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

NO. 03-0 8 -00 129 -CR

Tim ot hy F r anks , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3032 462 , HO NORAB LE DON LEO NARD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury convicted T imothy

Fr anks of murde r. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 19.02(b)( 1) (West 2003). Punishment was assessed at 99 y ear s’ imprisonment. Fra nks asserts that the tria l court
err ed by (1) a dmitti ng into evidence a videotape d witness statement and ( 2) fa iling to instruct the ju r y th a t i t c o u ld

c o n v ic t h im

o f the le s s e r - in c lu d e d

o f f e n s e o f inv o lu n ta r y ma n s la u g h te r . We wi ll a ff ir m.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On July 25 , 19 94 , Caro l Ha

rr is wa s fata lly sh ot in h e r h ome . Cr ime -s c e ne ana ly sis indicated that someone fired twe lve s hots throug h the front of the house. F urther a

naly sis indicated that the shooter started firing while standing on the front por ch and c ontinued firing while re treating from the por ch into the front y ard a nd toward the street.2 Police initially

questioned Ha

rris’s relatives and neig hbors. A neig hbor told police that she had seen a car belong ing to one Paul Ma nnie driving around the neig hborhood shortly befor e Har ris was shot. Police subsequently questioned Paul Mannie about the i ncident and also questioned Ronald Cy

press, one of Mannie’ s friends. Both men admitted that they had bee n driving around the neig hborhood tog ether

in Mannie’s car the nig ht Harr is was shot, but they told police that they

knew
no thi nga bo ut t he sh oo tin g . T he y

a lso tol d p oli c e that on e An dr e w Joh ns on ha d be e n in the c a r w ith them and had been sleeping in the back seat. Andre w J ohnson told poli ce the same. With no further le a ds , H arr is’ s murd e r w e nt u ns olv e d f or mor e tha n n ine y e ars . I n 2 00 3, Ron a ld Cy

pr e ss c a lle d the Te xas De pa rtme nt of Cor re c tio ns tip ho tli ne to repor t that he had information about Har ris’s murder. Police interviewe d Cy press, who told them that he had lied in his pre vious interview; Timothy Fr anks, not A ndrew J ohnson, had bee n driving around w ith him and Mannie the nig ht Ha rr is was murder ed. Cy press g ave police additional information that they

believed implicate d Fr anks in Har ris’s murder
. Police then re -interview ed Paul Mannie. The y videotaped the in

te r v ie w , wh ic h

la sted for approximately five hours. Mannie initially repe ated his story from 1994, saying that he knew nothing a bout Harr is’s murder and had been driving around the nig ht of the murder with Cy press a nd J ohnson. After police offe red Ma nnie immunity

and told him that they

knew a bout Fra nks, howeve r, Mannie c hang ed his story to one more c onsistent with C y press’s r evised ve rsion of eve nts. Af te r f ur the r i nv e sti g a tio n, the State c ha rg e d F ra nk s wi th H arr is’ s mu

rd e r. At tr ia l, the State ca ll ed M an n i e as a witness. Mannie of fer ed testimony

larg ely consistent with the incriminating statements he had g iven police in 2003. On c ross-examination, Mannie admitted that3

he had ma de those stateme nts only afte r police offe red him immunity and told him that they knew about Fr anks. Fr anks’s attorney sug g ested that Mannie had tailore d his statements during his 2003 interview to fit the story

the police wa

nted to hear
. On redire ct examination, the State’s attorney offe red to introduc e the videotap e of Mannie’s 2003 inter

view into evidenc e. F ranks’ s attorney asked that a transc ript of the intervie w be introduced into e vidence as well. The State resisted beca use the transcr ipt ha d not been c ertified
as ac curate by

a cou rt re p o rt er. A fter a n off- the-re cord discussion, the tria l court admitted the vid e ota pe ov e r F ra

nk s’ s o bje c tio n. I t a lso a dmi tte d th e tr ans c ri pt fo r in- c ourt re vie w o nly . T he Sta te i n t r o d u c e d t h e e n t i r e v i d e o t a

p e i n t o e v i d e n c e an d

p l aye d c e rt a i np art s o f

i tf o r t h e j u r y. At the trial’s e nd, the cour t instructed the jury

on the murder

char g e. I t did not instruct the jury

that it could co n v i ct Fr anks of the le sser-inc luded offe nse of involuntary manslaug h te r . F r an k s n e it h e r r e qu e s te d

s u c h anin s tr

u c ti o nn o r

o b je c te d to th e ju r y c h ar g e as submitt ed. The jury convicted Fr anks of murder. Fr anks appea led, contendingthat the trial cour t (1) should not have admitted the vi deotape of Mannie’s interview a nd (2) should have instructed the jury that it could convict Fr anks of the le sser-inc luded cha rg e of involuntary

manslaug hter.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We reviewtrial court rulings on the admis sibili ty of evidence for abuse of discre tion. Car ra sc o v . S

tat e , 154 S.W .3d 127, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We will uphol d a trial court’s deter mination on the admissibilit y of evide nce if

it is reasonably

supported by

the re cord a

nd corr ect under a ny applicable leg al theory
. Id
.4 Where a defe ndant does not objec t to the formulation of a jury char g e , th e f

o r mulation of the char g e is g rounds for reve rsal only if it r epre sents fundame ntal err or and c aused the defe ndant eg reg ious harm. See Al

ma nz a v . S

tat e , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
DI SCU SSIO N Adm ission of Mannie’s V ideotaped Interview Fr anks ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in admitting the videotape of Mannie’s 2003 police intervie w. Afte r the State offere d the tape into evide nce, the following discussion occurr ed:
TH E CO UR T: L e t’ s g e t th is o n th e re c or d. State ha s of fe re d th e vid e ota

pe of thi s wi t n es s ’ [ s i c] s t at em en t , an d h e [ d ef en s e c o u n s el ] i s o b

j ec t i n g. DE FE NS E C OUNS E L : Iam o b j ec t i n g. THE C OURT: And I am going to admit it, and I assume y ou [t he State] want to offe r it o n, y ou sa id, on the re c or d, that y ou are of fe ri ngit b e c a

us e [de fe ns e c ouns e l] sa id it w a s th e po lic e ’s ans we rs [that Ma nn ie re c ite d], a

nd it’ s b oth pa st — PRO SEC UT OR : Pr ior

c on sis te nt s ta te me nt. THE COURT: P ri o r consist ent, and in some re spects prior inc onsistent, so I am g oin g to a dmi t it

on tho se thr e e g ro un ds
. DEF ENSE COUNSEL : My objection w o u ld be that it’s not admissible as a prior consistent statement . . . . On appe al, Fr anks ar g ues that the videota pe wa s not admissibl e as a prior consistent stateme nt or prior inconsisten t s t at em ent. See Tex. R. Evi d. 613(a) , 801(e) (1)( B) . We can a ssume without decidingthat Fr anks is corr ect, e ven thoug h he fa iled to r aise the latter objection at trial and r aisedThoug h Fr anks obj ecte d g ener ally that the videotape was inadmissible as a pr ior consistent 1 state me nt, he did

no t ob je c t sp e c if

ic a ll y (a s h e do e s o n a

pp e a l) that Ma

nn ie ’s mot ive to f

a br ic a te arose befor e Mannie m ad e t h e statements on the videotape that incriminated F ranks. See Ha mm on s v . S

tat e , 239 S.W .3d 798, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (to be admissible, prior c onsistent state me nt m

us t have be e n ma de be fo re mot ive to f a br ic a te aro se ); Bo lde n v . S tat e , 967 S.W .2d 895, 899 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 1998, pet. ref

’d) ( “In order

to complain on appea l that a prior state ment is inadmissi ble bec ause it does not pre date the motive to fabr icate, an appellant must have objecte d on that basis to the trial court.” ). The followingquestions posed by defe nse counse l to Mannie are illust rative: 2 Q: An d [th e po lic e ] we re te lli ngy ou [dur ing the vid e ota

pe d int e rv ie w] wh a t the tr uth was—that [AndrewJ ohnson] wasn’t in the car and that they knew that Tim F ranks was in the c ar; that’s the truth they wanted to he ar f

rom y ou, isn’t it, Mr. Mannie? Q: You re sist their statements . . . until t h i s i dea of immunit y

comes up. And the of fi c e rs make it c le ar, do the y no t, .
. . that y ou

wi ll no t g e t in a

ny , a ny tr ou ble
. . . if y o ut e l l t h e i r

t r u t h
. . . ; f a i r s t a t e m e n t ? Q: Every place in this [ videotaped] statement that the a uthorities indicate they

have 5 t h e f o r m e r w i t h ar g u a

b l y i n s u f f i c i e n ts p e c i f

i c i t y, be c a

us e the vid e ota

pe wa s a dmi ssi ble fo r at le a st 1 t wo other r easons. See Carrasco , 1 5 4 S. W. 3 d a t 1 2 9 ( a p p e ll a te c o u rt w il l u

p h o ld tr ial court’s deter mination on admissibi lity of evide nce if rea sonably supported by rec ord and c orre ct under

any applicable leg al theory

). F ir st, the vid e ota

pe wa s a dmi ssi ble to r e bu t th e su g g e sti on that the po lic e fe d M a nn ie his a nswers to the ir questions. Se e Grav es v . S tat e , 1 76 S.W. 3d

42 2, 43 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t Dist.] 2004 , p et
. d i s m ’d) (where “def ense c ounsel introduced spe cifics a s to the context of the videotape on cross-e x amination and questioned the proprie ty of the intervie wer ’s technique ,” door
was opened to a dmission of the tape a s evidenc e by State). De fense counsel re peate dly tried to g et Mann ie to a dmi t th a t he mol de d his sto ry on the vid e ota

pe to a c c or d w ithwh a t th e po lic e wa nte d to hear
. Thus, even if

the videotape was not admissible to prove the tr uth of Mannie’s videotaped 2so me dif fi c ult y or the y wa nt you to c lari fy so me thi ng , y our sto ry

a dju sts a lit tle bit , it ge ts a littl e more detailed; is that a fa ir statement, Mr. Ma nnie?
6 state me nts , it

wa s a dmi ssi ble to sh owthat Ma nn ie wa s n ot s imp ly

pa rr oti ngwh a t th e po lic e tol d h im. See Tex. R. Evi d. 801(d) ( statement not hear say if not offe red to prove truth of matter a sserted) . The trial court state d that this was one o f the thre e re asons why it admitted the videotape, a nd Fr anks neither obje cted nor

soug ht a limiti ng instruction. The jury was there fore fre e to consider the ta pe’s contents for

any purpose. See Tex. R. Evi d. 105(a) (“When e vidence which is admissible . . . f or one purpose but not admissible . . . for another purpose is admitted, the c ourt, upon reque st, shall restrict the e vid e nc e to i ts p ro pe r s c op e and ins tr uc t th e jur y a c c or din g ly ; but, i n th e a

bs e nc e of su c h r e qu e st the cour t’s action in admitting suc h evidenc e without limitation sha ll not be a g round for complaint on appea l.”). Se c on d, duri ngc ro ss- e xami natio n, de fe ns e c ouns e l int e ns ive ly qu e sti on e d M a nn ie about his videotaped state ments. The videotape was there fore admissible on redire ct to clar ify what Mannie a ctually

said. SeeT e x. R. E v id
. 107; Cre dil le v . S tat e , 9 2 5 S. W. 2 d

1 1 2 , 1 1 6

- 1 7 ( T e x. App.—Houst on [14t h Dist.] 1996, pet. re f’d) (“[B]eca use appe llant inquired into the videotaped
conver sation . . . , [under Rule 107] the State was e ntitl ed t o o ffe r any other e vidence [e.g., the videotape itself] that was ne cessa ry to make the c onversation fully understood.”) . Fr anks ar g ues that even if Mannie’s state ments on the t ape w ere admissible, the police’s state ments on the tape w ere not. Fra nks did not raise this argument at trial—in fac t, at trial he ad v ocate d introducing the tape in its entirety

—but even if he had, a ll parts of a vide otaped c onversation that are ne cessa ry for clar ification are admissible unde r rule of evidenc e 107. Se e id . at 11 7; W alt e rs v. Sta te , 247 S.W .3d7

20 4, 21 7- 18 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ) (R ule 10 7 “ pe rm its the int

ro du c tio n of

oth e rw ise ina dmi ssi ble evidenc e whe n that evidenc e is nec essar y to fully an d fairly

explain a matter ‘ope ned up’ by the adver se par

ty .”). We ove rrule F ranks’ s first issue.
Jur y Ins truc tio n on L esse r-

Inc lud e d O ff e nse Fr anks ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed by not instructing the jury that it could convict him of the lesser- included off ense of involuntary

manslaug hter. F ranks did not re q u es t s u ch an instruction and di d not object to the j ury char g e as submitt ed. He argues that this was bec ause if he had done so a

nd been c onvicted of involuntary manslaug hter, he would have be en estop p ed fr om
a p p e a li n g o n th e b a s is o f e v id e n ti ar y in s u f f ic ie n c y . S

ee State v. Lee , 8 1 8 S. W. 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p . 1 9 9 1 ) ( b y

r e qu e s t i n g o r

n o to b j e c t i n g t o l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d

- o f f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o na tt r ia l, de fe nd ants are e sto pp e d f ro m c omp la ini ngon

a pp e a l th a t e vid e nc e fa ile d to e sta bli sha ll e le me nts of lesser offe nse), overruled in re levant part by Mc Kin ne yv . S tat e , 2 07 S.W. 3d

36 6, 37 4 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2006). B eca

use t h e l aw put him in t his “fundame ntally unfair a nd irrational” position, he
ar g u e s , w e s h o u ld n o t a

p p ly an “ e g r e g io u s h ar

m” s ta n d ar d o f r e v ie w to th e ju ry char g e. See Al ma nz a , 6 86 S.W. 2d

a t 17 1 (if a c c us e d d oe s n ot o bje c t to e rr or in j ur y c ha rg e , th a t e rr or

is
reve rsible only

if it is “so eg reg ious a

nd cre ates such ha

rm that it deprives the a ccuse d of a ‘ fair a nd imp art ia l tr ia l’ ” ). Ra the r, he a rgue s, we sh ou ld act as th ou g h h e pr e se rv e d e rr or and re ve rs e his conviction unless the er

ror wa s harmless. Se e id . (jury -cha rg e er ror pr operly

prese rved by

objection require s reve rsal “a s long a s the err or is not harmless”)
.

A trial judg e has a

duty to prepa re a jury char g e that pro p er l y s et s forth the law applicable to the case , and fa ilure to do s o m ay represent re versible e rror . Se e De lga do v . S tat e ,8

235 S.W .3d 244, 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) . There is no simi lar duty to instruct the jury

on lesser- included offe nses or defe nsive issues, howeve r, as these issues involve strateg ic dec isions by the par ties. Id . at 24 9- 50 . T he re fo re , c on tr ary to F ra nk s’ s argume nt, the tr ia l cou rt di d not e rr in failing to instruct the jury

on involuntary manslaug hter. F ranks did not re quest such an instruc tion,
s o h e ma y n o t n o w c o mp la in a

b o u t th e a bsence of one. Id . at 25 0 ( “ [T]he de fe ns e may no t c la im
err or succe ssfully

on appea l due to the omission of a lesser inc luded offe nse if the de fense ref raine d from re questing one.”) (citation and quotation omit ted). We over rule F ranks’ s second issue.
CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Apr il 28, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh