i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 71 4- CR Jake Rob e rt BLA NC AR TE , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 7, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court No. 977382 Honora ble Monica E. Gue rre ro, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 15, 2009 AFF I RMED J ake B lanca

rte was convicted of assa

ult and he wa s sentence d to one y ear in jail, probated fo r t we nty -f our m on ths , a

nd fi ne d $ 4, 00 0. We a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. B ACKG ROUND On Aug ust 18, 2006, San Antonio Police O ffice r Edwa rd B eltran w as dispatche d to the scene of a r eporte d assault. When he arr ived at the scene , Offic er B eltran f ound the complainant, Jennifer04
- 08
- 00 71 4- CR

- 2- Martinez, cry

ing in the pa

rking lot of her a

partment c omplex
. Offic er Be ltran observe d a knot on the left side of

Martinez’s hea d and an a brasion on her arm. Martinez tol d Offic er B eltran that she
was a ssaul t ed by

her boy friend, B lanca

rte. She fur

ther told Off

icer Be ltran that B lanca

rte ha d y anked the telephone out of the wall whe n she attempted to c all the police f or assistance
. Offic er B eltran spoke to Blanc arte about the alleg ed incident whe n Bla ncar te re turned to the apar tment c omplex
. Bla

ncar te admitted havingan ar g ument with Martinez when the c ouple wer e returningto their apa

rtment, but denied a ssaulting Ma rtinez inside the i r re s i d ence . The re cord in d ic a te s O f

f ic e r B e lt r ana ls o in te r

v ie w e d ane y e w it n e s s to th e a ll e g e d

a s s a u lt , Jo s e L o p é z. L o p é z, wh o is a lso Mart ine z’s c ou sin , c on fi rm e d M art ine z’s ve rs ion of the e ve nts c on c e rn ingthe a ssa ult
. Ba sed on hi s observations and the statements he obta ined, Off icer Be ltran ar

rested B lanca

rte for
a ssa ult
. B lanc art e wa s c ha

rg e d with the of

fe ns e s of as sa

ult and int e rf

e re nc e wi th an e me rg e nc y c a ll. At Bla ncar te’s trial, the only

witnesses to testify

wer e Of fice r B eltran a

nd L opéz. Office r B eltran pr ov ide d te sti mony

re g ard ingMa

rt ine z’s and

B lanc art e ’s state me nts to him a ft e r the a lle g e d a ssa ult had occ urre d, while L opéz testified about his r ecollec tion of the events he had witnessed be tween Martinez and B lanca

rte. In addition to this testimony , the jury viewed photog raphs of

the injuries Martinez sustained as a

result of B lanca

rte’s a lleg ed assa

ult. Af te r h e ari nga ll the e vid e nc e , a jur y a c qu itt e d B lanc art e on

the c ha rg e of int e rf e re nc e wi th
an e me rg e nc y c a ll, bu t found B lanc art e g uil ty of a ssa ult
. B lanc art e wa s sen te nc e d to one y e ar i n ja il, probate d for twe nty -four

months, and fined $4,000. This appe al followed.04
- 08
- 00 71 4- CR

- 3- D I S CUS S I ON Bla n carte complains the a dmission of any out-of-c ourt statements to Off icer Be ltran
re g ard ingthe a ssa

ult vio la te d h is Si xth Ame ndme nt ri g ht of c on fr on ta tio n. He argue s th e state me nts
wer e ba rr ed u n d er Crawf ord v. W ashington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and the ir admission constituted
reve rsible er

ror. In Cra wfo rd , the Uni t ed S tates Supreme Court c oncluded that out-of -cour t statements b y

a w it n e s s , w h o f

a il s to te s ti f

y a t t r ia l, ar e b ar

r e d b y th e Co n f r o n tati o nCl a

u s e o f the
c on sti tut ion

un le ss t he wi tne ss i s unava ila

ble to t e sti fy

and th e a c c us e d h a d a

pr ior op po rt un ity to
cr o s s -e x am i n e t h e w i t n es s , re gar d l es s o f w h et h er s u ch s t at em en t s ar e d ee m edre l i ab l e u n d er t h e rules of e vid e nc e . 5 41 U. S. at 59 -6 9; se e Ov e al v . S tat e , 164 S.W .3d 735, 739 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h D ist .] 20 05 , pe t. r e f’ d) . T he State c on te nd s B lanc art e ha s n ot p re se rv e d h is c omp la int be c a us e he fa iled to object under

the Confrontation Clause at trial. We ag ree with the State. When Office r B eltran offe re d h i s testimony relating to Mar

tinez’s and Bla

ncarte’s out-ofcourt stateme nts during trial, Bla ncar te objecte d on hear say

g rounds. An objec tion on the basis of hear say , howeve r, does not pre serve err or on Confrontation Clause g rounds. Re y na v . S tat e , 168 S.W. 3d 17 3, 17 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Pa re de s v . S tat e , 129 S.W .3d 530, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 04 ). B e c a

us e B lanc art e did

no t ob jec t on Co nfr onta tio n Cl a us e g ro un ds duri ngtr ia l, w e mus t conclude Bla

ncar te fa iled to pr es erve this issue for our re view. See R eyna , 168 S.W .3d at 179; Paredes , 129 S.W .3d at 535. To the extent Blanc arte complains on appe al that Of fi cer Be ltran’s testimony

constituted inadmissib le h e ar s ay

th a t w a s a d mi tt e d

in v io lati o no f

th e r u le s o f e v id e n c e , an y

e r r o r in the admi s s io no f

th is e v id e n c e w a s h ar

ml e s s . “ T h e a d mi s s io no f in a d mi s s ib le h e ar s ay

c onstitut es
no n - c o n s ti tuti o n a l e r

r o r , an d it w il l b e c o n s id e r e d

h ar ml e s s if th e a p p e ll a te c o u rt, a f

te r e xa mi n ing04
- 08
- 00 71 4- CR

- 4- the re cord a s a whole, is re asonably assure d that the er

ror did not influence the j ury verdic t or had but a slight e ffe ct.” Y

an e z v . S tat e , 1 99 S .W .3 d 29 3, 30 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 06 , p e t.
re f’ d) . “ Ad

mis sio n o f i na dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e is harm le ss er ro r if oth e r ev ide nc e that pro ve s the same fac t that the inadmissible evidence soug ht to prove is admitted without objec tion at tr ial.” Broderick
v . S tat e , 35 S.W .3d 67, 75 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. re f’d)
. T h e re cord indicates L opéz was an e y ewitness to B lanca rte’s a ssault on Martinez. L opéz testified without objection about the events leadingup to the assault, the assa ult its elf, a

nd how the inc ide nt e nd e d. B e caus e L op é z’s te sti mony pr ov e s th e same fa c ts that th e a lle g e d in a dmi ssi ble evidenc e soug ht to prove, any err or in admitting Of

fice r B eltran’ s testimony

is harmless. Bla ncar te also alleg es the State failed to la y the proper predic ate or foundation for t he admission of Officer Be ltran’s testim ony . To prese rve such err or, however, B lanca rte wa s require d to “inform the court just how the pre dicate is de ficient.” Se e Bi rd v . S tat e , 6 9 2 S. W. 2 d

6 5 , 7 0 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1985). Bla

ncar te never informed the trial court exactly how the pre dicate w as def icient and ther efor e fa iled to preser ve his complaint for a

ppellate r eview. See id. Fina l ly , Bla

ncar te contends that without the alleg edly improper he arsa

y testimony , the evidenc e is leg ally

insufficient t o s u p p o rt his conviction. Blanc arte ’s contention that we may not
c on sid e r t he a lle g e dly

ina dmi ssi ble h e ars ay

wh e n c on du c tin g our s uf fi c ie nc y re vie w i s in c or

re c t. “[A]n appellate cour

t must consider all evidenc e ac tually admitted at trial in its sufficienc y revie w and g ive it whateve r we ight a nd probative va lue i t could rationally convey to a jury .” Mo

ff v . S tat e , 131 S.W .3d 485, 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Thus, even if the trial cour t erre d in admitting Off

icer B e ltr an’ s te sti mony

c on c e rn ingthe ou t- of

-c ourt state me nts, we must c on sid e r t he imp ro pe rl y
a d mi tt e d te s ti mo n y in a s s e s s in g th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n ce. S ee id. at 489-90. Reg ardle ss of04
- 08
- 00 71 4- CR

- 5- Offic er B eltran’ s testimony reg ardingthe o ut- o f

- c o u r t s ta te me nts , L o p é z p r o v id e d

detailed testimony about the eve nts surrounding the assault. I n light of L opéz’s testimony , we conclude the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt to support Blanc arte ’s conviction. C ONCL US I ON Ba sed on the for eg oing, the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Do No t Pu

bli sh