•QRiGmM- /*/67S

APR 14 20IS

Cva/l^ •[)+• LfitMi/Lf&f /ttoriejJ*^aMcos&tefe

AUhA^L,_/je^^fcS>„

c r\ * , . r.niiRTnFPBiMiMAi Pp.^i ou e^ C0URT 0F CRIMINAL APPEALS

v^ APR 17 2015

A^f^O^^

M€ApOA/<7&/UY

Abel Acosta, Clerk

LUiWse KL t>K-Ol4t>-l5.

_Ou_^p_p^^J^RQiM^X^-e_^^!^

ITd^Jj^u^(W^ kio.. Aft 1£ #31

3l0JJ^MJ5-h^M^

...... _. _;__:_ : •_ tm^J-.._.
Tor

IDA c

RekMAWl M~3tQ4V^ iWfetgQM

P/^_eiX
Lidble^JD i- (ihuien^

t oda e_ Pio^e.

J_-Q\£&«N..r_l&CjeU—se o ©—e fc. «.,—-& ^ « e> <^_—«^ ^ <j. & II

J3-S.X-r*£j-S^—« a,—*—„—,. a i «. 1 A—_*—«,—*, c „,—l_L *£

/^.L_D^j3QU^ejui^&_»_^_tt_. e_e_^&__« ^_e)_^_fc_LLL

&&iejM^^ VI

j^&iie^g^ D^ cTt*e, CWje-_A_c^c,_^^c,_g>_e>_^_VrJ

8feUA€u4 fo<P Ptf?jE>£.€glui2^J Ivjr^fL^ c f ^ **. \jl'l

RJe. Mfc^ -AiaiJ ^/h^Urfe^. .- 3, 3j V

_(^£QuU-dl^II^e:^_W

-t> <t> *» <a c= <& est P "^ o «* <i- —(£

&sAti&&!^ «^_~_* ._*_/$[

^^Xc^^Q^Jje^W^—^ «_*__« * «,_« *-J-0L

£ * «

ia^^=j_/Ji
J^A_J)A^A^So^f'eJ

i^^/u^a^e^^^^^^^^^^^^,^

feJeO^M Au^Jiog]^ U»^ileJ_ofeb. vRefiCKu^

sss_feacima\3{s^^Xt^iw) ^^^_*J3L

vJi-Muma/UWed

Mn^kl^i^M^S.W.^J<fo100-10l(T^£^u.Afrim). „. *-/

ABAfl-y^ft^. ¥Q&&waA6,M/^U£(r«&TM.tyfjqu')„ „ cT. ^

feJe£teiiy>^^3ffljiy8s^gg^fr^AZ^,T^A^<t^Q?P4.^., . „fc

7e*39S (\^fU%^

!<$>£, flute V03 . , , „• ^ .. « „ „ a ^r5

!^pj(L£> nub. 6>_13 ^„ ,__0 ^ . ^ * „_<^3:

, yO/J &

Pa^^-1/
U_J3v^J^UQ£&fci^

AiiatV.die.4fAM

J^e/AgouiS rod (jiftjA^m^ Ke^j'e^jJ

ji4j4ioj^^^_feg^-LS_JReji^^

1) Ru lg L^. ?) {hi) - (Vtiti>to£ L^pejtds k^ AppjApA

Jku_LHQojd^^

Lsib.

JLe^4WoLK^-.._.ao m Je^tJiKAg .14 Mil4>ueag Vibm'rea

^Te>tc. Kui-e o4^Vtde^JL£€,^13 y^pm o\/ejeJie4lJM?.QCCjerjL,

>/U/ fej- -^det^VHQ

J^W.cls^DUV^iC^

e&4£_

fWUI
~M 4g,-0 dLLf>P tO iU

JJkAcle£.JluJ^_^

tLud^-oJ^JLppeJira

J^ixJ!^_&££R£&£*^^

o^JtMe^t^k J) ^BJlAIu^^^

Pp^iH^iQMeiC is P^DNJie^^uUie,^<aw€j%\/,/Utt^ej

l _ .(' ' • .1 v ' #x » 4 f. »' I /I 7

S^Kv4fenAeia^ D£TLl (Lv&e,

tJkt ^EMULUfl&i/) l(p;^013 Piv44p4^m wivs fpiuL^i-e4e^ n4^ Tte.v4

tovfeje^Q^OOO^&i- /4TM rvwelwae^ ^ffieAise 4aol< pfa^je. iQm Tvv

l - P^y/
_©ffi

Af a-^ l0.ff < ii *s*i l v- l m J3.tvat^i2£Aifi^£Jk^

S4^4*s^^»u4lC)I^^^ Ht^o^

Qmj^EuM^JhL,J^I^

M^ie_e^A/^^

en^ ew
iJAo_uuis_Ek£_Keuxeul

a»J Mff<4 f^ &LU^u<?

(jtfcjQiuixJ IVAJQ rb Klo LtMi4iigQ (_u&4avuL4te kv vu± 4

—V I .rv.f /A If . ..(» -V bP S)' .. k ' A cJ—/4e^i4)i4i//Al4€£.Ma4>iv-e, X^tL-ffi^ti^ /Uflt<s4wa£€»

4 IxxjMSeJ

^bRjQujaq \Wax.e~r. Vrg)U4ioMg)PWil4tP-&s kule, CiXfi ^)L3)

fi**A ^
A^y^Wou4JJa^aM^^^

( J ^vmifiud^„Lp_^

j4k^4_\Me^e_<§'*4ktf^^

iDJNAJ^_4ke_eie4vve^

„Ui/4k^e„cA*3^:ed_W^^

&eM£XtfeA)-* J ^_ : ;

> > _n i. ' i n i .' * • i /) '

-A&:L&i&u<|^_sJ&^

^dxM^ke^C^UiuvL€t_©+__J_e4a^^

JEkkfi-^uil^j ©f ATHf A^T, lA/i'A. ^pjZ-p pA/fc/euge\A4eU\cuf

C&r-&U<pp&Z-£uJb^^

W^Ph*Ai£^U>e/yS^
J^^L^jLj^AtJ^^^^S^}iiJMi^lj Ml/* //V3'dtou</ MOM.. 1^ //it/ by PsMJA/At^ jU/Ly

si

J /? / /? _ -/ // /1 I / // / <- 42Mtete&^iM-jCL&&^^
























influencing the testimony of another witness. Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176, 179

(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). If the Rule is violated by a witness, the witness's testimony may be

admitted or excluded at the trial court's discretion. Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 50

(Tex.Crim.App. 1996).

We review the trial court's decision whether to exclude a witness who has violated the

Rule for an abuse of discretion. Webb v. State, 766 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989);

State v. Saylor, 319 S.W.3d 704, 710 (Tex.App. - Dallas 2009, pet. refd). A violation of the

Rule is not in itself reversible error, but only constitutes error when the objected-to testimony is

admitted and the complaining party is harmed. See Webb, 766 S.W.2d at 239-40; Archer v.

State, 703 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). Harm to the complaining party is proven

by showing that: (1) the witness actually conferred with or heard testimony of other witnesses;

and (2) the witness's testimony contradicted the testimony of a witness from the opposing side or

corroborated the testimony of a witness he had conferred with or heard. Archer, 703 S.W.2d at

666.

The record reflects that Wright mistakenly overheard twenty minutes of testimony from

other witnesses after the rule was invoked. Outside of the presence of the jury, Wright told the

court that she did not remember who was testifying when she was in the courtroom and that she

could not say what was talked about. Wright's testimony was admitted over Appellant's

objection that her testimony was tainted as a result of her presence in the courtroom during the

officers' testimony.

Although the record clearly reflects Wright violated the rule because she heard the

testimony of Officers Hicks and Grizzard, Wright's testimony did not contradict or corroborate

18-
the testimony of either officer. The extent of Wright's testimony was that she lived on Frank

Lane and owned a 1992 GMC pickup that was stolen on December 2,' 2010. According to

Wright, there had been no damage to the steering column of her vehicle before it was stolen.

The record reflects that the testimony of Officers Hicks and Grizzard had nothing to do with

Wright's residence, vehicle, or the damage to the vehicle's steering column. While Appellant

seems to argue that Wright overheard a discussion of the State's theory of the case that occurred

with the trial courtjust before the lunch recess, we agree with the State that a careful review of

the record shows that any discussion about the State's theory of the case was taken up after the

trial court broke for lunch and outside of the presence of Wright. Accordingly, we conclude

Appellant was not harmed or prejudiced by Wright overhearing the testimony of Officers Hicks

and Grizzard. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Wright's testimony.

Webb, 766 S.W.2d at 240. Issue Three is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled all three ofAppellant's issues, the trial court'sjudgment is affirmed.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

January 14,2015

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J., not participating

(Do Not Publish)