1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 2- 07- 158- CR 2- 07- 159- CR
M AR VI N C AR S ON AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 16TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n s eve n p o i n ts, A ppe l l antM arvi n Car so n a ppe al s hi s con vi ct i onsof
a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ryi n tw o c a s e s . W e a f f i r m.2 II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry A tappr oxi m at el y 11 : 45 p. m . on M ar ch 31 , 20 06 , Brandy Lovagl i o w as
r o b b e d a t g u n p o i n t a s s h e wa s e x i t i n g h e r c a r i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t of her apa rt m entco m p l e x . A ppr oxi m at el y f i ve hour s l at er , at4: 45 a. m . , a se con d
r obbe ry t ookp l a c e i n t he par ki ng l otofa nea r by a part m entco m pl ex. The
com pl ai nan ti n t hi s cr i m e, Jud y Agui l ar, w asal so r obbe d a tgunp oi ntass he
w as exi t i ng hercar . Th e per pet r at ori n both r obb er i es w or e a m ask and w as des c r i b e d b y t h e c o mp l a i n a n t s a s a b l a c k ma n o f me d i u m h e i g h t a n d bui l d. A gui l ar ’ s hus ban d, w ho w i t nes se d hi s w i f e’ s r obbe ry, t ol d t he pol i cet hatt he per pet r at or j um ped i nt o a l i ght- col or ed, f our - doo r sedan t hat he bel i ev e d w as a C h e v yIm p a l a . W i th i n an h o u r of the se c o n d a g g r a v a ted rob b e ry, p o l i c e sto p p e d tw o
m en bec aus e t he veh i cl est hey w er e dr i vi ng, l i ght

- col or ed I m pal as , m at che d t he d e s c ri p ti o n o f th e ro b b e r’sc a r th a t w a s g i v e n to th e p o l i c e b yA g u i l a r’s husban d. The po l i ce det ai ned bo t h suspect s unt i l t he p o li ce br oug htM s. A gui l arto th e t r af f i c st ops t o det er m i ne w het hershe coul d i denti t y ei t her
su sp ec tast he i ndi vi dua l w ho r obbe d he r . M s. A gui l ari den t i f i ed t he cl ot hesof t he second suspect , A ppel l ant , as t he cl ot hes w or n by t he r obb er . Th e pol i ce l a te r fo u n d p ro p e rtyb e l o n g i n g to b o th c o m p l a i n a n ts i n A p p e l l a n t’sc a r.3

Subse que nt l y, A ppe l l antw asi ndi ct ed f orth e a g g r ava t ed r obbe r i esof Lov agl i o a nd Agui l ar , t o w hi ch he pl ea ded notgui l t y. The j ury f ound A ppe l l ant gui l t y o fbot h of f enses and asses sed hi s puni shm entatei ghteen year s’ im p r is o n m e n tin t h e T D C J -I D f o re a c h c a s e . T h e t r ia l c o u rts e n t e n c e d h im
a c c o rd i n g l y . I I I . D i squal i f i cat i on of a Pr osecut i ng A tt or ney I n A ppel l ant ’ s f i rs t p o i nt , he ar gues t hathe w as deni ed due process because t he D ent on C oun t y C r i m i nal D i st r i ctA t t or ney’ s O f f i ce w as di squal i f i ed f r o m h isp r o s e c u t i o n b e c a u s e t h e F ir s tA s s is t a n tD is t r ic tA t t o r n e yo r ig in a lly
re p re s e n te d h i m i n e a c h o f th e i n s ta n t c a s e s . A . A p p l i c a b l e F a c ts O n M ay 22, 200 6, Jam i e Be ckw asap poi nt ed t o r epr es entA ppe l l anton b o th ch a rge s o f ag g rav a ted rob b e ry . D u r in g h e r r e p res e n tati o n o f A p p e l l a n t,
s h e n e g o t i a t e d a p l e a b a r g a i n o f f e ro fe i g h ty e a r s ’ c o n f i n e me n ti n t h e T DC J

- I D. A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a c c e p t th e p l e a b a rg a i n o ffe r, a n d th e c a s e w a ss e t fo r j u ry t r ia l o n J a n u a ry2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , w it h M s . B e c ka st r ia l c o u n s e l. H ow ever , ef f ect i ve January 2, M s. Beck began em pl oym entas t he Fi r st A ss i st antD i s tri c t A t t or neyf orD ent on Count y. O n Ja nua ry 10, Ea r l D obs on
w asap poi nt ed t o r epr es entA ppe l l ant . Subs equ ent l y, t he St at e c han ged t he4

pl ea bar gai n of f erf r om ei ght year s’ conf i nem entt o t hi rt y- f i ve year s’
c o n fi n e m e n t. A p p e l l a n t rej e c te d th e p l e a o ffe r. O n F e b rua ry 1 5 , A p p e l l a n t f i l e d a m o ti o n to d i sq u a l i fy th e D e n to n C o u n ty D i st r i ctA t t orn e y’ s O f f i cef r om pr os ec ut i ng hi s ca se . Ata hea r i ng on t he
m ot i on, A ppe l l ant t es t i f i ed t hatdur i ng t he cou r seofM s. Bec k’ s r epr es ent at i on sh e ac q u i red co n fi d e n ti a li n fo rm a ti o n a n d d i sc u ss e d a d e fen se strate g yw i th A ppe l l ant , an d t hat bas ed on t he cha ngeoft he pl ea ba r gai n of f er , hew asbe i ng den i ed t he r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al . Bi l l Schul t z , t he pr os ec ut oras si gne d t o bot h of A ppel l ant ’ s cases, t est i f i ed t hat nei t her he nor t he second- chai r pr osecut orhad
e v e r di sc u ss e d fac ts, co m m u n i c a ti o n s, o r str a teg y a b o u t A p p e l l a n t’ s c a se w i th M s. B e c k . S u b se q u e n tl y , th e tr i a l c o u rt d e n i e d A p p e l l a n t’ s m o ti o n to d i sq u a l i fy th e d i s tri c t a tto rn e y ’so ffice . B. A ppl i cabl e Law I t co n sti tu tes a m a n i fes t v io la t i o n o f du e p roc e ss for a n atto rne yto rep res e n t t h e S tate a g a in st a cli e n t w h o m h e h a s re p res e n ted as a p ri v a te p ra c ti ti o n e r i n th e p a s t i n th e s a m e c a s e . S tate ex rel. Young v. Si xth Judi

ci al D i st. Courtof

A ppeal s at Texar kana , 236 S. W . 3d 207 , 211 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 7 ); Herna n dez v. S tate , 2 4 S .W . 3d 846, 852 ( Te x. App . — ElPa s o 2000, p e t . r e f ’d ). W h e n a d is t r ic ta t t o r n e yp r o s e c u t e ss o m e o n e w h o m h e p r e v io u s ly
r epr es ent ed i n t he sa m e c a s e , th e c onf l i ctofi nt er es ti s obvi ousan d t he2 ... Texas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr oc e d u re art i cl e 2. 01 st at es t hat“[ e] ach

di st r i ct at t or ney shal l r epr esent t he S t at e i n al l cr i m i nal cases i n t he d ist r i ct court s ofhi s di st r i ctand i n appeal s t her ef r om , e x c e p t in casesw her e he has been, bef or e hi s el ect i on, em pl oyed ad ver sel y. ” T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 2 .0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). 5 i n te g ri ty o f th e p ro s e c u to r’so ffice s u ffe rsc o rre s p o n d i n g l y . Ex parte Mor gan , 6 1 6 S .W .2 d 6 2 5 , 6 2 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ). M o re o v e r, th e re e x i s ts th e v e ry
r ea l da nge rt hatt he di st r i ctatt or ney w oul d be pr os ec ut i ng t he def end anton t he basi s off act s acqui r ed by hi m dur i ng t he exi st ence of hi s f or m erpr of essi onal
re l a ti o n s h i p w i th th e d e fe n d a n t. Id. U s e o fs u c h c o n f id e n t ia l k n o w le d g e w o u ld be a vi ol at i on of t he at t or ney- cl i entr el at i onshi p and w oul d be cl ear l y pr ej udi ci al to th e d e fe n d a n t. Id. Tw o pert i nent pr i nci pl es exi str egar di ng t he di squal i f i cat i on of el ect ed d is t r ic t o r c o u n t y a t t o r n e y s a n d t h e ir a s s is t a n t s w h o h a v e p r e v io u s ly
re p re s e n te d a d e f e n d a n ti n a p a rti c u l a r m a tte r. S car borough v. State, 54 S . W . 3d 41 9, 42 4 ( Tex . A pp. — W ac o 2 0 0 1 , p e t . r ef ’ d) . Fi r st , i fan el ect ed pr osec u ti ng at t or ney has pr evi ousl y r epr esent ed a def endan ti n a part i cul ar p r o c e e d in g , t h e n T e x a s C o d e o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e a rt ic le 2 .0 1 d is q u a lif ie sh im fr o m rep res e n ti n g the S tate i n the m a tter a n d th a t disq u a l i fi c a ti o n i s i m p u ted to th o s e a s s i s ta n ts “ w h o s e rv e a t h i sw i l l a n d p l e a s u re .” Id. ( ci t i ng State v. May, 2 270 S. W . 2d 682, 684 ( Tex. Ci v. A pp. — San A nt oni o 195 4, no w r i t . ) ) . Sec ond,6

i fan a s s i s tantdi st r i ctorco unt y a t t or neyha s pr evi ous l y r epr es ent ed a def endan ti n a part i cul arpr oceedi ng, t hen t hat part i cul ar at t or ney i s di squal i f i ed f r o m a s s is t in g in t h e p r o s e c u t io n o ft h e c a s e , b u t t h e e le c t e d p r o s e c u t o ra n d h is
o th e r a s s i s ta n ts a re n o t. Scar borough , 5 4S .W .3 d a t 4 2 4 . C . A n a ly s is A ppe l l antar gue s t hatM s. Bec k w as c l e a r l y di sq ual i f i ed f r om t he pr os ec ut i on ofhi s ca se s bec aus e s he r epr es ent ed hi m pr i ort o a cc ept i ng t he p o s it io n w it h t h e d is t r ic t a t t o r n e y ’s o f f ic e a n d b e c a u s e o fh e rs u p e rv is o ryro le
o v e r th o s e i n d i v i d u a l sw h o m p ro s e c u te d h i m . A f t e rre v ie w in g t h e re c o r d , itisa p p a r e n tt h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtd id n o te r rin d e n y i n g A p p e l l a n t’sm o ti o n to d i s q u a l i fy th e D e n to n C o u n tyD i s tri c t A tto rn e y ’s O f f ic e . F ir s t , t h e r e c o r d c le a r ly s h o w s t h a t M s . B e c k d id n o tp e r s o n a lly pr os ec ut e Appel l ant . Had M s. Beck per so nal l y pr os ec ut ed A ppe l l antaft ers he becam e em pl oyed at t he di st r i ctatt or ney’ s of f i ce, t hen i tw oul d have been
n e c e s s a ryf o rt h e t r ia l c o u rtt o d is q u a lif yh e rb e c a u s e s h e h a d p r e v io u s ly
re p re s e n te d A p p e l l a n t i n th e s a m e c a s e . S e eHe rn a n dez, 24 S. W . 3d a t851 (ho l d i n g tha t i t i s a v i o l a ti o n o f t h e d u e p r o c e ss o f l a w u n d e r t h e F o u rt e e n th A m end m entf oran att or neyt o r epr es ent a cr i m i nal def end ant , and t hen ac ce pt
em pl oym entw i t h t he di st r i cta tto rn ey’ s of f i cean d per sonal ly pros ec ute the def endant) (e m p h a s i sa d d e d ) . H o w e v e r, th i sw a sn o t th e c a s e . T h e re c o rd3 ... A t r i al courtcan r em ove a di st r i ctatt or ney on ly f orone oft hr ee

causes: ( 1) i ncom pet ency; ( 2) of f i ci al m i scondu ct ; or( 3) i nt oxi cat i on un der s e c ti o n 8 7 .0 1 3 , a n d o n l ya fte r th e tri a l b yj u rym a n d a te d . State ex rel . Ei ds on v. Edwards , 7 9 3 S .W .2 d 1 , 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). 7 does not show , nor has A ppel l ant pr esent ed, any evi dence dem onst r at i ng t hat M s . B e c kp e rs o n a l l yp ro s e c u te d h i m i n th i sc a s e . N ordo w e agr ee w i t h A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum entt hatm er el y because M s. Beckac t ed i n a s upe rvi so ry r ol e a s t he f i r stas si st ant di st r i ctatt or neyt hatt he tr i a l co u rt sh o u l d h a v e d i sq u a l i fi e d th e e n ti re o ffi c e fr o m p ros e c u ti n g A p p e l l a n t. Fi r st , an en t i r e s t af fofpr os ec ut or s w i l l onl y bedi sq ual i f i ed i fan el ec ted di st r i ct att or neyi s di sq ual i f i ed bec aus e t hey“ se rve att he w i l l an d p l e a s u r e”oft he
e l e c te d d i s tri c t a tto rn e y . See Scar borough, 5 4 S. W . 3d at424. Her e, t he el ect ed di st r i ctatt or ney w as notdi squal i f i ed; t her ef or e, no di squal i f i cat i on m ay be i m put ed t o t hos e p r os ec ut or s w ho w or k f ort he di st r i ctatt or ney . 3 Furt her , w e have not f oun d, norhas A ppel l antci t ed, any aut hor i t y t hat expand s t hi s r ul e ofdi squal i f i cat i on t o i ncl ude no n- el ect ed super vi sor s, such as a f i r stas si st ant . Ther ef or e, ev en t hough A ppe l l ant att em pt s t o s how t hatt he ent i r e d i st r i ctatt or ney ’ s of f i ces houl d ha ve bee n di sq ual i f i ed bec aus e t he pr os ec ut or s w er e s upe rv i s e d by M s. Bec k a nd w or ke d a the r“ w i l l an d pl easur e, ” t her e si m pl y i s no l aw t hat suppo rt s t hei rdi squal i f i cat i on. A s t he l aw8

st and s t oda y, i m put ed di sq ual i f i ca t i on i s app l i ca bl e o nl y f r om an el ec ted di st r i ct
a tto rn e yto th o s e s ta ff m e m b e rs w h o “ s e rv e a t h i s[o r h e r] w i l l a n d p l e a s u re .” See Sc ar

borough, 54 S. W . 3d a t424 ( hol di ng t hat an assi st antdi st r i ctatt or ney t hatpr evi ousl y r epr esent ed a def endan ti n a part i cul arpr oceedi ng i s di squal i f i ed f r o m a s s is t in g in t h e p r o s e c u t io n o f t h e c a s e , b u t t h e e le c t e d p r o s e c u t o ra n d h is
o th e r a s s i s ta n ts a re n o t); s e e a l s o Hern a n dez, 24 S . W . 3d at85 1 ( hol di ng t hat t her e w as no aut hor i ty to s u p portappel l ant ’ s ar gum entt hathi s due pr ocess
r i gh t s we r e v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e h i s f o r me r c o u n s e l wa s e mp l o y e d b y t he sam e d i s tri c t a tto rn e y ’so ffice th a t p ro s e c u te d h i m ). Last l y, A ppel l ant ’ s due pr ocess r i ghtsw er e notvi ol at ed m er el y because M s. Beck and t he ent i r e di st r i ctatt or ney’ s of f i c e d id n o t vo l untar i l y r ecuse th e m se l v e s a n d req u e st th e ap p o i n tm e n t of a sp e c i a l p ros e c u to r t o p ros e c u te A p p e l l a n t’sc a s e . S ee State ex rel . Ei ds on, 79 3 S . W . 2d at6. Even t hou gh M s. Beckw asi n a su pervi so ry po si t i on, t he r ec or d doe s nots how t hats he had an y i nvol vem ent i n t hi s part i cul ar case. I ndeed , t he di st r i ct at t or ney’ s o ff i ce es se nt i al l y bu i l ta w a l l b e t w ee n M s. Bec k a nd t hos e p r os ec ut or s w ho part i ci pat ed i n t he pr os ec ut i on ofA ppe l l ant . Bi l l Schul t z , t he p r os ec ut or as si gne d t o bot h of A ppe l l ant ’ s ca se s, t es t i f i ed t hatne i t herhenort he se con dcha i rpr os ec ut orha d e verdi sc us se d f ac t s, com m uni ca t i ons , ors t r at egyab out A p p e l l a n t’sc a s e w i th M s . B e c k . B a s e d o n th e re c o rd , w e c o n c l u d e th a t th e re9

i s no evi den ce t o su pport A ppe l l ant ’ s bar e as se rt i on t hat M s. B e c kh a d an y p a rti c i p a ti o n , d i re c t o r i n d i re c t, i n th e c a s e a g a i n s t A p p e l l a n t. T h e re fo re , w e h o l d th a t n o d u e p ro c e s sv i o l a t i o n o c c u rre d . S e eS ta teexrel. Y o ung, 236 S .W .3 d a t 2 1 1 . A c c o rd i n g l y , w e o v e rru l e h i sfi rs t p o i n t. I V . Ext r aneou s O ff ense Evi dence In A p p e ll ant ’ s second, t hi r d, and f ourt h poi nt s, he ar gues t hatt he t r i al
c ou rte r r on e ou s l y a dm i t t e d e xt r a ne ou so f f e ns e e vi de nc e o ve r hi sRu l e 403, hea r sa y, an d Cra wfo rd obj ect i ons. Becau se al l t hr ee poi nt s concer n t he sam e te s ti m o n ya n d e v i d e n c e , w e w i l l a n a l y z e th e m to g e th e r. A . Standar d ofRev i ew Th e st andar d of r evi ew f or a t r i al court ’ s adm i ssi on of evi dence i s abuse
o f d i s c re ti o n , a n d w i d e d i s c r e t i o n i sa ffo rd e d th e tri a l j u d g e . T h e us v. S tate , 8 4 5 S .W .2 d 8 7 4 , 8 8 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); L a j o i ev. S tate , 237 S. W . 3d 34 5, 352 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2007, no p et . ) . The t r i alco urt ’ s dec i si on sh oul d ber eve r se d on app ea l onl y i ft her e i s a s how i ng ofa cl ea rab us e o f d i s c re ti o n . T

h e us, 8 4 5 S .W .2 d a t8 8 1 . O n ly i f t h e c o u rt ’s d e c is io n f a lls out si de t he “z oneofr ea so nab l e d i sa gr ee m ent ” hasi tab us ed i t s di s c ret i on. Ra n ki nv. S tate , 9 7 4S .W .2 d 7 0 7 , 7 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ); Mo n tg o m ery v. S tate , 810 S . W . 2d 372, 391 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 199 1) ( op. on re h ’g ).10

I f t h e tr i a l j u d g e ’s d e c i sion i s c o rr e c t o n a n y th e o ry o f l a w ap p l i c a b l e to th e c a s e , h o w e v e r, i t w i l l b e s u s ta i n e d . Ro m e ro v. S ta te, 800 S . W . 2d 539, 54 3- 44 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 90 ) . Thi s pr i nci pl e hol ds t r ue even w hen t he t r i al j u d g e g i v e sth e w ro n g re a s o n fo r h i s d e c i s i o n , a n d i se s p e c i a l l ytru e w i th re g a rd to a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e . Id . B . A p p l i c a b l e F a c ts Bef or e t r i albe gan , A ppe l l ant ’ s t r i alco uns elf i l ed a m ot i on i n l i m i ne se ek i ng t o pr eve ntt he St at e f r om i nt r oduc i ng e vi den ceofan y e xt ra n eou s o ffen se o r ba d ac ts. A t t h e h e a ri n g o n the m o ti o n , th e S tat e a n n o u n c e d i ts i nt ent i on t o i nt r o d u c e e vi dence of a t hi r d att em pt ed aggr avat ed r obb ery t hat
o c c u rr e d o n the sa m e n i g h t as the o th e r t w o rob b e ri e s. T h e ev i d e n c e w a s to b e in t r o d u c e d t h r o u g h t h e t e s t im o n yo fO f f ic e rC u rt isre g a r d in g a d is p a t c h c a ll h e re c e i v e d w h i l e i n te rv i e w i n g M s . A g u i l a r a b o u t th e a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry com m i t t ed agai nsther . The S t at e ar gued t hat t he evi dence w as adm i ssi bl e as s a me t r a n s a c t i o n c o n t e x t u a l e v i d e n c e a n d r e l e v a n t o n t h e i s s u e o fi d e n t i t y . At t hi s poi nti n t he pr et r i alhe ar i ng, A ppe l l antobj e c te d th atad m i ss i on oft he evi dence vi ol at ed R ul e 40 3, hear say, and t he C onfr ontat i on C l ause. Th e t r i al
c o u rt o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’so bj e c ti o n sa n d d e n i e d h i sm o ti o n i n l i m i n e . S ubsequ ent l y, t he S t at e br oug ht up t he ext r aneou s att em pt ed aggr avat ed rob b e ry o ffen se i n i ts o p e n i n g sta tem e n t to th e j u ry, an d ag a i n w h e n the S tate4 ... The t r i al cou rtove r r ul ed A ppe l l ant ’ s 403 , he ar sa y, an d c onf r ont at i on

cl aus e o bj ec t i onsatt he pr et r i alhe ar i ng on A ppe l l a n t’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, an d aga i n a tt r i al . Upon A ppe l l ant ’ s r e q u e st , t he t r i alco urtgr ant ed a r unni ng o bj e c ti o n to th i sl i n e o f q u e s ti o n i n g .

5 ... O f f i ce rCurt i s, w hos e sq uad ca r w as an I m pal a, con f i r m ed w i t h Jo r ge A g u i l a r th a t th e c a r th e s u s p e c t e n te re d w a sa l s o a n Im p a l a . 11 c a lle d O f f ic e r G u y C u rt is t o t e s t if yre g a r d in g t h e d is p a t c h c a ll. O f f ic e rC u rt is 4 t es t i f i ed t hatat4: 45 a. m . on Apr i l 1, hew asdi sp at che d t o t he apa rt m entof JudyA gui l aron an agg r avat ed r obb ery cal l . O f f i cerC urt i s t est i f i ed t hatw hen he r es ponde d t o t he ca l l r ega r di ng t he A gui l ar r obbe ry, he al r ea dy k new oft he
or i gi nalag gr ava t ed r obbe ry ofBr and y L ova gl i o a nd t hath e s houl d beon t he l ook out f or a bl ac k m al e of m edi um bui l d, dr es se d i n dar k cl ot hi ng, and dr i vi ng a l i ghtco l or ed C hev r ol etI m pal a. Att he A gui l ar ’ s apa rt m ent , hel ea r ned f r om M s. A gui l ar ’ s husband, Jor ge A gui l ar , w ho w i t nessed t he r obb ery, t hatt he m an
w ho r o b b e d hi s w i f e atgunp oi ntw as bl ack and st ocky, t hathi s f ace w as cov er ed by s om et hi ng, an d t hatt he m an had ru n to a si l verI m pal a a ft ert he
r obbe ry. Jo rge stres se d tha t t h e ca r ha d a b i g b o xo r “c h e st” i n the b a c kse a t.

5 O f f i ce rCurt i s t es t i f i ed t hats hortl y a ft erbe gi nni ng hi s i nt ervi ew oft he A gui l ar s, her ec ei ved a di sp at ch ca l l r ega r di ng a n agg r ava t ed r obbe ry a t t em pt t hathad j ustoccur r ed ata near by apart m entcom pl ex. H e f urt hert est i f i ed t hat t he di spat cheri nf or m ed hi m t hat a l i ght- col or ed orsi l verf our - doo rcar , dr i ven6 ... O f f i ce rCurt i s’ s t es t i m ony r ega r di ng t he di sp at ch ca l l i ncl ude d t he

fo l l o w i n g : Q : . . . [ D ] i d di sp at ch not i f y yo u ofan yt hi ng e l set o beon t he l ooko utf or ? A : I he ar d a veh i cl e des cr i pt i on of a l i ght

- col or ed ors i l verf our - door c a r th a t w a sl e a v i n g th e a re a . Q : D oes t hatf i tt he descr i pt i on of a C hevr ol etI m pal a? A : I t w o u l d . Q : Four

- doo r c ar ? A nd di d t hatm at ch t he descr i pt i on t hatw as gi ven t o you by M r . and M r s. A gui l ar ? A : I t d i d . Q : O k a y . A s id e f r o m t h e d if f e r e n c e b e t w e e n w h it e a n d s ilv e r , d id i t m a tc h t he des cr i pt i on i n t er m s oft he t ypeofve hi cl e f r om t he v e h i c l e d e sc ri p ti o n g i v e n i n O ffi c e r W o l f’ s rep o rti n co n n e c ti o n w i th Br and y L ova gl i o? A : I t d i d , y e s , sir. 12 b ya b l a c km a l e , w a s se e n l e a v i n g th e sc e n e o f th e a g g rav a ted rob b e ry a ttem p t. O ffi c e r C u rt i s te sti fi e d t h a t h e im m e d i a tel yl e ft th e A g u i l a rs’ ap a rt m e n t t o re s p o n d to th e c a l l . A t th i s p o i n t i n O ffice r C u rti s ’ste s ti m o n y , th e tri a l c o u rt g r a n t e d A p p e lla n t ’s re q u e s tf o ra lim it in g in s t r u c t i o n s o t h a tt h e ju ryc o u ld consi dert he ext r aneou s of f ense evi dence on l y f ori denti f i cat i on pu r poses. 6 A f t ert he t r i al court i ssued t he l i m i t i ng i nst r uct i on, O f f i cer C urt i s r esum ed hi s t es t i m ony and s t at ed thatashew asex i t i ng t he A gui l ar ’ s apa rt m ent13

com pl ex, he obser ved a si l ver orgr ay f our - doo rI m pal a, dr i ven by a bl ack m al e, dr i ve aw ay f r om t he l oca t i on w her e t he t hi r d a t t em pt ed r obbe ry ha d oc cur r ed. O ffice r C u rti sa l s o n o ti c e d th a t a b i g b o xw a si n th e b a c ks e a t o f th e c a r. O f f i ce rCurt i s st oppe d t he ca r , t hat w as dr i ven by Appel l ant , an d a s ubs equ ent
se a rch res u l ted i n the d i sc o v e ry o f a s k im a sk , g u n , a n d p rop e rt yb e l o n g i n g to L o v a g l i o a n d A g u i l a r. Th e j ur y al so hear d t est i m ony fr om O f f ic e r J a im e M cD onal d. O f f i cer M c D o n a ld t e s t if ie d t h a ts h e w a sd is p a t c h e d t o t h e A g u ila r s ’ a p a rt m e n tin
r es pons e t o a n a ggr ava t ed r obbe ry. She st at ed t hats hort l y a ft ers he and O f f i ce rCurt i s beg an t o i nt ervi ew t he A gui l ar s, O f f i ce r C urt i s l eftt he apa rt m ent
com pl ex bec aus e he had r ec ei ved a di sp at ch ca l l ofan ot heratt em pt ed r obbe ry. S h e te s t i f i ed t hatw i t hi n t w o ort hr eem i nut ess he al so l eftt o r es pond t o t he
ca l l , an d s he dr oveap pr oxi m at el y on e bl ock t o w her e Of f i ce rCurt i s had m ade a t r af f i c s t op ofA ppe l l ant . She f urt hert es t i f i e d th a tA ppe l l antw asdr i vi ng a g ra yC h e v ro l e t Im p a l a . A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t o bj e c t to th i ste s ti m o n y . Fol l ow i ng Of f i ce r M cDonal d’ s t es t i m ony, D et ec t i ve Jam esW i se nge r , t he det ec t i ve w ho i nve st i gat ed t he r obbe r i es , t es t i f i ed t hatt he com pl ai nan toft he th i rd a t t em pt ed r obbe ry w asG eor ge A l exa nde r . Accor di ng t o Det ec t i ve W i senger , A l exander t ol d t he of f i cer s t hatbecause he w as col or - bl i nd, he w as unab l e t o i denti f y t he col or of t he r obb er ’ s cl ot hes orm ask. W i sengerf urt her14

t est i f i ed t hat A l exander st at ed t hatw hen t he r obb erappr oached hi m , A l exander t ol d t he r obbe rhedi d notha ve anym one y a nd s o t he r ob b erl eft . La st l y, D et ec t i ve W i se nge rt es t i f i ed t hat A p p e l l antw asnotch ar ged w i t h t he agg r ava t ed r obbe ry ofA l exa nde rbe ca us e A l exa nde r had m adei tcl ea rt hathe
w o u l d n o t c o o p e ra tea sa w i tn e s s . C . Pr obati ve V al ue oft he Evi dence A ppel l antcont ends t hatO f f i cer C urt i s’ s t est i m ony r egar di ng t he di spat ch
ca l l r epo rt i ng a n a t t em pt ed r obbe ry s houl d ha v e b ee n e xcl ude d be ca us e t he pr obati ve val ue oft he evi dence w as subst ant i al l y outw ei ghed by t he pr ej udi ci al
m a tte r o f th e e v i d e n c e . 1. A ppl i cable Law A s a g ene r alr ul e, t o pr eve nt an ac cus ed f r om bei ng pr os ec ut ed f ors om e col l at er al cr i m e orm i scondu ct , t he S t at e m ay not i nt r odu ce evid ence ofbad
a c ts s i m i l a r to th e o ffe n s e c h a rg e d , e v e n i f r e l e v a n t. S wa rbv. S ta te, 125 S . W . 3d 67 2, 68 1 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] 20 03 , pet . di sm ’ d) . Texas Rul e o fEvi den ce404( b) s t at est hatev i den ce o f e x tra neo usof f ens esi s not adm i ss i bl e a tt he gui l t - i nnoc e n cepha seofa t r i alt o pr ovet hata def end ant
c o m m i tte d th e c h a r g e d o ffe n s e i n c o n fo rm i tyw i th a b a d c h a ra c te r. T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 4 (b ); No b les v. S tate , 8 4 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). H ow ever , t hi s t ype of evi dence m ay be adm i ssi bl e f orot herpur poses, such as15

pr oofofm ot i ve, oppo rt uni t y, i nt ent , pr epa r at i on, pl an, kn ow l edg e, i den t i t y, or a b s e n c e o f m i s ta k e o r a c c i d e n t. T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 4 (b ); S wa rb , 12 5 S . W . 3d at 6 8 1 . O r di nar i l y, t o be adm i ssi bl e t o show i denti t y, an ext r aneou s of f ense m ust b e s o s i m i l a r to th e c h a rg e d o ffe n s e a sto m a rkth e o ffe n s e sa sth e d e fe n d a n t's h a n d i w o rk . Jo hn so nv. S tate , 6 8 S .W .3 d 6 4 4 , 6 5 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). F o r s u c h e v i d e n c e to b e a d m i s s i b l e , i d e n ti ty m u s t b e a n i s s u e i n th e c a s e . Id. O nc e i denti f i cat i on beco m es an i ssue, t he S t at e has t he bur den t o show t hat t he t w o c r i m esw er e s o s i m i l art hatt h e y w er e l i ke l y t he pr oduc tofonl y on e p e rs o n . Id. ; T

a yl o r v. S tate , 920 S. W . 2d 319 , 322 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp . 1 9 9 6 ). I n de t er m i ni ng s i m i l ar i t y oft he of f ens es f ort he pur pos e o fes t abl i sh i ng i den t i t y, app el l at e cou rt s sh oul d t ak e i nt o a cc ountbot h t he sp ec i f i c c har ac t er i st i csoft he
v a ri o u s o ffe n s e sa n d th e ti m e i n te rv a l b e tw e e n th e m . Johns on , 68 S. W . 3d at 651. 2. A nalysi

s I n t hi s ca se , t he i ss ue ofi den t i t y w ascl ea r l y be f or e t he j ury. Spec i f i ca l l y, t h e i s s u e o f i d e n t i t y wa s r a i s e d d u r i n g Ms . Ag u i l a r ’ s d i r e c t t e s t i m ony, an d
a g a i n , d u ri n g h e rc ro s s -e x a m i n a ti o n . S e ei d. ( ci t i ng Ra n so m v. S tate , 503 S .W .2 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 3 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 4 ) ( o p . o n reh ’g) ( ruli n g tha t i d e n ti ty
m a yb e c o m e a n i s s u e i n th e c a s e th ro u g h c ro s s -e x a m i n a ti o n o f w i tn e s s e s )).7 ... O f f i cerC urt i s t est i f i ed t hathe r espond ed t o t he di spat ch t o t he A gui l ar

r obb ery at 4: 45 a. m . and t hat he ar r i ved at t he A gui l ar s’ apart m enti n l ess t han t en m i nutes . W i t hi n appr oxi m at el y t hr ee t o f our m i nutes ofhi s ar r i val , O f f i cer C urt i s t es t i f i ed, he r ec ei ved t he di sp at ch ca l l r ega r di ng a not herr obbe ry a t t em pt 16 M s. A gui l ar t est i f i ed t hatl ess t han an ho uraft ershe w as r obb ed, she i denti f i ed A ppel l antas t he per son w h o ro bbed her , r el yi ng on t he f actt hatt he cl ot hes A p p e l l a n t w a sw e a ri n g m a tc h e d th e c l o th i n g w o rn b yth e ro b b e r. N ot onl y w as t he i ss ue of i den t i t y r ai se d i n t hi s ca se , butt he ext r ane ous of f ense w as so s i m i l art o t he ot herof f enses A ppel l antw as char ged w i t h t hat th e e x tra n e o u so ffe n s e c o u l d b e m a rk e d a sA p p e l l a n t’sh a n d i w o rk . See L ane
v. State, 9 3 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 4 , 5 1 9 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o ld in g t h a te v e n if t he i ss ue ofi den t i t y i s r ai se d, t o be adm i ss i bl e, an ext r ane ousof f ens e m us tbe
s o s i m i l a r to th e o ffe n s e c h a rg e d th a t th e o ffe n s e sa re m a rk e d a sth e a c c u s e d ’s ha n d i wo r k ) . T h e r e c o r d s h o ws t h a tt h e e x t r a n e o u so f f e n s e wa sc o mm i t t ed
w ith in c lo s e te m p o ra l a n d g e o g ra p h ic a l p ro x im ityo f t h e c h a rg e d o ff e n s e s . It i s i m port antt o note t hatt he exact ness t hatm i ght be r equi r ed ofan of f ense com m i t t ed ata m or e r em ot e per i od of t i m e m i ght not necessar i l y be r equi r ed fo r a n o ffe n s e c o m m i tte d w i th i n a v e r ys h o rt p e ri o d o f ti m e . Johnson , 68 S. W . 3d at651. I n t hi s ca se , al l t hr eeof f ens esoc cur r ed w i t hi n a f ew hour s of each ot her , and t he second and t hi r d of f enses act ual l y occur r ed w i t hi n m i nutes
o f e a c h o th e r. Fu rt her , al t hough t he t hr eeof f ens esoc cur r ed atdi f f er ent 7o c c u rri n g n e a rb y . 8 ... O f f i ce rCurt i s t es t i f i ed t hati t onl y t ook app r oxi m at el y f i ft ee n s ec onds t o dr i ve f r om t he l ocat i on of t he second r obb ery t o t he l ocat i on w her e di spat ch s a i d a n o th e r ro b b e ryw a so c c u rri n g . 17 a p a rtm e n t c o m p l e x e s , th e yw e re a c tu a l l ys i m i l a r l y l o c a te d ; i n d e e d , th e th i rd
r obbe ry a t t em ptac t ual l y oc cur r ed l es s t han onem i nut e a w ay f r om t he apa rt m entco m pl ex w her e t he se con d of f ens e o cc ur r ed. 8 M or eov er , i n t he t w o r obbe r i esan d t hi r d a ttem pt ed r obbe ry, t he p e rpe tr a to r ap p roa c h e d th e c o m p l a i n a n ts w i th a g u n , a t nigh t i n a p a rki n g l o t,
a n d w i th a s k im a s kc o v e r i n g h i sfa c e . G i ven t he cl os e t em por alan d geog r aphi cal pr oxi m i t y oft he of f enses as w el l as t he si m i l arm anneri n w hi ch t he of f enses occur r ed, w e det er m i ne t hat t he cr i m es w er e so si m i l art hatt hey
w e re l i k e l y t h e p ro d u c t o f th e s a m e p e rs o n . Se ei d. at65 0- 51 . Fort hese
re a s o n s , w e d e te r m i n e th a t th e e v i d e n c e w a sa d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 4 0 4 (b ). S e eL a n e, 93 3 S . W . 2d at 5 1 9 (s ta ting t hatt he courtofcr i m i nal appeal s has pr evi ousl y hel d t hatof f enses w er e suf f i ci ent l y si m il a r to pr ove i denti t y und er R u l e 4 0 4 (b ) w h e n (1 ) b o th o ffe n s e sw e re ro b b e ri e s , (2 ) b o th o ffe n s e sw e re c om m i t t e d a tg un po i nt , ( 3) t he de f e nd a ntw a sa i de d bya c on f e de r a t e , a nd ( 4) th e o ffe n s e so c c u rre d th re e d a y sa p a rt).18

A f t e ra t r ia l c o u rt p r o p e r ly r u le st h a tt h e e v id e n c e isa d m is s ib le u n d e rR u le 40 4( b) , t he t r i al courtm ustt hen ba la n c e p r obati veness and pr ej udi ce under R u l e 4 0 3 . Mo n tg o m ery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d a t 3 8 7 ; Feld m a nv. S tate , 71 S . W . 3d 738 , 754 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2002 ) . Bec aus e t he t r i alco urti s i n a s upe r i or pos i t i on t o ga uget he i m pac t of r el eva nt evi den ce i n eva l uat i ng i t s det er m i nat i on
u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 , w e r e v e r s e t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n t o a d m itt h e e v id e n c e o n ly
a fte r a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . Mo zo nv. S tate , 991 S. W . 2d 841, 847 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Jones , 119 S. W . 3d at421- 22. Rel eva ntev i den cem ay be
e x c lu d e d u n d e rR u le 4 0 3 o n lyw h e n it sp r o b a t iv e v a lu e iss u b s t a n t ia lly outw ei ghed by t he dang e rofunf ai rpr ej udi ce, conf usi on of t he i ssues,
m i sl ea di ng t he j ury, con si der at i onsofundu e d el ay, orne edl es s pr es ent at i on of
c u m u l a ti v e e v i d e n c e . T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 3 ; Mozon , 991 S. W . 2d a t846- 47. A pr ope rRul e 403 ana l ys i s i ncl ude s, but i s not l i m i t ed t o, t he f ol l ow i ng f ac t or s: ( 1) t he pr oba t i ve val ue oft he evi den ce ; ( 2) t he pot ent i alt o i m pr es s t he j ury i n s om e i r r at i ona l , ye ti nde l i bl e, w ay; ( 3) t he ti m e n e e ded t o de vel op t he
e v i d e n c e ; a n d (4 ) th e p ro p o n e n t’s n e e d fo r th e e v i d e n c e . Pri b lev. S tate , 175 S .W .3 d 7 2 4 , 7 3 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Mo n tg o m ery , 810 S. W . 2d a t390. A f t e rre v i e w i n g th e re c o rd , w e a re n o t p e rs u a d e d b yA p p e l l a n t's content i on t hatt he ext r aneou s evi den c e oft he t hi r d at t em pt ed aggr avat ed
r obbe ry w a s u n fai r l y pr ej udi ci alunde rRul e 403. W e f i r str ec ogni z e t hatt he19

ext r ane ousof f ens e e vi den ceha s an i nhe r entpr oba t i ven es s by re as on oft he
s i m i l a ri tyo f th e e x tra n e o u s o ffe n s e sto th e c h a rg e d o ffe n s e . See Boo ker v. S ta te, 103 S. W . 3d 521 , 534 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 3, pet . r ef ’ d). W e agr ee w i t h t he t r i al court t hat t he evi dence of t he t hi r d at t em pt ed r obb ery w as hi ghl y r el ev a n t to t he i ssue ofi denti t y. I m m edi at el y af t erbei ng r obb ed, M s. A gui l ar gave t he pol i ce a descr i pt i on of t he suspect ’ s cl ot hi ng and vehi cl e. H er d e s c r ip t io n w a s s im ila r t o t h e d e s c r ip t io n o ft h e f ir s tv ic t im , L o v a g lio , a sw e ll
ast he des cr i pt i on t hatw asgi ven t o O ffice r Curt i s r ega r di ng t he su sp ec tan d
v e h ic le in v o lv e d in t h e t h ir d a t t e m p t e d a g g r a v a t e d ro b b e ry . T h e re c o r d c le a r ly sh o w s th a t th e rob b e ri e s o c c u rr e d i n clos e tem p o ral an d g e o g rap h i c p rox i m i ty
a n d o c c u rre d i n a s i m i l a r fa s h i o n ; th u s , e v i d e n c e o f th e th i rd a tte m p te d ro b b e ry
w a s re l e v a n t. See L ane , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 9 . Furt her m or e, even w i t hou t t hese si m i l ar i t i es, t he di spat ch descr i pt i on t hat l e d to A p p e l l a n t ’ s a p p re h e n s i o n a fte r th e th i rd a tte m p te d a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry al so l ed t o t he di scover y t hatA ppel l a n t had i n hi s possess i on per sonal i t em s b e l o n g i n g to c o m p l a i n a n ts o f b o th th e fi rs t a n d s e c o n d ro b b e ry . T h i sd i s c o v e ry wa s a s i g n i f i c a n t p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e t y i n g Ap p e l l a n t t o t h e f i r s t and s ec ond
a ggr avat ed r obb er i es. Thu s, w e det er m i ne t hatt he ext r aneou s of f ense e v i d e n c e w a s h i g h l yp rob a ti v e b e c a u se i t ten d e d to p rov e A p p e l l a n t’ s i d e n ti ty
a s th e p e rp e tra to r. Se eJo hn s o n, 68 S. W . 3d a t651.20

A s f ort he potent i alt o i r r at i onal l y i m pr ess t he j ur y, i ti s t r ue t hat an ext r em el y s i m i l arext r ane ousof f ens e a l w aysca r r i es t he pot ent i alt o i m pr es s t he j u ry o f a d e fen d a n t’ s c h a rac te r c o n fo rm i ty, a n i m p res sion the l a w se e k s to
a voi d. How eve r , t he i m per m i ss i bl e i nf er enc e o fch ar ac t erco nf or m i t y c an be
m i n i m i z e d th ro u g h a l i m i ti n g i n s tru c ti o n . L a n e, 9 3 3 S .W .2 d a t5 2 0 . In t h is
ca se , A p p el l ant ’ s t r i alco uns elr equ es t ed and r ec ei ved a l i m i t i ng i ns t r uct i on
r est r i ct i ng t he j ur y’ s c onsi der at i on of t he di spat ch cal l f orany pur pose ot her t han i denti t y. W e do not per cei ve any r eason a l i m i t i ng i nst r uct i on w as any l ess ef f ect i ve i n t he pr esentcase t han i n ot hercases i n w hi ch i denti t y i s an i ssue. S e ei d. Th us, w e d et er m i ne t hatt he evi dence di d not i m pr ess t he j ur y i n an i rra ti o n a l w a y . A s fo r t h e am o u n t of tr i a l ti m e n e e d e d to d e v e l o p the ev i d e n c e , th e S tate
s p e n tre la t iv e lylitt le t im e d e v e lo p in g t h ise v id e n c e w h e n c o m p a r e d t o t h e t im e spentdevel opi ng i t s case i n chi ef . The S t at e m ent i oned t he di spat ch cal l t hat O f f i ce rCurt i s r ec ei ved dur i ng t he St a te ’s ope ni ng s t at em ent s, br i ef l y du r i ng O ffice r C u rti s ’s te s ti m o n y , a n d a g a i n d u ri n g th e S ta te ’sc l o s i n g a rg u m e n t. W e d o n o t b e l i e v e th a t th e a m o u n t o f ti m e w a se x c e s s i v e . Se eL a n e, 933 S . W . 2d at52 0 ( st at i ng t hatw her e t he ext r aneou s of f ense const i t u te d l ess t hen
one - f i f t h of t he t es t i m ony i n t he St at e’ s ca se - i n- chi ef( l es s t han oneda y ou tof fi v e d a y s o f te s ti m o n y ), th e a m o u n t o f ti m e w a sn o t e x c e s s i v e ).21

La st l y, i n a ss es si ng t he St at e’ s nee d f or t hi s evi den ce , w e a ck now l edg e t hatev en w i t houtt he ext r ane ousof fe n seev i den ce , t he r ec or d c l ea r l y s how s t hatA ppe l l antha d c om m i t t ed t w o a g g rav at ed r obbe r i es . How eve r , t he ext r ane ousof fens e e vi den cedoe s t end t o pr oveA ppe l l ant ’ s i den t i t y a s t he p e r p e t r a t o ro fa ll t h r e e a g g r a v a t e d ro b b e r ie s . In d e e d , a sw e p r e v io u s ly di scussed, t he di spat ch descr i pt i on t hat l ed t o A ppel l ant ’ s appr ehensi on af t er t he t hi r d a t t em pt ed agg r ava t ed r obbe ry al so l ed t o t he di sc ove ry t hatA ppe l l ant had i n hi s possess i on per sonal i t em s bel ong i ng t o com pl ai nant’ s ofbot h t he f i r st and second aggr avat ed r obb er i es. Thi s evi dence serves as t he l i nk bet w een A ppe l l antan d a l l t hr eer obbe r i es , t huss u p p o rt i ng t he St at e’ s nee d f ort he
e v i d e n c e . A f t e rb a l a n c i n g t h e s e f a c t o r s , we d e t e r mi n e t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rtw as
w i t hi n t he z oneofr ea so nab l e d i s a g re em entw hen i tco ncl ude d t hatt he pr oba t i ve val ue of t he ext r ane ous of f ens e w as not su bs t ant i al l y out w ei ghe d by i tsp rej u d i c i a l i m p a c t. S e ePri b le, 175 S . W . 3d a t731. D . C onfr ontat i on C l ause A pp e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e wa s d e n i e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i ghtof confr ontat i on w hen he w as notper m i t t ed t o cr oss- exam i ne t he di spat cher
re g a rd i n g s ta te m e n ts th e d i s p a tc h e r m a d e to O ffice r C u rti s re g a rd i n g th e th i rd
a g g ra v a te d ro b b e rya tte m p t.22

Th e Si xt h A m endm entt o t he U ni t ed S t at es C onst i t ut io n pr ovi des t hat “[ i ] n a l l cr i m i nalpr os ec ut i ons , t he ac cus ed sh al l en j oy t he r i ghtt o . . . be
c o n fro n te d w i th th e w i tn e s s e sa g a i n s t h i m .”U .S . C O N ST . a m e n d . V I . The C onf r ont at i on C l aus e’ s ce nt r alco nce r n i s t o e ns ur e t he r el i abi l i t y oft he evi den ceag ai ns ta cr i m i nalde f end antby su bj ec t i ng i tt o r i gor oust es t i ng i n t he
c o n te x t o f a n a d v e rs a ri a l p ro c e e d i n g b e fo re th e tri e r o f fa c t. Kea rne yv. S tate 18 1 S . W . 3d 43 8, 44 1- 42 ( Tex . A pp. — W aco 2 00 5, pet . r ef ’ d) . The U ni t ed St at esSupr em e Court hel d t hat“ t es t i m oni als t at em ent s”ofw i t nes se s abs ent f r om t r i al ar e adm i ssi bl e overa Si xt h A m endm entC onfro n t at i on C l ause obj ec t i on onl y w hen t he dec l ar anti s una vai l abl e a nd on l y w her e t he def end ant h a s h a d a p ri o r o p p o rtu n i tyto c ro s s -e x a m i n e . Cra w fo rd v. W ashi ngton , 541 U .S . 3 6 , 5 9 , 1 2 4S . C t. 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 6 8 -6 9 (2 0 0 4 ). T h e th re s h o l d i s s u e i n o u r Crawf ord a n a l y sis i s w h e th e r t h e sta tem e n ts
w e re te s ti m o n i a l . Kear ney , 181 S. W . 3d at441- 42. The cou rtdi d notde f i ne

“ t e s t i m on i a l , ” b ut i t no t e d t hr e e f or m ul a t i on s of “ c or e ” t e s t i m on i a l e vi de nc e : ( 1) ex part e i n- cour t te s ti m ony o ri t s f uncti onal equi val ent , such as af f i davi t s, cus t odi al ex am i nat i ons , pr i or te s ti m ony nots ubj ec tt o c r os s- exa m i nat i on, or si m i l arpr et r i al st at em ent s t hatdecl ar ant s w oul d r easonabl y expectt o be used p r o s e c u t o r ia lly , ( 2 ) e x t r aj u d ic ia l s t a t e m e n t so ft h e s a m e n a t u r e c o n t a in e d in f or m al i zed t est i m oni al m at er i al s, and ( 3) st at em ent s t hatw er e m ade und er23

ci r cum st ances w hi ch w oul d l ead an obj ect i ve w i t ness r easonabl y t o bel i eve t hat th e s ta te m e n t w o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e fo r u s e a t a l a te r tri a l . Se eCra wfo rd, 541 U .S . a t 5 1 -5 2 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 1 3 6 4 . T h e c o u rt fu rth e r e x p l a i n e d th a t th e te rm “t es t i m oni al ” app l i esat a m i ni m um t o pr i ort es t i m ony ata pr el i m i nary he ar i ng, b e fo re a g ra n d j u ry , o r a t a fo rm e r tri a l ; a n d to p o l i c e i n te rro g a ti o n s . Id. a t68, 124 S . Ct . a t1374 . I n t hi s ca se , w e h ol d t hat t he di sp at che r ’ s st at em ent s t o O f f i ce rCurt i s do notf al l w i t hi n t he ca t ego r i esoft es ti m oni alev i den cede sc r i bed i n Cra wfo rd . The di sp at ch ca l l i n t hi s ca se i s si m i l art o 9- 1- 1 ca l l s w her e s t at em ent s m ade dur i ng t he ca l l w er e n otgi ven i n r es pons e t o s tru ct ur ed pol i ceque st i oni ng or
w i t h a n e ye t o f ut ur e l ega l pr oce edi ngs , butw er e i ni t i at ed by a c om pl ai nan tor
w i tn e s s i n o rd e r to o b ta i n p o l i c e a s s i s ta n c e . Se e, e .g ., Kea rn e y, 181 S . W . 3d
a t 4 4 2 -4 3 ( h o l d i n g tha t 9 -1 -1 ca l l rep o rt i n g a r o b b e ry i n p rog res s a n d to
s u m m o n e m e rg e n c yp o l i c e h e l p a n d s ta te m e n ts m a d e w i th i n th e c a l l w e re
n o n te s ti m o n i a l i n n a tu re ). I n t he sam e w a y , t he cal l O f f i cerC urt i s r ecei ved f r om t he pol i ce di spat cherw as i nt ended t o al erth im t hathi s ass i st ance w as
n e e d e d a t a n e a rb yl o c a ti o n b e c a u s e o f th e o c c u rre n c e o f a c ri m e . T h e c a ll d id notbe aran y o f th e o f f i ci al , f or m alqua l i t i esofpol i cei nt er ac t i onst hatt he C o n fro n ta ti o n C l a u s e w a si n te n d e d to p ro te c t a g a i n s t, a n d th e re fo re , w e d e te rm i n e th a t i t w a sn o n te s ti m o n i a l . S e ei d. B e c a u s e we h o l d t hatt he24

di sput ed st at em ent s i n t hi s case w er e nott est i m oni al , A ppel l ant ’ s const i t ut i onal ri g h t to c o n fro n t th e d e c l a r a n t w a s n o t v i o l a te d . S e eCra wfo rd, 54 1 U . S . at 5 1 -4 2 , 1 2 4S . C t. a t 1 3 6 4 . E. H ear say A ppe l l ant n e x t con t end s t hatO f f i ce rCurt i s’ s t es t i m ony r ega r di ng t he det ai l s oft he pol i ce di sp at ch w ashe ar sa y w i t houtan y a ppl i ca bl e e xce pt i on. The Tex as Rul es of Evi den cepr ohi bi tt he adm i ss i on ofhe ar sa y e vi den ceex ce pt
aspr ovi ded by st at ut e orot herr ul espr es cr i bed pur su antt o s t at ut ory a ut hor i t y. S ee T EX . R. E VID . 8 0 2 . H e a rsa y i s a sta tem e n t, i n c l u d i n g a w ri tten sta tem e n t,
o t h e rt h a n o n e m a d e b yt h e d e c la r a n tw h ile t e s t if y in g a tt h e t r ia l, w h ic h is of f er ed t o pr ovet he t r ut h oft he m att eras se rt ed . S eeT EX . R. E VID . 8 0 1 (d ); D i n ki n sv. S ta te, 8 9 4S .W .2 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ), cert. denied, 516 U . S. 832 ( 199 5) . Thus , a st at em entnotof f er ed t o pr ovet he t r ut h oft he
m a tte r a s s e rte d i sn o t h e a rs a y . Di nki ns , 8 9 4S .W .2 d a t 3 4 7 -4 8 . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o mmu n i c a t i o n s b e t ween t he pol i ce of f i cer s and t he di spat cherw er e notof f er ed f ort he t r ut h oft he m at t er as se rt ed bec aus e t he t es t i m o n y w asel i ci t ed f ort he pur pos e o fs how i ng t he
c i rc u m s ta n c e ss u rro u n d i n g a n d l e a d i n g to th e d e te n ti o n o f A p p e l l a n t. A ss um i ng w i t houtde ci di ng t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed i n a dm i t t i n g t he t es t i m ony, w e c onduc ta har m ana l ys i s t o de t er m i ne w het hert he er r orca l l s f or25

re v e rs a l o f th e j u d g m e n t. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44 .2 . T h e a d m i ssi on of ot her w i se i nadm i ssi bl e hear say i s a nonconst i t ut i onal er r or , and t her ef or e i s di sr egar ded
u n l e s s i t a ffe c te d A p p e l l a n t’ss u b s ta n t i a l ri g h ts . T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .2 (b ); see Mosley v. State, 9 8 3 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 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 ); Mo o nv. S tate , 44 S . W . 3d 589, 594- 95 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o r t h 2 0 0 1 , p e t. re f’d ); Cogg esh a l l v. S tate , 961 S. W . 2d 6 3 9 , 6 4 2 -4 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 8 , p e t . r e f ’d ). A s u b s t a n t ia l rig h tis
a f f e c t e d w h e n t h e e r r o r h a d a s u b s t a n t ia l a n d in ju r io u se f f e c to rin f lu e n c e in d e te rm i n i n g th e j u ry ’sv e rd i c t. K i ng v. S tate , 9 5 3 S . W . 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); Cogg esh a ll, 9 6 1 S .W .2 d a t 6 4 3 . In m a k i n g th i sd e te rm i n a ti o n , w e re v i e w th e re c o rd a sa w h o l e . S e e Jo hn so nv. S tate , 967 S. W . 2d 410, 417 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). A f t err evi ew i ng t he r ec or d, w e d e te rm i n e t h a t e v e n i f th e tri a l c o u rt’s
a d m i s s i o n o f th e h e a rs a yte s ti m o n yw a s e rro r, a n y e rro r w a sh a rm l e s s . F i rst, any er r orw as not p re s erved becau se t he sam e subst ant i ve evi dence w as i n tro d u c e d th ro u g h O ffice r M c D o n a l d ’s te s ti m o n y w i th o u t o bj e c ti o n . S ee Reyes
v. S tate , 84 S. W . 3d 633, 638 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2002 ) ( st at i ng t hatev en i ft he S t a t e ’ s e x h i b i twa sh e a r s a y , a n ye r r o rwa sn o tp r e s e r ve d b e c a u s e t h e s a me s u b s ta n ti v e e v i d e n c e w a si n tro d u c e d e l s e w h e re w i th o u t o bj e c ti o n ). S p e c if ic a l l y , O ffi c e r M c D o n a l d tes ti fi e d tha t on A p ri l 1 sh e res p o n d e d to t he9 ... O f f i ce rM cDonal d f urt hers t at ed on c r os s- ex a m i nat i on t hats he

recov er ed pr opert y bel ong i ng t o M s. A gui l arf r om t he car , i ncl udi ng a purs e, m ak e u p b a g , c e l l p h o n e a n d c a s h . S h e a l s o s t a t e d t h a tt h e r ewa sa b i g box l o c a te d i n th e b a c k s e a t o f th e c a r. 26 aggr avat ed r obb er y ofM s. A gui l ar . Sh e te s tifi ed t hatdur i ng herand O f f i cer C u rt is ’s in t e rv ie w o ft h e A g u ila r s , O f f ic e rC u rt isre c e iv e d a d is p a t c h c a ll
r ega r di ng a not herag gr ava t ed r obbe ry a t t em ptata nea r by l oc at i on. A ppr oxi m at el y t w o t o t hr ee m i nut es aft erO f f i ce rCurt i s l efti n r es pons e t o t he
ca l l , O f f i ce rM cDonal d a l so r es ponde d. She st at ed t hats he dr ove app r oxi m at el y on e b l ockt o w her e Of f i ce rCurt i s had m ade a tra f f i c s t op of A ppel l ant . O f f i cerM cD onal d t est i f i ed t hat t he car A ppel l antw as dr i vi ng w as a gr ay C hevy I m pal a. A t no poi nt di d A ppel l ant obj ect t o t hi s port i on of O f f i cer 9 M cDonal d’ s t es t i m ony. Th er ef or e, because A ppel l ant di d not obj ect t o O f f i cer M cD o n a l d ’ s t e s t i mo n y , wh i c h i n c l u d e d t h e s a me s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e t hat O f f i ce rCurt i s’ s hea r sa y t es t i m ony con t ai ned , w e h ol d t hatan y e r r orw asnot p re s e rv e d . Se ei

d. F o rt h e s e re a s o n s , w e d e t e r m in e t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s e r r o r , ifa n y , in adm i t t i ng t he hear say t est i m on y di d not have a subst ant i al ori nj ur i ous ef f ect
o n th e j u ry ’sv e rd i c t a n d d i d n o t a ffe c t A p p e l l a n t’ss u b s ta n ti a l ri g h ts . See Ki ng , 9 5 3 S .W .2 d a t 2 7 1 . T h u s , w e d i s re g a rd a n y e rro r. S eeT EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .2 (b );10 ... To t he ext entt hatA ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he i m pr ope rad m i ss i on of

t he e v i d e n c e wa sh a r mf u l b e c a u s e t h e j u rya s s e s s e d h i m e i g h t e e n y ear s’ i m p ri s o n m e n t fo r e a c h o ffe n s e e v e n th o u g h h e w a se l i g i b l e fo r p ro b a ti o n , w e eva l uat ed t he puni sh m entpha seoft r i alt o det er m i ne w het hert he i nt r oduc t i on oft he hea r sa y t es t i m ony af f ec t ed hi s se nt enc e. H avi ng done so , w e d et er m i ne t hathi s ar gum enti s w i t houtm er i t . The r ec or d s how s t hatdur i ng t he p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f tri a l , th e S ta te m a d e n o re fe re n c e to O ffice r C u rti s ’s t es t i m ony r ega r di ng t he di sp at ch ca l l her ec ei ved . I nde ed, t he onl y a ct i on t he St at e t ookw ast o s ubm i ta ce rt i f i ed cop y ofa j udgm ents how i ng t hatA ppe l l ant had pr evi ous l y be en con vi ct ed f ort he of f ens e of unl aw f ul ca r ryi ng ofa w ea pon i n 1998. The St at e t hen r es t ed. C ont r ary t o Appel l ant ’ s as se rt i on, t her e i s no evi den cet hatt he er r one ousad m i s si on oft he hea r sa y t es t i m ony af f ec t ed t he a s s e s s m e n t o f A p p e l l a n t’sp u n i s h m e n t. 27 M oon , 4 4 S . W . 3 d a t 5 9 4

- 9 5 ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e e r r o n e o u s a d mi s si on of i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a rs a ye v i d e n c e h a sb e e n h e l d h a rm l e s s ). 10 F. Concl us i on H avi ng deter m i ned t hatt he t r i al courtdi d not er ri n ad m itting O f f i cer C urt i s’ s t es t i m ony r ega r di ng t he di sp at ch ca l l unde ra Rul e 403 orco nf r ont at i on cl ause anal ysi s, and t hatany er r ori n adm i t t i ng t he hea rs a y e v i dence ov er A ppe l l ant ’ s hea r sa y obj ec t i on w as har m l es s, w e o ver r ul e Appel l ant ’ s se con d, th i rd , a n d fo u rth p o i n ts . V . Excul pat ory Evi dence I n A ppel l ant ’ s f i f t h poi nt , he ar gues t hat t he S t at e f ai l ed t o t ur n over e x c u l p a to ry e v i d e n c e , th e refo re d e p ri v i n g h i m o f t h e o p p o rt u n i ty to p res e n t a
c o m p l e te d e fe n s e .28

A . A p p l i c a b l e F a c ts B e fo re tri a l b e g a n , A p p e l l a n t s u b m i tte d a m o ti o n t o th e tri a l c o u rt cha l l eng i ng t he eye w i t nes s i den t i f i ca t i on of A ppe l l ant . Speci f i ca l l y, t he m ot i on cha l l eng ed M s. A gui l ar ’s i den t i f i ca t i on ofA ppe l l ant . Ata pr et r i alhe ar i ng on A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on, M s. A gui l art es t i f i ed t hat sh ort l y aft er sh e w asr obbe d, s he
w as t aken by t he i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer s t o t he D al l as Tol l w ay, w her e t he pol i ce had detai ned an i ndi vi dual dr i vi ng a w hi t e I m pal a. Th e m an, G l ossen, had been st opp ed af t ert he pol i ce of f i cerr ecei ved an ar ea- w i de di spat ch al ert i ng po l ice t hatan aggr avat ed r obb er y had j ust occur r ed i n t he ar ea, and t hatt he suspect
w asdr i vi ng a l i ght

- col or ed I m pal a. Gl os s e n w ass t oppe d a ppr oxi m at el y f i ve
m i l es f r om t he scene oft he second agg r avat ed r obb ery and t he aggr avat ed
r obb ery att em pt . M s. A gui la rt est i f i ed t hatshe di d not r ecogn i ze t he m an as t he i n d i v i dua l w ho ha d r obbe d he rbe ca us e h i s cl ot hi ng di d notm at ch t he cl ot hi ng w or n by t he r obb er . S peci f i cal l y, M s. A gui l art est i f i ed t hatG l ossen
w as a “ per son w i t h dar k ski n, hi s orhercl ot hes w er e l i ght- col or ed, hi s orher pan t s w er e n otj ea ns , t heyw er e n otde ni m , t heyw er e c l ot h, ” and t hatt he i ndi vi dual ’ s pant s w er e di f fer ent - col or ed. Fort hese r easons, M s. A gui l ar d e te rm i n e d th a t G l o s s e n w a sn o t th e p e rs o n w h o h a d ro b b e d h e r. M s. A gui l arf urt hert es t i f i ed t hatafte rde t er m i ni ng t hatG l os se n di d not
m at ch t he r obb er ’ s descr i pt i on, t he pol i ce t ook hert o a l ocat i on nearher29

apa rt m entco m pl ex w her e t he ot her of f i ce r s had de t ai ned A ppe l l ant . Bef or e t he p o l i c e p e rm i tte d M s . A g u i l a r to s e e A p p e l l a n t, th e p o l i c e a s k e d h e r fo r a des cr i pt i on oft he cl ot hes t he r obbe r w as w ea r i ng, asw el l ast he con t ent s of herpur se t hathad been st ol en. M s. A gui l art est i f i ed t hat t he m an w ho r obb ed her“ w asw ea r i ng da r k t enn i s sh oesan d s hort s, l ong d eni m sh ort s, dar k. ” The pol i ce t hen br ought t he se con d su sp ec tout , an d Agui l ari den t i f i ed hi m ast he i ndi vi dua l w ho ha d r obbe d her . She l at ert es t i f i ed t hats he r ec ogni z ed A ppe l l ant b e c a u s e o f th e c l o th e sh e w a sw e a ri n g . S u b s e q u e n t to M s . A g u i l a r’s te s ti m o n y a t th e p re tri a l h e a ri n g , A p p e l l a n t’s
cou ns el an nounc ed t hatt he St at e h ad notpr ovi ded hi m w i t h a ny i nf or m at i on
r ega r di ng t he ot her su sp ec t , G l os se n, w ho M s. A gui l arha d de t er m i ned w asnot t h e in d iv id u a l w h o m ro b b e d h e r . A p p e l l a n t ’s c o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a tt h is i n fo rm a ti o n w a s e x c u l p a to ry a n d as k e d the tr i a l co u rtfor a co n ti n u a n c e to i nve st i gat e t he ot her su sp ec t . I n r es pons e, t he St at e ar gue d th a t the i nf or m at i on w asnotex cul pat ory be ca us e M s. A gui l ardi d noti den t i f y t he m an, t he m an w as st oppe d onl y bec aus e h e w asdr i vi ng a l i ght

- col or ed I m pal a, an d11 ... A short t i m e l at er , t he S t at e i nf or m ed t he t r i al courtt hatt he pol i ce

had de t ai n e d the f i r sti ndi vi dua l be ca us e h e w asdr i vi ng a n I m pal a o n t he Tol l w ay, ev en t hough hew ass t oppe d a num berofm i l esaw ay f r om w her e t he agg r ava t ed r obbe r i est ookpl ac e. Af t erM s. A gui l ars aw t he i ndi vi dua l an d det er m i ned t hathe w as nott he m an w ho r obb ed her , t he pol i ce di scover ed t hat t he m an had out st and i ng w ar r ant s f orhi s ar r es t . He w a s a rre s ted a nd t he pol i cef ound f i r ea r m s i n hi s veh i cl e. The St at e b r ought t hi s i nf or m at i on t o t he t r i al cou rt ’ s att ent i on pr i ort o t he st artoft r i alan d out si de oft he pr es enc e o ft he j ury. 30 t he m an had no t hi ng t o d o w ith th e aggr avat ed r obb er i es. T h e tri a l c o u rt 11 d e n i e d A p p e l l a n t’sm o ti o n fo r c o n ti n u a n c e . B. A ppl i cabl e Law A p r o s e c u t o rh a s a n a f f ir m a t iv e d u t yt o t u r n o v e rm a t e r ia l, f a v o r a b le
e v i d e n c e to th e d e fe n s e . Little v. State, 9 9 1 S . W . 2 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 6 ( T ex . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Mc F

a rl a n d v. S tate , 928 S . W . 2d 482, 511 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1996 ) ( ci t i ng Bradyv. Maryl and, 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 , 8 3 S . C t. 1 1 9 4(1 9 6 3 )). T h e th re e -p a rt t es tus ed t o de te rm i ne w het hera pr os ec ut or ’ s ac t i onsha ve vi ol at ed due p r o c e s s isw h e t h e rt h e p r o s e c u t o r (1 ) f a ile d t o d is c lo s e e v id e n c e (2 ) f a v o r a b le t o t h e a c c u s e d a n d (3 ) t h e e v id e n c e ism a t e r ia l, m e a n in g t h e r e isa re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hat , ha d t he evi den cebe en di sc l os ed t o t he def ens e, t he r es ul tof th e p ro c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i ffe re n t. L ittle , 9 9 1 S .W .2 d a t 8 6 6 . A
r ea so nab l e p r oba bi l i t y i s a p r oba bi l i t y s uf f i ci entt o und er m i ne con f i den cei n t he
o u tc o m e o f th e tri a l . E xp a rteK

i m es , 8 7 2 S . W . 2 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 2

- 0 3 ( T e x . C r i m.31

A pp. 19 93 ) . The m er e possi bi l i t y t hatundi scl osed evi dence m ay have hel ped t h e d e f e n s e o ra f f e c t e d t h e t r ia l’s o u t c o m e d o e sn o te s t a b lis h “ m a t e r ia lit y ” in th e c o n s ti tu ti o n a l s e n s e . Ha mp to n v. S tate , 8 6 S . W . 3 d 6 0 3 , 6 1 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 2002 ) . W het hert he evi den cei s m at er i ali s vi ew ed i n t he con t ext oft he
o v e ra l l s tre n g th o f th e S ta te ’sc a s e . Id. a t613. F u rt h e rm o re, i f t h e ev i d e n c e w a s tu rne d o v e r i n ti m e for the d e fen d a n t t o
u s e i t i n h i sd e fe n s e , th e d e fe n d a n t’s c l a i m w o u l d fa i l . L ittle , 99 1 S . W . 2d at 866; Given sv. S ta te, 749 S . W . 2d 954, 957 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW o rt h 1988 , p e t. ref’ d ) (stati n g th a t i f th e a c c u se d rec e i v e d th e m a teri a l i n ti m e to p u t i t t o e f f e c t iv e u s e a tt r ia l, h i s c o n v ic t io n s h o u ld n o tb e re v e r s e d s im p lyb e c a u s e it
w a s n o t d i s c l o s e d a se a rl ya si t m i g h t o r s h o u l d h a v e b e e n ). C . A n a ly s is A ppel l ant contends t hat t he S t at e f ai l ed t o di scl ose excul pat or y evi dence. S peci f i cal l y, he ar gues t hat t he und i scl osed pol i ce r eport r eveal ed t he exi st ence o f a n a d d i ti o n a l s u s p e c t, G l o s s e n , w h o p e rfe c tl ym a tc h e d th e s u s p e c t’s descr i pt i on i n t he aggr avat ed r obb er i es. A ppel l ant contends t hat i ft he evi dence h a d b e e n d i s c l o s e d , h e c o u l d h a v e i n v e s ti g a te d th e o th e r s u s p e c t, a n d th e re
w as a r eason a b le p ro b abi l i t y t hatt he outcom e oft he t r i al w oul d have been d i ffe re n t.12 ... I n Bradyi t sel f , t he pr osecut i on’ s suppr essi on of excul pat or y evi dence

di d not com e t o l i ght unt i l Br adyha d be en t r i ed, co nvi ct ed, an d s ent enc ed, an d a f t e rh i s c on vi c t i on h a d be e n a f f i r m e d. 373 U .S . a t84, 83 S . Ct . a t1194 ; Pa l m er v. S tate , 9 0 2 S .W .2 d 5 6 1 , 5 6 4 -6 5 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s tD i s t.] 1 9 9 5 , n o p e t.). I n contr ast , w her e t he pr osecut i on has not com pl et el y f ai l ed t o di scl ose exc ul pat ory e vi den ce , butr at herdi sc l os ed Bradym a te r i al s dur i ng a n ong oi ng t r i al , t hen t he i nqui ry i s w het hert he d e fe n d a n t w aspr ej udi ce d byt he t ar dy di sc l os ur e. I ft he def end antr ec ei ved t he m at er i ali n t i m e t o puti t t o e f f ec t i ve us e a tt r i al , hi s con vi ct i on s houl d notber eve r se d s i m pl y b e c a u s e i tw asnot di s c l os e d a s ea r l y a si tm i gh th a vea nd , i nd e e d, s ho ul d ha veb e e n. 373 U. S. a t84, 83 S . Ct . a t1194 .

32 I n t he i ns t antca se , t he pr os ec ut i on di d not com pl et el y f ai l t o di sc l os e t he al l ege d e xcu l pat ory e vi den ce , r at her i t s di sc l os ur e w ass i m pl y un t i m el y a s t he St at e d i sc l os ed t he i nf or m at i on i m m edi at el y be f or e t r i al . W hen t he i ss ue i s t he f ai l ur e t o t i m el y di sc l os e, A ppe l l antm us t sh ow t hat had t he St at e di sc l os ed t he pot ent i al l y e xcu l pat ory m at er i al ea r l i er , t her e i s a r ea so nab l e p r oba bi l i t y t hatt he
o u tco m e o f th e p roc e e d i n g w o u l d h a v eb e e n d i fferen t. Hampton, 86 S . W . 3d 12
a t 6 1 3 n .2 6 ; O l

iva rez, 1 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 2 9 0 . W e det er m i ne t hatA ppel l anthas f ai l ed t o m ake such a show i ng. Even i f t h e e v id e n c e r e g a rding the o th e r su sp e c t, G l o ss e n , h a d b e e n d i v u l g e d to A ppel l antatan ear l i ert i m e, A ppel l anthas f ai l ed t o show t hatt h e re is a rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t t h e o u tco m e o f t h e tr i a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. See Hampton , 86 S. W . 3d at61 3 n. 26 . I ndeed , al t hou gh A ppel l antassert s t hat13 ... M s . A g u i l a r te s ti fi e d th a t b e c a u s e th e fi rs t s u s p e c t’sp a n ts w e re

di f f er ent - col or ed, “t hey w er e not deni m , t hey w er e cl ot h, ” she det er m i ned t hat th e s u s p e c t w a sn o t th e p e rs o n th a t h a d ro b b e d h e r. 33 f urt heri nve st i gat i on of G l os se n cou l d ha ve r es ul t ed i n a di f f er entout com e o f h i s tri a l , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o rt s u c h a c l a i m . I n c o n tra s t, th e re c o rd cl ea r l y s how s t hatG l os se n’ s st at us asa su sp ec tw asve ry l i m i t ed. Al t hough G l o s s e n w a si n i ti a l l yd e ta i n e d b e c a u s e h e w a sd ri v i n g a l i g h t-c o l o re d Im p a l a , a veh i cl e m at chi ng t he des cr i pt i on oft he r obbe ry s us pec t ’ s ca r , G l os se n’ s st at us asa su sp ec tw asqui ck l y t er m i nat ed w hen M s. A gui l arw asgi v e n t he opport uni t y t o i den t i f y Gl os se n, an d s he i nf or m ed t he pol i cet hathew asnott he i ndi vi dual w ho had r obb ed her . H erdet er m i nat i on w as based on t he di f f er ences b e tw e e n th e c l o th e sG l o s s e n w a sw e a ri n g a n d th e c l o th e sth a t th e ro b b e ry su sp e c t w a s w e a ri n g w h e n h e rob b e d h e r at g u n p o i n t. D e s p i te A p p e l l a n t’s 13
con t ent i on, ea r l i erdi sc l os ur e o ft he pol i cer epo rtan d t he i nf or m at i on r ega r di ng G l ossen w oul d not have chan ged t he f actt hatM s . A g ui l ari ndi cat ed t hat G l os sen w a s nott he i ndi vi dua l w ho r obbe d he ran d t hatA ppe l l antw ast he
r o b b e r . No r wo u l d f u rt h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Gl o s s e n c h a n g e t h e f a ctt hat p e rso n a l i tem s b e lo n g in g to b o th M s. A g u i l a r an d the o th e r co m p l a i n a n t, Lov agl i o, w er e f ound i n Appel l ant ’ s pos se ss i on. W e d et er m i ne t hatba se d on t he r ec or d, t her e i s nota r ea so nab l e p r oba bi l i t y t hat had t he St at e d i sc l os ed t he34

i nf or m at i on r ega r di ng Gl os se n a t an ea r l i ert i m e, t he out com e o ft he pr oce edi ng
w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i ffe re n t. Hampton, 8 6 S .W .3 d a t 6 1 3 n .2 6 ; O l iva rez, 171 S .W .3 d a t 2 9 0 . M or eov er , t he r ec or d s how s t hatA ppe l l antr ec ei ved t he i nf orm at i on re g a rd i n g th e o th e r s u s p e c t i n t i m e to p u t i t to e ffe c ti v e u s e a t tri a l . See Given s, 749 S. W . 2d at957. The St at e f i r sti nt r oduc ed th e i nf or m at i on
r ega r di ng Gl os se n a t t he pr et r i alhe ar i ng on a var i et y ofm ot i onsr ai se d by A ppe l l ant . Appe l l a ntw asag ai n m adeaw ar e o ft he i nf or m at i on r ega r di ng G l os se n dur i ng t he St at e’ s di r ec tex am i nat i on ofD et ec ti v e W i se nge r , t he d e te c ti v e a s s i g n e d to i n v e s ti g a te th e ro b b e ri e s . D u ri n g D e te c ti v e W i s e n g e r’s t es t i m ony, t he St at e o f f er ed i nt o e vi den cea pol i c e re p o rtpr epa r ed by t he of f i ce rw ho ha d de tai ned G l os se n on t he Tol l w ay. Appel l antt hen ha d t he opport uni t y t o c r os s- exa m i ne D et ec t i ve W i se nge rr ega r d i n g G l o s s e n ’ sd e t e n t i on. T h e r e c o r d c le a r ly s h o w s t h a t A p p e lla n t d is c o v e r e d t h e in f o r m a t io n e a r ly
e n o u g h to m a k e u s e o f i t a t tri a l . See Givens , 74 9 S . W . 2d at95 7 ( st at i ng t hat
w her e appel l antl ear ned of an excul pat or y sta te m entw hen i tw as i nt r odu ced i nt o evi dence and r ead i nt o th e re c o rd i n t he pr esence oft he j ur y, he had di scover ed t he st at em enti n enou gh t i m e t o m ake use of i t at t r i al ) . Th er ef or e, b e c a u s e A p p e lla n tre c e iv e d t h e m a t e r ia l in t im e t o p u titt o e f f e c t iv e u s e a tt r ia l, hi s con vi ct i on s houl d notbe r eve r se d s i m pl y be ca us e t he i nf or m at i on w asnot35

d i s c l o s e d a s e a rl y a s i t m i g h t o r s h o u l d h a v e b e e n . S e ei d. ( ci t i ng United S tates
v. McK i nney , 7 5 8 F .2 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 5 0 (5 th C i r. 1 9 8 5 )). Becau se A ppel l anthas f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a Brady v io la t io n , w e o v e r r u le h i s fi fth p o i n t. V I . I m p rop e r C o m m e n ts I n Appel l ant ’ s si xt h poi nt , hear gue s t hatt he St at e v i ol at ed hi s r i ght
a g a i n s t s e l f-i n c ri m i n a ti o n b yc o m m e n ti n g o n h i s fa i l u re to te s ti fy . I n A p p e l l a n t’s
se v e n th p o i n t, h e arg u e s th a t t h e S tate rep e a ted l ym a d e i m p rop e r arg u m e n ts to th e j u ryw h i c h w e re n o t c u re d b yth e tri a l c o u rt’si n s tru c ti o n to d i s re g a rd . A . A ppl i cabl e Law To be per m i ss i bl e, t he St at e’ s j ury ar gum ent m us t f al l w i t hi n oneoft he f o llo w i n g f o u rg e n e r a l a r e a s : ( 1 ) s u m m a t io 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) ans w er t o ar gum ent of oppos i ng cou ns el ; or (4 ) p l e a fo r l a w e n fo rc e m e n t. Felder v. S tate , 848 S . W . 2d 85, 94- 95 ( 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 the tr i a l co u rtsu sta i n s a n o bj e c ti o n an d in s t r u c ts th e j u ry to di sr egar d bu t den i es a def endan t ’ s m ot i on f ora m i st r i al , t he i ssue i s w het 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 , 135 S. W . 3d 72, 77 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 4 ); Fa ul kn er v. S tate , 940 S. W . 2d36

3 0 8 , 3 1 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 7 , p e t. re f’d ) (e n b a n c o p . o n re h ’g ). O nl y i n ext r em e ci r cum st ances, w her e t he pr ej udi ce i s i ncur abl e, w i l l a m i st r i al be r equi r ed. ” A rchie v. State, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Hawki ns , 1 3 5 S .W .3 d a t 7 7 . I n de t er m i ni ng w het hert he t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on i n de nyi ng t he
m i st r i al , w e b al anc e t hr eef ac t or s: (1 ) s e v er i t y oft he m i sc onduc t( t he
m agni t ude of t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ectoft he pr osecut or ’ s r em a r ks; ( 2) m easur es ado pt ed t o c ur e t he m i sc onduc t ( t he ef f i ca cy of anyca ut i ona ry i ns t r uct i on by t he j udg e ); a n d ( 3) t he ce rt ai nt y ofco nvi ct i on a bs entt he m i sc onduc t( t he
s tre n g th o f th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n ). A rchie , 22 1 S . W . 3d at 700. Exc epti n t he m os tbl at ant ca se s, an i ns t r uct i on t o di sr ega r d a c om m ent
on a n ac cus ed' s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y w i l l cur e a ny p r ej udi ci alef f ec tca us ed by t he i m p ro p e r c o m m e n t. Mo o re v. S tate , 999 S. W . 2d 385 , 405 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 3 0 U .S . 1 2 1 6 (2 0 0 0 ); s e eA rchi e, 221 S . W . 3d a t700. W e p re s u m e t h e j u ryc o m p l i e d w i th a n i n s tru c ti o n to d i s re g a rd i m p ro p e r j u ry a rg u m e n t. Wesb roo kv. S tate , 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 ). I n a ss es si ng t he cur at i ve ef f ec toft he cou rt ’ s i ns t r uct i on t o di sr ega r d, t he
c o rre c t i n q u i ryi sw h e th e r th e a rg u m e n t w a se x tre m e , m a n i fe s tl yi m p ro p e r, i n j e c te d n e w a n d h a rm fu l fa c ts i n to th e c a s e , o r v i o l a te d a m a n d a to rys ta tu to ry37

p r o v is io n a n d w a st h u ss o in f la m m a t o ry t h a t a n in s t r u c t io n t o d is r e g a r d c o u ld
n o t c u r e i ts p rej u d i c i a l e ffe c t. Faul kner, 940 S . W . 2d at312. O nl y of f ens i ve o r f l a g ran t error w a rr a n ts rev e rsa l w h e n t h e r e h a s b e e n an i n stru c ti o n to d i s re g a rd . Wesbrook , 2 9 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 6 . I f th e i n s tru c ti o n c u re d a n yh a rm caused by t he i m pr oper ar gum ent , a r evi ew i ng cou rtshoul d f i nd t hatt he t r i al
c o u rt d i d n o t e rr. D i n ki n s v. S tate , 894 S . W . 2d 330, 35 7 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 5 ); Faul

kner, 9 4 0 S .W .2 d a t 3 1 2 . B . A l l e g e d I m p rop e r C o m m e n t on A p p e l l a n t’ s F a i l u re to T e sti fy A p p e l l a n t did n o t t e sti fy a t t ri a l . D u ri n g the S tate ’s clos i n g arg u m e n t, t he f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed: [S t a t e ]: I’ v e g o ta q u e s t io n . I’ v e g o ta q u e s t io n . W h a tis [ A ppel l ant ] doi ng w i t h hercheckboo k? [D e fe n s e C o u n s e l ]: E x c u s e m e , Y o u r h o n o r, I ’m g o i n g to o bj e c t. T h a t’sa c o m m e n t o n m yc l i e n t’sfa i l u re to te s ti fy , a n d i t’s i m p ro p e r. [ Tr i alCourt ] : Sust ai ned . [ D ef ens e Couns el ] : A skt he j ury t o bei ns t r uct ed t o di sr ega r d t he l a s t c o m m e n t b yth e p ro s e c u to r. [ Tr i alCourt ] : The j ury i s i ns t r uct ed t o di sr ega r d t he l as tco m m ent b yth e p ro s e c u to r. [ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : B e c a u s e o ft h e n a t u r e o ft h e c o mme n t , we re s p e c tfu l l yre q u e s t a m i s tri a l . [T ri a l C o u rt]: M i s tri a l i sd e n i e d .14 ... A fte r th e tri a l c o u rt i n s tru c te d th e j u ryto d i s re g a rd th e p ro s e c u to r’s

c o m m e n t , t h e p r o s e c u t o rs t a t e d , “ N o w , y o u c o u l d w o n d e r , w e ll, I g u e s sit coul d be possi bl e t hat t hese t hi ngs [ i . e. checkboo k] w er e f oun d, and t hatw hen [ A ppel l ant ’ s] i n t he carl at ert her e coul d be an i nno centexpl anat i on f ort hose t hi ngsbe i ng i n t hatca r . ” A ppe l l antas se rt s t hatt hi s w asa se con d c om m ent o n h i s fa i l u re to te s ti fym a d e b yth e p ro s e c u to r a n d a rg u e sth a t th i sre m a rk com pound ed t he pr os ec ut i on’ s ea r l i erco m m enton A ppe l l ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. H o w e v e r, o u r r e v i e w o f t h e rec o rd s h o w s th a t A p p e l l a n t m a d e n o o bj e c ti o n to th i s te s ti m o n y . 38 A pp el l an t argu es t ha t t hi s ex ch an ge w as an i m prop er co m m en to n h is f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. Af t err evi ew i ng t he r ec or d, w e d et er m i ne t hatev en i ft he p ros e c u to r’ s s tate m e n t i n this ca se w a s a co m m e n t on A p p e l l a n t’ s fa i l u re to t es t i f y, t he se ver i t y oft he m i sc onduc tw asm i nor . The r ec or d sh ow s t hatt he
a s s o o n a t th e p ro s e c u to r m a d e th e re m a rk , th e tri a l c o u rt s u s ta i n e d A p p e l l a n t’s
o bj e c ti o n a n d i m m e d i a te l yi n s tru c te d th e j u ry to d i s re g a rd th e s ta te m e n t. W e pr es um e t he j ury com pl i ed w i t h t he i ns t r uct i on. See Wesbrook , 29 S . W . 3d 14 at1 1 6 . T h e r e c o r d s h o ws t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rtg a v e t h e j u ryt h e pr eci se in s t r u c t io n t h a t A p p e lla n t r e q u e s t e d , a n d t h a tt h e ju ryw a sa g a in in s t r u c t e d in t he cha r ge t hat“ you ca nnot , an d m us tnot , r ef ert o oral l ude t o t he el ec t i on of anyde f end antt o nott es t i f y w hen you ent er yourde l i ber at i ons. . . “ Appel l ant h a s m a d e n o a lle g a t io n t h a te it h e ro ft h e s e in s t r u c t io n sw e r e d e f ic ie n t . Itis
e v i d e n t t h a t t h e cu rati v e m e a su res tak e n b ythe tr i a l co u rtw e re e ffec ti v e to
a m e l i o ra te a n yp o te n ti a l h a rm th a t m a yh a v e re s u l te d fro m th e p ro s e c u ti o n ’s39

i m p ro p e r c o m m e n t. See Si mpson v. State, 1 1 9 S . W . 3 d 2 6 2 , 2 7 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (sta ti n g th a t o rd i n a ri l y , a p ro m p t i n s tru c ti o n to d i s re g a rd w i l l c u re e rro r a s s o c i a te d w i th a n i m p ro p e r j u rya rg u m e n t). M or eov er , i n con si der i ng t he st r eng t h oft he St at e’ s ca sean d t he
cert ai nt y ofA ppel l ant ’ s convic tio n , t he r ecor d show s t hatt he t w o ar m ed
r obb er i es occur r ed i n di f f er entapart m ent par ki ng l ot s t hat w er e l ocat ed i n cl ose pr oxi m i t y t o one ano t her . The com pl ai nants t est i f i ed t hat t he r obb er , a bl ack
m an ofm edi um hei ght and bu i l d w ho w as w ear i ng l ong short s and a m ask, f l ed t he scen e in a l i ght- col or ed I m pal a. Sub sequentl y, A ppel l ant , a bl ack m an
m a tch i n g this d e sc r i p ti o n , a n d d ri v i n g a s i l v e r I m p a l a , w a s a p p reh e n d e d at a
n e a rb yl o c a ti o n s h o rtl ya fte r th e s e c o n d ro b b e ry . F u r t h e r m o re , th e re c o rd sh ow s t hatt he pol i ceof f i ce r ’ s se ar ch ofA ppe l l ant ’ s ca rr es u l te d i n t he di sc ove ry ofa m as k, gun, an d pe r so nalpr ope rt y ofbot h c om pl ai n a n ts oft he aggr avat ed r obb er i es. Thi s evi dence w as subs ta n t i al and hi ghl y per suasi ve; th u s w e d e t e r m i n e th a t i n l i g h t o f th i se v i d e n c e , th e c e rta i n tyo f A p p e l l a n t’s
c o n v i c ti o n sw a sh i g h . U n d e rt h e f a c t so ft h is c a s e , w e c o n c lu d e t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rts u f f ic ie n t ly
am el i or at ed anypot ent i al har m ca us ed by t he pr os ec ut or ’ s cl os i ng a r gum entby
su st ai ni ng Appel l ant ’ s obj ec t i on a nd i ns t r uct i ng t he j ury t o di sr ega r d t he
c o m m e n t. A c c o rding l y , w e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s s i x th p o i n t.40

C . A l l eged I m pr operJur y A r gum ent s D ur i ng cl osi ng ar gum ent t he S t at e m ade t he f ol l ow i ng ar gum ent s w hi ch A p p e l l a n t c o n te n d sw e re i m p ro p e r. 1. A r gum ent One [S ta t e ] : . . . A n d , o f c o u rs e , w e k n o w th a t [A p p e l l a n t] d i d n ’t bor r ow t he car . Th e evi dence i s, ofcour se, t hathe’ s on t he r ent al agr eem entf ort hatcar . Ther e’ s no se t o fci r cum st ances w hi ch an y t h i n g e l s e f i t s r e a s o n a b l y a n d r a t i o n a l l y a n d wh e n t h a t ’ s t he c a s e , that ’

s the legal def

i niti on of excl udi ng the rea sonable doubt possi bi l ity. [ D ef en s e C o u ns el ] : Exc us e m e. I ’ m goi ng t o obj ec t . Ther e i s no l ega l de f i ni t i on. The j ury sh oul d go by w hat ’ s i n t he C ourt ’ s cha r ge and t he C ourt ’ s i ns t r uct i ons t o t he j ury, not by w hat t he pr os ec ut or s a y s . T h e tr i a l co u rtsu sta i n e d A p p e l l a n t’ s o bj e c ti o n an d i n stru c ted the j u ry to di sr eg a rd t he pr os ec ut or ’ s com m ent . Appel l antdi d notr equ es ta m ot i on f or
m i s tri a l . H er e, A ppel l antar gues t h a t t he pr osecut or ’ s st at em entw as i m pr oper b e c a u s e ite s s e n t ia llym a d e u p a d e f in it io n o fre a s o n a b le d o u b ta n d a s s e rt e d it
ast he l ega l de f i ni t i on ofr ea so nab l e d oubt . H ow eve r , bas ed on ou rr evi ew of th e rec o rd a n d es tab l i sh e d l a w , w e h o l d tha t A p p e l l a n t f o rf e i ted h i s rig h t t o b r in g h isc o m p l a i n tre g a r d in g t h e a r g u m e n tb e c a u s e h e f a ile d t o p u r s u e h is
o bj e c ti o n u n ti l a n a d v e rs e ru l i n g a t tri a l . See Cockrel l v. State, 933 S. W . 2d 73, 8 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (h o l d i n g th a t a d e fe n d a n t’s fa i l u re to o bj e c t to a j u ry15 ... Th e Texas C ourtofC r i m i nal A ppeal s r eaf f i r m ed i t s Co ckrell hol di ng

i n Mathi s v. State, 67 S. W . 3d 91 8, 92 7 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 02 ) . I n t hatcase, t he cou rts t at ed t hat“ eve n i ft he er r orw as su ch t hat i t cou l d notbecu r ed by a n i n s tru c ti o n , a p p e l l a n t w o u l d b e re q u i re d to o bj e c t a n d re q u e s t a m i s tri a l . . .

. Co ckrell, [ i s] a ca se perf ec t l y i n l i ne w i t h Rul e of A ppe l l at e Pr oce dur e 33. 1 and t he pol i ci es under l yi ng pr eservat i on of er r or . ” Id. 41 ar gum entora def end ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o pur su e t o an adv er se r ul i ng on hi s obj ec t i on t o a j u ry a rgum entf or f ei t s hi s r i ghtt o c om pl ai n a boutt he ar gum enton a p p e a l ). 15 2 . A r g umen tTwo A p p e l l a n t a l s o a rg u e sth a t th e fo l l o w i n g s ta te m e n t w a si m p ro p e r: [ Pr os ec ut or ] : . . . Y ou’ ve gota guy–i fI w al ke d up t o yo u on t he s tre e t– i f I w a l k e d u p to y o u o n th e s tre e t ri g h t n o w , i f y o u w e re n ’t si t t i ng i n t hatj ury bo x, an d I s ai d [ l ] et[ si c ] m e g i v e y ou a hypo t het i ca l , I ’ ve gots o m e a ggr ava t ed r obbe ry c as esI w antyou t o t hi nk abo ut , a w om an i s r obbe d a tgunp oi nt by a m an w ea r i ng a s k im a s k , b l a c km a n , b l a c km a l e . [D e fen se C o u n s e l]: E x c u se m e , Y o u r H o n o r. I ’m g o i n g to o bj e c t. I don’ tbe l i eve t hi s i s pr ope r . I t ’ s cl os i ng a r gum ent , nota pl ea f or l a w e n fo rc e m e n t. A gai n, t he t r i alco urts us t ai ned A ppe l l ant ’ s obj ec t i on and i ns t r uct ed t he j u ry to d i s re g a rd th e p ro s e c u to r’sc o m m e n t. T h e tri a l c o u rt d e n i e d A p p e l l a n t’s
re q u e s t fo r a m i s tri a l . T e x a s R u l e o f A p p e l l a te P roc e d u re 3 3. 1( a )( 1 )( A ) p rov i d e s, i n rel e v a n t pa rt , t hat f or a com pl ai nt t o be pr es ent ed on a ppe al , a t i m el y r equ es t , obj ec t i on, or16 ... A p p e l l a n t a rg u e d th a t th e S ta te ’sfi rs t a rg u m e n t w a sth e S ta te ’s

d i rec t att em ptt o l ow eri t s bur den ofpr oof , w her ea s the St at e’ s se con d ar gum entw as i t s i

ndi rectatte m p t t o l o w e r i ts b u rde n o f pro o f.

42 m ot i on m us tha ve bee n m ade t o t he t r i al cou rt , w hi ch “s t at e[ s] t he gr oundsf or t he r ul i ng t hatt he com pl ai ni ng pa rt y so ught f r om t he t r i alco urtw i t h s uf f i ci ent
s p e c if ic it yt o m a k e t h e t r ia l c o u rta w a r e o ft h e c o m p la in t , u n le s st h e s p e c if ic gr oun ds w er e ap p ar entf r om t he context . ” T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Hei del ber g v. State, 1 4 4S .W .3 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). Ad d i t i o n a l l y , i t i s we l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e l e g a l b a s i s o f a c o mp l a i ntr ai se d on
a p p e a l c a n n o t v a ryfro m th a t ra i s e d a t tri a l . Hei del b erg , 144 S. W . 3d a t537; Sa l i n a sv. S ta te, 1 6 6 S .W .3 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 2 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 5 , p e t.
re f’d ).O urr ev i e w o f t h e r e c o r d s h o ws t h a t Ap p e l l a n t ’ s o bj e c t i o n a t t r i a l does not com portw i t h hi s obj ect i on on app eal . A tt r i al , A ppel l antobj ect ed because “he di d not bel i eve [ t he ar gum ent ] i s pr oper . I t ’ s cl osi ng ar gum ent , nota pl ea f or l aw enf or ce m ent . ” H ow eve r , on app ea l , A ppe l l ant ar gue s t h a t t he pr os ec ut or ’ s ar gum entw ast he St at e’ s i ndi r ec tatt em ptt o l ow eri t s bur den of p roo f. Speci f i ca l l y, A ppe l l ant con t end s t hat t he St at e’ s i m pr ope r a rg u m ent

16 d e m o n strate s th a t t h e p ros e c u to r w a s “ c o n s c i o u sly a n d ac ti v e l ytry i n g to per suade t he j ur y t o di sr egar d t he l aw i n or dert o obtai n a convi ct i on, ” and t hat43

t he ar gum entw ast her ef or e, una bl e t o be cur ed by t he i ns t r uct i on t o di sr ega r d. Beca us e Appel l ant ’ s com pl ai nt on app ea l doe s notco m portw i t h hi s obj ec t i on a t tri a l , w e hol d t hat hi s com pl ai nt w as not pr es erved f or r evi ew . S ee Hei del b erg, 1 4 4S .W .3 d a t 5 3 7 ; Sa l i n a s, 1 6 6 S . W . 3 d a t3 7 2 . T h e r e f o r e , we o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’ss e v e n th p o i n t. V I I . Concl us i on H avi ng ov er r ul ed A ppe l l ant ’ s se ven poi nt s, w e af f i r m t he j udgm entoft he tr i a l co u rt . B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL A : C A YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 24, 2008