W e note that a ppel la nt’s la st nam e is s pel le d “ Van H oute n” and “Va nhoute n” throug hout t

he re cor d. 1 Opinion filed Februar y 2 6, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 02 65 -CR

____ ____ __ DA VID AL AN VA N H OUT EN, Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 385th Distric t Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR 32754

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted David Alan Van Houte n of two counts of se x ual assault of a child and 1 two counts of improper

relationship between an educator and a student and assesse d his punishment at conf inement for a term of thirtee n y ear s in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice on ea ch of the four c ounts. The trial cour t ordere d th at ap p ell ant’s thirtee n-y ear sentenc e for

the sec ond count of sexual assault of a c hild is t o be ser ved conse cutively

to his thi rtee ny ear sentenc e for the first count of sexual assault of a child. Appellant cha lleng es his convictions

and punis hme nt i n f

our i ssu e s. We a ff

ir m.T he tw o c ounts of s ex ual a ss aul t of

a c hild al le g ed that a

ppel la nt ca use d the pene tra

tion of C.C.’ s se x ual org an w ith his 2
se x ual org an on or about

Se pte m ber 26, 2006, and on or

a bout O ct ober

16, 2006. T EX
. P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 22. 011(a )( 2)( A ) ( Ver non Sup p. 2 00 8). The tw o cou nts of im pro per relation ship betw een an educator and a stud en t a l l eg ed t hat he engag ed in sexual inte rc ours e w ith C.C . on both of thes e dat es . T EX
. P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 21. 12(a )( 1) ( Ver

non Supp. 2008); seeT EX
. P E N A L C O D E A NN
. § 21.01(3) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). In this re g ar d, T EX
. P E N A L C O D E A NN
. § 21 .12 (c) (Verno n Su pp . 20 08 ) provid es that, “[i] f cond uct constit utin g a

n off ense und er this sec tion also constitu tes a n off ense und er another section o f this code, th e actor m ay

be prosecuted under e ithe r s ec tion or bot

h s ec tions .” 2

Ba c k gr ou nd Fa c ts Appellant taug ht seventh and e ighth g rade social studies at Mi d l an d Ac ademy Charter Sc ho ol. Th e ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t he en g a g e d in sexua l inte rc ours e wi th “C .C. ” on tw o o c c a sio ns . C. C

. wa s a fourteen- y ear -old fema le student of appe llant. The first occ asion is alleg ed to have
occur red on or about September 26, 2006, and the second occa sion oc curr ed on or a bout October

16, 2006. Appellant does not c halleng e the sufficie ncy of t he evide nce suppor ting the c onvictions for 2 conduct a lleg ed to have occur red on or about September

26 , 2 0 0 6

. Howeve r, he c halleng es the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence supporting the convictions for the conduct a lleg ed to have occur red on or about Oc tober 16, 2006. J ulie Crosby

taug ht with appellant. Prior to the start of the school day on October

18, 2006, she ente red a

ppellant’s cla ssroom to c onfer with him about a school matter. She obse rved a ppellant and C.C. enga g ing in a

“roma ntic kiss” on this occasion. Crosby subsequently

repor ted her discovery to her super iors who suspended a ppellant from tea chingon that date. The school board ult imate ly

te rm inate d a

pp e lla nt f ro m te a c hin g a t th e sc ho ol. Crosby and other

teac hers obse rved that appellant and C.C. wer e fr equently to g ether on a daily basis. Crosby testified t hat s he saw C.C. enter appellant’ s classroom severa l times a day and that C. C. w ou ld e a t he r l un c h in his cla ssr oo m eve ry da y . Ste ph anie B ro wn

te sti fi e d th a t C. C. w ou ld walk ar ound with appellant eve ry day during his outside duty assig nment eac h morning

. Crosby and Br own testified that C.C. would often leave her phy sical education c lass to be with a ppellant. Diane Edwar ds testified that appe llant pulled C.C. outof her class on seve n occa sions for the purpor ted
re a so n o f t e sti nghe r f

or the g if te d a nd ta le nte d p ro g ra

m at th e sc ho ol. C.C. ini tially

denied that the kissingevent oc curr ed on Oc tober 18, 2006. She late r ag ree d with Crosby ’s alleg ation that she and a ppellant wer e kissing. C.C. t estified that she starte d “hang ing
ou t” wi th a

pp e lla nt d ur inghe r s e ve nth

g ra de y e ar. She state d th a t sh e sp e nt e ve ry lun c h a nd re c e ss period with him and that she would skip her other c lasses to see him. C.C. testified that appellant3

told her that he looked at her as his own daug hter. C.C. and appellant re mained in contac t over the summer betwe en her

seventh a nd eig hth gr ade year s beca use C.C. baby sat for him, and the y called
eac h other duringthe summer bre ak. C.C. testi fied that she a

nd appellant beca

me closer friends afte r school started back for he r eig hth gr ade year . C.C. test i fi ed t h at she and a ppellant eng ag ed in sexual intercourse on two
oc c a sio ns duri nghe r e ighth grade y e ar. Th e fi rs t oc c a sio n o c c ur re d o n th e date of

he r f ourt e e nth birthday (September

26, 2006) in appe llant’s classroom. She testified that t h e s ec ond occa sion
occur red on a Monday in October of 2006, presumably on October 16, 2006. C.C. testi fied a bout

an a dd iti on a l epi so de that occ ur re d be tw e e n Sep te mbe r 2 6, 20 06 , a nd the se c on d s e xua l in te rc ours e
e ve nt t hat oc c ur re d o n o r a

bo ut O c tob e r 1 6, 20 06 , whe re in ap pe lla nt as ke d C.C. if sh e “ wa

nte d to try something a g ain.” This interve ning e pisode did not result in sex ual interc ourse, howe ver, beca use C.C. “g ot scare d.” Ap pe lla nt t e sti fi e d o n h is o wn

be ha lf a t tr ia l. H e de nie d havin g se xua l inte rc ours e wi th C .C. He a dmitted to giving C.C. hug s from time to time a nd kissing her on the fore head on oc casion. He also testif i ed t h at h e t o ld C.C. t hat he thoug ht of her a s a daug hter. With respec t to the alleg ed kis sin g e pis od e that oc c ur re d o n Oc tob e r 18 , 2 00 6, a pp e lla nt t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s ju st g ivi ngC.C

. a hu g wh e n Cr os by

e nte re d h is c la ssr oo m.

Sufficiency of the E

videnc e I n h is f ir st i ssue, app ella

nt c ha lle ng e s th e le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g his convictions for the second c ount of sexual assault o f a ch i ld and sec ond count of e ng ag ing in a n imp ro pe r r e latio ns hip be tw e e n a n ed uc a tor

and a stu de nt. I n o rd e r t o d e te rm ine if the e vid e nc e is leg ally sufficient, we must review all the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t and de te rm ine wh e the r a

ny ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ould hav e fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 (1 97 9) ; Ho op e r v . S tate , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 17 S.W .3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The j u r y, a s t h e f i n d e r o f f a c t , i s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f

t h e w e i g h t an d

c r e d i b i l i t y o f

t h e w i t n e s s e s ’ t e s t i m o n y. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 36.13 (V ernon 2007) , art. 38.04 (V ernon 1979) . A re viewing
c ourt mus t g ive de fe re nc e to “ the re sp on sib ili ty of the tr ie r o f f

a c t to fai rl y resol ve c on fl ic ts i n4

te sti mony , to we ig h th e e vid e nc e , a nd to d ra w reason a

ble inf e re nc e s f ro m ba sic fa c ts t o u lti mate fac ts.” Hooper , 2 1 4 S

. W

. 3 d at 1 3 (q u o t i n g Jack

son , 443 U.S. at 318-19). A p p e l l an t b a s e s h i s e v i d e n t i ar y c o n t e n t i o n o n C

. C

. ’ s t e s t i m o n y f o u n d a tV o l u m e V II, Pag es 305-06 of the re porter’ s rec ord whe rein she stated that appe llant did not place his penis inside of her. This te stimony

ref ere nces the interveningepisode de scribed a bove that occ urre d betwee n the two instances of sexual interc ourse descr ibed by C.C. As noted previously , C.C. testified that appellant e ng ag ed in sexual intercour se with her on he r birthday . C.C. additionally testified about

a su bs e qu e nt e pis od e a t V olume VI I , Pa g e s 3 11 -1 7 o f t he re po rt e r’ s r e c or d w he n a pp e lla nt put “ [h]is penis in [her] vag ina” after he t old her to pull down her pants and g et on the floor. C.C.’s desc ription of the subseque nt episode of se x ual interc ourse constitutes leg ally sufficie nt evidence supporting appellant’ s convictions for the se cond count of sexual ass au l t o f a ch i ld and the sec ond count of eng ag ing in a

n improper r elationship betwee n an educ ator a nd a student. In this reg ard, the
uncorr oborate d testimony of a child sexual a ssault vic tim alone is suf ficient to suppor

t a conviction for se x ual assault of a

child. SeeT EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 38.07(a) (Ve rnon 2005). There is no require ment that phy sical, m edica l, or other e vidence be prof fer ed to cor

roborate the victim’s te stimony

. Garcia v . S

tate , 5 63 S.W. 2d

92 5, 92 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Sa nd ov al v . S tate , 52 S.W. 3d 85 1, 85 4 n .1 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 01 , p e t. r e f’ d) . App e lla nt’ s f ir st i ssu e is
overr uled. Vi c tim ’s Se x ua l H istor y I n his third issue, appellant contends that the trial court e rre d in not permitting him to offer evidenc e of othe r instance s of sexual contact involving C.C. A trial court’s dec i sion to ex clude evidenc e is revie wed under an abuse of discretion standa

rd. Mc Do na ld v . S

tate , 179 S.W .3d 571, 57 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); W ill ov e r v . S

tate , 70 S.W .3d 841, 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A trial court doe s not abuse its discretion as longas the de cision to admit evidence is within t he “zone of
rea sonable disag ree ment.” Mo ntgom e ry v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The

a p p e a ls c o u rt ma

y n o t s u b s ti tute it s o w n d e c is io n f o r th a t o f th e tr ia l c o u rt. Mos es v. State , 105 S.W .3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). I f evide nce e x ists supportin g t h e decision to ex clude evidenc e, ther e is no abuse of discretion, and the decision of the tr ial co u rt will not be reve rsed. Os bo ur n v . S tate , 9 2 S. W.3 d 5 31 , 5 37 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Mo ntg om e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 379.5

T EX
. R. E V ID
. 412 is a “ra pe shield” la

w intended to shield a se x ual assault victim from the introduction of hig hly

embar rassing , prejudicia l, a

nd irrele vant evidenc e of prior se x ual behavior. Bo yle v. S tate , 820 S.W .2d 122, 147-48 (Te x . Crim. App. 1991), o v e r r u le d o n o th e r gr ounds by Go rd on v . S tate , 801 S.W. 2d 89 9, 91 1 n .1 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ); Al le n v . S tate , 700 S.W .2d 924, 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). The admissibility of an a lleg ed victim’s past sexual behavior is subjec t to a tw o- pa rt te st: (1 ) th e evi de nc e mus t f a ll w ith in o ne of

the fi ve e nu

me ra te d c ir c ums tanc e s in Rule 412(b)(2) and (2) its probative value must outweig h the dang er of u nfair pr ejudice. Rul e 41 2( b) (2 ), (b )( 3) ; Bo y le , 820 S.W .2d at 148. The nur se examiner who e x amined C.C. testi fied that she found irr egular hy men edg es indicat i n g that something ha d penetr ated C.C.’s vag inal opening . Acc ording ly , evidenc e of C.C.’s pre vious sex ual conduc t would possibly have be en admissible under Rule 412(b) (2)( A) to re but or explain the nurse examiner’s f indings. Appellant direc ts us to two instances wher e the trial court denied his r equ es t s t o o ff er
e vid e n c e o f

C

. C

. ’ s p r e v i o u s s e xu a l c o n d u c t

. T h e f

i r s ti n s t an c e o c c u r

r e d d u r i n g t h e c r o s sexamination of W ade Che rry , the principa l of Midland Aca demy Charter School. Appellant’s trial
c ouns e l a dv ise d th e tr ia l c ourt th at he w ante d to a sk Che rr y a bo ut C .C. purp or

te dly re po rt ingto Cherry that sh e h ad b ee n sexually abused pr ior to her e ighth g rade y ear . The trial c ourt denied appellant’ s reque st. Howeve r, appe llant d i d n ot make a subse quent offe r of pr oof re g ardingthe testimony he soug ht to elicit from Cherry . The fa ilure to make an offe r of proof results in a waiver of any err or re g ardingthe excluded evidenc e. Se e Gu idr yv . S tate , 9 S. W.3 d 1 33 , 1 53 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1999). Ap pe lla nt m a de an o ff

e r o f pr oo f wit

h r e sp e c t to the se c on d in sta nc e . App e lla

nt s ou g ht t o of fe r t e sti mony

fr om C .C. that sh e ha d pre vio us ly “ snuc k out” of he r h ou se to b e wi th a bo y . B y its
e xpre ss t e rm s, Rul e 41 2( b) a pp lie s to “ e vid e nc e of sp eci fi c ins tanc e s o f a n a lle g e d v ic tim ’s pa st sexual behavior.” E vidence that appellant snuc k out with a boy simply does not equate to evidenc e of a spe cific instanc e of pa st sex ual behavior. We c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in ov e rr uli nga pp e lla nt’ s r e qu e sts in the two instances c ited by him. Moreove r, we note that the trial c ourt permitted appe llant to offer other e vidence perta ining to C.C.’s past sexual conduct. Sp ec i fi cally , the trial cour t permitted appellant to testify

that C.C. re ported to him on one occa sion that she had bee n sexually molested6

by someone e lse and that she be lieved she ma y have be en pre gn an t p re v i o u sly . Appellant’s third issue is overrule d. Grooming Testimony I n his fourth issue, appe llant challeng es the a dmission of “g ro oming” testimony from Andra K. Chamberlin. Chamberlin is the prog ram direc tor and lead f orensic inter

viewer of Midland Rape Crisis and Chil d re n’s Advoca cy Center. She of

fer ed the f

ollowing testimony

reg arding gro o m i n g: Q. Iwo u l d l i k e y o u t o n o w a d d re s s t h e i s s u e o f ap er p et ra t o r gr o o m i n g a c hil d, and wh a t th a t me ans . A. Well, we look for -

- Q. I s that common?
A. I t i s c o m m o n . A n d y o u c an s e e i t i n c a s e s w h e r e t h e r e is w ha t w e c a ll intrafa milial abuse, abuse that occur s in a home betwee n a stepda d, mom, stepmom and a c hild. But I g uess t he best wa y to describe g rooming is think about it as dating in a way , beca

use y ou had that first tentative meeting , so to speak. And, y ou know, when we date, we may

eventua lly

kind of have our shoulders rubbed. And then we might hold hands . And then we might put our a rms around the waist. And y ou know, the re lationship progr esses ove r a pe riod of time until eventually a couple may be c om e, y ou

kn ow , intim a te or

so me thi ng . B ut i t is a

pr og re ssi on . It’ s n ot j us t a one-a ct thing. It is something that occ urs wher e, let me test a nd s ee if y ou are comforta ble with this. And if y ou are not comfor t ab l e, I ’m g oing to pull bac k and say , I ’m sorry , I ’m sorry , y ou misunderstood. But if y ou are comforta ble, then I ’m g oing to move it to the next level and I ’m g oing to do something else. And the n that p ro gre s s es t o fi n al l y

y o ud o h av e ab u s e o cc u rr i n g. Q. Okay . And is that normally what a pe rpetrator would g o throug h? They wo uld n’ t in iti a lly

jus t g o o ut a

nd a tta c k a c hil d, if it i s so me on e the c hil d k no ws ? A. Well, y ou know the stories that we hear about in the newspa

per unfortunate ly

are u s u al ly

the horrif

ic stories of c hildren who a re a bducted a

nd violently r a p e d an d mu r d e r e d

. T h o s e ar e r ar e , e v e n th o u g hw e h e ar

it – th o s e are what we hear

about on the news. What is common, at least in our c ommunity , and wh a t w e have se e n at ou

r ce nte r, it is ag a in p e op le kn ow n to the c hil dr e n th a t a bu se the kid s. So you

have to g e ne ra lly

have tha t g ro omi ngin p la c e to k e e p th e kid s q uie t. I f i ti s a o n e- t i m e v i o l en tas s au l t , gen er al l y ch i l dre nar e go i n g t o b e t al k i n g. Q. And could this g rooming proce ss go on f or a longperiod of time?7 A. I t could g o on as long as the a buse we nt on. Q. Okay . Have y ou seen c ases wher e a grooming proce ss has taken year s from ac tual initial touching to ac tual penetr ation?
A. Ye s. Appellant ar g ues that Chamber lin was not qualified to offe r expert test i mony about g rooming . T EX
. R. E V ID
. 7 0 2 p rovi des that, “[ i ] f s ci en t i fi c, t ec h n i ca l , o r o t h er s p ec i al i z edk

n o wl ed ge wi ll a ssi st the tr ie r o f f

a c t to un de rs tand

the e vid e nc e or

to d e te rm ine a

fa c t in iss ue , a wi tne ss qu a lif ie d as an e xpe rt by kn ow le dg e , s kil l, e xpe ri e nc e , tr a ini ng , o r e du c a tio n ma y te sti fy the re to i n the form of

an opini on or ot herw ise.” No rigid formula ex ists for de termining whether a par ticular witness is qualified to testify as an e x pert. Ha rn e tt v . S tate , 38 S.W.3 d 6 50 , 6 58 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 2 0 0 0 , p et

. re f’ d )

. T h e ru l e i t s el f p ro v i d es t h at t h e r eq u i s i t e e x p er t i s e m ay b e a cq u i re d

t h ro u gh knowledg e, skill, ex perie nce, t ra i ning, or education. Id . “I t is almost i mpossible to lay down any definite guidelines for de termining knowledg e, skill or experience requir ed i n a particular c ase or of a pa rticular w itness.” Id

. Under Rule 702, the proponent of scientific e vidence must show, b y cl ea r and convinc ing pr oo f, that th e e vid e nc e he is prof fe ri ngis s uf

fi c ie ntl y re le va nt a nd re lia ble to a ssi st t

he jur y in
acc urate ly understanding other evidenc e or in de termining a fac t i s s ue. W e ath e rre d v . S

tate , 15 S

. W

. 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 2 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g N e n n o v . Stat e , 97 0 S. W. 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 6 0

- 6 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Terrazas , 4 S.W. 3d 72 0, 72 7 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1999)). T he re quirements of r eliability apply with less vigor

to field s o f st udy

from the soft scienc es, such a s the social scienc es, or fields that are based pr imarily upon experience and tra ining

a s o p p o s e d to th e s c ie n ti f ic me th od. Nenno , 970 S.W .2d at 560. The r eliability of “sof t” scienc e may be esta blished by

showing that (1) the f

ield of expertise involved is a leg itimate one, (2) the subject matt er of the expert’s testimony is within t he scope of that field, a nd (3) the e x pert’s t es t imony proper ly relies upon or

utiliz es the princ iples involved in that field. W eatherred, 15 S

. W

. 3 d at 5 4 2 (c i t i n g Nenno , 970 S.W .2d at 561). Appellant objec ted to Chamberlin’s qualific ations an d expertise at the outset of he r testimony . The trial c ourt conduc ted a he aringoutside the prese nce of t h e j u ry reg arding8

Cha mbe rl in’ s q

ua lif ic a tio ns to t e st if

y . Ch a mbe rl in t e sti fi e d th a t sh e ha s a B a c he lor ’s De g re e in sociolog y with a minor in psy cholog y and that she ha d completed her c ourse wor k for a Master’ s Deg ree in psycholog y . She has worke d in the field of inter viewingchild abuse vic tims for eig hteen y e ars , a nd sh e ha s 7 00 ho ur s o f c lin ic a l w or k in the fi e ld. Ch amb erl in t e a c he s o the rs a bo ut c hil d

a bu se , a nd sh e ha s b e e n ch os e n by the Chi ldr e n’ s A dv oc a c y Ce nte rs of

Te xas t o d e sig n, imp le me nt, and eva luate a f

orensic inter

view training prog ram for the State of Texas. Chamberlin testified that sh e ha s e xten siv e fi rs tha

nd e xpe ri e nc e wi th se xua lly a bu se d c hil dr e n a

nd that sh e ha s an u

p- to- date knowledg e of the profe ssional literature on child sex abuse. Chamberlin additi onally testified that she has studied the c ommon chara cter istics of child molesters and that she is familiar with the
conce pt of t he grooming proce ss of t he perpetrator upon a child. She stated t he conc ept of g rooming is information that is not gen er all y known by

the common lay

person a nd that testimony

about g rooming woul d ai d l ay p ersons in understanding a child molestation situation. I n light of the abundanc e of e vidence perta ining to C hamber lin’s training and ex perie nce in dealing with child sex

a bu se vic tim s and

he r s tud y of the c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f c hil d se x ab us e rs , th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

pe rm itt inghe r t o te sti fy a bo ut groom in g p ra c tic e s. Ap pe lla nt’ s f ourt h is su e is
overr uled. Evidenc e of Extraneous O ffense Admitted at Punishment Ap pe lla nt’ s se c on d is su e inv olv e s the a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e duri ngthe punis hme nt p ha se
a bo ut a n in c ide nt th at occu rr e d in a sw imm ingpo ol w ithhis fe ma le c ou sin wh e n th e y

we re bo th thirteen y ear s old. The cousin testified that a ppellant pulled the bottom of her swimsuit to the side

and tou c he d h e r v a g ina

duri ngthe e pis od e . Ap pe lla nt ob je c te d to the te sti mony on the ba sis that it
wa s to o re mot e in tim e . On a pp e a l, a pp e lla nt a dd iti on a lly

argue s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s in a dmi ssi ble under T EX
. R. E V ID
. 403 and 404. The de cision of the trial c ourt to admit ex trane ous offen ses is review ed under an abuse of discretion standa

rd. El lis on v . S

tate , 86 S.W.3 d 226 , 2 27 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Po we ll v . S tate , 63 S.W .3d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Punish m ent evidenc e enc ompasses any matter the court de ems rele vant to sentenc ing, suc h as t he def endant’ s prior cr iminal recor d, g ener al re putation,
c ha ra c te r, and “ any oth e r ev ide nc e of an extr ane ou s . . . ba d a c t th a t is sh ow n b e y on d a re a so na ble doubt by evidenc e to have been c ommitt ed by the def endant.” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P R OC
. A NN
.9

art . 3 7. 07 , § 3( a )( 1) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). Th e Cou

rt of Cr im in al Appea ls h a s sa id t hat w hat is rele vant in the pu n i s h m en t p h ase is a question of “what is helpful to the jury in determining the appropr iate sente nce.” Roge rs v . S tate , 991 S.W .2d 263, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Ap pe lla nt h a s w a ive d a

ny ob je c tio ns un de r Rul e s 4 03 and 40 4 b y fa ili ngto r a ise the se complaints in the trial court. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1 (a ). Mo re ov e r, sp e c if ic mis c on du c t e vid e nc e is expressly made a dmissibl e at the punishment pha se of a trial “notwithstanding [Rule] 404.” Sims v. Sta te , No. PD-1575-07, 2008 WL2596950, at *4 (Te x . Crim. App. J uly 2, 2008); Article 37.07, section 3(a )(1) . Wit h respe ct to appellant’ s remotene ss con t en t i o n , Article 37.07, se ction 3(a) (1) does not contain a

time restriction on extraneous offenses that ar e admissible duringthe punishment phase. While almost se ventee n y ear s had ela psed betwe en the e x trane ous offe nse and the char g ed offe nses, we c onclude that the tr ial court did not abuse its discr eti on in determining that evidenc e of the extraneous offe nse was re levant to appe llant’s sentenc ing be cause of the similar ag es of the victims. Appellant’s second issue is ove rruled. Our c onclusion may

be incor rec t in view of the re moteness of the extraneous offe nse. I f so, the trial cour

t’s err or wa s not of constitutional dim ensions. Nonconstit u t i o n al er ror that doe s not aff ect substantial rig hts must be disreg arde d. T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 44.2(b). Af ter re viewingthe entire
rec ord, we find that, if the trial c ourt did err in allowing the extraneous off ense e vidence , the er

ror
wa s h arm le ss. This Court’s Ruling The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

T E R RY M c C A LL

JUSTI CE

Fe bruar y 26, 2009 Do not publish. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.