1 ... Sit t i ng f o r t he H o no rable M ari a T eresa H err. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 58 6- CR Rob e rt ROBLE DO , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 186th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-2534 Honora ble Fr ed Shannon, Judge Pre siding 1 Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 19, 2009 AFF I RMED Rob le do a pp e a ls h is c on vic tio n f

or a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult
. On a pp e a l, R ob le do c on te nd s: (1) the evidence is leg ally and factually insufficient to prove he used or display ed a deadly wea pon during the offe nse; (2) the trial court a bused its discretion by

allowing the State to introduce a demonstrative knife into evidence ; (3) the tria l court abused its discretion by not affor ding him an opportunity

to take the State’s expert on voir dire to question her reg ardingher qua lifications prior04

- 08

- 00 58 6- CR

- 2- to h e r t e sti mony ; and

(4 ) the tr ia l c ourt a

bu se d its dis c re tio n in a llo wi ng the State ’s e xpe rt wi tne ss to t e sti fy wi tho ut q

ua lif y inghe r a s an e xpe rt . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. B ACKG ROUND On Fe bruar

y 1, 2006, Robledo drove up to the c omplainant, Bla nca Mosque da, and repr esente d to her that he was a n underc over police office r. Robledo, who wa s not actually a police office r, told Mosqueda

that he intended to a

rre st her for

soliciting and e ng ag ing in pr ostitut ion. After Mo sq ue da g ot i nto Rob le do ’s ve hic le , she be c a me su sp ic iou s o f R ob le do and de mand e d to se e his badg e. R o b ledo bec ame upse t when Mosqueda beg an questioning him and drove he r to an abandone d building. Rob le do pa

rk e d h is v e hic le ne ar a loa din g do c k so tha t Mosq ue da c ou ld not e xit the ve hic le
and mov e d to Mo sq

ue da ’s sid e of

the ve hic le . A ft e r g e tti ngin fro nt of Mo sq ue da , Ro ble do tol d Mo sq ue da to u nd re ss. He the n b e g an to hit Mo sq ue da and pu lle d ou t a

n old loc k- bla de kn if

e wi th g old tip s w he n Mos qu eda refuse d to c omp ly wi th h is d e mand s. Rob le do ins tr uc te d M os qu e da

to

“ shut t he fu c k u p” ; ot he rw ise , “ he wa s g oin g to k ill [he r]. ” Ac c or din g to M os qu e da , th e loo k in Robledo’s ey es convinc ed her that Robledo was g oing to kill her if she ref u s ed to cooper ate. Be cause Mosqueda f

ear ed for her life , Mosqueda a g ree d to cooper ate with Robledo. R o b l ed o h el d

h i s kn i fe b eh i n d

M o s qu ed a’ s b ac k

an d ri p p edo ff

M o s qu ed a’ s cl o t h i n g. Robledo proce eded to e n gage i n sever al sexual acts with Mosqueda, includingintercour se. Onc e he complete d all of his sexual acts, Robledo returne d to the driver’ s side of the vehicle and orde red Mosqueda to “g et the fuc k out of the ca r.” Mosque da complied, and Robledo drove off. Mosqueda located a secur ity g uard, w ho immediately

contac ted the police.04

- 08

- 00 58 6- CR

2 ... I t i s un di s put ed t hat t he kn i f e c onf i s cat ed f r om R ob l edo’ s veh i cl e was not t he kn i f e M osque da ob s er ved R o b l ed o us i ng or d i spl ayi ng duri ng t he at t ack.

- 3- Mosqueda g ave the p o l i ce Robledo’s license plate number a nd identified Robledo as he r attack er d u ri ng a photog raphic lineup following the assault. The police subseque ntly arr ested Rob le do and

fo un d an old e r loc k- bla de kn if e and tr a c e s of bod ily fl uid on the pa sse ng e r s ide of

his vehicle. 2 A bucc al swab obtained from R obledo foll owing his arre st revea led that he c ontributed the DNA de posited on Mosqueda’s person during the assault. Robledo was charg ed with commi tting ag g ravated s exual assault, and a jury found him g uilty

as cha rg ed in the indictment. Robledo was sentenc ed to 35 y ear s imprisonment and fined $10,000. This appe al followed. S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E V I D ENC E Robledo complains the evidenc e is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to prove he used or display ed a de adly

wea pon during his sex ual assault of Mosque da. When re viewing the leg al
su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e c on sid e r whe the r, a ft e r v ie wingthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the pr osecution, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse bey ond a reasonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 19 (1 97 9) ; Cla y ton v . S tate , 235 S.W .3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I n consideringa fact u al s u ff iciency challeng e, we look at the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht givingalmost c omplete defe renc e to the jury ’s deter minations of cr edibility
. Lan c on v . S tate , 2 53 S.W. 3d

69 9, 70 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ). We re ve rs e on ly if the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k th a t th e ve rd ic t se e ms c le arl y wr on g and

manif e stl y unjust or if the evidenc e supporting the ver dict is outweig hed by the gre at weig ht and pre pondera nce of the available e vidence
. W ats on v . S

tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006).04

- 08

- 00 58 6- CR

- 4- The Te x as Penal Code pr ov ide s a pe rs on c omm its the of

fe ns e of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult if he i n t en t i o n al l y

or knowing ly

cause s the pene tration of the a nus or sexual org an of a nother pe rs on , w ith ou t th a t per so n’ s con se nt, and us e s or exhi bit s a dea dly we a po n in the c ours e of

the same criminal episode. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.021(a) (1)( A)(i) ; (2)(A )(iv) ( Ver non 2003). A deadly wea pon is defined a s “any

thing that in the manne r of its use or intende d u s e i s capa ble of causingdeath or

serious bodi ly

injury .” Id. § 1 .0 7( a )( 17 )( B ). Al tho ug h a kn if e is n ot a de a dly
wea pon per se, a knife may be a deadly wea pon based on the nature of its use or intended u s e. Ma ga na v . S tate , 230 S.W .3d 411, 414 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. re f’d) . “When no ac tual inj ur y is s us ta ine d b y

the vic tim , th e pr os e c uti on mus t in tr od

uc e e vid e nc e of

oth e r f a c tor s to e sta

bli sh that the knife is a de adly

wea pon.” Id. Th e se fa c tor s ma y inc lud e : th e size , s ha

pe , a nd sh arp ne ss of the kn if e ; th e ma nn e r o f i ts u se or

int e nd e d u se ; th e natur e or e xiste nc e of

inf lic te d w ound s; evidenc e of the knife’s life-thre atening capa biliti es; the phy sical proxi mity betwee n the victim and the knife; and a

ny words spoken by

the one usingthe knife. Id. No one f actor is determinative, a

nd the fa c t f ind e r m us t e xami ne e a c h ca se on a ll o f i ts f

a c ts t o d e te rm ine wh e the r t he kn if e is a de a dly
wea pon. Ba ile

yv . S tate , 46 S.W .3d 487, 491-92 (Te x . App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. re f’d) . The pr os e c uti on

do e s n ot have t o in tr od

uc e the kn if

e int o e vid e nc e to p ro ve the kn if e wa s a de a dly
wea pon. Magana , 230 S.W .3d at 414. Although a weapon m atching the vi ctims’s descr iption was never recove red by the police, the State pre sented the jury with an old lock-blade knife confiscate d from Robledo’s ve hicle upon his arre st. The S tate presented this knife as a demonstrative aid to assist the jury in understanding the witnesses’ te stimony

relating to t h e knife used and display ed by Robledo. An examination of the demonstrative knif

e re veals a

wea pon with an over all leng th of 6 1/4 to 6 1/2 inc hes and blade04

- 08

- 00 58 6- CR

- 5- leng th of 3 inches. A ccording to one of the State’ s witnesses, the demonstrative knife “ fit the de sc ri pti on

pr e tty muc h” of the kn if e us e d b y Rob le do duri ngthe a ssa

ult
. I n addition to the demonstrative evide nce r elating to the approximate siz e and sha pe of the knife used by Robledo, the record shows the S tate also pre sented the jury with evidence conce rning the mann e r o f t

he kn if e ’s us e or int e nd e d use ; evi de nc e of the kn if e ’s lif e -t hr e a te nin g c a

pa bil iti e s; the phy sical proximi ty

betwee n Mosqueda a

nd the knife; a

nd the wor d s s p o k en by

Robledo as he held the knife
. The rec ord shows the jury hear d testimony that Robledo trapped Mosque da inside his ve hic le be fo re makin g his a dv anc e s o n h e r. Ac c or din g to M os qu e da , Ro ble do po si tio ne d h is vehicle ne ar a

loading d o ck o f an ab andoned building and then move d to her side of the vehicle
. On c e dir e c tly

in f ro nt o f h e r, the jur

y he ard that Ro ble do hit

Mo sq ue da and ov e rt ly dis pla y e d h is knife to her . Robledo then put Mosqueda in fe ar f or her life by threatening to kill her if she did not comply with his demands. Finally , the jury hear d Robledo held his knife behind Mosqueda ’s bac k as he pe rfor

med his sexual acts upon her. Such testimony furn i s h ed t he jury

with sufficient additional fac ts from which it could conclude Robledo’ s knife constituted a de adly wea pon under the c ir c ums tanc e s. Viewingthe eviden ce i n t he lig ht most favorable to the verdic t, we conc lude the evide nce is l e g a lly su ff

ic ie nt to sup po rt a fi nd ing that Roble do us e d a nd dis pla y e d a de a dly we a po n a g a ins t Mosqueda. Se e Mi lle r v . S tate , 177 S.W .3d 1, 4-5 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (conc luding e vidence was leg ally suff i ci ent to show knife wa s a dea dly wea pon wher e appe llant
re str a ine d h is v ic tima t kn if e po int a ft e r thr e a te nin g to kil l him and the re c or d d e mon str a te d v ic tim complied with his assailant’s dema nds beca use he f ear ed for his life). M o re o v er, when all of the
e vid e nc e is v ie we d in

a ne utr a l li g ht, we c ann ot sa y the jur y ’s fi nd ingis m anif

e stl y un jus t or a g a ins t04

- 08

- 00 58 6- CR

3 ... Ro bl edo arg ues t he onl y ev i dence s howi ng he al l ege dl y us ed or di s pl ay ed a deadl y wea po n w as M osque da’ s t es t i mo ny s ug ges t i ng s he f ea red fo r he r l i f

e a f t er obser vi ng hi s kn i f e. Ro bl edo cont ends ev i dence conce r ni ng M osque da’ s sub ject i ve f ear i s not en ough t o prove h e u s ed or di s pl ay ed a deadl y wea po n. H owever , as d etail ed ab o ve , t he rec o rd sho w s t he S t ate pre sen t ed ev i d en ce o f m ult i p l e o t he r f ac t o rs f ro m wh i ch t he jury co uld assess w h e the r th e kn if

e u se d a g a ins t M o sq u e d a w a s a d e a d ly we a p o n . C o n se q u e n tly, w e a re un p e rs u a d e d b y R o b le d o ’s c o n te n tio n .

- 6- the g reat weig ht of the evide nce. There fore , we further conclude the evidenc e is fac tually sufficie nt to support a finding that Robledo used and display ed a de adly wea pon ag ainst Mosqueda. 3 A D M IS SI O N O F D EM ON STRA TI V E E VI DE NCE Robledo contends the trial court erre d in admitting S tate’s Ex hibit No. 7, the old lock-blade knife introduce d by

the State for demonstrative pur poses, bec ause it wa s not releva nt. We review
a trial court’s admission of demonstrative evidenc e for an abuse of discretion. Se e Sim mo ns v . S tate , 62 2 S. W.2 d 1 11 , 113 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ). I t is wi thi n the tr ia l cou rt ’s dis c re tio n to a dmi t in to evidenc e a simi lar ty

pe we apon or instrument used in the c ommissi on of an of fense if it is relevant
and ma te ri a l to an is su e in the c a se , is not ove rl y inf lammator y , an d the or ig ina l, if a va ila ble , w ou ld be admissible. Id. “A weapon or instrumentality that is descr ibed as ‘like,’ ‘simil ar to,’ ‘ much the same,’ ‘ pretty

much the same ,’ ‘more or less t he same,’ ‘something l ike,’ ‘not unlike,’ ‘compar able,’ ‘re semble s , ’ ‘ c lo s e ly r e s e mb le s , ’ ‘ c lo s e , ’ ‘ s a me b u t n o t th e e xa c t o n e , ’ o r d e s c r ib e d b y th e u s e of compar able wor d s or phra ses as these , is admissibl e as a n aid to the jury

in interpretingand understandingthe ora l testimony adduce d at the trial.” Id. at 113-14. State ’s E x hibit No. 7 is a knife re sembling the one used by Robledo ag ainst Mosqueda. Although the victim described the wea pon used by

Robledo as havingg old t i p s , wher eas State’ s Ex hibit No. 7 did not, one of the State’s wi t nesses testified, w ithout objection, that the State’s demonstrative knife “fit the de scription pretty much” of

t h e k n i fe used by

Robledo. When a key issue in a ca se is whether

a knife was used in a deadly manner , a knife simil ar to the one used during04

- 08

- 00 58 6- CR

- 7- the offense is admissible as demonstrative evidenc e. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 9 1 9 S. W. 2 d

4 7 3 , 4 7 7 ( T e x. App.—For

t Worth 1996, pet. ref’d) (holding simil ar knife admissible in ag g ravated robbe ry case ); Po se yv . S tate , 763 S.W .2d 872, 875 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1988, pet. re f’d) (same) . A key issue in the prese nt case is whether the knife possesse d by Robledo during the sexual assault was
us e d o r d isp lay e d in a

de a dly mann e r. Th e or ig ina l kn if e wo uld c e rt a inl y have be e n a dmi ssi ble if it was ava ilable in this case; ther efor e, we believe the demonstrative knife re s em b l i n g the one wielded by

Robledo during the attac k was a dmissibl e to assist th e j u ry i n understandingthe trial wi tne sse s’ te sti mony

c on c e rn ingRob le do ’s kn if e . A c c or din g ly , w e ho ld t he tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y admitted the demonstrative knif e as e vidence
. E X PE R T W ITN ESS ’ S Q U A LIFI C A TIO N S Rob le do a lso c la ims the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a llo wi ngthe State ’s e xpe rt wi tne ss, Joan

Wel ls,
a lic e ns e d c ouns e lor , to te sti fy a bo ut t he c omm on

c ha ra c te ri sti c s and

tr a its of a ssa ult vic tim s. Robledo contends t h e t rial cour t should have excluded Wells’s testimony beca use Wells was not qu a lif ie d a s an e xpe rt

wi tne ss. I n the a lte rn a tiv e , Rob le do argue s the tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld have a t le a st g iven him the opportunity to take Wells on voir dire to question her reg arding her qua lifications prior t o h e r t e s t i m o n y. To prese rve e rror

for a ppellate r eview, a

n appellant must make a

timely , specific objection
an d o b t ai nan ad v er s e r

u l i n g. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1 (a ); Ha rri so n v . S tate , 1 8 7 S. W. 3 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 20 0 5 ). Additionally , an appe llant’s complaint on appea l must comport with the objection made a

t trial; otherwise, the appellant has prese rved nothing for r eview. Re se nd iz v . S tate , 11 2 S. W.3 d 5 41 , 5 47 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ). Turn ingto t he iss ue s b e fo re us , th e re c or d is de vo id of any trial objections on the base s challeng ed by Robledo on appea l. Robledo did not obj ect in the04

- 08

- 00 58 6- CR

- 8- trial court to Wells’s testimony on the g round that the State ha d not properly qualified h er as an expert witness. Nor did Robledo make a reque st to take Wells on voir dire outside the prese nce of the jury to contest her qualifications. Be cause Robledo failed to raise a ny objections in the trial cour t on the base s challeng ed on appe al, he ha s not preser ved his complaints for our consideration. C ONCL US I ON Ba sed on the for eg oing, the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH