NO. 07-06 -046 6-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D DE CE MB ER15, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ NAT ASHA MARIE HEL LER, AP PEL LANT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; TH NO. 17, 957 -A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t N atas ha M ar ie Hel ler appeal s h er

co nv icti on by

j ur y of the o f

fe nse of ag g ra v ated ass aul t and her resul ti ng se ntenc e of three y ears p ro bati on. Vi a one is sue, appel lan t cont ends that the tr ial cour t abuse d it s dis creti on w hen it per mitt ed tr ial tes ti mony to b e rea d to t he j ur

y d ur i ng d el i be rat i on s . F i nd i ng n o ab us e of d i s c ret i on , w e affi r m.2 Backg ro und At t ri al, ev ide nce showed th at ap pel lan t wa s a p a rt ic ipa nt i n a fig ht t hat i nv olv ed, among othe rs , one John Andrews. Appell ant p ull ed a kni fe and made t hreats dur ing the alt ercat ion

. Dur ing j ur

y del ibe ra ti ons on g uil t or i nnoce nce, the jur

y se nt th e t ria l ju d g e a n ote re q uest ing a t ra nsc ri pt of Andrews’ tes ti mony . The par ti es and t he tr ial co urt agreed t hat the p ro per

respon se w as that suc h a req uestdoesnot cer ti fy dis ag re e ment as to a par ti cul ar poi nt in the testi mony

of a w it ness and thus the tes ti mony w oul d not be prov ide d. The ju ry se nt a sec ond not e s tati ng “ the p arti cul ar par t of hi s t est imon y w here he sta tes that she pul led the kni fe ou t on hi m and made her v er bal threat.” Ag ain , t he par ti es and the c our t ag re ed th at t he j ur

y had not i ndi cat ed an act ual di sag re ement on a pa rt icul ar poi nt. After

the cour t framed it s re spons e ind ic ati ng that “a dis ag re ement as to a par ti cul ar poi nt” i s req uired, t he j ur y se nt a thi rd note , s tati ng “ [w]e are di sag re ein g on h is tes ti mony in co u rta s to w hat h e s aid w hen he saw her pul l the k nife and threatened hi m. As oppos ed to w hat we hav e heard on the 9 11 Tape.” The tr ial j udg e read the thi rd note to t he St ate a nd appe ll ant’ s c ounse l and read t he tes ti mony

he p lan ned t o read bac k t o the j u ry. Fo ll ow ing the tr ial j udg e’s ex pla nati on, appel lan t’ s c ounse l sta ted “That’ s f ine , Yo ur Honor .” The jud g e then read to the j ur y the ind ic ated por

ti on of Andrews’ tes ti mony . Thereafter , t he j ur y retur ned a v erdict of g uil t as alleged in the indictm ent . Follo win g prese nta tion o f pun ishm entev iden ce, th e jury ass ess ed th e not ed puni shment . Thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.3 Ana lysis By her so le is sue on appe al, appel lan t c ontends thatthe tria l co u rtabus ed i ts d i s c re t i o n w h e n i tp e r m i tt e d t r i a l t e s t i m o n y t o b e re a d t o t h e j u r

y d u r i n g d e l i b e ra t i o n s . W e dis ag re e. Ar ti cl e 36.28 of t he Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re prov ide s, in per ti nent par

t: “I n the tr ial of a c ri minal ca se in a c our t of record, i f the jur

y dis ag re es as to t he s tatement of any w itness t h e y m a y , upo n ap plyi ng to the co urt, ha v e read to the m f rom th e cou rt re por ter's note s t hat p art of su ch w it ness tes ti mony or the par ti cul ar poi nt in dis pute, and no ot her

. . . .” Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 3 6 .2 8 ( Ve rn o n 2006)

. The Co urt of Cr imi nal Appea ls has found the sta tute to be cl ear thatthe jur

y mustd isa gre e about a spec ified par

t of tes ti mony

before the s tatementof a w it ness may be read t o them, and has hel d the dis ag re ement mus t be made k now n to the t ri al jud g e i n order for t he j udg e to deter mine the req uest is p ro per and w hat t est imony

i s i n di sput e. Howel

l v. State, 175 S.W .3d 7 86, 7 90 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) ; Moor e v . St ate, 874 S.W .2d 6 71, 6 73 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) , citi ng In ess v. Sta te, 6 06 S. W .2d 306 , 314 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 0). A simp le request for testimo ny doe s not , by itself , ref lect disagreem ent , implicit or express, and i s n ot a proper

req uestunder

ar ti cl e 36. 28. At t he out set , we not e tha t app ell ant fai led to ti m e ly and proper ly

obj ectto the read ing of

A ndre ws’ testimo ny. Com plaint s abo ut error in the rea ding of trial testimo ny mu st be preser

v ed by obj ect ion at the t ime of the readi ng . Hol li ns v. State, 805 S.W .2d 4 75, 4 76 (Tex .C ri m.App. 199 1 ). As w e hav e not ed, far from obj ect ing , app ell ant t old the cour t i ts4

pla nned c ourse of acti on w as “fin e.” An d the record reflect s n o obj ect ion by appel lan t w hen the t est imony

w as re ad by

the cour t. Appell ant’ s i ss ue on appeal present s n othi ng for o ur re vie w.Mo re o ve r, we f in d n o e rro r o n t h e p a rto f t h e t ri a l c o u rtin re a d in g b a c kt h e t e s t im o n y. A trial co urt’s dete rmina tion a s to w het her a factu al dispu te exists between jurors is re v iewed for an abuse of di sc re ti on. Rob is on v . St ate, 888 S.W .2d 4 73, 4 80 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994)

. An abuse of dis creti on oc curs w hen t he tr ial co urt' s d eci si on i s s o c lea rl y w ro ng as to li e outs ide the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Mo ntgom er y v. State, 810 S.W .2d 3 72, 380 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1990)( op. o n reh’g ). An appel lat e c our t s houl d notdi stu rb a t ri al jud g e’s dec is ion under

ar ti cl e 36. 28 unl ess a c lea r abuse of dis creti on and har m are s how n. Br own v. State, 870 S.W .2d 5 3, 56 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) , citi ng Jones v. State, 706 S.W .2d 664 , 668 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 6). Appel lan t c ontends thatthe cour t abu sed it s d is creti on i n readi ng bac k t he te sti mony b e c a u s e th e th re e no t e s fro m t h e j u r y fa i l t o s h o w

a d i s a g re e me n ta b o u tt h e t e s t i mo n y i t s e l f; in st e a d , a p p e lla n t a rgu e s, th e no te s in d ica te th e ju ry wa s a tt e m p ti n g to “so rtth ro u gh different st atements made by Jo hn And re ws.” W e understa nd appel lan t to be referr ing to the l ang uag e i n the thi rd note indi cat ing the ju ry was dis ag re ein g on A ndrews’ tes ti mony “ as oppos ed to the sta tement on the 911 tape. ” W e s ee th e di sti nct ion appel lan t i s d ra w ing , but w e do not a g re e i t demons trates an a buse of d isc re ti o n i n the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng . See Howell , 175 S.W .3d a t 793 ( noti ng ar ti cl e 36. 28 req uires that the jur y disag re e, bu t doe s n ot re q uire tha t t he j ur

y us e any par ti cul ar words to ex press i ts dis ag re ement)

.Rob is on i denti fied th e c ompeti ng co ncer ns (1 ) that the cour t not comment on th e 1 ev ide nce; but (2 ) that the j ur y hav e the means to re sol v e a ny factual di sput es among i ts members

. Rob is on, 888 S.W .2d a t 480

. See also Howell , 175 S.W .3d at 79 0 ( re it erati ng sam e con cerns). 5 Lik e the tr ial co urt i n Rob is on , th e co urt here was present ed w it h a s er ies of three requests by th e jury

. A nd, like the co urt the re, w e f ind the trial court was “prope rly cautio us” t o o b s e r v e t h e c o mp e t i n g c o n c e r n s re fl e ct e d i n a rt i c l e 36.2 8. Rob ins on, 888 S. W .2d a t 481. The record reflect s t he c our t di sc uss ed w it h c o u nsel i ts propose d respon se to t he 1 jury ’s first tw o no tes, e x plainin g tha t readin g of testim ony was prop er only if jurors w ere in disagreem entabo ut th e requeste d test imo ny. T he th ird note ex pressly told th e cou rt jurors w e re d i s a g re e i n g on An d re ws ’ te s t i mo n y “ a s t o w h a th e s a i d w h e n h e s a w h e r p u l l t h e k n i fe and t hreatened hi m.” The c our t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by readi ng that porti on of the t e s t im o n y. Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Publ is h.