## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
A P - 75, 604
JUA N R A M O N M EZA SEG U N D O , A ppe l l ant
v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON DI RE CT AP P EA L FROM BEX AR CO UNTY

P RICE, J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS and H OL C OM B , J J ., j oi ne d. CO NC UR RI NG OP I NI ON I agr ee t hati t i s a cl os e ques t i on w het hert he ext r aneou s offe ns e s houl d have be en adm i t t ed in t his case. T he close quest i on i s not, i n m yview , w hether t he ex t raneou s offen se is relev ant( apar t fr om i nfer ence s of cha r act er - confor m i t y ) t o an i s s ue i n t he ca s e. T o m e, t he much cl os erques t i on i s w het hert he evi dence w as s ubs t ant i al l ym o re p r ej udi ci al t han p ro b a tiv e . O n th e p a rticu lar f a c ts o f th is c a se , h o w e v e r, th e trial c o u rt w a s ju stif ied in concl udi ng t hatt he ext r aneous offe ns e evi dence w as not s ubs t ant i al l ym or e pr ej udi ci al t hanSegundo — 2

1 SeeT EX . R. E V ID . 403 (“A lthough r eleva nt, evidencemay

be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice . . . .” ). 2 SeeT EX . R. E V ID . 4 0 4 (b ) ( “ E v id e n c e o f o th e r c r im e s . . . is n o t a dmi s s ib le to p rove the char acte r of a

person in orde r to show ac tion in conformity th er ew i th
. I t may , howeve r, be admis s ib lef

o r o th e r p ur p o s e s , s u c ha s p r o o f

o f mo ti v e , o p p o rtu

n it y , inte nt, p r e p ar ati o n , p la n, knowledg e, identity , or abse nce of mistake or ac cident[.] ”). pr obat i ve, and t her efor e ac t ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on t o admi t i t underR ul e 403 of t he Texas R ul es of Evi dence
. 1 T he appel lant ar gues t hatt her e ar e i ns uffi ci ents i m i l ar i t i es bet w een t he cha r ged offe ns e and t he ext r aneous offe ns e t o es t abl i s h m odus oper andi , w hi ch i s t ypi cal l yt hought to b e re q u ire d b e f

o re a n e x tra n e o u s o f

f e n se m a yb e a d m itt e d to sh o w id e n tit yu n d e r R u le 404( b) of t he R ul es of Evi dence
. T he C our t t odayqui t e cor r ect l yr ej ect s t hi s ar gum enton 2
t he p e c u l i a r f

a c t s o f t h i s c a s e . Th e a p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e h i s i d e n t i t y as t he per s on
w h o se x u a llya ss a u lted th e v ictim . H e sim p lya rg u e s th a t u n d e r th e S tate ’ s e v id e n c e it is p o ss ib le th a t af

t erhe s exual l yas s aul t ed her , s om eone el s e m ay have been t he one t o m ur der her
. U ndert hi s s cena r i o, t he r el evanc e of t he ext r aneous offe ns e t o t he char ged cr i m e does

n o t re sid e in th e sim ilaritie s b e tw e e n th e tw o o f f e n se s, to sh o w th e a p p e llan t’s o v e ra ll

c o mpl i c i t y i n t h e c h a r g e d c r i me . I n s t e a d , t h e r e l e v a n c e r e s i d e s i n t h e t endenc y of t he ext r aneous offe ns e t o pr ove t hatt he appe l l antdi d not s i m pl ys exual l yas s aul t t he vi ct i m of th e c h a rg e d o f

f e n se , b u t th a t h e k ill e d h e r a s w e ll. E vi dence t hat on ot her occa s i ons t he appel l ant has s exual l yas s aul t ed and m ur der ed

o t h e r v i c t i ms t e n d s t o s h o w t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t j u s t s e x u a l l ya s s a u l t t h e i n s t a n t v i c t i m,Segundo — 3

3 See Mo ntgom e ry

v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on re h’g ) (“ how gr e at i s th e p r o p o n e nt ’s ‘ need ’ f or thee xtra ne ou s tr ans a c tio n? This
. . . in qu ir y br e aks do wn

int o three subparts: Does the proponent haveother available e videnceto establish the fac t of conseque nce that the extraneous misconduct is re levant to show? I f so, how strong is that other e vidence ? And is the fac t of conseque nce r elated to a n issue that is in disput e? ”). but t hathe murde r ed her , t oo. A nd t he more vi ct i m s t he appe l l anthas s exual l yas s aul t ed w ho h a v e a lso tu rn e d u p d e a d , the g re a ter th e p ro b a b ili ty (u til izin g in f e re n c e s h a v in g n o th in g to d o w ith c h a ra c ter -c o n f

o rm ity ) t h a t th e a p p e llan t d o e s n o t typ ica llylea v e h is s e x u a l as sa u lt

v ictim s a liv e . A s th e C o u rt rig h tlyo b se rv e s, th e k in d o f sim ilaritie s w e u su a llylo o k f o r to
es t abl i s h m odus oper andi , and hence i dent i t y , ar e s i m pl y unnece s s ar y t o es t abl i sh t he oper at i ve i n fe ren ce in t hi s cas e— t hatappel l antr aped and ki l l ed t he vi ct i m of t he cha r ged

o f f e n se . In d e e d , tha t b e in g th e o p e ra tiv e in f e re n c e , o n e m u st w o n d e r w h y th e trial c o u rt d id

n o t se e f it t o a d m it b o th ext r aneous offe ns es pr offe r ed byt he St at e i n t hi s cas e. A ft eral l , t he

m ore often D N A evidence sho w s t hat t he appell ant has com m i t t ed sexual assaul t , and t ho se vi ct i m s have a l s o t ur ned up dea d, t he gr eat ert he l i kel i hood t hatt he appe l l antw as
r es pons i bl e, not j us t fort he as s aul t s , but fort he ki l l i ngs , t oo. A l so on t he peculi ar fact s of t his case, i t seem s t hat t he S t at e’s need fort he ext r aneous
o f f e n s e e v i d e n c e i s n o t t h a t p r e s s i n g . Th e v i c t i m wa s l e f t a l o n e f o r o n l y a n h o u r , and t he 3

m e d ica l ex a m in e r te stif ied th a t th e ra p e a n d m u rd e r w e re c o n tem p o ra n e o u s. It se e m s h ig h ly unl i kel yt hatt he appe l l antw ou ld have c om e t hr ough t he w i ndow , s exual l yas s aul t ed t he vi ct i m , and l eft , onlyt o have s om e uni dent i fi ed and non- compl i ci t t hi r d par t yfol l ow t he appel l ant t hr ough t he w i ndow l at er w i t hi n t hats ame hour and murde r her
. T he St at e di d notSegundo — 4

4 Indeed, the Court finds that, under the State’s evidenc e, it would not have be en rational for the jury to find that the same pe rpetrator did not both rape a nd kill the victim a n dholds that the a pp e lla nt w a s th e re fo reno t e nti tle d to any of his re qu e ste d le sse r- inc lud e d- of fe ns e jur y ins tr uc tio ns . Majority opinion at 17. 5 I d . ( “ An oth e r o bv iou s f

a c tor is the po te nti al th e ‘ot her c ri me s, wron g s, or a c ts’ have to impress the jury

in some irrational but neve rtheless indelible wa y . T h i s is often a f

unction of the nature of the misconduct.” ).

6 Id . at 391. have a par t i cul ar l ycompel l i ng need f or t he ext r aneous offe ns e evi dence t o es t abl i s h t hatt he appel l antw as t he murde r ed. M or eover , t he ext r aneous offe ns e i s o f a sens at i onal natur e, 4

s ugges t i n g a pot ent i al t o i m pr es s t he j ur yi n an i r r at i onal and i ndel i bl e w ay . A m or e t han 5 pl aus i bl e ar gum ent can be m ade, under t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t hatevi dence of t he ext r aneous
o f f e n se w a s s u b sta n tiallym o re p re ju d icia l th a n p ro b a tiv e , an d h ence inadm i ssib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 3
. N ev er th e le s s , g iven the s u b stan ti al ef fo rt s o f th e d ef

en se to arg u e tha t t h e S tat e’s evi dence di d not es t abl i s h t hatt he appe l l antbot h r aped and m ur der ed th e v ictim , I re lu c tan tly agr ee t hatt he t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on ( di d not , t hati s , depar t fr om th e “ z o n e o f re a so n a b le d isa g re e m e n t” ) to a d m it ev id e n c e o f th e e x tra n e o u s o f

f e n se . W ith 6
t hes e obs er vat i ons , I j oi n t he C our t ’ s opi ni on.

Fi l ed: O ct ober29, 2008 P ub l i sh