C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
SAMANTHA KA Y RODMAN, Ap pe lla nt,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 06 -0 02 52 -C R

Appea l from the 409th J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 20060D03286)

O P I N I O N Appellant pled guilty

to the murder of

her mother , Maria I

rene Rodman; the jury sentenc ed her

to 40 y ear s’ imprisonment. Appellant’s sole issue is that the trial c ourt err ed by excluding evide nce introduc ed duringthe punishment phase r elated to Appe llant’s “sudden passion” def

ense. We find that the e vidence was not re levant to Appellant’ s case ; theref ore, the tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n. We a ff ir m. On Novembe r 29, 2004, Appe llant called 911 a nd told the dispatcher that her mother ha d been killed. The police found A ppellant’s mother, Ma

ria I rene Rodman, cover ed in blood and lying on the floor of the dining r oom. She had bee n stabbed multiple times in the neck. Appellant first told police that a masked intruder

attacke d her mother . But ultimately , she admitted that she killed her mother
. Appellant pled guilty

to first-degree murder, a

nd elec ted to have the jury deter mine punis hme nt. She a sse rt e d a mit ig atio n d e fe ns e that sh e kil le d h e r m oth e r u nd e r t he imm e diate-2-

influence of a sudde n passion arisingfrom an a dequate cause . See T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.02(d)( Ver

non 2003). Appe llant testified that at the time of Ms. Rodman’s dea th, she had just tol d her mother

that she had be en ra

ped by her f ather , Br ian Rodman, in October of 2003. To Ap pe lla

nt’ s d ism ay , h e r m oth e r w a s in dif fe re nt t o th e ne ws , a

nd tol d h e r d a

ug hte r n ot t o te ll anyone else about the ra

pe. The jury hear d extensive testimony from seve ral e x perts in psy cholog y and psychiatry reg ardingthe ra

pe’s e ffe ct on Appellant, a nd Appellant’s r esponse to her mother af

ter the outc ry . Acc ordingto Appellant’s experts, Ms. Rodman’s indiffer ence toward A ppellant’s outcr

y of ra pe
overwhelmed Appe llant, causingthe burst of ra g e which r esulted in the mother’ s death. One expert theorized that Appellant had r epre ssed her ang er f ollowing the r ape, a

nd her mother ’s reje ction of Appe llant’s outcry evoked a fre nzied outburst which lead to the murde r. Another
e xpe rt ’s wr itt e n r e po rt

c on c lud e d th at App e lla

nt e xhibi te d s y

mpt oms of

po st- tr a umatic str e ss disorder a s a re sult of the rape , and conc luded that Ms. Rodman’s rea ction to Appellant’s outcr y
overwhelmed Appe llant and pre cipitated the r ag e which c ontributed to the murder . The re port also noted that Mr. Rodman had be en convic ted of a nother ra pe in 2001, and ha d a history of inappropriate beha

vior towards w omen. A third expert testified that he ha d revie wed the r ecor ds of Mr. Rodman’s 2001 r ape c onviction and conc luded that it had bee n a “ve ry , very serious sexual assault.” In addition to the expert testimony , Appellant soug ht to introduce fur ther e vidence of Mr. Rodman’s history

of sexual misconduct. The State objec ted to this evidence of prior se x ual misconduct on rele vance g rounds and unde r Rules 403 and 404(b) of the Te x as Rules of Ev ide nc e . App e lla

nt a rgue d th e e vid e nc e wa s a dmi ssi ble to e xpla in A pp e lla nt’ s r e latio ns hip-3-

with her mother pr ior to the murder . The trial c ourt sustained the State’s obje ction and excluded the evidenc e. Th e jur y re je c te d App e lla

nt’ s su dd e n p a ssi on

de fe ns e and

se nte nc e d h e r t o f

or ty y e ars ’ imprisonment and a fine of ten thousand dollar s. In her sole issue on a ppeal, Appe llant argues that the trial cour

t erre d in excluding the testimony reg ardingMr. Rodman’s past sexual misconduct. Appellant a

rgues the e vidence was e x cluded in violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e ar

ticle 38.36 bec ause the evidenc e wa s admissible under Te x as Rule of Evidenc e 404(b). The State responds by arguing that the evidenc e wa s not releva nt to Appellant’s relationship wit h the dec ease d, that it was impermissible char acte r evide nce unde r Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence , and that its probative va lue was substantially outweig hed by

the d an g e r o f c o n f u s i n gth e i s s u e s an d

m i s l e a d i n gth e j ur

y. We reviewa trial c ourt’s exclusion of ext rane ous-offe nse evide nce unde r an a buse-of
discretion standa

rd. Mo ntgom e ry

v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). An evidentiar y ruling only

constitutes an abuse of discre tion when it falls outside the zone of
rea sonable disag ree ment. Se e id
. Ap pe lla nt a rgue s th e e vid e nc e wa s a dmi ssi ble un de r T e xas R ule of Ev ide nc e 40 4( b) to explain the circumstance s surroundingthe murder , and wa s releva nt to the state of Appe llant’s
re latio ns hip wi th M s. Rod man. Th e re fo re , App e lla nt c on c lud e s, the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on to exclude the evidenc e violated Ar ticle 38.36 and wa s an abuse of discre tion. Ar tic le 38 .3 6 p ro vid e s: In a ll p ro se c uti on s f

or mur de r, the state or

the de fe nd ant s ha ll b e pe rm itt e d to offe r testimony

as to all rele vant fa cts and c ircumstance s surroundingthe killing and the pr evious relationship ex isting betwe en the a ccuse d and the de cea sed,Ap pe lla nt’ s b ill of

e xce pti on s in c lud e s te sti mony fr om f ive wi tne sse s. On ly

on e wi tne ss 1 offe red e vidence of an instanc e about whic h Appellant wa s awa re at the time of the murder
. Mr. L eon Gluck w as Mr. Rodman’s c o-worke r for sever al y ear s. Acc ordingto his bil l of e xce pti on s te sti mony , M r. Gl uc k w itn e sse d M r. Rod man to uc h App e lla

nt i n a wa y that g ave him a “w eird fe eling .” Howe ver, Mr . Gluck’s pr ior jury testimony

included evide nce that he witnessed Mr. Rodman touch A ppellant “inappr opriately .” Eve n if we a ssume that Mr. Gluck’ s statement wa s improperly excluded, the er

ror wa s harmless as the excluded evidenc e wa s cumulative of his prior jur y testimony
. Se e Ma tz v . S tate , 21 S.W .3d 911, 912 (Tex.App.--F ort Worth 2000, pet. ref’ d). -4- toge ther with all re levant fa cts and c ircumstance s g oing to show the condition of the mind of the ac cused at the time of the off ense. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 38.36(a )(Ve rnon 2005). “Releva nt evidence ” is define d as evide nce ha ving “ any tendenc y to make the e x istence of any fa c t th at is of

c on se qu e nc e to t

he de te rm inatio n o f t

he a c tio n mo re pr ob a

ble or le ss probable than it would be without the evidenc e.” T EX .R.E V ID . 4 01 . Irr e le va nt e vid e nc e is inadmissible. Id
. The only issue rema ining dur ing punishment wa s Appellant’s mitigation defense
. There fore , the only

fac t to be deter

mined was whe ther Appe llant committed the murder unde r a sudden passion as de fined by the pena l code. See T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19 .0 2( d) . T he re is no dispute that evidenc e tendingto show the status of Appellant’ s relationship with Ms. Rodman
was re levant to deter

mining Appe llant’s state of mind at the time of the murder. It does not follow, howeve r, that the e x cluded e vidence of Mr. Rodman’s se x ual misconduct towar d other women is similarly

rele vant. There is nothing in the re cord to indicate Appellant kne w about the

1 other instance s of sexual misconduct before Ms. Rodman’s death. Abse nt such a showing , that evidenc e has no te ndency to prove or disprove Appellant’s state of mind at the time of the offe nse. It was inadmissible. See T EX .R.E V ID . 401. Since the evide nce w as irre levant, we do-5-

not addre ss Appellant’s ar g ument that the evidenc e wa s admissible under Te x as Rule of Evidence 404(b). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the e vidence . I ssue One is over

ruled. Ha vin gov e rr

ule d App e lla

nt’ s so le iss ue fo r r e vie w, we a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

J une 30, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. (Do Not Publish)