i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 83 3- CR Gre g ory D. BOLT ON , Appellant
v. The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 379th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-5849 Honora ble Be rt Richardson, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: November 19, 2008 AFF I RMED Gr e g or y B olt on a pp e a ls his ro bb e ry c on vic tio n, a sse rt ing that: (1 ) t he e vid e nc e is f

a c tua lly insufficient to pr ove his ide ntity as the perpe trator; and (2) the cour t erre d in admitting extraneous of fe ns e e vid e nc e duri ngthe g uil t/i nn oc e nc e ph a se . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND On or a bout May 21, 2005, the Han- L ee Groc ery , a small “ mom a nd pop” store, w as robbe d by a man displaying a

n appar ent g un wra

pped in a blac k trash bagand we aringa dar k cover ing ove r04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 2- his face
. Roge r L ew, an older g entleman and the store owne r, stated he was a lone when the robber
c a me in a nd po int e d th e a

pp are nt w e a

po n at hi m, whic h L e w t

ho ug ht w a s a r if

le ; th e ro bb e r p ut a paper bagon the store c ounter, a nd demande d he “f

ill it up.” L ew gave him all of t he money in the cash r eg ister, which wa s betwee n $60 and $80 and se parated by denominations of ones, five s and tens. L ew state d he wa s able to see part of the robber ’s fa ce beca use t he dark “sca

rf” kept slipping down below his nose. The robber war ned L ew not to ca ll the police and ba cked out the door
. About ten to twenty

seconds late r, David Parker, who had a business in the neig hborhood and knew L ew, e ntere d the store a nd asked L ew wha

t had happe ned. When L ew stated he had just been robbed, Parker left the store to se arc h for the robber
. As he was a pproac hing the store, Parke r had
seen someone run out of the store “like they wer e playing football
. . . kind of hunched over,” and run throug h the par

king lot behind the store
. The man was wea ring blue jean shorts and a w hite Tshirt. After g oing inside to c heck on L ew, Par ker g ot i n h i s ca r t o pursue the ma n he had se en running awa

y . Parker drove a long Sande rs Street, whic h runs behind the Han-L ee Groce ry ; he saw
a man w e ari ngje ans sh or

ts a nd a wh ite T- sh ir

t r unni ng do wn th e str e e t and slo wl y fo llo we d h im. The man stopped r

unning w hen he r eac hed a parke d white car wit h its hood propped up; he opened
and the n c los e d th e c ar t

ru nk , c los e d th e ho od , a

nd e nte re d th e dr ive r’ s se a t. Par ke r d ro ve on pa st befor e pulling ove r and c alling 911; he gav e the dispatche r the c ar’ s license plate number a nd a g ener al descr iption of the man. As Parker was on the phone, the ma n drove pa st Parker’ s car , and Parker “g ot a g ood look at his face .” Parke r followed the white ca r for a short distance , but then
re tur ne d to the sto re . L e w e sti mate d th a t Pa rk e r w a s o nly

g on e a bo ut f ive min ute s. After he re turned to t h e s t ore, Par ker w as standing outside talking to the police when he noticed a w hite car , which looked similar and w as makingthe same kind of loud noise, dr iving04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 3- slowly toward the store. Parke r told t h e officer s it was the same c ar he had followe d. After confirmingthe license plate matche d, the offic ers stepped out w ith guns draw n and commanded the driver to stop. The driver did not immediately obey , and an of fice r had to ope n the driver ’s door a nd put his own foot on the brake bef ore putting the ca

r in “pa rk.” A nother off

icer had to cut the dr iver out of his seat belt bec ause he had a se cond T-shirt ( black) pull ed o n over the seat be lt; he
was we aring

a white T- shirt underne ath. The of fice rs re trieved $65 in c ash, org anized by denominations of ones, five s and tens, and a s cre wdriver which we re la

ying on the front passe ng er seat, a nd a dar k-colore d shirt in the back seat; in the trunk they found a two to thre e foot longpipe. At the sc e ne , L e w i denti fi ed the dr ive r, B olt on , a s th e man w ho ha d r ob be d h im. Park e r a lso identified B olton as the man he saw running from the s tore and driving awa y in the whit e car. An office r re trac ed the man’ s p at h of flig ht down Sanders Stree t, based on Parke r’s de scription, and found a disca

rded “ ski mask” or “ watch cap” with two crude ey e holes c ut out at the location wher e Park e r s a id t

he wh ite c ar wa s pa

rk e d. No g un

wa s f ound . B olt on

wa s in dic te d f

or the ro bb e ry

a s a
re pe a t off e nd e r. Af te r be ing c on vic te d by a jur y , Bo lto n ple d tr

ue to t he e nh anc e me nt a lle g a tio ns , and wa s sentence d to 12 y ear s’ imprisonment. He timely appea led. F A C TUA L S UF F I CI E NCY I n his first issue, Bolton contends the evidenc e is f actua lly insufficient to support the jury ’s fi nd ingthat he wa s th e pe rp e tr a tor of the ro bb e ry . In r e vie wi ngfa c tua l su ff ic ie nc y , w e c on sid e r a ll the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht, givingalmost complete def ere nce to the j ury ’s deter minations of
cre dibilit y . Lan c on v . S

tate , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We will reverse the conviction only

if the evide nce in support of the verdic t, a lthough leg ally sufficie nt, is so weak that the ver dict is clear ly

wrongand manife stly

unjust, or if

, considering conflictingevidenc e, the ve rdict04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 4- is outweig hed by

the g re at we i g ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Id. ; W

ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006). As c ha rg e d in the ind ic tme nt, to c on vic t B olt on of ro bb e ry the State ha d to pr ov e that, ( 1) in the cour se of c ommitt ing theft of property , (2) and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the proper ty , (3) he intentionally and knowing ly threatened and place d Roge r L ew in f ear of imminent bodily injury and death. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 29 .0 2( a )( 2) (V e rn on 20 03 ). Th e State mus t
a lso pr ov e the de fend ant ’s ide nti ty a s th e pe rs on

wh o c omm itt e d th e of

fe ns e be y on d a

re a so na ble d oubt. Joh nson v . S

tate , 6 73 S.W. 2d

19 0, 19 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); W igg ins v . S

tate , 255 S.W .3d 766, 771 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). I dentity

can be established throug h direc t or circ umstantial evidence , as we ll as throug h infere nces dr awn f rom the evide nce. Ea rls v . S tate , 70 7 S. W.2 d 8 2, 85 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); R o b e r s o n v . S t a te , 16 S.W .3d 1 5 6 , 1 6 7 ( T e x. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’d). He re , B olt on

a sse rt s th a t th e e vid e nc e lin kin g him to the c omm iss ion of the ro bb e ry is “ so
weak that it undermines the integ rity of the ve rdict.” S

e e W atson , 2 0 4 S.W .3d at 414-15. Specifica lly , Bolton points to inconsistencies betwee n the descr iptions of the r obber g iven by L ew and Parke r, and the phy sical evide nce r ecov er ed n ear the sce ne. At trial, L ew testified the robber
wore a dar

k colore d “sca

rf” wra pped ar ound his head that ke pt slippi ng down below his nose, enablingL ew to see part of his fac e. Howeve r, Offic er Doxi e testified he was the first office r on the
scene , and L ew descr ibed the robber to him as “a black male betwee n 6 fee t a nd 5-1 0 ”, m edium build
. . . [wit h] sag g y pants on and .
. . a blac k ma sk over his f ace .” Parke r desc ribed the ma n he saw runningawa

y as we aringjeans shorts and a white T-shirt, but did not mention any thing c overing his he a d o r f

a c e ; ho we ve r, Park e r s aw the man f ro m be hin d –

it w a s o nly

a ft e r t he man d ro ve pa st04- 07- 0083 3- CR

1 ... T he of

f i cer r ef er r ed t o t he i t em he r ecove r ed as bot h a “s ki mas k” and a “ wat ch cap. ” H e e xpl ai ned t hat “wat ch cap ” i s a co m m o n t erm us ed i n t he m i l i t ary to d escri b e a ski m ask wo rn t o ke ep a pe rs o n’ s head warm whi l e he o r sh e is ke e p ing w a tc h
.

- 5- him that Parker sa id he “g ot a g ood look” at his fac e. The phy sical evide nce r ecove red on the street behind t he st ore was described by the officer a s a dar k “ski mask” or

“wa tch ca p;” the photog raphs contained in the rec ord ar e consistent with that desc ription. 1 Ac c or din g to t he of fi c e r, the sk i ma sk had two “pr etty

big” ey e holes c ut out of it, supporting an infere nce that the mask could slip out of pla c e ; ho we ve r, the of

fi c e r ag re e d with de fe ns e c ouns e l th a t th e sk i ma sk wo uld pr ob a bly no t sl ip down from the top of

the hea d. Finally , the offic er te stified that he showed the ski mask to L ew at the sce ne, and L ew r ecog nized it and believed it was wor n by the robbe r. Despite L ew’ s descr iption of t he robber’s h e a d

c o v e r in g a s a

“ s c ar f , ” th e ju r y c o u ld h a v e c h o s e nto g iv e mo r e w e ig h t t o the office r’s testimony

that L ew identifie d the s ki mask as t he it em worn by the robbe r. See Swe aringen
v . S tat e , 1 0 1 S
. W
. 3 d 8 9 , 9 7 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( u n d er fa ct u al s u ff

i ci en cy s t an d ar d , al t h o u gh auth o r iz e d to d is a g r e e w it h th e ju r y e v e n if p r o b a ti v e e v id e n c e e xis ts to s u p p o rt th e verdic t, the
re v i ew i n g court must g ive due de fer ence to the jury ’s deter minations concer

ning the weig ht and
cre dibilit y

of the e vidence ). Bolton also attac ks the streng th of t he witnesses’ identification of him, both at the scene and la te r i n c ourt . A t th e sc e ne , O ff ic e r D oxie te sti fi e d th a t L e w i de nti fi e d B olt on , the dr ive r of the wh ite
car , as the robbe r, stating that “it looked like him” and he “thoug ht it was him.” L ew testified that the per son the p o l i ce ar re sted at the sce ne wa s the man who robbe d him, and he re cog nized the robber by his “heig ht and weig ht” and be cause his “scar f kept slipping off his f ace .” Parke r testified that he identified B olton at the scene as the man he saw runningfrom the store based on B o lton be ingthe same bo dy size and ra c e , w e ari ngthe same c lot he s, and havin g the same ha ir c ut, and a lso04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 6- rec og nized him as the same man he sa w driving awa

y in the white car . I dentification testim ony of this ty pe has been held sufficie nt. See So sa v . S tate , 177 S.W .3d 227, 230-31 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (e vidence was leg ally and fa ctually s u fficient to establish defenda nt’s identity as man wh o co m m itted robbery , even thoug h witnesses we re una ble to descr ibe robbe r’s fac e, whe re the y

descr ibed robbe r’s a

ppear ance based on c lothing, heig ht a nd build, and defe ndant
was see n flee ing the scene ). Both L ew a

nd Parker also made positive in- co u rt i d entifications of Bolton as the r obber. Bolton conte nds that L ew’ s in-court identification is “questionable bec ause it wa s obvious that Mr. B olt on wa s si tti nga t th e c ouns e l ta ble wi th h is a tto rn e y ” and “ [t]he re wa s no oth e r lik e ly c and idate for Mr. L ew to ide ntify .” B olton, however , cites no supporting authority for his asse rtion that the
mere fac t that a def

endant is prese nt in court as the accused undermines t he weight to be give n an
e y e wi tne ss’ s i den ti fi c a tio n te sti mony . Ind e e d, thi s a rgume nt h a s b e e n r e

je c te d a nd we sim ila

rl y consider it to be without merit. Se e Ma x we ll v . S tate , 10 S.W. 3d 78 5, 78 6- 88 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 2000, no pet.) (r ejec ting a rg ument that in-court identific ation of defendant who is sit ting at counsel table, without benef

it of a pre vious line-up, violates du e proce ss and finding no err or in denial of defe ndant’s re quest to sit in t he audie nce dur ing in- court identification) (interna l c itations omi tted). As to P ark e r’ s in -c ourt

ide nti fi c a tio n, B olt on

a sse rt s that Park e r’ s c ri min a l his tor y , wh ic h wa s f

ull y discussed bef

ore the jury , undermined his c redibility . Howeve r, the jury is free to assess a witness’ s
c re dib ili ty

and to b e lie ve a ll, pa

rt , o r n on e of

the wi tne ss’ s te sti mony , a nd we may no t simp ly substitut e our judg ment for that of the jury
. See J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 00 ) ( a pp e llate c ourt ’s e va luatio n s ho uld no t subs tanti a lly int

ru de up on the jur

y ’s ro le a s th e so le judge of the we ight a

nd cre dibilit y

g iven to witness testimony).04- 07- 0083 3- CR

2 ... P a rk e r a lso tes tif

ie d to a n o the r in c id e n t t h a t o c c u rr e d a few m o n ths a fter th e r o b b e ry, in w h ic h B o lto n to ld P arker, “ I’ m t he guy f

rom t he C hi nam an groce ry s t o re . . . d o n’ t t ake m y f reed o m f rom m e. ” B o l t o n do es not chal l enge a d m issio n o f t h is tes tim o n y, an d , i n fac t, d id no t o b je c t t o it a t t ria l.

- 7- I n addition to the identification testimony of L ew a nd Parker , other phy sical evide nce se ized from the white c ar B olton wa s driving corr oborate s his ide ntity as the robber : (1) $65 in ca sh which is within t he $60 to $80 rang e L ew said was stolen; ( 2) with the bills org anized into the same $1, $5 and $ 1 0 denominations as the stolen money ; (3) lay ing loose on the front se at in plain view; (4) a
scre wdriver

laying nea r t he ca sh on the front seat, and a two to thre e foot longpipe in the trunk, either of which could ha

ve bee n wra

pped up to look like a gun; and (5) a dark- colore d shirt in the back se at. In addition, L ew testified that some time afte r t he robbery , Bolton came into his store and asked L ew not to testify

ag ain s t h i m . C onsidering all the evidenc e in the re cord, inc luding the testimony by L ew and Parker and the corrobor atingphy sical evide nce, w e ca nnot say the evidenc e is “so weak” that the jury ’s ver dict seems cle arly wrongand manife stly

unjust. Bo l ton’s fac tual
su ff ic ie nc y c ha lle ng e fa ils
. E X TR A N EO U S O FF ENSE E VI DE NCE I n his second and third issues, B olton asserts the trial c ourt err ed in admitting evidence that he thre atene d to kill David Parker’ s family if Parker tes t i fi ed aga i n st him because ( 1) there was insufficient evidenc e for the court to de termine that a jury could find beyond a re asonable doubt that Bolton made the threat, and (2) e ven if other wise admissible, the probative value of the evidenc e wa s substantially

outweig hed by

the dange r of unf

air pre judice. At trial, Parke r testified ove r objec tion that, ri g ht be fo re tr ia l, B olt on a sk e d him if he wa s g oin g to t e sti fy a g a ins t hi m. Wh e n Pa

rk e r s a id

“ y e s, ” B olt on state d that he ha d re se arc he d Park e r’ s b a c kg ro un d a nd if Park e r t e sti fi e d a g a ins t hi m, he “w ould kill [P arke r’s] w hole family , mother, sisters and brothe rs.” 2 We reviewthe trial cour t’s04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 8- decision to admit this evidenc e for an abuse of di scre tion. W ine ga rn e r v . S

tate , 235 S.W .3d 787, 790 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Ro bb ins v . S tate , 88 S.W .3d 256, 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). As long a s the trial cour

t’s ruling was within the zone of re asonable disag ree ment, and was c orre ct under any applicable theory of l aw, we wil l uphold the ruling. W inegarner , 2 35 S.W. 3d

a t 79 0; Mo ntg

om e ry
v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on re h’g ). Under Rule 404(b), e vidence of a de fenda nt’s “other

crimes, wr ong s or ac t s ” is not admissible to show char acte r conformity , but may be admissi ble for othe r purpose s such as proof of “intent . . . plan, knowledg e, [or] i dentity .” T EX . R. E V ID . 404(b). The li st of per missibl e purpose s contained in Rule 404(b) is not ex haustive. Ga rc ia v . S tate , 201 S.W .3d 695, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 06 ) ( no tin g that e vid e nc e is r e le va nt to a mat e ri a l is su e if

the purp os e fo r whic h it s a dmi ssi on is soug ht tends to make the ex istence of a fact of conseque nce mor e or le ss probable) . The Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls h a s h e ld that e vid e nc e of a de fe nd ant’ s o the r “ c ri min a l a c ts that are de sig ne d to reduce t h e l i k eli hood of prose cution, conviction, or inca rce ration for

the offe nse on trial ar e admissible under Rule 404(b) as showing ‘consc iousness of g uilt.’” Ra ns om v . S tate , 920 S.W .2d 288, 299 (T e x. Crim. App. 1996) (op. on re h’g ) (listing e x amples, including threats ag ainst witnesses
and the ir fa mil ie s) . A ny a tte mpt to tampe r wi th a wi tne ss, or thr e a te n a wi tne ss o r t he ir fa mil y , is probative of a defe ndant’s “consc iousness of g uilt,” a nd is the ref

ore rele vant under Ru l e 4 0 4 (b ). W ils on v . S tate , 7 S.W. 3d 13 6, 14 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Br own v . S tate , 657 S.W .2d 117, 119 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ); Pe op le s v. S tate , 87 4 S.W. 2d 80 4, 80 9 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 19 94 , p e t. ref ’d). B e fo re a

tr ia l c ourt

may a dmi t e xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e e vid e nc e un de r R

ule 40 4( b) , h ow e ve r, it
mus t de te rmin e whe th er a jur y c ou ld f ind be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t th e de fe nd ant a c tua lly04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 9- committed the extraneous offe nse. T EX . R. E V ID . 1 04 (b ); se e Ha rre ll v . S tate , 884 S.W .2d 154, 159- 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (under Rule 104(b), the tria l court must make an initial deter mination as to releva ncy of the e vidence if it is depend en t o n t h e fulfillm ent of a condition of fac t – such as wh e the r t he de fe nd ant c omm itt e d th e e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e ); see a ls o F

is cher v. Sta te , 235 S.W .3d 470, 473 (Tex. A

pp.—San Antonio 2007, pet. g rante d). Bolton states in his brief that the trial court fa iled to make the Rule 104(b) finding
. Howeve r, the rec ord indicates the court made the re quired finding befor e admitting the extraneous offe nse evide nce, determining outside the jury ’s pre sence “whe ther
or no t th e y [the thr e a ts] w e re , in

fa c t, m a de and , numb e r t wo , if wh a te ve r w a s ma de is r e le va nt t o the guilt/innocence phase .
. . .” The court found nothing to controver t that the threats were made by B olt on , a nd fo un d th e thr e a t e vid e nc e “ be lie va ble ,” no tin g , “ I do n’ t have any thi ng in fr on t of

me to disc redit it.” The court ruled the evidenc e was rele vant as “ consciousness of g uilt” evidence , and conclude d that the threat evidence was a dmissibl e under both Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. Bolton next arg ues there was insufficient evidenc e to support the t rial cour t’s deter mination that a jur y c ou ld f ind be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t that Bol to n thre a te ne d to kil l Park e r’ s f a mil y beca use (1) P ar k er was not credible due to his cr iminal hist ory , and (2) it is “ill og ical” to be lieve Bolton threatened to kill Parker’ s family , but did not threaten L ew when he asked him not to testify
a g a ins t hi m. We fi rs t note that Par ke r’ s pro ff

e re d te sti mony

a bo ut B olt on ’s thr e a t to kil l hi s f a mil y
was une quivocal and unc ontradic ted. The f act that Par

ker ha d a cr iminal hist ory , and wa s in fact incar cer ated a

t the time of his t est imony in Bolton’s trial, may

have some impeachme nt value but does not automati ca l l y n ega t e the probative value of his testimony
. Se e Da le v . S tate , 90 S.W .3d 826, 830-31 (Te x . App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. re f’d) . Fur ther, e ven thoug h they did not include
e xplic it t hr e a ts o f h arm , B olt on ’s two ot her requ ests to P ark e r a nd L e w n ot t o te sti fy

a g a ins t hi m04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 10- p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l s u

p p o rt f o r f i n d i n g t h a t B o l t o n d i d i nf

a c tm a k e t h e th r e a ta g a i n s tP ar k e r ’ s f a m i l y; all three reque sts that witnesses not testify ag ainst him were ma de to impede his prose cution and
co n v i ct i on. Reviewing the trial cour t’s initial determination under Rule 104(b) for a n abuse of dis c re tio n, we c ann ot s ay that th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ingwas ou ts ide the zon e of re a so na ble dis a g re e me nt. Finally , Bolton conte nds the court e rre d in admitting the thre at evidence be cause any probative va lue was substantially outweig hed by

the da ng er of

unfair pr ejudice, a

nd there fore the evidenc e should have been e x cluded u n d er Rule 403. T EX . R. E V ID . 4 03 . T he ru le c arr ie s a presumption that rele vant evidenc e will be more probative than prejudicia l. Sh uff ie ld v . S tate , 189 S.W .3d 782, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The a naly sis under Rule 403 includes a balanc ing of

the following fac tors: (1) the inhere nt pr obative forc e of the evidenc e; (2) the proponent’s ne ed for the evidenc e; (3) any tendenc y of the evidenc e to sug g est decision on an improper basis; ( 4 ) a ny tendenc y of the e vidence to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues; (5) any tendenc y of the evid en ce t o be g iven undue we ight by the jury ; and (6) the likelihood that presentation of the evidenc e will consume a

n inordinate amount of time o r m ere ly repe at evidenc e alr eady

admitted. Gi gli ob ian c o v . S

tate , 210 S.W .3d 637, 641-42 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006); Pr ibl e v . S tate , 175 S.W .3d 724, 733 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Her e, the e vidence of Bolton’s threats ag ainst the key witness’s family

has strongprobative value a s to a contested matter – B o l t o n ’s gu i l t of the cha rg ed off ense. A s evidenc e of B olton’s “consc iousness of g uilt,” it served to make a fac t of conseque nce mor e p ro b able, a nd was thus rele vant and hig hly

probative. Gigliobianco , 2 10 S.W. 3d a t 64 1; see Ransom , 920 S.W .2d at 299- 300 (noting that the probative value of an extraneous crime showing “consc iousness of g uilt” may04- 07- 0083 3- CR

- 11- we ll ou tw eigh its pr e

jud ic ia l im

pa c t) ; se e als o To rre

s v . S tate , 7 9 4 S. W. 2 d

5 9 6 , 5 9 8 ( T e x. App.—Austin 1990, no pet.) (c hara cter izi ng “consc iousness of g uilt” evidence as one of the strong est kinds of evidenc e of guilt). The time require d to develop the e vidence was brie f, and it wa s not cumulative of other

evidenc e alr eady admitted. The State’s ne ed for the evidenc e wa s signific ant g iven that Parke r adm i t t ed h e l o s t s i g ht of the man fle eing the store f or a pe riod of time, and the inconsistencies in the de scriptions g iven by L ew a nd Parker . Finally , while the evide nce of the threat to Parker’ s family

is inflammatory , and could have “a tendenc y to sugg est dec ision on an improper ba sis , [su c h a s] . . . a

n e mot ion a l on e ,” it i s o nly re nd e re d in adm iss ibl e if the da ng e r o f u nf a ir prejudice su bs tan tia lly

outweig hs the probative va lue of the evidenc e. T EX . R. E V ID . 4 03 (e mph a sis
a dd e d) ; Gigliobianco , 210 S.W .3d at 641. W e conc lude that the hig hly probative nature of the “consc iousness of g uilt” evidence was not substantially outweig hed by the inflammatory nature of the threat and any

risk of unfa ir prejudice
. Se e Ma dd e n v . S tate , 9 1 1 S. W. 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 43 (T e x. App
. —Wa c o 1 9 9 5 , p e t. r e f ’ d ) ( o f f ic e r ’ s te s ti mo n y

th a t d e f e n d an t s a id

h e w o u ld

s h o o t a n y o n e, including police , who tried to stop him from leaving the state was admissible unde r Rule 404(b) a s “con sci ou sn e ss o f guil t” e vid e nc e , a nd its inf lammator y natur e did

no t su bs tanti a lly

ou tw e ig h it s pr ob a tiv e va lue un de r t

he Rul e 40 3 a

na ly sis ). Th e re fo re , w e ho ld t he tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its discretion by

admitting the thre at evidenc e, and ove rrule B olton’s second a nd third issues. B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Do No t Pu

bli sh