the r a nd his7

kit c he n, Ray os po sit ive ly ide nti fi e d th e kn if

e a s b e lon g ingto h e r f

a the r. She la st s aw the kn if e in h e r f a t h e r ’ s t o o l b o x . In c l o s i n g ar g u m e n t , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l c h a l l e n g e d

R ayo s ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y:
Yo u k no w that e ve ry

bo dy in t he fa mil y wa s a sk e d a

bo ut that kn if

e , and y ou have to inf e r th a t n o b o dy r e c o g n iz e d it
. N o b o dy , n o t u n ti l s e v e n y e ar s late r in 2 002 when [R ay os] i dentifies the knife . Seven y ear s after the fa ct. Oh, that is my

dad’s knife , that’s it. We used it to cook. He used it to cook, and I prepa red the table. What she ma de do e sn ’t

re qu ir e the us e of

a kn if e . T he n, sh e fi na lly

a dmi tte d th a t th e la st t ime sh e saw that knif

e , the la st time sh e sa

w the kn if

e it wa s in the kit c he n, and it w a s in a too lbo x und e rn e a th t

hat c hin a c a bin e t.
I n O c tob e r 200 2, a ft e r a

n u pd a te to t he AF I S wa s in sta lle d, inv e sti g a tor s d e c ide d to
re- run t h e fi n gerp ri nts from the knife. T he AF I S produced a match with appe llant, who was then incar cer ated on a

DW I ch arg e. Appe llant was interview ed at the Austin P olice De partment on November

5, 2002. Appella n t d en i ed k nowing Cantu and did not rec og nize Cantu’s house, but stated he ha d walked thr oug h the ar ea “ thousands” of times. Appe llant a lso sa id that he had ne ver seen the knife be fore
.

Apar t from the evide nce r eg ardingthe knife, a n inmate at t he De l Valle dete ntion fac ility , Carlos L aver

nia, t estified to conve rsations he ha d with appellant. L aver nia contac ted police
a ft e r r e a din g an a

rt ic le in the loc a l ne ws pa

pe r on No ve mbe r 7, 20 02 , th a t di sc us se d a pp e lla nt’ s c a se and the f inge rprint match that led to a ppellant’s ar re s t fo r t h e 1995 murde r. L aver nia g ave a statement to police a

nd also testified at trial. Te stimo n y at t ri al s hows that L aver nia came to the United States from Cuba a s part of the Mariel B oatlift. He plea ded gu i l t y i n 1983 to a cha rg e of ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d an d wa s pla c e d o n p ro batio n. I n 1 98 5, he wa s f ound g uil ty of se xua l a ssa

ult afte r beingidentified by

a ra pe victim and wa s sentence d to 99 y ear s in prison.8 I n 2000, DNA e vidence exonerated L a v e r n ia f r o m t h e s e xu a l a s s a

u lt , b ut he continued t o b e h e l d i nt h e D e l V a l l e f

a c i l i t y d u e t o h i s i m m i g r a t i o ns t a tu s an d h i s p r e v i o u s g u i l t y p l e a . In 2003, L aver

nia soug ht relief f

rom the indec ency

conviction in a habeas corpus proce eding . The 1983 conviction was a lso rever sed and subse quently expunged. L ave rn ia me t a

pp e lla nt in 20 01 wh e n the y we re bo th inc arc e rate d a t the Del Va lle
corr ectional c omplex . L aver nia told police and later testified at appellant’s tria l that in Dece mber 20 01 a pp e lla nt t old L a ve rn ia tha t he ha d kill e d an old man to buy dr ug s, that the c ri me bo the re d h im,
and that he wa

nte d to c ha

ng e his lif

e . L a ve rn ia

ma de no te s o f h is e xten siv e c on ve rs a tio n with appellant
. Af

t er lear ning of appellant’ s arr est on television news a nd in a newspa

per a rticle, L aver nia contac ted police, he testified, t o en s u re that the police would not incar cer ate a ny other innocent per son as he himself ha d been inc arc erated.

Appellant urg es that the e vidence is too weak to support the State’s burde n of proof
and that th e ve rd ic t is so c on tr ary to the ov e rw he lmi ng we ig ht o f t he e vid e nc e a s to be c le arl y un jus t and wr ong . Although L aver nia’s stateme nt, notes , an d t es t i m ony at trial conta in details of the crime, a ppellant ar g ues that L aver nia g leane d t h e i n fo rmation from the ne wspape r ar ticle and the phy sical evidenc e at trial does not substantiate L aver nia’s statement or the State’s t h eo ry o f t he crime. A ppellant disputes that the evidenc e supports that appe llant wa s o n d ru g s and nee ded drug money

and that the knife , if it belon ged t o C antu, was stored in a toolbox under the china cabine t. Appellant ar g ued that the knife could not have been left out the ni g ht before , beca use the autopsy repor t showed that the food e aten by Cant u p ri o r t o his death did not require the use of a9

knife. Appe llant elicited testimony that Cantu’s bedroom did not show sig ns that it was ransa cked b y i n t r u d e r s s e ar c h i n g f

o r m o n e y, an d

C an tu w a s f

o u n d w i t h $ 7 0 0 o nh i m , a l o n g w i t h j e w e l r y, which wa s not taken.

L ave r n ia te s ti f ie d to a p p e ll an t’ s d e ta il e d a c c o u n t a b o u t h o w a

p p e ll an t an d an acqua intance, Jimm y

Be navides, watched Cantu’s house from the school acr oss the street a nd then broke in to find money

for c rac k coca ine because Bena vides knew that Cantu rec eived money ever y month. Numerous details of L aver nia’s acc ount were not in the newspape r but wer e cor roborated by oth e r e vid e nc e . I mpo rt antl y , L a ve rn ia te sti fi e d th a t a

pp e lla nt c omm itt e d th e c ri me wi th Jimm y Be navides, who w as not mentioned in the newspa per or television acc ounts but was the focus of the police investig ation immediately afte r the c rime occ urre d i n 1 9 9 5
. Be navides lived in the neig hborhood. L aver

nia also stated that a

ppellant told him that he took a scre en from a w indow but then ac tu al l y en t ere d throug h a door in the kitche n. Ag ain, this detail was not included in the
ne ws pa pe r a rt ic le , b ut p oli c e ini tia lly

fo c us e d o n th e kit c he n w ind owa s th e po int of e ntr y be c a us e the scre en wa s removed a

nd the window wa s open. Monroy also observe d two scre ens and the knife on the bac k steps to the door lea ding to the kitche n, which he f ound unlocked. Appellant told L aver

nia t hat C antu dre ssed “nice ly ” in suits and wore “1950’s style” hats, which Juventina Martinez also descr ibed to the jury . Martinez testified to the proxim ity of the school ac ross the stree t, which was r elated by L aver nia but not inc l u ded in the new spaper article
. L aver nia testified that ap p ell ant and B enavide s did not find money under the mattress, but found money

in Cantu’s shoes. The ne wspape r ar ticle did not mention any thing a bout shoes, but family members told police that Cantu kept money in his shoe at night. Whe n t h e p o lice10

sear ched Ca

ntu’s shoes af

ter the murde r, they

found no money . L aver

nia’s stateme nt indicates that appellan t and B enavide s expected the money to be under

the mattress; there was testimony that
m o n ey wa s m i s s i n g. L ave rn ia ’s state me nt a

nd te sti mon

y als o reve a le d o the r f

a c ts n ot f

ound in pr e ss a c c ounts and

c or ro bo rate d b y

oth er evi den ce: a

pp e lla nt w a s f ri e nd s w ithJimmy

B e navid e s, who lived a f

ew h o u s es from Cantu; Benavides and a ppellant did various drug s toge ther, a nd appellant both smoked c rac k and used a ne edle to inject some ty pe of dr ug ; appellant had se en “the old man” be fo re wh e n h e wa lke d to c hurch on Sun da y s; “ the old

man” wo re nic e c lot

he s, wi th
su sp e nd e rs and a 19 50 s sty le hat; o n th e nig ht o f t

he mur de r, a

pp e lla nt a nd B e navid e s w e nt t o M a rt in Middle School and smoked cr ack behind the s chool whil e they watche d the ol d man’s house, w aiting for him to g o to sle ep; and appellant stabbed Cantu a lot of times, a nd then he and B enavide s left the h o u s e i m m e d i a t e l y.

Appellant urg es that it is improbable that he found the knife used in the mur der in the toolbox
. But there was no testimony as to the location of the knife pr ior to the murder —only that it had appellant’ s thumbprint on it
. The jury was entitled to be lieve Ray os’s testimony over that of appellant c oncer

ning the identification of the knif e. Ap pe lla nt’ s oth e r c ha lle ng e s to the e vid e nc e g o to the c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s’ te sti mony a s w e ll. Th e we ig ht t o b e g ive n c on tr a dic tor y te sti mon ia l e vid e nc e is wi th in th e so le province of the jury
. Se e Cai n , 9 58 S.W. 2d a t 40 8- 09 . T he jur

y wa s in the be st po sit ion

to
e va luate the c re dib ili ty of the se wi tne sse s, and our fa c tua l- su ff ic ie nc y jur isp ru de nc e re qu ir e s u s to aff ord due de fer ence to the jury ’s deter minations. Se e Mar

sh al l v . S tat e , No. AP-75,048, 200611

Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 2444, at *15 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 20, 2006) . We find that the evidenc e is not so weak t h at t h e v er d ict is clear ly wrongand manife stly

unjust and that the verdic t is not ag ains t the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Consequently , we hold that the evidenc e is fac tually

sufficie nt to support appellant’s convic t ion, and we ove rrule a ppellant’s first point of err or.
Im peachment

with Expun ged Conviction I n h is s e c on d p oin t of

e rr or , a pp e lla nt c omp la ins that th e tr ial c ourt imp ro pe rl y
re fu se d to a llo w h im t o im pe a c h Ca rl os L a ve rn ia , th e ja ilh ou se inf or mant, wi th a 19 83 g uil ty ple a to a cha rg e of inde cenc y

with a child which c onviction was ex pung ed in 2003. Appellant urg es that the failure of the trial court to a llow L aver nia to be impeache d with the prior expunge d conviction left
a fa lse imp re ssi on

in t he min d o f t

he jur or s th a t L a ve rn ia wa s bei nghe ld i lle g a lly and wa s, in f a c t, “just a g ood citizen.” The State responds that the ex pung ed conviction is not admissible evidence
.

Convictions for crimes involving felonies may be admissible to impeach a witness’s
cre dibilit y

for truthfulness if the probative value outwe ighs its pre judicial eff

ect. See Tex. R. Evi d. 609(a)
. Rule 609(a) provides that evidenc e that the witness has be en convic ted of a crime sha ll be admitted “if elicited from the witness or established by public rec ord.” Id. A w itn e ss’ s c re dib ili ty
may no t be imp e a c he d b y

e vid e nc e of c on vic tio n of a fe lony if te n y e ars have e la ps e d s inc e the date of convic tion or relea se fr om confineme nt, unle ss the court deter mines that, in the interest of justice, the pr ob a tiv e va lue of

the c on vic tio n, su

pp or te d by sp e c if

ic fa c ts and

c ir c ums tanc e s, su

bs tanti a lly outweig hs its prejudicial eff ect. Te x . R. Evid. 609(b).12 As a pre liminary

matter, the e vidence is inadmissi ble bec au s e t h e code of criminal proce dure prohibits the “use of the expunged rec ords and files for any p u rp o se.” Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 55.03( 1) (West Supp. 2006). Such evidenc e may not be elicited from the witness L av ernia—or any other witness. See id. ; Tex. R . Evid. 609(a) . Article 55.03( 3) specifie s that “the pe rson ar rested or any other pe rson, when q u es t i o n ed under oath in a c riminal proce eding about an a

rre st for which the rec ords have been e x pung ed, may state only that the matter in question has been e x pung ed.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc
. Ann. art. 55.03(3). Nor may the evidenc e be established by

public rec ord. See Tex. R. Evid. 609(a)
. When an order of expunction is final, the maintenanc e, dissemination, or use of e x pung ed re cords is prohibited. Te x . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.03(1) . P u b l i c re cords relating to expunged c onvictions may not be maintained, r elea sed, disseminated or other

wise used. Id. art . 55. 04 (1 ) ( Wes t Su pp . 2 00 6) . T hu s, the e vid e nc e is inadmissible because it may not be adduc ed fr om any competent sourc e. Moreove r, for

evidenc e to be admissible f or purposes of impeac hment, rule 609(a ) require s evidenc e of a

“convic tion.” Tex. R. Evi d. 609(a)
. Where a convic tion is not final or ha s been r ever sed, Texas courts have consi stently held that the convic tion cannot be use d for impeachme nt purposes. See, e .g. , Po or e v . S tat e , 524 S. W
. 2 d 2 9 4 , 2 9 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); Ba k e r v. S tat e , 5 20 S.W. 2d

78 2, 78 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 75 ); Ri ng e r v . S tat e , 129 S.W .2d 654, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938). Thus, pendenc y of an appea l rende rs evidence of a convic tion inadmissi ble. Tex. R. E v i d
. 6 0 9 (e). A conviction that has be en re verse d is not a final conviction and c annot be used for impeachme nt. Po or e , 524 S.W .2 d at 2 9 6 . Nor is a c ase that has bee n dismiss ed a f inalSe e als o Jun eau v. S tat e , 49 S.W .3d 387, 389 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2000, pet. ref’d) 1 (“ De fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n is no t a con vic tio n, and de ny ing imp e a c hme nt on thi s bas is doe s n ot v iol a te a de fe nd ant’ s c on sti tut ional r ig ht o f c on fr on ta tio n. ” ); Fo ste r v . S tat e , 25 S.W .3d 792, 795 (Tex. A pp.—Waco 2000, pet. ref ’d) ( juvenile adjudication not a conviction under Rule 609( a) a nd prohibited by

609(d))
. 13 conviction under

rule 609. U. S. A. Pr e c isi on Ma c hin ing Co. v . M

ar sh all , 95 S.W .3d 407, 410 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2002, pet. denied)
. 1

Al tho ug h app ell ant c or

re c tly argue s th a t g re a t latit

ud e sh ou ld b e a llo we d in c ro sse x a m i n i n g w i t n e s s e s t o r e v e a l p o s s i b l e b i a s , p r e j u d i c e , o r s e l f

- i n t e r e s t e d

m o t i v e s t o f

a l s i f y t e s t i m o ny, it is l ikewise true that the burde n of showing t hat t he evidence is admissi ble and r eleva nt on the issue of bias is on its proponent. Cha mb e rs v . S tat e , 8 66 S.W .2d 9, 26-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 1993); J an e c k a v . S tat e , 7 39 S.W. 2d

81 3, 83 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 87 ). Th e pa ra me te rs of c ro ssexamination for the showing of bias rest in the sound discre tion of the trial judg e. Cha mb e rs , 866 S.W. 2d a t 27. As ru le 60 9 ca lls on the jud g e to ba lanc e the pr ob a tiv e va lue of the e vid e nc e wi th i ts pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t, t he tr ia l ju dg e mus t w e ig h a nd a sse ss a ny un du e pr e

jud ic e , e mba

rr a ssm e nt, hara ssment, c onfusion of the issues, and undue delay
. Id. We may not reve rse unless the a ppellant demonstrates a

clea r abuse of discre tion. Id. ; se e als o Mo ntgom e ry v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 379 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

L aver nia testified outside the presenc e of the jury that he ar rived in the United States from Cuba in 1980. I n 1983, L aver nia pleade d g uilty

to a cha rg e of indecenc y with a child and was pla c e d o n p ro batio n. I n 198 5, he wa s convic te d for se xua l ass a ult and wa s sen te nc e d to 99 y e a rs in prison. After

