i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 83 5- CV IN THE MATTE R OF E.C.D. , J r . II Fr om the 386th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 1991-JUV-1209 Honora ble L aura L . Parker , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Catherine Stone, Justi ce Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 15, 2008 AFF I RMED E.C.D., J r. I Iappea ls the order o f d i s p osition t hat was e ntere d following a new trial of the dispositi on phase of

his trial. Se e In re E. C.D ., J r. , No
. 0 4 -0 5 -00391-CV, 2007 W L516137 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 21, 2007, no pet.) (me m. op.) (re versingprior orde r of disposition and re manding for new t rial on dispositi on phase)
. E.C.D. prese nts four points of error on a ppeal
c o n te n d in g th e tr ia l c o u rt e r r e d b y : ( 1 ) d e n y in g h is mo ti o n f o r c o n ti n u an c e ; ( 2 ) admitting the testimony of a witness from a previous trial; (3) allowing the vic tim’s brother to testify beca use the te s ti mo n y w a s o v e r ly

p r e ju d ic ia l; an d

( 4 ) o v e r r u li n g h is o b

je c ti o nto th e p ar o le la

w in s tr u c ti o n . We
a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04

- 07

- 00 83 5- CV

- 2- M OT I ON F OR C ONT I NUANCE On the day

of trial, E.C.D. filed a

motion for continuance asser ting that E.C.D. would not
rec eive a fair tr ial beca

use an e x tensive new spaper article reg ardinghis case ha d appea red in the newspa per the prior day
. The State responde d that the newspa per a rticle wa s based on inter

views in which E.C.D. had voluntar ily participated and on a

m an u s cript that E.C.D. had g iven to the repor ter. A trial cour

t’s action in deny

ing a continuance will not be di s turbed unless the r ecor d discloses a clear a

buse of discr etion. In re E. L.T. , 9 3 S. W.3 d 3 72 , 3 74 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). To be en t i t l ed t o a continuanc e, E.C.D. wa s require d to establish sufficient
cause sup p o rt ed by

aff idavit. T EX . R. C IV . P. 251. Although E .C.D. attache d a copy of the
ne ws pa pe r a rt ic le to his mot ion , he pr od uc e d no witn e sse s to test if y that he co uld

no t r e c e ive a

fa ir tr ia l, an d n o mo ti o n f

o r c h an g e o f v e n u e w a s filed. See Esqu iv e l v . S tat e , 595 S.W .2d 516, 519 (T e x . Cr im
. App. 19 80 ). Mo re ov e r, the qu e sti on ing of the ve nir e pa

ne l du ri ngvo ir dir e fa ile d to sh o w th a t an y o f th e p r o s p e c ti v e ju r o r s w e r e p r e

ju d ic e d b y th e arti c le w it h th e e xc e p ti o n of one venire member who was struck f or ca use. Se e Lop e

z v . S tat e , 628 S.W .2d 77, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 82 ). B oth

the tr ia l ju dg e and th e pro secu to r i ns tr uc te d th e ve nir e pa

ne l th a t th e y

c ou ld n ot b a se the ir de c isi on on wh a t th e y re a d in the ne ws pa

pe r an d ca uti on e d the ve nir e pa

ne l that me dia

a c c ounts
ma y be ina c c u r a t e . T h e v e n i r e m e mb e r s w h o w e r e s p e c i f i c a l l y qu e s t i o n e d

s t a t e d t h a tt h e y c ou ld make a fair a nd impartial decision despite the article. Tw o venire members e x pressly stated that the article would not influence them. The one venire member who stated t hat she ha d formed a n opinion based on the art icle wa s struck for cause . Be cause the re cord did not establish that any of the04

- 07

- 00 83 5- CV

- 3- potential jurors we re pr ejudiced by the ar ticle, the trial c ourt did not abuse it s discretion in deny ing the motion for continuanc e. E.C.D.’s f irst point of error

is overrule d. T E S T I MO N Y F R O M P R EV IOU S T RI AL I n h is s e c on d p oin t of

e rr or , E .C. D. c on te nd s th at th e tr ial co ur t a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in
a dmi tti nga

wi tne ss’ s te sti mony

fr om a pr e vio us tr ia l. E .C. D. a sse rt s th a t th e State fa ile d to e sta bli sh that th e wi tne ss wa s “ un a va ila ble ” by sh ow ing that the State wa s “ un a ble to p ro c ur e the [wit

ne ss’ s] attendanc e or testimony

by proce ss or other r easona

ble means” as re quired for the testimony

from the pre vious trial to be admissible. See T EX . R. E V ID . 804(a) (5), 804( b)(1)
. I n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in admitti nge vid e nc e , th e sta nd ard of re vie w i s abuse of discretion. Mc

Do na ld v . S

tat e , 179 S.W .3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). A trial cour t abuses its discre tion when its decision is so clea rly wrong as to lie outside that zone within which
rea sonable pe rsons might disag ree . Id
. A w itn e ss i s n ot “ un a va ila ble ” un less the pr os e c uto ri a l a uth or iti e s h a ve ma de a

g oo d f a ith eff ort to obtain his presenc e at tria l. Urba no v . S tat e , 808 S.W .2d 519, 521 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1991, no pet.). “ Rule 804(a) (5) does not [howeve r] r equire a propone nt to butt hi s head ag ainst a wa ll just to see how muc h it hurts.” Id
. Samm y M i l l er, a

n investigator with the district attorney ’s offic e, assisted in the sea rch f or Chaplain Charles Pol l ar d , a witness at the 1992 trial. Miller used a ll of the computer r esourc es available t o law enf

orce ment but was unable to locate a ny substantial information. Miller deter mined that Pollard’s Texas driver’ s license e x pired in 1994, as did his voter re g istration. Mill er fo un d Po lla

rd ’s date of

bir th o n th e state me nt h e ha d g ive n p oli ce and uti lize d th e date of bir th i n conjunction with his name in his searc h. Miller was una ble to find a c ertificate of death f or Pollard.04

- 07

- 00 83 5- CV

- 4- Pollard would have be en seve nty -two at the time of the new trial. The owne r of the house matching the address associate d with Poll ard w as conta cted, a nd the owner

stated that Pollard “ha d left there some time ag o.” Miller admitted that he did not conta ct neig hbors w ho lived in the are a for information. The trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of P ollard from the prior trial. Miller’s testimony established that a g ood faith eff ort was made to obtain Pollard’s pre sence at trial. Urbano , 808 S.W .2d at 521. E.C.D. was c ritical of Miller’ s failure to contact ne ighbor s who might have lived in the are a while Pollard still l i v ed there and w ho might have had information reg ardingPollard’s wher eabouts. The rules do not, how ever , require a propone nt to perfor m ever y improbable e ffor

t that, in hindsi g ht, might have produce d the witness. See id . at 522. E.C.D.’s second point of e rror

is overrule d. T ESTIM O N Y O F V IC T IM ’ S B R OTH ER I n h is thir d p oin t of

e rr or , E .C. D. c on ten ds that th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in
overr uling his objec tion to the testim ony of t h e v ictim’s brother be cause its probative value w as substantially

outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice. Victim-impact evide nce ma y be admissib le at the punishment phase of a tria l when that evidenc e has some bear ing on the defendant’s personal responsibilit y and mora l culpability
. Salazar

v . S tat e , 90 S.W .3d 3 3 0 , 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Such evidenc e is desig ned to show ea ch victim’s un i q u en es s as an individual human be ing a nd informs the jury

about the spec ific har

m
cause d by the cr ime in question. Id . Victim -i m pact e vidence consists of two distinct but related ty pes. Id . V ic tim -i mpa c t e vid e nc e is e vid e nc e c on c e rn ingthe e ff e c t of the vic tim ’s de a th o n o the rs , particula rly the family

mem b e r s , wh e r eas vic tim-chara cter evidenc e is evidenc e conc erningthe g ood04

- 07

- 00 83 5- CV

- 5- qualities of the victim. Hal ey v. S ta te , 1 73 S.W. 3d 51 0, 51 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). Vi c tim

c ha ra c te r e vid e nc e is de sig ne d to gi ve the jur y a qu ic k g lim

ps e of the lif

e that th e de fe nd ant c ho se to ext inguish, w h i l e v i ct i m-impact evide nce is de signe d to remind the jury that murder ha s fore seea ble conse quence s to the community and the victim’s survivor- family members a

nd friends who also suffe r fr om murderous c onduct. Salazar , 90 S.W .3d at 335. Rule 403 favor s the admission of rele vant evidenc e and car ries a pre sumption t hat re levant evidenc e will be more probative tha n prejudicia l. Sh uff

ie ld v . S tat e , 1 8 9 S. W. 3 d

7 8 2 , 7 8 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2006). I n a Rule 403 ana ly sis, we must fi rs t ev aluate two f actor s: (1) the inher ent p ro b at i ve for ce of

the proff ere d evidenc e; and ( 2) the propone nt’s need f or that evide nce. See Gi gli ob ian c o v . S

tat e , 2 10 S.W. 3d

63 7, 64 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ). We mus t th e n b a lanc e tho se tw o f a c tor s ag a ins t the fo llo wi ng fo ur c ounte r- fa c tor s: ( 1) any te nd e nc y of the e vid e nc e to s ug g e st decision on an improper basis; (2) any tendenc y of t he evidence to confuse or distract the jury

from the m ai n i ssues; (3) a

ny tendenc y of the e vidence to be g iven undue we ight by a jury that has not been e quipped to evaluate the probative forc e of the evidenc e; and ( 4) the likelihood t hat the prese ntation of the evide nce w ill consume an i nordinate amount of t ime or m ere ly repe at evidenc e alre ady admitted. Se e Cas e

yv . S tat e , 215 S. W
. 3 d 8 7 0 , 8 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Gigliobianco , 210 S.W .3d at 641-42. The victim’s brother

testified that the victim wa s an ex cellent student a nd g raduated from Rice Univer sity . The victim was a schoolteach er , a coach, and a Sunday school teac her a

nd was study ing to be come a

deac on. The victim, who wa s murdere d while drivi ng a ca b, was driving the cab pa rt-time for extra money . The victim’s son was five or six at the time of his father ’s death, and the vic timwa s a

g re a t f a the r. Th e vic tima lso a ssi ste d h is e lde rl y ne ig hb or s w ithe rr and s. A s ing le04

- 07

- 00 83 5- CV

- 6- pic tur e of t h e v i c t i m w i t h h i s m o m o nt h e d ay o f h i s c o l l e g e g r a d

u a t i o na l s o w a s i n t r o d

u c e d i n to evidenc e. The testimony

by the victim’s b ro t h er was probative beca use it expl ained the vic tim’s uniqueness and the harm c aused by his death, thus relating to E.C.D.’s mora l culpability and responsibility
. See Salazar , 90 S.W .3d at 335. E.C.D. conce des the testimony was not leng thy

and was ther efor e not pre

judicial based on its volume. Se e W ill iam s v . S

tat e , 176 S
. W
. 3 d 4 7 6, 483 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). No othe r witness testified a bout the impact of the victim’s death or his cha

rac ter, making the complained- of testimony the only probative e vidence on point. Se e id . D e sp ite E. C.D .’ s a sse rt ion , th e te sti mony did no t measur e th e vic tim ’s wo rt h compar ed to other members of society , nor di d it seek to impress the jury in an irrational way
. See id
. A c c o r d i n g l y, t h e t r i a l c o u rtd i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o ni na d m i t t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y. P A R OLE L A W I NS T RUCT I ON I n h is f ina l po int of e rr or , E .C. D. c ompla ins that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in ov e rr uli nghis objection to the inclusion of the par ole law instruction bec ause the instruction likely misled the jury
a bo ut the po ssi ble a

pp lic a tio n of g oo d co nd

uc t ti me to E .C. D. in v iol atio n o f h is d ue pr oc e ss r ig hts
. Specifica lly , E.C.D. asser ts that beca

use he w as not elig ible for g ood conduct time, t h e trial court should have e x cluded the instruc tion. I n Luq uis v . S

tat e , 72 S.W .3d 355, 364-68 (Te x . Crim. App. 2002 ), t h e T ex as Court of C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s re

j ec t edt h i s v ery

ar gu m en t , co n cl u d i n g: Al tho ug h it

is the or e tic a lly

po ssi ble that th e jur

y c ou ld h a ve be e n a ff

ir ma tive ly misled in some unspecified wa y by the totality of the pa

role lawinstruction, appellant ha s n ot d e mon str a te d a

re a so na ble lik e lih oo d th a t it

wa s, in f act , mi sl ed or that it assessed a hig her se ntence based upon a ny misconstruction of the par ole law c harg e. We theref

ore c onclude that the pa

role l aw i n s t ruction, j udg ed as a whole, wa s not04

- 07

- 00 83 5- CV

- 7- misleading and ce rtainl y not so misl eadingas to conve rt appe llant’s trial into a fundame ntally

unfair pr ocee ding w hich denied him due pr ocess. I ndeed, if the jury followed the judge ’s clear and expli cit direc tion to not apply the g ener al conc epts of parole or “g ood conduct time” in a ssessing appellant’ s sentenc e, ther e wa s no err or, confusion, or ha

rm. Ther e is no showing that the jury did not follow the instruction in this case. Thus, appe llant has failed to shoul d er his burden to demonstrate that th er e is a re asonable likelihood that this jury unconstitutionally

misapplied the concept o f “g ood conduct time” to a ssess a hig her se ntence as a r esult of the instruction, thereby

denying a

ppellant due pr ocess or

due cour se of law
. Luq uis , 72 S.W .3d at 368. I n this c ase, E.C.D. seeks to re ly on a note f

rom the jury

inquiring a

bout wheth er E
. C
. D. was e ver e ligible f or par ole in servinghis origina l sentence . The jury ’s note, howeve r, “c oncer

ns parole, not g ood conduct time, and nothingin the note, or e ls ew h er e in t he
rec ord, lea ds us to conclude this was more than a pr eliminary question raised by

the jury .” Ar ceo
v . S tat e , No. 05-07-00315- CR, 2008 W L384438, at * 2 (Te x . App.—Dallas F eb. 14, 2008, no pet.) (not de signated for publication). The note doe s not rebut the pre sumption t hat the jury followed the tr ia l c ourt ’s ins tr

uc tio ns to not a

pp ly the g e ne ra l con c e pts of pa ro le or “ g oo d c on du c t ti me ” in assessing the sentenc e, and the trial court’ s response to the jur y ’s note, t hat the jury

had all the
a pp lic a ble law and de fi nit ion s in the c ourt ’s c ha rg e , c an b e re a d a s a

re min de r t o th e jur

y a bo ut i ts instructions. By rd

v . S tat e , 192 S.W .3d 69, 72 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006, pet. re f’d)
. E.C.D.’s fourth point of e rror is overrule d.

C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d.

Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice