### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 04 -C R

______________________________ J AMMI E L EON HI

NES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 114th J udicial District Court

Smit h County , Texas Trial Court No. 114-1655- 07

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Moseley2 O P I N I O N J ammie L eon Hines, c onvicted by a Smith C ounty

jury of indec ency

with a child (T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 21 .1 1( a ), (c ) ( Ve rn on 20 03 )) , an d sen te nc e d by that jury to l if e imp ri so nme nt, pe r f e c t e d h i s a p p e a l t o t h e T w e l f

t h C o u rto f

A p p e a l s ; t h e T e xa s S u

p r e m e C o u rtt r an s f

e r r e d h is appea l to this Court pursu an t t o the Texas Supreme Court' s docket e qualization efforts. See T EX . G OV ' T C ODE ANN . § 73 .0 01 (V e rn on 20 05 ). Hi ne s urg e s f

ive iss ue s o n a

pp e a l: (1 ) Th e a lle g e d e rr on e ou s r e fu sa l of the tr ia l co urt to decla

re a mis tr ia l a ft e r t

he State improperly

introduced e vidence that Hines had be en pre viously sent to prison. (2) The a lleg ed er

ror c ommitt ed by

the trial c o u

r t i n a ll o w in g th e introduction of evidenc e of an e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e c omm itt e d b y

Hi ne s. (3) That the State wa s allowed to enha nce the p u n i s h m ent rang e in violation of due proce ss of law. (4 ) T h at t h e tr i al co u rt erre d i n al l o wi n g t h e S t at e to co m m en td u ri n g v o i r d i re o nHi n es 's Fifth Ame ndment rig ht to not testi fy in his defense

. (5) That the jury

char g e wa s err oneous bec ause it per mitted a finding of g uilt on less than

a un anim ou s v e rd ic t by

the jur or s.Pse ud on y ms are us e d in the ide nti fi c a tio n of e a c h o f t he min or s in vo lve d, inc lud ingtho se 1 wh o a re wi tne sse s. 3 F AC TS OF THE C ASE The story as re lated by

the witnesses f

o r t h e S t at e was clea

r. At the time of the inc ident g iving r ise to the cha

rg es, the victim, J ulia, was the thirtee n-y ear -old frie nd and schoolmate of 1 Hines' s fourtee n-y ear -old stepdaug hter, Annie . J ulia had stay ed a number of times in the home of Hi ne s and

his wi fe , Judy

Hi ne s, e ve n f

or e xten de d p e ri od s o f t

wo to t hr e e we e ks . D ur ingthe se periods of time, Juli a wa s treate d like a member of the Hine s family

. On th e a f te r n o o nin qu e s ti o n , Ju li a

h a d a s k e d h e r mo th e r to dr o p h e r

o f f a t t h e Hines

re sid e nc e . Upo n he r ar

ri va l, she dis c ov e re d that Hine s and his so n, Willi a m, w e re the on ly oc c up ants of the house; a lthough A n n i e wa s n o t t hen home, she was e x pecte d to return shortly . Hines wa s dresse d only

in his box er shor

ts and was ir o n i n g h i s pants. Shortly afte r Jul ia ar

rived, Willi am

announce d that he wa s g oing to take a shower. That l eft J ulia and Hines as the sole occ upants of the liv ingro om. Julia , w hil e sittin g on the c ou c h, pla c e d a te le ph on e c a ll to a y oungma le fr ie nd , T re nt; just as this call was beinganswe red, H ines came over to her a nd beg an to t ouch her. Hines beg an to rub her g enitals and g rab he r bre asts while pulling he r towar d him. J ulia instructed him to st op, pushed his hands aw ay , and st o o d , at which point Hines c ease d what he w as doing and instructed her to tell no one w hat he ha d done. Tre nt relate d that upon answe ring the telephone call, he he ard J ulia saying, " Stop, don't touch me," immediately befor e the c onnection wa s terminated.4

Hin es t h en d ressed and left the house with Wi lliam, who had re turned to the room a fter taking his shower. Juli a wa ited for Annie to a rrive home and then related the occur renc es to her, at which point Annie tearfully confe ssed t hat Hines had "did [si c] it to her" as we ll. The two g irls then contac ted Annie' s aunt, J ess ica Richa rdson, who lived nea

rby , who drove them to the place of employ ment of Cora, Julia's mother, to whom Juli a re lated the story of what had happened. Cora then contac ted the Troup, T exas, Pol ice De partment a nd took J ulia to the police station. Annie t es t i fi edab o u tt h e ap p ar en tem o t i o n al u p s et wh i ch J u l i a d em o n s t rate d when Annie and Richardson a

rrived at the Hines house. She also related i ncidenc es of Hine s having touched he r on her " private pa

rts" a nd having penetr ate d h er v agi na with his penis. Howeve r, she sa id that her mot he r pr e va ile d on he r to ma int a in sil e nc e a bo ut thi s c on du c t be c a

us e if law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic ia ls

wer e told of it, the conseque nces to Annie ' s half brothe r, Will iam (Hines' s s o n ), wo uld be ver y

a dv e rs e . A lth ou g h A nn ie ha d told a te a c he r of the pr ob le ms s he wa s h a vin g wi th H ine s' s a dv anc e s, she recante d the s tory entirely in order to protect he r y oung er ha lf brother from the c onsequenc es of Hines g oing to pr ison. Hines ca lled Richardson (the aunt of Annie, and Hines' s sister-in-law ), who testified that she

arr ived at the Hines house with Annie shortly afte r the incide nt and that J ulia did not seem particula rly upset or cr

y ing u n t i l s o m e ti me later , when she related the story to her mother. T hat nig ht, Julia

ins ist e d u

po n atte nd inga

pa rt y wi th o the r t e e ns and app eared to h a ve a c are -f re e tim e there , rema ining at the party until 2:30 t o 3:00 in the morning. Fr o m t his conduct, Richar dson5

opined that she did not believe that Hines had committed the acts J ulia had char g ed that he had done; howeve r, Richar dson als o testified to believing that Hines had r aped A nnie, basing her r easoning up on a ratio na le so me wh a t akin to b loo d b e ingthi c ke r t ha n w a te r. Hi nes' s w if

e and so n b oth maintained that Hines a lway s wore la y ers of clothes while in his house, both winter a nd summer, and did not go a

round the house ba

re- cheste d and in box er shorts as J ulia had testified he was dre ssed when the inc ident occur

red. H ines' s son specifica lly testified t hat on the afternoon in question, Hines was dre ssed in war

mups and a shirt and that when he ( the son) had e merg ed fr om the shower afte r the alleg ed incident, Juli a did not evidenc e an upse t demeanor . J udy also denied that Hines had rape d Annie. REF USAL TO GRANT MISTRIAL Duringthe State' s cross-e x amination of Richar dson during the g uilt/i nnocenc e phase of the trial, she wa s asked if she was a war e that Hines ha d once be en convic ted of as s au l t i n g his wife, R i ch ar d s o n 's s i s t er ; R i ch ar d s o nre p l i edaf fi rm at i v el y . At t h at p o i n t , t h e f o l l o wi n g ex ch an ge

occur red: Q [BY THE STATE]: And that y our brother -in-law -

-

THE C OURT: Ex cuse me. Counsel, approa ch the be nch for a minute, please

.

[ HI NES 'S AT TOR

NEY ] : I

ha ve to o bje c t. I

ha ve no pr ob le m wi th t h e a s s au l t

. I t 's go i n g t o co m e o u twh en t h e w i fe get s o nt h e s t an d an y wa y , b u tI 'm g oing to objec t to where he' s g etting r eady to go r ight now.The e nhance ment used by the State showed that Hines had be en pre viously convicted of 2 b u r g l ar y. 6

THE COURT: He ha sn' t taken the stand y et. And so y ou have t o b e v e r y l i m i t e d o nw h a tyo ub r i n g i nf

r o n to f t h i s j u r y. [S TATE]: Okay . I-- T HE C OU R T : Yo uca n n o tj u s tb l at an t l y -- b ec au s e h e h as n 't te sti fi e d y e t. [STA TE ]: I ' ll l e a ve it at th a t.

T H E C O U R T : O k ay. H i n e s h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y s e n t t o p r i s o n an d h a d b e e n r e l e a s e d o n p ar ole ; H ine s, 2 anticipating the nex t question, objected before the State could mention it. The witness who testified

a ft e r Ric ha

rd so n wa s Judy , H ine s' s w if e . T he State c omm e nc e d it s c ro ss- e xami natio n o f t his wi tne ss wi t h t h e f o l l o wi n g: Q [STA TE ]: Yo u' ve be e n ma rr ie d to Mr. Hi ne s for 14 y e ars ; is that c or re c t? A [JUDY ]: Cor re c t. Q [S TATE]: Now, we re you marrie d to him after he g ot out of prison? A [J UDY]: Iwas mar ried to him befor e he w ent to prison, y es sir. The immediate obje ction by Hines was sustained by

the cour t, who then re quested that the jury be admonished to disre g ard. Hines then asked that the court g rant a mistrial on the basis that the re ve la tio n o f t

he pr ior c on vic tio n a

nd pr iso n te rm

so ta int e d th e tr ia l th a t an ins tr uct io n to7

disreg ard w ould be fruitless. The jury was rec essed and a rathe r leng thy exchang e occur red outside its presenc e. Duringthat exchang e, the State maintaine d that the question was pr oper unde r the theor y that since Hine s was on par ole and a conviction would virtually assure that his parole would be revoke d, this fact would likely

cause J udy

to fabric ate her t estimony , casting doubt on her verac ity and on the ability of Hines to manipulate her, causing her to lie. The S tate further maintained that, "[W] hen y ou have some one who is m ar ri ed to someone w ho has bee n to prison and is on parole, w ell, then her char acte r ca

n be attac ked whe n she re nders a n opinion ag ainst another individual." The c ourt responde d, "T his is so i ncre dibly prejudicia l for the State to throw that out in front of thi s jury in a n e ff or t to , q uo te , atta c k h e r cr e dib ili ty

. . . . I t is a bs olute ly ob je c tio na ble . I t is hig hly pr e jud ic ia l. It is c omp le te ly -- the State ha s n ot p ro ff e re d to the Court

a lawf ul bas is f or its admissability

[si c] before the jury ." T he cour t then announce d that it would wit hhold a ruling on Hines' s motion for mistrial until later and enter ed an order in limine to r estrict fur ther mention of the matter o f H in e s ' s e xtr an e o u s o f f e n s e ; w h e n th e ju

r y r e tu r n e d , th e c o u rt a dmo n is h e d it in the following fashion:

When we re cesse d, the Court had sustained the de fense ' s objection to the improper que stion asked by the State of Te x as. The Court instructs you that y ou are not to consider that q u es t i o n . You are not to use it as any evidenc e in this case or c i r c u m s t an c e a g a i n s tt h e d e f e n d an ti nan y w ay. We h a ve so me ve ry

str ic t r ule s o f e vid e nc e tha

t appl y in c ourt so tha t a defe ndant re ceive s a fa ir trial, so that a de fenda nt is tried on the acc usations in the indictment in this c ase, so that a jury is focused on w hat evidenc e, if a ny , they hear8

and wh a t, i f a ny , th e y g ive to t hat te sti mony

a s to wh e the r o r n ot a

de fe nd ant i s guil ty as cha rg ed in this indictment and whether or not these a lleg ations have be en prove d be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Now, whe n something ina dmissibl e is thrown out there , Ica n sustain an objection, and I

can te ll y ou from now till [ sic] the earth ends and spins off into the universe that y ou are not to consider that evide nce. An d y ou a nd Ibo th k no w i t' s lik e a sk

un k c ra wl ingint o th a t jury

bo x an d me rea ching in a

nd y anking that skunk out a nd telling y ou y ou can' t smell what y ou think yo u ' r e s m e l l i n g , o k ay? Same t h in g te ll in g y o uto d is r e g ar d s o me th in g th a t yo u ' v e h e ar d

. Y o u ' ve hear d it. The re are no mag ic words that I ' m goingto speak that' s g oing to take it out of y our bra in. Iam instructing y ou that when you g o back to the jury room, that y ou are not t o co n s i d er t h at ev i d en ce i n an y wa y , n o tt o we i gh i ti ni n[ s i c] y o u r d ec i s i o n -m ak i n g, not to utiliz e that inadmissible, that improper que stion in any way in y our dec isionm ak i n g. At the c los e of

his c a se , H ine s a g a in u

rg e d th e cou rt to g ra

nt a mis tr ia l. T he c ourt , w hil e ob se rv ing that, " [T]he fa c t that so me on e ha s be e n to pr iso n is a bo ut a s pr e

jud ic ia l a s y ou

c an g e t in

a c a se ," de te rm ine d th a t th e a dmo nit ion wh ic h h a d b e e n g ive n w a s su ff ic ie nt to pr ote c t Hine s' s r ig hts

and de nie d th e mot ion

fo r a mis tr ia l. The State still maintains in i ts brief that the q u es t i o n an d response wer e prope r and admissible. I n support of this proposition, the St ate f irst mentions Rul e 611(b) of the Te x as Rules of E v id e n c e : " A w it

n e s s ma y b e c r o s s - e xa mi n e d o n an y matt e r r e le v an t to an y is s u e in th e ca se, in clu di ng cred ib il it y ." T EX . R. E V ID . 611(b). In its brief, the S tate fur ther re lies on J

ac k so n v . S tate , 482 S.W .2d 864, 867–68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972), and the stateme nt in it t hat " the adve rse pa rty has9

the ri g ht t o p ro ve any mot ive or de c laratio n of a w itn e ss whic h w ill te nd to s ho w h is b ia s, int e re st

or pr e jud ic e , o r a

ny oth e r m e nta l c on dit ion

of the wi tne ss whic h in

any mann e r t e nd s to a ff

e c t hi s

c re dib i l i t y . " I t g o e s f

urt h e r t o a v e r t h a t " [t ]h e e xp o s u r e o f a w i t n e s s ' m o t i v a t i o n i n t e s t i f yi n g i s a proper and important function of the constitutionally protec ted rig ht of cross- examination," citing Davis v. Alask

a , 4 15 U. S. 3 08 , 3 16 –1 7 ( 19 74 ), a s it s a uth or ity . T he State the n d isc us se s c a se s in which the c riminal rec ord of a witness ca n be used to impea ch the witness or to show bias or pr e jud ic e : Ma

x we ll v . S tate , 4 8 S. W.3 d 1 96 , 1 99 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); Car pe nte r v. S

tate , 979 S.W .2d 633, 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Howeve r, t he cited case s and the Da v is case which the State' s brief quote s involve the question of introduction of evidenc e of the criminal convic tions of wi tne sse s, no t c on vic tio ns of the de fe nd ant on t ri a l. A c c or din g ly , th e y

are no t on

po int . T he State

a tte mpt s to jus tif

y the int ro du c tio n o f H ine s' s p ri or pe nit e nti ary sta y by re lyingon

the state me nt i n Mo re no v . S

tate , 22 S.W .3d 482, 485–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), that even " unadjudicate d crimes could be a dmissibl e to show a w itness's bias or i ntere st in the par ticular c ase." Howeve r, Moreno is easily distinguished because althoug h the wit ness being im peac hed was the defe ndant himself, he ha d ch o s e nt o t e s t i f

y . H e r e , H i n e s h a d

n o tt e s t i f i e d an d , i n d e e d , n e v e r

t e s t i f i e d i nh i s o w nb e h a lf duri ngthe g uil t ph a se of

the tr ia l. "T he gene ral rule in all Eng lish speakingjurisdictions is t hat an a ccuse d is entitled to be tried

o nt h e a cc u s at i o n m a d e i n t h e S t at e's p l ea d i n g an d n o to ns o m e c o l l at er al cr i m e, o r f o r b ei n g a cri mi nal general ly

. Th e rul e is no w de eme d ax io mat ic a ndis fol lo wedin all ju ri sd ict io ns ." Y oungThis list is ill ustrative, rather than e x haustive, and e x trane ou s -o ff en s e evide nce ma

y be 3 admissible when a de fenda nt raises a defe nsive issue that neg ates one of the ele ments of the off ense. Ma rti n v . S

tate , 173 S.W .3d 463, 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

10 v . S tat e , 159 Tex. Crim . 164, 261 S.W .2d 836, 837 (1953). Althoug h Rule 404 of the Te x as Rules of Evidenc e spec ifically bars the introduction of evidenc e of other c rimes in an ef fort to show " the char acte r of a

person in orde r to show action in confor mity there with," it spec ifically permits such

e v i d e n c e u n d e r

s o m e c i r c u m s t an c e s f

o r s o m e o t h e r

p u r p o s e s , " s u c h a s p r o o f

o f m o t i v e , o p p o rtu n i t y, in ten t, prep arat io n, pl an, kn owl edge, i den ti ty , o r abs ence o f m is tak e or a cci den t. " T EX . R. E V ID . 404(b). Even if other

wise admissible, evidenc e must be tested a g ainst the constra ints in Rule 403, 3 constraints which inc lude whethe r its "pr obative value is substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of

un fai r pr eju di ce." T EX . R. E V ID . 403. Th e tr ia l c ourt , a

n e xpe ri e nc e d a

nd wi de ly -res pec te d T e xas j ur ist , c or re c tly fo un d th is evidenc e to have been " incre dibly prejudicia l" a

nd "a bsolutely objectionable." The proper

me th o d o f p r e s e r v in g e r r o r in th e a dmi s s io no f

im p r o p e r ly o f f e r ed e vid e nc e is f

or a pp e lla nt' s c ouns e l to : 1) state a tim e ly sp e c if ic ob je c tio n, 2) ob ta in a rulingon the objection fr om the trial court, 3) move for an instruction for the jury to disreg ard, 4) obtain a r uling on the instruc tion and if sustained, have the jury ins tr uc te d, 5) mov e fo r a

mis tr ia l, a

nd 6) ob ta in a

ru lin g on the mot ion

fo r m ist ri a l. These ste ps must be taken in s equenc e, and counsel cannot object and move for an instruction and mistrial without obtaining a r uling on the obje ction. Ha dd e n v . S tate , 8 2 9 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 1 (T ex . Ap p . — C o rp u s C h ri s t i 1 9 9 2 , p et

. re f'd ) ( ci t i n g De Ru sse

v . S tat e , 579 S.W .2d 224, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1979)). Hine s followed this proce dure to the letter, prope rly

prese rving the er

ror for appea l. Hines now maintains that the admonition or11

instruction to the jury

to disreg ard w as insufficie nt to safeguard his r i gh t s , that the jury was hopelessly

and irre vocably

tainted by

the statement, and that the trial cour t was in err or in not having de c lare d a

mis tr ia l. The Te x as Court of Criminal Appe als rec ently observe d that "E x trane ous-offe nse evide nce is ' inh e re ntl y

pr e jud ic ia l, t e nd s to c on fu se the iss ue s, and fo rc e s th e a c c us e d to de fe nd him se lf again st char ges notpart of t he p res ent case again st hi m. '" Sim s v . S tate , N o . PD

- 1 5 7 5

- 0 7 , 2 0 0 8 T e x. C ri m . Ap p . L E XIS 8 2 0 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . J u l y 2 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Po lla rd v . S tate , No. 04-06-00844- CR, 2008 Tex . App. L EXI S 609, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 30, 2008, pet. g rante d) (c iting Miche lson v. United States , 335 U.S. 469, 475–76 (1948)). I n addition, one notes that (using the trial

c o u rt' s an a lo g y

w h e nin s tr

u c ti n g th e ju

r y to d is r e g ar d ) th e s k

u n k d id n o t ju s t s li n k

in to th e ju

r y b o x; it was intentionally

flung there by

the State. Mis tr ia l is the a

pp ro pr iate re me dy

wh e n th e ob

je c tio na ble e ve nts " are so e mot ion a lly inf lammator y that c ur a tiv e in str

uc tio ns are no t li ke ly

to p re ve nt t

he jur y fr om b e ingun fa ir ly pr e jud ic e d a g a ins t the de fe nd ant. " Y ou ng v. S tate , 137 S.W .3d 65, 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Conversel y , a

mis tr ia l is no t r e qu ir e d w he re pr e jud ic e is c ur a

ble by an in str uc tio n to the jur

y to disreg ard. Ov all e v . S

tate , 13 S.W .3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). An appe llate cour

t review ing a

trial court' s ruling on a

mo tion for mistrial must ut iliz e an abuse of discretion standa rd of r eview, Lad

d v . S tate , 3 S.W .3d 547, 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999),

and mus t up ho ld t

he tr ia l c ourt ' s rul ing if that rul ing wa s with in the zon e of re a so na ble dis a g re e me nt,12

Mo ntgom e ry

v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on re h' g ); W e ad v . S tate , 129 S.W .3d 126, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Although it appear s from the c ircumstance s that the State (havingbeen pr eviously instructed to refr ain from the sa

me i nquiry which it ultimately pursued) fully intended the r elea se of the skunk in the jury box to which the trial c ourt made r efe renc e, and although the interjec tion of the fac t that Hines had pr eviously been to prison was "incre dibly prejudicia l" to him, the trial cour t determined that it s r a ther

le ng thy and sp e c if ic ins tr uc tio n in pla in a nd un va rn ish e d la

ngua g e to t

he jur y to disreg ard the s t at em en t which it had hea rd wa s sufficient to cur e the pr ejudice c aused by the statement. Noting that the statement c oncer ning Hines' s term in pr ison w as very short and wa s not the re a ft e r m e nti on e d b y

anyon e in t

he pr e se nc e of

the jur y , th e de c isi on

by the tr ia l c ourt

a s to wh e the r t o de c lare a mis tr ia l lay wi thi n the zon e of re a so na ble dis a g re e me nt an d the de c isi on no t to do so was not er

ror. Acc ording ly , this point of er ror is over

ruled. EV ID EN CE OF EX TR

AN EOU S OF F EN SE Hines also complains that the tria l court er red in allowing the introduc tion of evidenc e of a n extraneous offe nse committed by Hines. Th is c omp la int

ari se s fr om sub sta

nti a l tes tim ony

re g ard ingof

fe ns e s w hic h w e re a lle g e d to have be en committed by

Hines ag ainst Annie, his stepdaug hter.13

The re ason for J ulia to have be en in Hines' s house at the time of the alleg ed off ense w as that sh e wa s w a iti ngfo r A nn ie to r e tur n. Af te r the inc ide nt, Julia sta

y e d a t the Hi ne s ho us e un til Annie

arr ived. When Annie re turned, Juli a re lated the incide nt to he r an d An n i e im mediately said that Hines had done the same thing to her and had even raped her. As stated above, there was substantial testimony conce rning this previous incident and the fac t that Annie had r eca nted her story afte r she consid er ed t he adve rse impac t a prison term for Hines would have on her young er ha lf-brothe r. After Hines ca lled Richardson in his defe nse, she state d on cross-e x amination that she believe d that Hines had, inde ed, plac ed his hand on Annie ' s vag ina and ha d place d his penis in her vag ina. I t is possi ble that the extraneous evidenc e of the assault on Annie was admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b) to show pre para t i o n , plan, or a bsence of mistake or a ccide nt. See T EX . R. E V ID . 404(b). How ever , the issue of its admissi bility was ne ver r

uled upon by

the trial cour

t beca use no objection was e ver r aised to its repe ated mention. The lawrequire s that to properly prese rve a

com p l ai n t , a par

ty must have pre sented to the trial court a specific objection, re quest, or motion, or must state the specif ic g rounds for the objection if it i s n o t ap p are nt from the conte x t. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1( a )( 1) ; T EX . R. E V ID . 103(a) (2). To pr e se rv e e rr or

fo r a pp e a l, the c omp la ini ng pa rt y mus t time ly pr e se nt his c la im t o th e tr ia l c ourt wi th sufficie nt specificity

to make the trial court a

war e of the complaint. Sa lda no v . S tate , 232 S.W .3d 77 , 8 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Lan k sto n v . S tate , 827 S.W .2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).U. S. C O N ST . ame nd s. I V, XIV; T EX . C O N ST . art. I , §§ 11a, 14. 4 14 No objection havingbeen lodg ed to the testimony reg arding the extraneous off ense, a ny err or in having permitted its entry was not pre serve d. Acc ording ly , this point of er ror is over

ruled. EN HA NCE ME NT OF T HE PUNIS HME NT RAN GE The orig inal crime w ith which Hines was char g ed is a sec ond-deg ree felony

. See T EX . P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 21 .1 1( d) . Si x day s befo re the c omm e nc e me nt o f t ri a l, t he State fi le d a

no tic e of its intention to enhance to a first-deg ree felony pursuant to Sec tion 12.42( b) of the Te x as Penal Code, this enhance ment being based on H ines' s prior fe lony conviction. See T EX . P E N A L C ODE ANN . § 12.42(b) ( Ver

non Supp. 2008). Although the Texas C o u rt o f C riminal Appea ls has deter mined that th e " pe rh a

ps pr e fe ra ble " ro ute to f

oll owre g ard inge nh anc e me nts is t o in c lud e the a tte mpt to enhanc e in the indictment, it is permissible to take the cou rs e of action followed he re. Brooks v. Sta te , 957 S.W .2d 30, 34 (Tex. C ri m . App. 1997). Hines complains, howeve r, that the trial c ourt

err ed in not having ruled on the moti on to enhanc e until immediately befor e the c ommenceme nt of

vo ir dir e , c la imi ngthat th e de lay in ru lin g on thi s mo tio n p ro vid e d H ine s w ithins uf fi c ie nt t ime to adequately

prepa re f or trial. Hines ma intains that the immediacy of the ruling constituted a violation of his rig ht to due proce ss of law. 4 I t is noted that t h e fi rs t proce dural matter which the tria l court addr essed a fter the

announce ments of the par ties dealt with the motion for enhance ment filed by the State. At that time, Hines lodg ed an obje ction to this m otion, claiming that he had not receive d rea sonable notice priorT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 28.10 (V ernon 2006)

. 5 15 to trial of t he int ention of t he S tate to enhanc e. I n the ex chang e that followe d, the State noted and the tr ia l c ourt

su g g e ste d th a t if Hi ne s ha d ob je c tio ns to the a mou

nt o f p ri or

no tic e pr ov ide d to him , his re me dy

wo uld be to re qu e st a c on tin

ua nc e . Ho we ve r, Hi ne s, no tin g that he may op t to re qu e st a continuanc e at the c ommenceme nt of the pena lty phase, asked for no continuance and none was g rante d. At the commencement of the pena lty phase, H ines did not request a continuance but, rather , announce d that he was rea dy to proce ed and e ntere d a " true" plea a s to the enhanc ement alleg ation. Th e Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls h a s n oted th at " wh e n a de fe nd ant h a s n o d e fe ns e to the enha nceme nt alleg ation and has not sugg ested the need for a continuance in order to pr epar e one, notice given at the beginning of the punishment phase sat is fi es th e fede ral con st it ut io n. " Villescas

v . S tat e , 189 S.W .3d 290, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (emphasis adde d). In Villescas , the cour t of appea ls had relied upon the statutory require ment of ten da

y s' notice of the amendment of an indictment or information to reve rse be cause the def endant ha d rec eived only six day s' notice bef ore 5 tr ia l c o mme nced. Vi lle

sc as v . S tate , N o . 0 8

- 0 3

- 0 0 1 3 1

- CR , 2 0 0 5 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 1 1 1 8 ( T e x. App.—El Paso Fe b. 10, 2005), r e v 'd , 189 S.W .3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (not designated for publication). In overr

uling the El Paso court on this matter, it was determined that "in a re view for

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l e r

r o r , t h e s t a tu t e s ar e n o tc o n t r o l l i n g " an d t h a tt h e s i x- d ay

n o t i c e w a s su ff

ic ie nt. Villescas , 189 S.W .3d at 294.U. S. C O N ST . ame nd s. V, XIV; T EX . C O N ST . art

. I , § 10 ; T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt

. 6 1.05 (Ve rnon 2006). 16 We determine that the trial court did not err in a llowing the amendme nt, although the motion to enhanc e wa s filed only six day s befor e trial. COMMENT ON RIG HT TO REMAIN SILENT Duringvoir dire, the State ma de the following c omment: "The y [refer ring to people on trial in criminal ca ses] testify all the t ime. I t's clear ly not unusual for de fenda nts to testify

in a cr iminal proce eding ." H ines maintains that this co m m ent, when c oupled with an " inadmissible question d u ri n g t h e t ri al re l at i n g t o a p ri o r f el o n y co n v i ct i o n " co n s t i tu t ed

an ef fe ct i v e d e n i al o f H i n es 's

c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o n ot t e sti fy , c iti ngc on sti tut ion a l a nd statut or y a uth or ity fo r t hat r ig ht. 6 To commenc e, the statement in voir dire, standing alone, constitutes no suc h comment. Even ha d it be e n, the re wa s n o o bje c tio n r a ise d to it a t tr ia l. A c c or din g ly , if thi s h a d b e e n a

n o bje c tio na

ble comment, the er

ror would not have been pr eser ved for appea l. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a) (1). As to a ny additional comment which might have been made at trial which e x ace rbate d the impact of this statement (thus raising it to prohibited standards) , Hines' s brief doe s not point out the

su pp os e dly -o bje c tio na

ble c omm e nt o r s tate me nt whic h w a s ma de . I t is , th e re fo re , n ot a de qu a te ly briefe d and will not be consider ed to have ag g ravated the stateme nt. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1. This point of error

is overrule d.17

AL LEG ED JU RYCH AR G E ERRO R ( LESS TH AN UN AN IM OU S VE RD IC T) Th e ind ic tme nt i n thi s matte r a lle g e d th a t H ine s d id " wi th t he int e nt t o a

ro us e or g ratif y " his sexual de sire, "intentionally or knowing ly eng ag e in se x ual contac t" with Jul ia by "touc hing the anus

and g e nit a ls a nd br e a st" of the g ir l. Th e jur y c ha rg e dir e c te d the jur

y to fi nd the de fe nd ant g uil ty if he did " int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

. . . e ng a g e in s e xua l c on ta c t w ith [Julia ] b y tou c hin g the anu s or g e nit a ls or

brea st of" Julia. (Emphasis added.) Hines cor rec tly points o ut t

h a t T exas require s unanimous verdicts in cr iminal cases. See T EX . C O N ST . a rt . V , § 13 ; T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 36.29(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008), ar ts. 37.02, 37 .0 3, 45 .0 34 –. 03 6 (V e rn on 20 06 ); se e als o S

tuh le r v . S tate , 218 S.W .3d 706, 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 07 ). He the n ma int a ins that the c ha rg e re nd e re d it po ssi ble that the jur y c ou ld h a ve arr ive d at a nonunanimous verdict; that is, if some of the jurors had found that the State had pr oven that Hines had conta ct with one of the t hree body parts mentioned, while others f ound that the re quisite burden of pr oo f wa s sh ow n th a t H ine s h a d ma de fe lon iou s c on ta c t w ithoth e r p ro hib ite d in tim a te bo dy pa rt s of the c hild. Hines maintains that if the jury arr ived at its verdict in that fa shion, then it would have found him g uilty

of diffe rent off

enses. Whe n r e vie wi nga

c la im that th e re wa s e rr or in a jur y c ha rg e , we e mpl oy a tw o- ste p p ro c e ss

or ana ly sis. W e first make a leg al inquiry to determine if an err or was, indeed, made; if an err or wa s

ma de , w e the n make the fa c tua l de te rm inatio n of wh e the r that e rr or re su lte d in su ff ic ie nt ha rm a s to require a re versa l. Ab dn or v . S tate , 871 S.W .2d 726, 731–32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).18

The off ense w ith which Hines wa s char g ed is indece ncy with a child (T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 21.11). I n rele vant parts, this prosc ribes eng ag ing "in sexual c ontact with the child" or

caus in g "th e chi ld to engage in sex ual con tac t. " T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 21.11(a) (1). The term "se x ual contac t" is def

ined as be ing, I n th is s e c tio n, " se xua l c on ta c t" me ans eit her or bo th o f t

he fo llo wi nga c ts, if committed with the intent to arouse or g ratify the sexual desire of a

ny person: (1) a ny to u ch i n g b y

a per son, including touc hing thr oug h clothing, of the anus, bre ast, or any

part of the g enitals of a c hild; or (2) a ny touching o f any

part of the body

of a c hild, including touching throug h clothing, w ith the anus, brea st, or any part of the g enitals of a pe rson.

T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 21.11(c)

. On e of the a

uth or itativ e c a se s inv olv ingthi s q ue sti on is Ngo v . S

tate , 1 7 5 S. W. 3 d

7 3 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2005). I n Ngo , the def endant wa s char g ed with: (1) stealing a cr edit car d, (2) r ece iving a stolen cr edit car d, and (3) fra udulently prese nting a cre dit car d to pay for goods or se rvice s. Id. at 741. Those thre e acts wer e differe nt acts entirely , eac h one of which constituted a c rime in and of itself. I n that circ umstance, t h e ch ar ge was improper, pe rmitting the jury to convict without unanimity

among the jurors a s to which offe nse the de fenda nt had committed. Th e c ourt s mu st d e te rm ine wh e the r a pa rt ic ula r t e rm in a statut e is a

n e le me nt o f t

he c ri me (the findingof wh i ch requires una nimity ) or whe ther it is an under ly ing br ute fa ct or mea

ns of committing an e lement of a crime ( a findingof which doe s not require unanimity). Richardson v.19

United States , 526 U.S. 813, 817 (1999). F or instance , when it was a lleg ed that a pe rson cha rg ed with felony

murder unde r T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1 9

. 0 2 (b )( 3 ) ( Ve rn o n2 0 0 3 ) ( cau s i n g v i ct i m 's death dur ing c ommissi on of state- jail f el o n y ), the pre cise state-

jail felony

which wa s then being committed w as n o t an ele ment of the off ense itself but, ra

ther, the ma

nner or means by

which the offe nse wa s committed. There fore , althoug h the jury must be unanimous in determining that a statejail felony

was be ing c ommitt ed, it wa s n o t n ecessary for it to have una

nimity as to which such felony was c ommitt ed. W

hite v . S tate , 208 S.W .3d 467, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). I n Fran c is v . S

tate , 36 S.W .3d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), the Texas Court of Criminal Ap pe a ls r e vie we d an

ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d c a se inv olv ingtw o a c ts o f t ou c hin g the vic tim ' s g e nit a ls and anothe r two acts of touching the victim's br easts. The State elec ted to pursue a conviction on two of the incide nts, one i n volving the touc hing of the victim's br easts and one involving the t o u ch i n g o f t h e v i ct i m 's gen i t al s . Af t er o b j ec t i o nb y t h e d ef en d an t , t h e t ri al co u rt s u

b m i t t eda c h ar ge allowing a convic tion on a finding that the defe ndant did "e ng ag e in sexual contact by touching the br e a st or genit als of v ict im ." Id. at 122 (e mphasis added) . I t was d et er m ined that this was an impermissible charg e bec ause it, as in Ngo , p e rm itt e d a no nuna nim ou s fi nd ing of g uil t. Hi ne s' s c a se does diffe r fr om Fran c is ; in Fran c is , the alleg ed off enses did not occ ur simultaneously but, rather , in f our separ ate instances, eac h occur ring at a differ ent time a nd date; here , all of t h e t ouching

oc c ur re d w ith in t

he same inc ide nt.Th is c on tr a sts wi th the sit uatio n in wh ic h th e de fe nd ant r a ise s a pr op e r o bje c tio n at tr ia l; i n 7 that circ umstance, r ever sal is require d if this error was c alculate d to injure the def endant. Al

ma nz a , 68 6 S. W.2 d at 17 1; Aguil ar v . S tate , 914 S.W .2d 649, 651 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, no pet.).

20 A c a se wi th mor e c los e ly -r e late d f a c ts i s Pi zzo v . S tate , 235 S.W .3d 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In Pi

zzo , th e re we re tw o inc ide nts , b ut i n e a c h o f t he inc ide nts , th e de fe nd ant w a s a lle g e d to have touc hed both t he bre asts and the g enitals of his victim. The trial cour t permitted a disjunctive submissi on (" by

touching the g enitals or breasts") in the jury char g e; the cour

t of appe als aff

irmed t h e c o n v i ct i o n , ci t i n g Kitc he ns v . S tate , 823 S.W .2d 256, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), as controlling law. In Pi

zzo , ho we ve r, the Te xas Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls d e te rm ine d th a t th e c ourt of a pp e a ls had er red in re ly ing on Kitchens rathe r than the r uling in Fran c is , aff

irmatively stating that "the jury instruction improperly

char g ed two sepa

rate offe nses in t h e disjunctive and the ref ore pe rmitted a

con vi cti on on les s t han a un ani mo us verd ict ." Pi zzo , 235 S.W .3d at 714. As pointed out, Se c tio n 2 2. 01 (B ), c ri min a lize s thre e se pa rate ty pe s o f c on du c t- -t ou c hin g the anu s, touching the bre ast, and touchingthe g enitals with the requisite menta l state. Th e re fo re , e a c h a c t c on sti tut e s a dif fe re nt c ri min a l of

fe ns e and jur or unani mi ty

is require d as to the commission of any one of the se ac ts. Id. a t 71 9. We, the re fo re , f ind that it wa s e rr or

fo r t he tr ia l c ourt

to h a ve su

bmi tte d th e qu e sti on

in the disjunctive. Finding err or in the cour

t's c harg e, howe ver, me rely beg ins the inquiry

. Alma nza v . S tate , 686 S.W .2d 157, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on re h' g ). We must now determine whe ther a ny

re su lti ng ha

rm re qu ir e s r e ve rs a l. Pi

zzo , 235 S.W. 3d

a t 71 4; Fran c is , 36 S.W .3d at 125; Al ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171. 7The pre sence of any harm, reg ardle ss of deg ree , is suf ficient to r equire reve rsal. Abdnor , 871 S.W .2d a t 73 2. Th e re i s n o b ur de n o f p ro of on the de fe nd ant, our d e te rm inatio n is sim ply ma de fr om a revie w of the r ecor d. Ngo , 1 75 S.W. 3d 73 8; see W

ar ne r v . S tate , 245 S.W .3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 21 Ha v i n g fo u n d

erro r i nt h e j u ry

ch ar ge, we n o w c o n d

u ct a h arm an al y s i s . At t ri al , al t h o u gh Hines made objec tions to t he tre atment of e x trane ous offe nses in the cha rg e, he sa id nothing about the disjunctive wordingof t h e t wo offenses. The rec ord is somewhat unc lear whether Hines ind ic a te d a ff

ir mativ e ly tha t he ha d no othe r obj e c tio ns to the c ha rg e or wh e the r h e sim

ply fa ile d to raise them. I n either event, a failure to raise a n objection to an er

ror in a jur

y char g e is treated in the same fa shion as a stateme nt by counsel that ther e is no objection. Bl uit t v . S tate , 137 S.W .3d 51, 53 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). W hen the c ha rg inge rr or

is n ot p re se rv e d, a

g re a te r d e g re e of

ha rm is requ ir ed. Th is st and ard o f har m i s d escr ib ed as "egreg io us harm ." Hu tc h v . S tate , 922 S.W .2d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The failure to prese rve jury -cha rg e error is not a bar to appellate revie w, but rathe r it establishes t he degr ee of harm necessa ry for rever sal. Be cause the appellant did not object to the cha

rg e, the error does not result i n reve rsal " unless it was so eg reg ious and cr eate d such har

m that appellant w as denie d a fa ir trial." To deter mine "e g reg ious harm," a re viewing court e x amines " the entire jury char g e, the state of the evidenc e, including the conteste d issues and we ight of the probative evidenc e, the arguments of counse l, and any other relevant information reve aled by the re cord of the tr ia l a s a

wh ole ." Th e a

pp e lla nt m us t ha ve su ff e re d a c tua l, r a the r t

ha n th e or e tic a l, harm. "Err ors t hat result in eg reg ious harm are those that affe ct ' the ver y basis of the ca s e, ' 'd ep ri v e t h e d ef

en d an to f a v al u ab l e r i gh t , ' o r 'v i t al l y af fe ct a d ef en s i v e t h eo ry . '" W arner , 245 S.W .3d at 461–62 (c itations omi tted).Al tho ug h bo th the ind ic tme nt and the c ha rg e to the jur

y me nti on e d the tou c hin g of the anu s, 8 the re wa s n e ve r a

ny e vid e nc e that H ine s h a d e ve r t ou c he d th e c hil d' s a nu s. 22 I n the circ umstance he re, there we re not multiple episodes which c onstitut ed the ba sis of the char g es. Rather, there was a single episode, duringwhich the c omplainant char g ed that Hines ha d touched her breasts and her g enitals as he attempted to dra w her to him. Fr om the descr iption given

8 by J ulia, the episode be g an abr uptly , lasted only

a short time (proba

bly less than a m i n u t e) , and

cea sed immediately

when she protested a

nd stood u p . Du ri ng this episode, the touching of the g enitals was immediately followed by a touching of the brea sts a nd the two touches a

ppear to have take n p la c e duri nga

c on tin uum of a sin g le e pis od e , ta

kin g le ss t

ha n tw o p a g e s o f the re c or d to descr ibe. The tria l was not truly about whethe r Hines h ad t o u ched J ulia' s brea sts or touched he r g e nit a ls b ut, rathe r, wh e the r t he e pis od e ha d o c c ur

re d at a ll. I t is true that the touching of the bre asts and the touchingof the g enitals amounted to two, distinct offenses unde r T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . §§ 21.11(a) and 21.11(c ), and H ines could have been char g ed with two offe nses ra t h er than one. Ne verthe less, as the testimony develope d, the two of fe ns e s w e re de sc ri be d in

te sti mony

a s a sin g le e pis od e , the e xiste nc e of wh ic h H ine s c a te g or ic a lly denied. In essenc e, the j u ry fo u nd that the sing le episode ( which incor porate d both prohibited touching s) occ urre d. This is dist inct from the kind of multipl e episodes desc ribed in Fran c is (two acts of touc hing the victim's g enitals on one date and two acts of touching the vi ctim's breasts on a differ ent date) and eve n Pi zzo (t wo e pis od e s on dif

fe re nt date s, in b oth

of wh ic h h e wa s a lle g e d to have touc hed both the brea sts a nd the g enitals of his victim). I n this sit uation, the jury either f ound23

that the g roping s occur

red or did not occur; the two touc hes we re so bound up tog ether that the jury could har dly

have be lieved that Hines did c ommit one act, but did not commit t he other

. At this point in analy sis, the scale tilts s t ro n gl y toward a finding of a la ck of a ctual har m resulting from the e rror

in the jury

char g e. Howe ver, on c losing ar gu m en t , the State made the fo llo wi ngc omm e nt:

L et me tell you, if the t welve of y ou, based upon the evidence, decide that he never touched he r anus, that' s fine. All that matters is, is that y ou believe, by the cre dible evidenc e, if he touched the g enit al s or the bre asts, which mea ns twelve of y ' all can say "no" to a

nus; twe lve of y ' all can sa y "y es" to the g enitals beingtouched it [si c ]; six of

y ' a ll c an s ay

" y e s" to t

he g e nit a ls b e ingtou ched ; or six to the br e a st being touched; twelve to the brea st being touched. I t h i n k y o u g et the point. I t's a ny combination. Six of y ou can think one manner ; six of y ou can think the ot her; eight, two, whateve r. You can be unanimous o na l l o f t h e m , a l l r i g h t ? So w he n y ou

g o b a c k th e re , d on ' t g e t hu ngup on that. But I think what the evidenc e shows y ' all, bey ond a re asonable doubt, is that bey ond a re asonable doubt, bey ond it, based upon what y ou' ve hea rd, that that man touched he r g enitals and he r bre asts, based upon the evidenc e y ou' ve hea rd. L a te r, duri ngre bu tta l argume nt, imm e diate ly a ft e r h e tha

nk e d th e jur

y fo r its ti me and its at t en t i o n , a d i ff

er en tp ro s ec u t o r c o m m en ce d wi t ht h e f

o l l o wi n g: An d I 'm goin g t o start

of f w iththe c ha

rg e , b e c a us e Ithi nk

the c ha rg e is important. You' re g oing to g o back the re, a nd y ou' re g oing to look at it. Whe n y ou

loo k a t Para g ra

ph 4, that' s the a

pp lic a tio n pa

ra g ra ph , y ' a ll c an ju st g e t rid of anu s. Th e re ' s n o e vid e nc e in t he c a se that he tou c he d h e r a nu s. . . . So y ' a ll g e t r id o f a

nu s.W arner , 2 45 S.W. 3d

a t 46 5; Sa nc he

z v . S tate , 209 S.W .3d 117, 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); 9 Ngo , 1 75 S.W. 3d

a t 75 0; Al

ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171.

24 And t he only thing y ou' re le ft with is ge nitals or brea sts. And like Mr. Vanc e said ea rlier, ten of y ou can say , "I believe bey ond a re asonable doubt that he touched her g enitals." Two of you can s ay , "I believe be y ond a re asonable doubt that he touched he r bre asts." A nd it doesn' t matter. We just need one. Al l tw e lve of y ou c ou ld be lie ve be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, w iththe c re dib le e vid e nc e in t

his c a se , th a t he tou c he d h e r g e nit als and that he tou c he d h e r b re a sts , that' s fine, too. I n other words, the State repe atedly urg ed the jurors to do prec isely what they wer e prohibited by the consti tution from doing: arr iving at a nonunanimous ver dict, making this an err or which g oes to "th e very

bas is of t he cas e." W

arner , 245 S.W .3d at 462. Since the case law instructs us time and ag ain to look to the entire c ase, inc luding jury arg ument, to determine w hether eg reg ious error

has 9

occur red, w e must do so. H ad this strateg y not been pur sued by

the State in jury

argument, then the argume nt could more e asily have be en made that the har m suffer ed by

Hines wa s only

theore tical and not ac tual. Se e Ar lin e v . S tate , 7 21 S.W. 2d 34 8, 35 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); Al ma nz a , 686 S.W . 2d at 174. Howe ver, in orde r for us to conclude that the err or wa s harmless in this case, w e

m u s t fi rst deter

mine that the member s of the jury either did not hea

r or simply

ignor ed the St at e's repe ated a

rg uments and plea s to arrive at a non u n an i m o u s verdic t. Se e Ma tho nic an v . S tate , 194 S.W .3d 5 9 , 6 6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.). We ca

nnot do so. The State, by twice emphasizing the ve ry

point which was in er

ror, e x ponentially mag nified the e rror contained in the

c ha rg e and c on ve rt e d it

fr om t he or e tic a l ha

rm int o a c tua l ha

rm . The point of er

ror is sustained.25

We r e ve rs e the jud g me nt a nd re mand the c a se to t

he tr ia l c ourt

fo r a ne w tri a l.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: September 29, 2008 Date D ecide d: October 23, 2008 Pub lis h