DNA e vidence absolved L aver nia of the se x ual assault cha rg e in 2000, he r emained i nd e t e n t i o nb e c a

u s e o f an i m m i g r a t i o n h o l d b a s e d o n t h e c o n v i c t i o n f o r i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d
. In14

response to questioning, L aver nia testified that af

ter the se x ual assault cha

rg e wa s dismis sed, he f

iled
a wr it of habea s corpus a sserting that he had not b ee n proper ly admonished as to the immigr ation
co n s eq u ences of his plea of g uilty to the indece ncy

char g e. See T e x. C o d e C r i m . P r o c . A n n . a rt
. 1 1
. 0 7 (W es t2 0 0 5 ). Al t h o u gh n o re co rd s we re i n t ro d u ce d i n t o ev i d en ce t o es t ab l i s h t h e c h ro n o l o gy of eve nts, the conviction was e vidently reve rsed a

nd later e x pung ed. B eca

use the c on v i cti on was expunged, the circ umstances of the conviction ar e unknown and appellant, as the proponent of the
e v i d e n c e , f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h i t s a d m i s s i b i l i t y. Ev e n if the e xclu sio n o f t

he e vid e nc e we re e rr on e ou s, we c on c lud e tha t it is h arm le ss beca use of the other evidenc e with w hich the court permitted appellant to impea ch L aver nia. Err or in the admission or exclusion of evidence is subject to a har m analy sis. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2;

se e als o J oh ns ton v . S

tat e , 145 S.W .3d 215, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (a pply ing ha

rmless err or anal y si s to tr ia l c ourt ’s a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e ); He

pn e r v . S

tat e , 9 6 6 S. W. 2 d

1 5 3 , 1 60 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (same ). A violation of the e v i d en tiary rules that re sults in t he exclusio n of evide nce is nonc onstitut ional err or. Kin g v . S tat e , 953 S.W .2d 266, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Any nonconstitutional err or t hat does not af fec t substantial rights may not provide a basis for rever sal. Tex. R. App. P . 44.2(b). A substantial r ight is af fec ted when the err or h a d a s u b s ta n ti a l an d in

ju r io u s e f f e c t o r in f lu e n c e in d e te r

mi n in g th e ju

r y ’ s v erdic t. K

ing , 953 S.W .2d at 271. A cr imina l co n v i ct i o n should not be overturne d for nonc onstitut ional err or if the appellate court, a fter e x amining the rec ord as a whole, has f

air a s s u ra n ce t h at the er

ror did not influence the jury , or had but slig ht effe ct. Id.15 The trial court permitted appe llant to impeach L aver nia with his presenc e in jail on an immigr ation hold. The jury hear d that appellan t h ad co m e to the countr y illega lly during the Mariel B oatlift in 1980. The jury also hea rd that L aver

nia was in prison w i t h appellant in 2001. Def ense c ounsel questioned L aver nia about his repor

t on a sec ond inmate who was ne ver c harg ed for the c rime L aver

nia re ported. Upon c onsideration of the trial court’ s exclusion of the ex pung ed conviction in the context of the entire rec ord and the evidenc e of appellant’ s g uilt, we conclude that
any e rr or is h arm le ss. We h o ld th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e ti o n b y e xc lu d in g e vidence of a conviction that had been dismiss ed and expunge d and that, if e rror , the exclusion was harmless e rror . We overrule appellant’ s second point of e rror . Motion to Reopen Evidence

I n h is thir d is su e , a

pp e lla nt a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d its disc re tio n whe n it di d not allow him to reope n the evidenc e afte r the parties had rested. By statute, a trial c ourt must allow testimony to be introduce d at any

time before argument “if it appe ars that i t i s n ec es sary to a due administration of justice.” T ex . C o de Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 36.02 (West 1981). The c ourt of criminal appe als has construe d the phrase “due administration of j ustice” to mean that the trial cour t should allow a ca se to be re opened if the proposed evidenc e would materia lly chang e the c ase in the proponent’s f

avor. Peek v. Stat e , 106 S.W .3d 72, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The prof fer ed evidenc e must be more than just relevant; it must actually make a differ ence in the case
. Id. We
re view thi s d e c isi on

fo r a n a bu se of dis c re tio n. I n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion, we do not substit ute our judg ment for that of the trial court. Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d16

at 379-80. The purpose of our re view is to deter

mine whether the trial court’s decision was made without r efe renc e to a

ny g uiding rules or principles of law, that is, whethe r the de cision was ar bitrary
or unre asonable
. Id. An abuse of di scre tion occurs whe n a trial c ourt’s dec ision is s o clea rly wrong as to lie outside the zone of re asonable disag ree ment. Id. at 391 (op. on re h’g ).

Bo t h p ar t i es re s t edat t h e c l o s e o f e v i d e n c e o nt h e f o u rt h d ay o f t ri al
. T h e c h ar ge confe renc e wa s held outside the pr es en ce of the jury . The jury

was a bout to be rele ased f

or the evening , to come bac k the next day for c losing a

rg uments, when the f

ollowing discussion occ urre d: [Defense Counsel] : Your Honor, respe ctfully , m y client has asked me to reope n

t h e D ef en s e c as e- i n -c h i ef

. He s ai d h e h as s o m e o t h er

t h i n gs that he nee ds to tell the jury , and he wo u l d l i k e the opportunity

to do so tomorrow morning at 9 o’c lock. [Court ]: Th a t is g oin g to b e a uto matic a lly

re fu se d unle ss you

te ll m e what the subject matter is a nd I find it r eleva

nt. He wa s g iven pretty much latitude o n h i s answe ring questions. I t was not particula rly pleasing to the Court, but the S tate, being so kind to you , d idn ’t

ob je c t. [Defense Counsel] : Yes, sir. [C ourt]: No, without some pecula rized [si c] need, that will be refuse d. [Defense Counsel] : J udg e, just to state the specific need, he has stated to me her e

sin c e we have re ste d th e c a se -in-ch ief that he ne e de d to clar ify cer tain matters, pre sent additional matters to the Court with reg ard to who a

nd why he thoug ht somebody

else ha d do ne thi s, a

man b y the name of Ed

ua rd o Ra ng e l, a nd he fe e ls that he wa sn’t clea

r enoug h to the jury

and woul d l i ke the opportunity

to present those matters to the jury in a more c lear and succ inct fashion, Your Honor. [C ourt]: Reviewing his t es t i m o n y in mind, I am not g oing to r eopen. I t’s denied.17 At trial, appe llant had depa rted fr om his statement following his ar rest in which he denied e ver se eing the knife. H e testified that he rec alled that the knife belong ed to Miguel Fe lan, a per son with whom appellant lived. Testify ing thr oug h an interpr eter , appellant testified:
Yea h, it belongs to Mig uel Fe lan, and t h at i s t he knife of Mig uel Fe lan. And probably the other two fing erpr ints, this one belong s to Mike or one of the others that lived there , beca

use we all cooked and we ne ver w ashed the dishes, beca use we wer e single . We don’t have no w omans in the house. Appellant ex plained that he w as a vic tim and that someone in the house de cided to use the knife: “That is the only explanation.” Appellant was sure that the handle on the knife wa s broken a nd that

“ Mik e ” ha d ta

pe d it . App e lla

nt te sti fi e d th a t F e lan h a d d ie d s inc e the mur de r. Ap pe lla nt a lso i d e n t i f i e d o t h e r s w h o l i v e d

i nt h e h o u s e , an d

w h e t h e r t h e y w o r k e d an d w e r e “ s e e n ” w i t h m o n e y. Appellant testified in re sponse to his counsel’s questions on re direc t examination: [C ounsel]: Did Guillermo Rang el work? [Appellant] : Yes, sir. [C ounsel]: What ty pe of w ork did he do? [ Ap p el l an t ] : He wo rk s i n an y t h i n g. Bu th e a l wa y s wo rk i n g. He l o v es t o go to the cantina like I

used to. [Couns e l]: Ho w a bo ut E du ard o Ra

ng e l? [Appellant] : Nope. [C ounsel]: He did not work? [Appellant] : No. [ C o u n s e l ] : D i d yo ue v e r s e e h i m w i t h m o n e y?18

[Appellant] : Yep. [C ounsel]: How would he make money , sir? [Ap pe lla nt]: Wel l, I

g ue ss d oin g the same thi nglik e he wa s d oing in Mex i co , b eca

use I reme mber a

fewtimes he told me, he impressed me, h e i m presse d to Mike, my Migue l, he was try ing to se ll thing s from houses like stereos and stuf f l ike that, like elec tronical stuff from houses. I know it was fr om h o u s e s b e c a

u s e I k n o w , b e l i e v e t h a tw ay. [ T h e In t e r p r e t e r ] : A p p l i an c e s i s w h a th e i s t r yi n g t o s ay. [C ounsel]: You would see L alo or Edua rdo—the nickname wa s L alo—with these a

pplia nces you believed to be stolen from ho us e s? [Ap pe lla nt]: Ye ah, Ido n’ t th ink any bo dy g ive it t o h im.
Def ense c ounsel then passe d the witness to the prosec utor for r e-c ross-examination.

A lt h o u g h d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l u r g e d th a t th e te s ti mo n y w a s mate r ia l, a p p e ll ant did not show that it would have materially chang ed the outcome in hi s favor or do any thing more than clar ify appellant’ s s u s p i ci ons—and spec ulation—about Rang el. B eca use appe llant failed to make the
re qu is i t e s h o w i n g a s t o w h a tt h e e v i d e n c e w a s , t h e t r i a l c o u rtp r o p e r l y a p p l i e d t h e m a t e r i a l i ty sta n d ar d t o t h e ca se. See P eek , 106 S.W .2d at 79. We cannot sa y that the evidenc e would have
m a t e r i a l l y c h an g e d t h e c a s e i n a p p e l l an t ’ s f

a v o r a s r e qu i r e d

b y Pee k or that th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s dis c re tio n w he n it

did no t a llo w a

pp e lla nt to reop en the e vid e nc e a ft e r h e re ste d. We o ve rr ule appellant’ s third point of error
.19

Ti melin ess o

f P ro duc tio n of

Re c orde d St

atement I n his fourth point of err or, appe llant contends that the trial court e rre d in allowing the admission of appellant’ s videotaped statement made when he was que stioned in November 2002
a bo ut C antu ’s mu rder

be c a us e the State fa ile d to pr ov ide the state me nt t o h is c ouns e l in a tim e ly
manner . Specifica lly , appellant c omplains that the State introduced his stateme nt that he had ne ver
s e e n t h e kn i f

e b e f o r e an d t h a t c o u n s e l r e c e i v e d t h e s t a t e m e n t o n M ay 2 6 , l e s s t h ant w e n t y d a ys befor e appe llant’s trial beg an on June 8, 2005. The State responds that it informed de fense counsel
o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f

t h e r e c o r d e d

s t a t e m e n tan d

p r o v i d e d h i m a c c e s s t o t h e s t a t e m e n ti nd i s c o v e r y. The code of criminal proce dure provides that no oral statement of a n acc used made
as a r esult of custodial interr og ation is admissibl e at tria l unless “not l at er t h an the 20th day befor e the date of the pr ocee ding, the attorney repr esenting the def

endant is provided with a true, c o mp le te , a n d

a c c u r a te c o p y

o f a ll r e c o r d in g s o f

th e d e f e n d an t m a d e u n d e r

th is artic le.” Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . Ann. art
. 38 .2 2, § 3( a )( 5) (We st 20 05 ). Re a so nin g that th e le g isl a tur e c ou ld have use d the word “ serve d,” “g iven,” or “delive re d , ” the court of cr iminal appeals he ld that the
wo rd “p rovide” means to “make ava ilable or fur nish.” Lan e v . S

tat e , 9 3 3 S. W. 2 d 504, 516 (Tex. Crim. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). The court explained, “so long as def ense c ounsel is informed of the exis tence of the re cordingand is permitted reasonable acc ess t o a copy , the purpose of § 3(a )(5) has been me t.” Id. ; Tig

ne r v . S tat e , 928 S.W .2d 540, 542-44 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (explaining that the rationale of t h i s p ro v i sion is to guar antee defe nse counse l an opportunity to examine the
rec ording to ensure no a lterations wer e made ).20 I n Lane , the appe llant claimed he w as not p ro v ided copies of taped c onfessions be c a us e the c op ie s w e re ne ve r s e rv e d o n de fe ns e c ouns e l. 93 3 S. W.2 d at 51 4. Th e State argue d th a t, in response to a standard discovery order , the S tate made discovery available in their offic e. Id. The
cour t f o u n d th a t d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l w a s p la c e d o n n o ti c e o f th e e xis te n c e an d c o n te n ts of the
rec ording s, and that the re cording s were made available to him. Id. at 516.

Out of the pre sence of the jury , the cour t hear d argument and re p re s en t at i o n s of counsel. Def

ense counsel s tated that he w as “sur prised” the State offe red a ppellant’s stateme nt, but
n o t th a t h e w a s u n aw ar e o f th e s tate me n t. H e d id n o t d e n y h a v in g a c c e s s to an d in s p e c ti ng the d i s t r i c ta t t o r

n e y ’ s f i l e a n d p o l i c e r e p o rto r

t h att h e f

i l e c o n t a i n e d

r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s t a t e m e n t
. In particula r, the proba

ble ca use af fidavit underly

ing the appellant’ s arr est states that appe llant was broug ht to the police department for an int ervie w and that he made a number of statements, including the statement that his fing erpr ints would not be on the kni fe. Def ense counsel ac knowledg ed that he wa s g iven ac cess t o his client’s file at the district attorney ’s offic e, but complained that the statem en t wa s n o t i n the file: “I did many , many

moons ag o g o and see the State’s file, the police
re po rt a s it sto od a t th a t ti me . I t ha s si nc e be e n s up ple me nte d, bu t th e State did n’ t app are ntl y

g e t my client’s stateme nts until fairly rec ently .” The prosec utor disputed counsel’s c laim and asser ted that appellant’ s statement had been available for counsel’s revie w at the prose cutor’s of fice . At a pre trial hear ing on January

11, 2005, five months prior to trial, defe nse counsel acknowle dg ed that he ha d been told of the exis tence of the stateme nts: “[The prosecutor] ac tually has indicate d to me that the de fe nd ant d id mak e a

state me nt t

hat I a m un awa

re of . I t do e sn ’t

me nti on it i n th e po lic e re po rt s any wher e, and I

haven’ t seen it any

wher e else .” F inding that the pr osecutor ma de the discove ryAppellant wa s repr esente d by an o t h er attorney prior to J anuar

y 2004. Howeve r, the 2 a tto rn e y wh o re pr e se nte d ap pe lla

nt at tr ia l had fr om that dat e un til the tr ia l in June 20 05 to o bta in acc ess to appellant’ s file. The standingdiscovery order was e x ecute d on J anuar

y 11, 2005. 21 available , that counsel “ had ade quate oppor tunity outside of t he 20 day s to have it and look at,” a nd that a pp e lla nt s uf fe re d n o h arm , th e tr ia l c ourt a llo we d th e a dmi ssi on

of the state me nt. Nothing in the r ecor d indi c a te s th a t d e fense counsel wa s denied a cce ss to the rec orded state me nt at any

tim e pr ior

to tria l. Where, a s here , defe nse counse l was appa rently awa re of the 2
e x i s t e n c e o f a

p p e l l an t ’ s s t a t e m e n t , t h e S t a t e i s r e qu i r e d o n l y t o “ p e r

m i tr e a s o n a

b l e a c c e s s ” t o a

c o p y. See id. The trial c ourt found, and the rec ord supports the trial court’s conclusion, that the State met the re quirements of a

rticle 38.22. The rec ord also supports t h e trial c ourt’s dec ision to allow the admission of the statement. We over rule a ppellant’s four

th point of error
. CO NC LU SION Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d a pp e lla nt’ s p oin ts o f e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: January

19, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh