i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 46 6- CR L e e RE SEN DI Z , Appellant

v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 227th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-4080 Honora ble Phili p A. Kazen, Jr., J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: October 29, 2008 AFF I RMED L ee Re sendiz was char ged b y indictment with one count of a g g ravated sexual assault and thr e e c ounts of

ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d. Re se nd iz pl e d n ot guil ty . H ow e ve r, a ft e r b e ingfo un d guil ty by a jury , he pled true to the enhanc ement alleg ations in the indict m en t and was sentence d to life imprisonment. I n two issues on appea l, Resendiz contends that (1) v en u e i n Be x ar County was improper; and (2) the trial court abused its discr etion in a dmitti ng into e vid en ce an i rr elevant photogr aph whose prejudicia l impact outweig hed its probative va lue. We aff irm.04

- 07

- 00 46 6- CR

- 2- F ACT UAL AND P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND At the beg inning of

Resendiz’s trial, befor e the pr esentation of any evidenc e, the State made

a mot ion to ame nd the ind ic tme nt. Th e or ig ina l in dic tme nt a lle g e d th a t th e of fe ns e s o c c ur

re d in B e xar County ; how e ve r, be c a

us e the State wa s una

ble to d e te rm ine wh e re the of fe ns e s o c c ur

re d, it
re qu e ste d a

n ame ndme nt p ur su ant t o art ic le 13 .1 9 of the Te xas C od e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure . A rt ic le 13.19 provides that whe n an off ense is committed w ithin the state of Texas a nd it cannot re adily

be deter mined in which county the offe nse occ urre d, the trial may be held in the c ounty

in which the defe ndant re sides or is appre hended. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 13.19 (V ernon 2005)

. Be cause Resendiz both resided in and was appre hended in Be x ar County , the State contende d venue was prope r in Be x ar County
. The State then pr ocee ded to pre sent evidenc e that on Fe bruar y 3, 2006, Resendiz, who was a truc k driver, took his seve n-y ear -old nephe w, R .R., with him on a trip to Houston. Whil e they wer e on the roa d, R.R. got tired and fell asleep i n the s leep compartment of the t ruck. Som etime af ter he fel l aslee p, R.R . r e me mbe rs that Re se nd iz w ok e him up and se xua lly a ssa ult e d h im. Re se nd iz returne d R.R. to hi s home the next da y , and R.R. reporte d to family members what had happe ned. The police wer e ca lled, and Resendiz was e ventually arr ested a

nd char g ed. At tr ia l, D e te c tiv e B ru c e Wils on te sti fi e d that, al tho ug h he tho ug ht t he of fe ns e s o c c ur

re d in Houston, officia ls in Houston refused to prose cute the case . Acc ording to Detec tive Wil son, he wa s not able to deter

mine the s pecif

ic l ocation whe re the sexual assault occurr ed and that it could have happene d any

wher e betwe en San Antonio and Houston. Du ri n g t h e c o u rs e o f t ri al , t h e S t at e o ff er e d n u m e r o u s p i ec es o f e v i d en ce , i n cl u d i n g a photogr aph mar

ked State’s Exhibit 21, which wa s a picture of t hr e e n u d e children. Rese ndiz obj ecte d04

- 07

- 00 46 6- CR

- 3- to the admiss i on of the photog raph, a nd the trial cour

t sustained the objection. The photogr aph marke d State’s Exhi bit 21 is i ncluded in the re co rd ; h oweve r, there is no indication it was ever admitted into evidence or that the jury was a llowed to consider it. R e s e n d i z o f

f e r e d n o e v i d e n c e a tt r i a l

. T h e j u r y d e l i b e r a t e d

an d f o u n d h i mg u i l t y. W A S V ENU E P ROP E R I N B E XAR C OU N TY ? R e s e n d i z ar g u e s t h a tt h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s hv e nu e w a s p r o p e r

i nB e x ar C o u n t y . In response , the State ar g ues that there was sufficie nt e vidence to show that venue w as prope r in Be x ar County pursuant to ar

ticle 13.19 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. At trial, befor e the testimony beg an, the State amende d its indi ctment in order to alleg e that it was not ab l e t o d et ermine in whic h county the offe nses took place . Article 13.19 pr ovides the fo llo wi ng : I f an offe nse has been c ommitt ed within the state a nd it cannot re adily

be dete rmined within which county or counties the commission took place , trial may be held in the county in which the def

endant r esides, in the county in which he is appr ehende d, or in the county

to which he is extradited. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 13.19 (V ernon 2005)

. Venue is not an element of t he off ense. Fa irf

ie ld v . S tate , 61 0 S. W.2 d 7 71 , 7 79 (T e x. Cr im. App. [P anel Op.] 1981); W i t t v . S tat e , 237 S.W .3d 394, 399 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. re f’d)

. Thus, in crimin al ca s es , v enue ne ed only be prove n by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. W

itt , 237 S.W. 3d a t 39 9; Ha ll v . S

tate , 1 24 S.W. 3d

24 6, 25 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n An ton io 20 03 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; see T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 1 3. 17 (V e rn on 20 05 ) (“ To su sta in the a lle g a tio n o f v e nu e , it sh a ll only be nec essar

y to prove b y t h e p re p ondera nce of the evidenc e that by

rea son of the fa cts in the
case , the county

wher e such pr osec u t i o n i s car ried on ha s venue.” ). And, proof of venue may

be established thro u gh direc t or circ umstantial evidence

. He rn an de z v . S tate , 1 9 8 S. W. 3 d

2 5 7 , 2 6 8 ( T e x.04

- 07

- 00 46 6- CR

- 4- App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. re f’d) . Fur ther, unless ve nue wa s disputed in the trial court or the
re c or d a ff ir mativ e ly sh ow s the c on tr ary , we mus t pr e sume that ve nu e wa s p ro ve d in the tr ia l c ourt
. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44 .2 (c )( 1) ; Hernande z , 1 98 S.W. 3d

a t 26 8. He re , th e part ies agre e tha t Re se nd iz dis pu te d v e nu e in t

he tr ia l c ourt
. I n revie wing a venue challeng e, we apply a m o d i fi ed ver sion of the standar d for leg al sufficie ncy set forth in J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). W itt , 237 S.W .3d at 399. That is, we vie w a ll the e vid e nc e in the li ght mos t f a vo ra ble to a n a ff ir mativ e ve nu e fi nd ingand a sk whether any rational trier of fact could have found by a prepondera nce of the evidence that venue wa s proved. W

itt , 2 37 S.W. 3d

a t 39 9. Thus , in

re vie wi ngthe e vi den ce, we consid e r whe the r t he State p r o v e d , b y a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , t h a t v e nu e w a s p r o p e r i n B e xa r C o u n t y pu rs ua nt t o article 13.19. I n other wor ds, did the S tate prove by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that it could not b e d e t e r m i n e d i nw h i c h c o u n t y

t h e s e x u a l a s s a

u l to c c u r r e d ? Resendiz arg ues the re cord shows that the State beg an the trial by telling the jury it intended to prove the se x ual assault occur red in H ouston. Spec ifically , Resendiz points to the State’s opening

argume nt: On Wednesday , the 22nd of Februa ry 2006, there was a

n article in the Ex

pr ess- Ne ws . I ’ll rea d y ou the summary of it. A forty -eig ht-y ear -old long -haul truc k driver w as arr ested on the c harg e of sexual a ssault of a seven- y ear -old boy while [the boy ] sl ept in the truck on the way to Houston , an a ff ida vit sa id. L e e Re se nd iz is bei ng he ld wi tho ut b on d in

the B e xar

County ja il. Ac c or din g to t

he affidavit , th e bo y

tol d h is mother t hat he fell asleep i n the sleepe r portion of the tra ctor during a trip t o Houston two wee ks ag o. . . . (empha sis added). A lthough Res endiz urg es us to consider this an a dmission by the State that the sexual a ssault occur

red in Houston, the S tate’s argument could j ust as easily be under stood to mean04

- 07

- 00 46 6- CR

- 5- that th e a ssa

ult ha pp e ne d s ome wh e re on

the tr ip f ro m San A nto nio to Ho us ton , but no t ne c e ssa ri ly in Houston. Thus, we de cline to re ad the State’ s argument as Resendiz sugg ests. Resendiz further a

rgues t hat all the S tate’s witnesse s who testified on the issue of ve nue stated that the i ncident occurre d in Houston. First, R esendiz points to R.R.’s mother’s testimony in which she stated that the se x ual assault occur red when R.R. wa s on a trip to Houston with Resendiz . Ag ain, thi s te sti mony

de mon str a te s th a t th e inc ide nt o c c ur re d s ome wh e re on

the tr ip f ro m San Anto nio to H o u s t o n , b u tn o tn e c e s s ar i l y in Houston. Next, Re s e n d iz u r g e s th a t D e te c ti v e Wi ls o n“ r e p e a te d ly te s ti f ie d th a t t h e inv e s ti g a ti on
re ve a le d th a t th e a lle g e d in c ide nts oc c ur re d in Hou sto n, ” c iti ngto s e ve ra l sp e c if ic re c or d r e fe re nc e s. Th e fi rs t of

su c h r e fe re nc e s is a s f

oll ow s: Q: ... then what did you do? A: Well, once we c ompiled ever y thing, we had a g ood case . Then we basi cally , from the infor

mation we g ather ed, it happene d, what we thought wa s in Houston, and then we sta rted c orre sp o n d i n g with the Ho us ton Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt. Q: Okay . And what we re you able to dete rmine? A: The Houston Police Depa rtment pretty much denie d t aking t he ca se. They cited [as a re ason] that we couldn’t g ive them an ac tual pinpoint location and that there wer e multipl e jurisdictions within the Houston m e t r o ar e a , s o e a c h o f t h o s e w o u l dn ’ tb e a b l e t o a c c e p tr e s p o n s i b i l i t y. Re se nd iz a dd iti on a lly

po int s to the re c or d w he re in D e te c tiv e Wils on te sti fi e d o n c ro ssexamination: Q: You wer e also mentioning how the log books and ever y thing se emed to s ho w that th e tr

uc k o wn e r, e ve ry

bo dy ve ri fi ed th at it ha

pp e ne d in Ho us ton . Y ou

c on ta c te d th e Ho us ton

P.D ., a lso , r ig ht? A: Ye s.04

- 07

- 00 46 6- CR

- 6- Q: And they

turned this case down? A: Yes, sir. * * * Q: But this was a [si c] very g ood information on y our part that it occurr ed in Houston? A: All w e know is on a trip from San Antonio to Houston, it could have happene d any

wher e in betwe en. T h en , o nre -d i re ct ex am i n at i o n , De t ec t i v e W i l s o nt es t i fi edt o t h e f o l l o wi n g: Q: De te c tiv e Wils on , ba se d u po n your inv e sti g a tio n, y ou we re un a ble to deter mine the spec ific location of where the assault occ urre d? A: Ye s, ma ’a

m. Q : T h e s p e c i f

i c c o u n t y? A: Ye s , m a’ am . We had g ood rea son to believe, howe ver, when they denied to take – to take the c ase, w e just proce eded. Ag ain, on cr oss-examination, Detective Wilson testified: Q: Th e State ke e ps me nti on ingto you a bo ut wh e re it oc c ur

re d. I t se e ms like y ou have a

very g ood idea it was Houston. You just di dn’t proce ed – you pr oc e e de d b e c a

us e Ho us ton

tur ne d it do wn , r ig ht? A: Yes, sir. Q: No t be c a

us e it wa sn ’t re a dil y kn ow n wh e re it oc c ur re d, it wa s r e a dil y kn ow n b e c a

us e it w a s H ou sto n, ri g ht? A: I c ann ot de fi nit ive ly say , and that wa s the ba sis fo r Ho us ton tur nin g it down. I have a strong suspicion it happene d in Houston, but based on that , H o u s to ns a id

n o , an d w e h a v e anav e nu e thr o u g hth e Co d e of Criminal Procedure that we c ould proce ed, and w e did.04

- 07

- 00 46 6- CR

- 7- We d o n ot r e a d D e te c tiv e Wils on ’s te sti mony to a mou nt t o, a s Re se nd iz ur g e s, “[ re p ea t ed t es t i m o n y ] t h at t h e i n v es t i gat i o nre v ea l edt h e i n ci d en t s o cc u rr edi nHo u s t o n . ” A l t h o u gh De te c tiv e Wils on

ha d a “ str on g su sp ic ion ” the se xua l a ssa ult ha pp e ne d in

Ho us ton and , in fa c t, contac ted Houston offic ials about taking the ca se, Houston l aw enforc ement officials dec lined to take the ca se becausethe actual location could not be dete rmined . Fur ther, De tective Wilson testified not only that he was unable to de termine the specific location of the a ssault, but further that it could have ha pp e ne d a ny wh e re be tw e e n Sa

n A nto nio and

Ho us ton . View ingthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t fa vo ra ble to an a ff

ir mativ e ve nu e fi nd ing , we fi nd the e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt to sho w that th e State c ou ld not determine in whic h county the offe nse occ urre d. Se e W itt , 237 S.W .3d at 399. W A S THE P HOT OGR AP H A DM I T T E D AND / OR C ON SI D ERED BY TH E J URY ? I n his opening brief, Resendiz contends the trial cour t erre d in admitting a photog raph that was irrele vant. He further urg ed that the photogr aph’s prejudicia l e ffe ct outweig hed its proba tive value. The photo g r a

p h , ma r k e d St a te ’ s E xh ib it

2 1 , w a s f

o u n d in a ja c k e t t h a t w a s d is c o v e r e d

a mong Resendiz’s belong ings a

nd depicts three nude childre n . Neither the jacke t nor the photog raph w as
ever prove n t o b el o n g t o Resendiz. I n its brief, the State points out that the rec ord shows that the photogr aph, althoug h offe red, w as neve r admit t ed into evidence . I ndeed, the rec ord re flec ts that Resendiz’s objection to the admission of the photog raph was s ustained, and that the photog raph w as not admitted into evidence. I n h is re ply br ie f, Re se nd iz, a pp are ntl y re c og nizi ngtha

t th e ph oto g ra

phwa s n ot a dmi tte d in to evidenc e, now a

rgues that it “is clea

r that Ex hibit 21 is included in t he appe llate re cord a s part of the documentar y ev idence g iven to and conside red by the jury .” We note that the photog raph, ma rked Exhi bit 21 , is in c lud e d in the a pp e llate re c or d; h ow e ve r, g ive n th a t th e re c or d a ff ir mativ e ly re fl e c ts04

- 07

- 00 46 6- CR

- 8- the trial court did not admit the phot og raph into evidence, w e must assume the photog raph w as not g iven to the jury

for its consider ation duringdeliberations. C ONCL US I ON Finding no err or, we overr ule Resend i z ’s i s s u es on appeal and a ffirm the tria l court’s judgme nt. Kar en Ang elini, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH