## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 1400- 06
TE R R Y H A C K LE R , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE S ECON D CO URT O F AP PEALS

CO OK E CO UNTY K EASLE R , J. , f

i l ed a concurri ng opi ni on i n w hi ch K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY and C OCHRAN , JJ. j oi ne d. C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N I a g re e w ith th e m a

jo rityb u t w rite s e p a ra telyto e x p a n d o n its sta tem e n t o f th e f a c ts
a n d a p p lic a b le la w a s w e ll a s its a n a lysis
. T he V i deo T he vi deo s how s D aw n appr oxi m at el yt w o m ont hs befor e she di ed vi s i t i ng w i t h her fami l yand fr i ends i n herki tche n w hi l e ce l ebr at i ng A s hl ei gh’ s four t h bi r t hday
. I n t he begi nni ng of t he vi deo, D aw n t al ks w i t h her fami l y and fr i ends w hi l e s he l i ght s t he ca ndl esH A C K L E R —2

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 37. 07. 1 90 S. W
. 3d 330, 335 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2002) ( ci t i ng Mo sle y v . S ta te , 983 S. W
. 2d 2 2 4 9 , 2 6 1 -6 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 8 )); see al so Mill e r-E l v. S ta te , 782 S. W
. 2d 892, 895- 96 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). See ge ner al l

y Payne v. Tennes s ee , 5 0 1 U .S . 8 0 8 , 8 2 5 -2 6 (1 9 9 1 ). 3 on t he bi r t hdaycake
. She t hen s t eps as i de s o herdaught ercan t ake c enter stag e w hi l e her f a m i l y a n d f

r i e n d s s i n g “ H a p p y B i r t h d a y. ” W h e n A s h l e i g h s t a r t s t o s i n g “ H a p p y B i r t h d a y” t o her s el f, D aw n, al t hough out s i de of the ca m er a’ s vi ew , can be hear d t el l i ng A s hl ei gh t hat hergues t s ar e s uppos ed t o s i ng t he s ong t o her
. D aw n, among t he chorus of herfami l yand fr i ends , can then be hear d s i ngi ng “H appy B i r t hday ” t o A s hl ei gh. A ft erA s hl ei gh bl ow s out t he ca ndl es , D aw n r eent er s t he cam er a’ s vi ew cl appi ng for A s hl ei gh. A s hl ei gh t hen r emoves t he can dles from t h e c a k e and han ds t hem t o D aw n. F i nall y , j ustbefo re the v i deo end s, D aw n pi cks an obj ect off t he cake and hands i tt o A s hl ei gh s o s he ca n l i ck the fr os t i ng off
o f th e o b jec t. R el evancy D u ri n g the p u n ishm en t ph ase , ev iden ce relev an t t o sen tenc ing m ayb e a d m itted. In 1 Sa la za r v . S ta te , w e m ade cl ear t hat vi ct i m r el at ed evi dence i s r el evantats ent enci ng “w hen t hatevi dence has s om e bea r i ng on the defe ndant ’ s per s onal r es pons i bi l i t yand mora l
c u lp a b ili ty .” S u c h e v id e n c e re late s to th e d e f e n d a n t’s res p o n sib ili ty a n d m o ra l cu lp a b ili ty 2 bydi r ect i ng t he fact
- fi nder ’ s at t ent i on t o t he s peci fi c har m caus ed by t he defenda nt ’ s cr i m e. 3 W e have i dent i fi ed t w o t ypes of vi ct i m r el at ed evi dence : ( 1) vi ct i m char act erevi dence andH A C K L E R —3

Id
. 4 Mo se ly , 983 S. W
. 2d at261. 5 Sa la z a r, 90 S. W
. 3d at335 ( quot i ng P ayne , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 8 3 0 -3 1 (O ’C o n n o r, J ., 6 co n cu rri n g )). I d. ; Mo se ly , 983 S. W
. 2d at261. 7 Sa la z a r, 90 S. W
. 3d at335. 8 Sal az ar , 90 S. W
. 3d at335. 9 ( 2) vi ct i m i m pactevi dence
. V i ct i m char act erevi dence det ai l s t he pos i t i ve per s onal 4 char act er i s t i cs of t he vi ct i m . T hr ough vi ct i m char act e re v i d e n c e, t he fa ct fi ndergai ns l i m i t ed 5
acc es s t o t he vi ct i m ’ s l i fe; i ts er ves “‘ t o r emi nd t he [f act fi nder] that the per s on w hos e l i fe
w as taken w as a uni que human bei ng. ’ ” V i ct i m i m pactevi dence , on t he otherhand, 6 concerns the ef

fec tof t he vi ct i m ’ s death on t he vi ct i m ’ s fami l yand fr i ends as w el l as t he
comm uni t y . V i ct i m i m pactevi dence “i s des i gned t o r emi nd t he [fact fi nder ] t hat m ur derhas

7 for es eea bl e cons equ e n c e s t o th e c o mmun i tya n d th e v i c t i m s s ur vi vor ’ s
— fami l ym ember s and f ri e n d s w h o a ls o s u f

f e r h a rm f ro m m u rd e ro u s c o n d u c t.” 8 T he t r i al j udge cor r ect l y det er m i ned t hatt he vi deo w as r el evantt o t he j ur yi n as s es s i ng H a c k ler ’s p u n ish m e n t. T h e v id e o h a d so m e b e a rin g o n H a c k ler ’s “ p e rso n a l re sp o n sib ili ty and mora l cul pabi l i t y . ” A s vi ct i m r el at ed evi dence , t he vi deo conve y ed i nfor m at i on about 9 t h e a c tu a l h a r m c a u s e d b y t h e c r i me c o mmi t t e d b y Hac k l e r . Th e v i d e o s h o wed j u r o r s t hat D aw n M cFar l and w as a uni que i ndi vi dual by offe r i ng j ur or s “a qui ck gl i m ps e” i nt o herl i fe. In v i ew i ng t he video, j urors cou l d gain a real sense of D aw n as a p ers on byview i ng her, fi rs tH A C K L E R —4

T EX . R. E V ID . 403. 10 90 S. W
. 2d at336. 11 hand, athom e w i t h herfami l yand fr i ends
. A nd w hen cons i der ed i n combi nat i on w i t h t he t es t i m onyoffe r ed byD aw n’ s m ot her
- i n- l aw ab o u t the eff ectt hatD aw n’ s death had on A s hl ei gh, t he vi deo off

er ed j ur or s a w ayt o gai n an under s t andi ng of t he l os s t hatA s hl ei gh
s u f f e re d a s a re s u lt o f

H a c k le r’ s c o n d u c t.

R ul e 403 R el evantvi ct i m r el at ed evi dence i s s ubj ect t o excl us i on under R ul e 403 of t he Texas R u les o f E v id e n c e . U n d e r R u le 4 0 3 , “e v id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is
s ubs t ant i al lyout w ei ghed bythe dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of t he i s s ues , or
m i s l eadi ng t o t he j ur y , orbycons i der at i ons of undue d elay , o r n eedl es s pr es ent at i on of
c u m u lativ e e v id e n c e .” W ith re g a rd to th e e x c lu sio n o f v ictim re late d e v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 10 403, i n Mo sle

y v . S ta te , w e sa id : C ons i der at i ons i n det erm i ni ng w hethert es t i m onys houl d be exc l uded under R ul e 403 s houl d i ncl ude t he natur e of t he t es t i m ony , t he r el at i ons hi p betw een t he w i t nes s and t he vi ct i m , t he amount of t es t i m onyt o be i nt r oduced, and the av ail ab il ityo f o ther testi m o n yrelati n g to v ict im im p ac t and ch ara cter. 11 B ui l di ng on Mos l ey i n Sal az ar , w e d ir ec ted c o u rt s to w eigh the f o ll o w ing fo u r fa ctors
w hen conduc t i ng a pr obat i ve val ue ver s us unfai rpr ej udi ce a nal y s i s underR ul e 403:

• t he pr obat i ve val ue of the evi dence ;

• t he pot ent i al of t he evi dence t o i m pr es s t he j ur y i n s om e i r r at i onal , but n e v e rth e les s in d e lib le w a y ;H A C K L E R —5

Sal az ar , 90 S. W
. 3d at336 ( ci t i ng S o lo m o n v . S ta te , 49 S. W
. 3d 356, 366 ( T ex. 12 C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); R e e se v . S ta te , 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 0 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 )). 2 1 0 S .W .3 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 2 n .8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). 13 I d. at641. 14 I d. 15 I d. 16 I d. 17 Id
. 18 • t he t i m e t he pr oponentneeds t o devel op t he evi dence ; and

• t he pr oponent ’ s need f ort he evi dence
. 12 Re c e n t l y , i n G ig li o b ia n c o v . S ta te , w e cl ar i fi ed ourpr ece dent s expl ai ni ng t he appl i cat i on of R ul e 403 t o “br i ng i ti n l i ne w i t h t he pl ai n t extof 403.” W e di d s o by 13 di s s ect i ng t he R ul e’ s “key phr as es . ” St ar t i ng w i t h phr as e “pr obat i ve val ue, ” w e s ai d t hat 14 it “re f e rs to th e in h e re n t p ro b a tiv e f o rc e o f a n yitem o f

e v id e n c e
— th a t is h o w stro n g lyit
s er ves t o m ake mor e orl es s probabl e the exi s t ence of a f actof cons equenc e t o t he l i t i gat i on— coupl ed w i t h t he pr oponent ’ s need for t hat i t em of evi dence
. ” T ur ni ng t o t he 15 phr as e “unf

ai rpr ej udi ce, ” w e s ai d t hati t“r efe r s t o a t endenc yto su g g est dec i s i on on an i m proper basi s, com m on l y , t ho ug h not necessari l y , an em oti on al on e. ” N ext, t he p hrase 16

“ c o n f u sio n o f th e iss u e s” “ re f

e rs to a ten d e n c y to c o n f u se o r dis tra c t th e ju ry f ro m th e m a in iss u e s in th e c a se .” T o illu stra te th is, w e c ited e v id e n c e th a t “c o n su m e s a n in o rd in a te 17
a mo u n t o f t i me t o p r e s e n t o r a n s we r [
. ] ” As t o t h e f o u r t h p h r a s e , “ mi s l e a d i n g t h e j u r y , ” we 18H A C K L E R —6

Id
. 19 Id
. 20 S e e c .f. , C la

y to n v . S ta te , 2 3 5 S
. W
. 3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 -82 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 21 s t at ed thati t“r efe r s t o a t endenc yof an i t em t o be gi ven undue w ei ghtbyt he j ur yon ot her t han emot i onal gr ounds
. ” L as t l y , w i t h r es pect t o t he fi nal t w o phr as es , “undue de l ay ” and 19 needl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence , ” w e s ai d t hatt hey“conc ern t he ef fi ci encyof th e tr ia l p ro c e e d in g ra th e r t h a n th e th re a t o f a n in a c c u ra te d e c is io n .” 20 U nder t he fac t s of t hi s cas e, I bel i eve t hat t he tr i al j udge w as w el l w i t hi n hi s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng t hatt he pr obat i ve val ue of the vi deot ape w as nots ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed by th e d a n g e r o f

a n yu n f a irp re ju d ic e . F ir s t, I b e liev e th a t th e v id e o w a s h ig h lyp ro b a tiv e a s v ictim c h a ra c ter a n d v ictim i m pactevi d en ce . A s stat ed above , j ur or s coul d gai n a r eal s ens e of D aw n as a per s on by vi ew i ng her , fi r s thand, athom e w i t h herfam il yand fr i ends
. A nd, not abl y , t he vi deo hi ghl i ght ed D aw n’ s r ol e as a mot hert o A s hl ei gh. T hus , t he vi deo conve y ed w hatphot os of D aw n and t es t i m ony about D aw n coul d not . W i t h r es pect t o t he l os s s uffe r ed byA s hl ei gh, 21 t he vi deo, coupl ed w i t h B et t y ’ s t es t i m ony , w as us ed t o i l l us t r at e the di ffi cul t yt hatA s hl ei gh had i n copi n g w it h h er mot her ’ s death. I n s um , t he vi deo made i tm or e pr obabl e thatt he j ur or s w oul d s ee D aw n as a uni que per s on and devel op an under s t andi ng of t he l os s fel tby A s hl ei gh. I n ot herw or ds , t he vi deo s er ved as a t o o l to d emonst r at e the part i cul ardamage th a t f lo w e d f ro m H a c k le r’ s d e c is io n to d ri v e w h ile in to x ic a te d
.H A C K L E R —7

H a c k lerv . S ta te , N o. 2- 04- 446- C R , 2006 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 4995, at*5 ( T ex. 22 A p p .— F o rt W o rt h J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ). I d. 23 T he co urtof ap peals held t hat the n eed f or t he v i deo t ape w as m i n im a l becau se
num er ous w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed aboutD aw n. I bel i eve, how ever , t hatt he nee d fort he vi deo 22
w as m oder at e. A gai n, t he vi deo w as a uni que pi ece of evi dence ; i tgave j ur or s t he
o p p o rt u n ity to w itn e s s D a w n f ir s t- h a n d , u n f

ilte re d b yth e p e rc e p tio n s o f o th e rs . T h e v ideo d id n othave a t endenc yt o confus e the i s s ues orm i s l ead the j ur y . T he
v id e o is ap p ro x im a tely a m in u te a n d a h a lf in len g th ; th e re f o re , itd id n o t tak e a n in o rd in a te amount of t i m e t o pr es ent . Fur t her , t he vi deo di d nothave a ten d encyt o be gi ven undue
w ei ght by t he j ur y . A s t he cour t of appeal s obs er ved, “A l t hough t he vi deo l i kel yi nvol ved
s y m pathy fr om t he j ur or s for t he vi ct i m ’ s fami l y , s y m pathy fort he vi ct i m orherfami l yi s not
a n ir ra tio n a l r e s p o n s e .” 23 Fi nal l y , forr eas ons I have a l r eadydi s cu ssed , t he vi deo di d notundul ydel ayt he p ro c e e d in g s o r r e s u lt in th e n e e d le s s p re s e n ta tio n o f c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e . B as ed o n the for egoi ng r eas ons , I concurw i t h t he C our t ’ s deci s i on t o aff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls
.
D A T E FI L E D : February6, 2008 D O N O T PU BL I SH