1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 155- CR R I CA R DO S ANMI GUE LCA M P OS AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 1 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON I n t w o poi nt s, appel l antRi car do S anm i guel C am pos ar gues t hatt he t r i al c o u rte r r e d b yo v e r r u lin g h iso bje c t io n t o t h e S t a t e ’s a lle g e d c o m m e n to n h is f a ilu r e t o t e s t if ya n d t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rta b u s e d it sd is c r e t io n b yd e n y in g h is m ot i on f orm i st r i alaft ert he St at e m adean i m pr ope rar gum entr ega r di ng C a m p o s ’so th e r c ri m e s . W e w i l l a ffir m .2 II . P ROCEDURALB AC KG ROUND C am posw asch ar ged w i t h bot h a ggr ava t ed se xua l as sa ul tofa chi l d a nd i nde ce ncyw i t h a ch i l d, an d a j ury co nv i ct ed hi m ofi nde ce ncyw i t h a ch i l d. C am pospl ea ded “ t r ue”t o t he f el ony r epe t i t i on e nha nce m ental l ega t i on i n t he in d ic t m e n t . A ft e rt h e ju ryf o u n d t h e e n h a n c e m e n ta lle g a t io n t o b e t r u e , it asses sed puni shm entatf i ft y year s’ i m pr i sonm entan d assess ed a $1 0, 00 0 fi ne. The t r i alco urts ent enc ed C am posac cor di ngl y.

II I. A LLE GEDC OMM E NT O NC AM PO S ’SF AI LURE TOT E STI FY I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , Cam poscont end s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by o ver r ul i ng h iso bje c t io n d u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n tt h a tt h e p r o s e c u t o rc o m m e n t e d o n h is f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. Dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum ent , t he pr os ec ut ors t at ed: D o y o u re m e m b e r i n o p e n i n g s ta te m e n ts th e d e fe n s e g o t u p th e re an d t ol d yo u t hathe ’ s [ C am pos ] . . . gui l t y ofbe i ng ol d a nd po or hea l t h, une duc at ed. You di dn’ the aran y e vi den ceoft hat . And I w oul d s ubm i tt o y’ al l t hatt her e w asam pl e o ppo rt uni t y f ort he def ens e t o a skt hat . [ C am pos ’ s st ep- dau ght er ] Li sa t ookt he st and . Th ey neverasked hert hose quest i ons. C a m p o s o bj e c ted tha t t h i s re m a rk i m p rop e rl yco m m e n ted o n h i s fa i lu re to t es t i f y; t he t r i alco urtove r r ul ed hi s obj ec t i on. T h e T e x a sC o d e o f C ri m i n a l P ro c e d u re p ro v i d e st h a t a d e fe n d a n t’sfa i l u re t o t es t i f y on t he def end ant ’ s ow n beh al f m ay not be hel d aga i ns t t he def end ant and t hatcouns elm ay notal l udet o t he def end ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. Tex . Code3

C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 8 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). T o d e te rm in e w h e th e r a p r o s e c u t o r ’s c o m m e n t v io la t e d a rt ic le 3 8 .0 8 a n d c o n s t it u t e d a n im p e r m is s ib le r ef er enc e t o a n a cc us ed’ s f ai l ure t o t est i f y, w e m us tde ci de w het hert he l a n g u a g e u s e d w a sm a n i fe s tl yi n te n d e d o r w a so f s u c h a c h a ra c te r th a t th e j u ry nat ur al l y a nd ne ce ssar i l y w oul d ha ve con si der ed i tt o bea com m enton t he d e f e n d a n t’sfa i l u re to te s ti fy . Id. ; se eBusta m a n te v. S tate , 4 8 S . W . 3 d 7 6 1, 7 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); F u en tes v. S tate , 991 S . W . 2d 267, 275 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 5 2 8 U .S . 1 0 2 6 (1 9 9 9 ). The of f end i ng l ang uag e m us t be vi ew ed f r om t he j ury’ s st and poi nt , an d th e i m p l i c a ti o n tha t t h e co m m e n t r e ferred to t h e a c c u se d ’s fai l u re to tes ti fy m u s t b e c l e a r. Busta m a n te , 4 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 6 5 ; S wa l lo wv. S tate , 829 S. W . 2d 223 , 225 ( T ex . C r i m . A pp. 1992 ) . A m er e i ndi r ec tori m pl i ed al l us i on t o t he d e f e n d a n t ’s f a ilu r e t o t e s t if yd o e sn o tv io la t e t h e a c c u s e d ’s r i g h tt o re m a in s i l e n t. Wea d v. S tate , 1 2 9 S .W .3 d 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); Patr i ck v. S tate , 9 0 6 S .W .2 d 4 8 1 , 4 9 0

– 9 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ), cert. denied, 517 U .S . 1 1 0 6 (1 9 9 6 ). I ft he pr os ec ut or ’ s r em ar k c al l s t o t he j ury’ s att ent i on t he abs enc e o f evi dence t hatonl y t he def endan t ’ s t est i m ony co ul d suppl y, t he com m enti s an i m p ro p e r c o m m e n t o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s fa i l u re to t e s ti fy . S ee Fuentes , 991 S. W . 2d at275. Buti ft he r em ar k r ea so nab l y c an be cons t r ued t o r ef ert o t he4

def end ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o pr es entev i den ceot hert han hi s ow n t es t i m ony, t he c o m m e n t i sn o t i m p ro p e r. Id. ; Wo lfe v. S tate , 917 S. W . 2d 2 7 0 , 2 7 9 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); Ma ddenv. S tate , 799 S . W . 2d 683, 700 (Te x. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 0 ), cert. denied, 4 9 9 U .S . 9 5 4(1 9 9 1 ); Ha rr i s v. S tate , 122 S. W . 3d 871, 8 8 4(T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.). H er e, dur i ng t he def ense’ s openi ng st at em ent , t he def ense at t or ney set fo rth w h a t e v i d e n c e th e d e fe n s e w o u ld p re s e n t a t tri a l a n d s ta te d th a t “ M r. C a m p o sisg u ilt yo fb e in g o ld , h e ’s g u ilt yo fb e in g in p o o rh e a lt h , h e isb lin d in one eye, he i s uneducated, gui l t y oft hat . H e’ s gui l t y ofnot bei ng t he br i ghtes t t ool i n t he shed. H e h as bo r der l i ne i nt el l ect ual funct i oni ng. ” Byr ef er r i ng back t o t hi s ar gum entdur i ng i t s cl os i ng a r gum ent , t he St at e w asnotm ak i ng a com m ent on C am pos ’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y; t he St at e w as poi nt i ng ou tt ha tt he de f e ns e h a d f a i l e d t o pr od uc e a nye vi de nc e t o s up po rti t sc on t e nt i on t hat C a m p o sw a so l d , i n p o o r h e a l th , a n d u n e d u c a te d . S ee Fuentes , 991 S. W . 2d at 27 5 ; Ha r

r is , 12 2 S . W . 3d at88 4– 85 ( hol di ng S t at e’ s com m entas pr oper su m m at i on ofev i den cew her e i ts pec i f i ca l l y po i nt ed outl ac k o ft es t i m ony f r om ot herw i t nesses concer ni ng any m ot i ve f orfem al e w i t nesses t o f al sel y accuse a p p e l l a n t o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t); Si nghv. S tate , No . 0 2

- 0 4
- 0 0 3 3 8

- CR , 2005 W L 154 266 5, at*4 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h June 30, 2005 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( not des i gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) ( hol di ng t hatpr os ec ut i on’ s ar gum entw asnot5

i m pr operbecause i t“poi nt ed t o t he absence oft est i m ony fr om sour ces ot her t han [ app el l ant ] ”) . Thi s evi den cecoul d haveco m e f r om w i t nes s t es t i m ony, not j us tf r om Cam pos ’ s ow n t es t i m ony. As t he St at e p oi nt ed ou ti n i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he def ens e c oul d ha ve as ke d Ca m p o s ’ ss t e p - d aug ht erLi sa que st i ons r ega r di ng Cam pos ’ s m ent alan d phy si ca l i nf i r m i t i es . Furt her m or e, t he ar gum ent w a s a p rop e r res p o n se to th e d e fen se ’s re m a rks d u ri n g it s o p e n i n g sta tem e n t. S e eS tr i ckl a n d v. S tate , 1 9 3 S .W .3 d 6 6 2 , 6 6 9

– 7 0 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 6 , p e t. re f’d ); Ma rti n ez v. S tate , 851 S . W . 2d 387, 389– 90 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pusChr i st i1993 , pet . r ef ’ d) ( not i ng t hatSt at e m ay ans w eroppo si ng c o u n s e l ’sj u rya rg u m e n t, e v e n i f i t i n c l u d e sa c o m m e n t o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y) ( ci t i ng Po rter v. S tate , 601 S . W . 2d 721, 723 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 8 0 )). A ft err evi ew i ng t he pr osecut or ’ s com m ent s i n context , w e concl ude t hat t h e yw e r e n o tm a n if e s t lyin t e n d e d , o ro fs u c h a c h a r a c t e rt h a tt h e ju ryw o u ld n a tu ra l l ya n d n e c e s s a ri l y c o n s i d e r th e m , to b e a c o m m e n t o n C a m p o s ’sfa i l u re to te s ti fy . S eeT e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt 3 8 .0 8 ; Fuentes , 99 1 S . W . 2d at 2 7 5 ; Str

i ckl and, 19 3 S. W . 3d at66 9– 70 . C onsequ ent l y, w e hol d t hatt he t r i al court di d not er r by over r ul i ng Cam pos’ s obj ect i on. W e over r ul e C am pos’ s f i r st p o i n t.6 IV . M OTI ON F ORM I STRIAL I n h i s s e c o n d p o i n t, C a m p o s a rgu e s th a t t h e tr i a l c o u rta b u se d i ts di sc r et i on byde nyi ng hi s m ot i on f orm i st r i alaft ers us t ai ni ng hi s obj ec t i on t o a di f f er entport i on of t he pr os ec ut or ’ s j ury ar gum ent . The pr os ec ut or m adet he fo l l o w i n g co m m e n t du ri n g clos i n g arg u m e n t:

[ Pr os ec ut or ] : W hen doe s i tend? W hen do w e sa y, you kn ow w hat , m a yb e t he r e ’ sb e e n ot he rt hi ng sa l on g t hew a y w e m i s sed t oo, butnow w e k now t hos e t w o t hi ngs , and w e know w hatyou r i nt enti s. [ D ef ense A t t or ney] : O bj e c tt o t he st at em entt her e’ s ot her th i n g sa l o n g th e w a y . W e w o u l d v i g o ro u s l yo bj e c t to th a t. T h e re ’s no evi dence. The Court : Sust ai ned . [D e fen se A tt o rn e y ]: W e ’d a skthe j u ry to b e i n stru c ted to d i s re g a rd th e s ta te m e n t o f th e p ro s e c u to r. The Court : You’ l l di sr ega r d t hats t at em entm adeby t he p ro s e c u to r. [D e fen se A tt o rne y ]: W e w o u l d as kthe C o u rt– m yd u ty r e q u ir e st o a s kt h e C o u rtf o ra m is t r ia l. The Court : That ’ s den i ed. C a m p o s a rgu e s th a t t h e p ros e c u to r’ s c o m m e n t i m p rop e rl yas k e d the j u ry to con si der hi s pr i or cr i m esi n a r r i vi ng a ti t s ver di ct . He cl ai m s t hatt he har m f r om t hi s i m pr ope rar gum entco ul d not be cur ed by a j ury i ns t r uct i on t o di sr ega r d t he7

com m entan d t hat , co ns equ ent l y, t he t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by d e n y in g h ism o t io n f o rm is t r ia l. To be per m i ss i bl e, t he St at e’ s j ury ar gum entm us tf al l w i t hi n oneoft he f o llo w in g f o u rg e n e r a l a r e a s : ( 1 ) s u m m a t i o n o ft h e e v id e n c e ; ( 2 ) r e a s o n a b le ded uct i on f r om t he evi den ce ; ( 3) an sw ert o a r gum entofoppo si ng c ouns el ; or ( 4 ) pl ea f or l aw en f orcem en t. Felder v. S tate , 848 S . W . 2d 85, 94–9 5 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ), cert. denied, 5 1 0 U .S . 8 2 9 (1 9 9 3 ); A le j a n dro v. S tate , 493 S .W .2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 3 ). W h e n th e tr i a l co u rtsu sta i n s a n o bj e c ti o n an d i n stru c ts th e j u ry to di sr e ga r d bu td e ni e sa d e f e nd a nt ’ sm ot i on f ora m i s t r i a l , t hei s s uei sw he t her th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n i n d e n y i n g th e m i s tri a l . Ha wki n s v. S tate , 13 5 S. W . 3d 72 , 77 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 04 ) . O nl y i n ext r em e ci r cum st ances, w hen t he prejud i c e c aused by t he i m pr operar gum enti s i ncur abl e, i . e. , “so pr ej udi ci alt hatex pen di t ur e o ff urt hert i m e a nd e xpe ns e w oul d bew as t ef ul an d fu ti l e ,”w i l l a m i s tri a l b e re q u i re d . Id. ;see Si mpson v. State, 119 S. W . 3d 262, 2 7 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 2 U .S . 9 0 5 (2 0 0 4 ). I n de t er m i ni ng w het hert he t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on byde nyi ng t he m i st r i al , w e bal ance t hr ee f act or s: ( 1) t he sever i t y oft he m i scondu ct (p rej u d i c i a l e ffe c t), (2 ) c u r a t iv e m e a s u re s , a n d (3 ) th e s tre n g th o f th e S ta te ’s c a s ea g a i n s t C a m p o s . Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S. W . 2d 249 , 259 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp.8

1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), cert. denied, 5 2 6 U .S . 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ); a c c o rd Hawki ns, 135 S . W . 3d a t77. Looki ng atthe f i r stf act or — t he sever i t y oft he m i scondu ct — evi dence at tr i a l sh o w e d tha t t w o y e a rs p ri o r t o C a m p o s ’s i n c i d e n t w i th the co m p l a i n a n t, t he com pl ai nant’ s ol derb r ot heral so had com pl ai ned t hatC am pos had t ouch ed hi m i n an i nap pr opr i at e m ann er . Thus , t he pr os ec ut orco ul d ha ve bee n r ef er r i ng t o t hi s w hen s he m adet he com pl ai ned
- ofco m m ent . The com m entdoe s not di r ect l y i m pi nge C am pos’ s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y and i s not i nf l am m at or y i n nat ur e. R egar di ng t he s e c on d f a c t or — t he cur at i ve m easur es t aken— t he t r i al courtcur ed anypr ej udi cef r om t he pr os ec ut or ’ s com m entby i m m edi at el y i ns t r uct i ng t he j ury t o di sr ega r d i t , an d w e p r es um e t hatt he j ury c om pl i ed w i t h t he i ns t r uct i on. S ee Mosley , 9 8 3 S .W .2 d a t 2 5 9 ; Si mps on , 1 1 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 7 2 ; Wesbrookv. S ta te , 2 9 S .W .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), cert. denied . , 5 3 2 U. S. 944 ( 200 1) . C onc er ni ng t he t hi r d f ac t or — t he st r eng t h oft he St at e’ s ca se — t he com pl ai nan tt es t i f i ed t hatCam post ouc hed he rpr i vat e a r ea , an d t he com pl ai nan t ’ s m ot her , t he m ot her ’ s f i anc é, an d a nur se p r ac t i t i one rw ho exam i ned t he com pl ai nant cor r obo r at ed hert est i m ony. A C PS i nvest i gat oral so t es t i f i ed t hatCam posco nf es se d t o he rt hathe had i nap pr opr i at el y t ouc hed t he c o m p la in a n t . T h e ju rya c q u it t e d C a m p o so fs e x u a l a s s a u lta n d c o n v ic t e d h im oft he l es s se r i ousof f ens e ofi nde ce ncyw i t h a chi l d. G i ven t he m i l dne ssoft he9

p ro s e c u to r’sre m a rkd u ri n g c l o s i n g a rg u m e n t a n d th e s tre n g th o f th e S ta te ’s case agai nstC am pos, any er r orw as har m l ess. T h u s , w e ig h in g t h e a p p r o p r ia t e f a c t o r s , w e h o ld t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtd id n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n b yd e n y i n g C a m p o s ’sm o ti o n fo r m i s tri a l . S ee Mosley , 9 8 3 S .W .2 d a t2 5 9 ; Si mps on , 1 1 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 7 2 . W e o v e rru l e C a m p o s ’s se c o n d p o i n t. V . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d C a m p o s ’s t w o p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: D A U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 26, 2009