NO. 07- 01- 0279- CR IN THE COURT OF APP EALS FOR TH E SEVENTH D ISTR ICTOF TEX AS AT AM ARILLO PANE L A AUGUS T 2, 2002

____________

____________

______ LAW RENCE BRACKE NS, JR., APPELLANT V. THE STAT E OF TEX AS, APPEL LEE

____________

____________

_________ FROM THE 251 ST DISTRIC T COU RT OF POT TER C OUNT Y; NO. 4 1, 414 -C ; HON ORABLE PAT RIC K A. PI RTLE, JUDGE

____________

____________

_______ Befo re BOYD, C .J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. Upon a p le a of not g ui lty, a j ury convicted appel la nt Lawre nce Brackens, Jr . of aggravate d sexual assault and assessed puni shment at l ife i mpri sonment . Pre senti ng two points o f error, appel la nt contends ( 1) the cour t’s charge at gui lt

/i nnocence deni ed hi m due process oflaw wh en it p er mit te d t he jury t o u til ize ext ra ne ou s offe ns e e v ide nc e f or all1 Appell ant al so presented a thi rd poi nt of error . However, by le tter bri ef fi le d subsequentto the ori gi nal bri ef, counsel concedes wit h commendabl e prof essionalcandor thatbased o n Luqu i s v. Stat e, 72 S.W .3d 3 55 ( Tex.Cr .App. 2 002) , app el l ant wi thdraws his thir d point of

error from considerati on. 

### 2 purposes as opposed to the speci fi c purpose fo r whi ch it was admi tted, t hereby depri ving him of a fai r and i mparti al tri al , and (2)the tria l court commi tted reversi bl e error i n overr ul in g the prose cuto r’s fin al argum ent at the gui lt/ innocence phase which encouraged the jur y to speculate about t he exi stence of unchar ged, ext raneous off

ense s aga i nsthi m. 1 Based upon the r ati onal e exp ressed herei n, we a ffi rm. Appell ant does not

chal le nge the suf

fi ciency of the evi dence; thus, our revi ew of the evi denc e wi l l be l i mi ted to such a s i s necessary to consi der app el la nt’s poi nts. After the victim’s husband l eft for work n o l ater t han 6:00 a.m. on September 1 1, 1998, and whi lethe
v ict im and he r young so ns w ere asl eep, appel l ant e ntered th e vi cti m’s ho me and commi tted a sexual assault

on her . Contrary

to the victi m’s accountof the events, by hi s testi mony a t the gui lt /i nnocence phase, app el la nt testi fi ed that he entered the home whe n t he vic tim opened th e d oo r a nd th at th e s ex ua l en c ou nt er s we re co ns en s ua l. A lth ou gh th e v ict im repor ted th e a tt ac k t o t he po lice on th e m or nin g of Septe mber 11, 1998, and underwent a sexual assault

exami nat i on at a ho spital , where sperm and ot her sampl es were fou nd, appel la ntwas notappreh ended unti l approx imatel y a year l ater whe n he was seen by Offi cer Contrer as whi leon patr

ol i n an area whe re severa l rapes had been re ported . The officer had been provi ded wi th i denti fy in g i nformat io n i nclud in g a composi te sketch o f a sus pect,

### 3

descri bed as six

foot, 195 pounds, l ig ht brown eye s, weari ng a re d-bl ack hooded j oggi ng suit, bl ackskul l cap or to boggan, an d sport g la sses. After stopp in g appel la nt, theoffi cer then requested identificati on and with his consent, he was taken to the pol ice stati on. Ult ima te ly, a DNA c omparison i dentifi ed appell ant as the perpetrator of the assault.
Contendi ng charge error onl y, by hi s fi rst poi nt, appe ll antcontends that t he i nclusi on of th e g en er al in stru ctio n on ext raneous of fenses permi tti ng the j ury to consi der th e extraneous offenses for any purpose wha tsoever i f proven beyo nd a re asonabl e doubt was egregi ous error so as todepri ve hi m of a fai r and i mparti al tri al . We disagree. Paragraph 10 of the charg e at thegui lt /i nno cence p hase i nstructed the j ury as fol l ows:
if therei s any e viden ce beforeyou i n thi s case rega rding the de fenda nt’s havin g committed an of fense other

th an th e o ff en s e a lleg ed ag ain s t h im in the in di ctmenti n thi s case, you cannot consi der sai d testi monyfor a nypur pose whatsoever

unl ess you fi nd a nd b el i eve bey ond a reasonab ledoubt t hat the defendant committed such other offense or offenses, i f any was committed.
The State obj ected to the submissi on of th is pa ragraph on theground that noevid ence was off ered regar

di ng e xt ra neou s off

ense s.
In add i ti on to th e extraneo us of fen ses i nstructi on, beca use evid ence of oth er sexual assaults in t he vici nity of the charged offense had be en rec eived to explain appellant’s

### 4

detenti on upon hi s apprehen sion 12 months fol lowing the charg ed offen se, by subparagr

aph fou r o f pa ra graph 8 of thechar

ge, the cour

t al so i nstructe d th e j uryas f ol l ows:
In t hi s ca s e e v ide nc e h as be en int ro du c ed co nc er nin g o th er se xu al a s s au lt off ense s. Said evide nce was offered for the l imi ted pur pose of det ermi ni ng whether or not Offi cer Contreras was j usti fi ed i n detai ni ng t he defendant f or purposes of i denti fi cati on and you ar e in s tru c te d t ha t yo u m ay n ot co ns ide r s aid evidence for any

other purpose whatsoever.
Duri ng the charge conference, defen se counsel requested thatparagr aph 10 be i nclud ed in the char ge, and at the concl usi on o f t he ch arge co nfe re nce d efe nse co unse l di d no t ad vance any obj ections to the charge as submitted by the tri al court. Appell antargues t hatconside ri ng para graphs 8 a nd 10 togethe r, t he j ury viol ated the extraneous offe nses instructi on under paragraph 8 by

gi vi ng e ffe ctto the same extraneous off ense or off ense s as ev i denc e of gui lt under paragraph 10. Appel la ntconcl udes tha t t hese two pa rag rap hs pro du ce mu tu ally co nt rad ict ory i nst ructi ons. Consi deri ng the di screti on afforded the tr i al cour t an d be cause (1 ) t he i nstructi on e xpressl yl i mi ted i ts a ppli cation to evi denc e that t he charge stated had been re ceived f or thes p ecific an d l imi ted pur pose of j ust if yi ng appel la nt’s detenti on by Offi cer Contreras, ( 2) thej ury was in structed t hat they
s ho uld notconsi der

the specifi c evi denc e forany other purpose wha tsoever, e xcept the offi cer’s ju stificat io n of hi s detenti on of appe ll ant, and (3)focusi ng on the li mitati on for any other purpose whatsoever , we co nclude the c harge d id not sub mit mutu ally cont radictory i nstructi ons. Moreover, because appel la nt req uested that p aragraph 10 be inc lud ed an d d id

### 5

notother

wise ob je ct to the charge, he i s estopped by the doctrin e of i nvit ed error fr om rai sing th is compla in t on appea l. Matchett v. State, 941 S.W .2d 9 22, 93 5 (T ex.Cr.App. 1996). Appell ant’s fi rst poi nt i s overrul ed. Byhis second point ap pe lla nt contends t he prosecuto r’s ar gument was outsi de the record and the e rro r deprived hi m of hi s su bsta ntial ri ght to a fai r and i mparti al trial . W e di sagree. In sup port of h is cont ention, ap pellant referenc es th e following exce rp t from t he State’s argument: [Prosecutor]: Offi cerContrer as stopped theDefendant because of hi s be li ef thathe had a suspect in sexual assaults that had occurred. The on lyone on trial is this one w ith [the vict im]. You do n’t have to make a deci sion a bout wh ether he di d anythi ng else. In f act, we’re no t sub mitting right now - - [Defense]: Excuse me. [Prosecutor]: - - that there ’s any ev idence - - [Defense]: Excuse me, Your Honor. I object, C ouns el is outside the record

and I object. [Prosecutor]: Your Hono r, i t’s i n the Char ge. The Court: Objection wi llbe overrul ed. . . . [Prosecutor]: The Charg e t ells you th at be fo re you ca n b elie v e t ha t t his

Defendantcommitted any other sexual assault

other than th e one on trial, you hav e to - - [Defense]: Excuse me, Your Honor, I obj ect. T his is improper argument.

It’s i nflammatory

and I obj ect.

### 6

[Prosecutor]: Your Hono r, i t’s -- I’ m ju st refe rri ng to th e Charge. The Court: You may proceed. [Defense]: He’s drawn - -excuse me. The Court: W ell, [prosec utor], you m ay procee d, but d o so - - [Defense]: Your Honor, at thi s time, I obj ect. The Court: Objection wi llbe sustained. . . . [Defense]: A t t his tim e, Yo ur Ho no r, I mo v e f or a m ist ria l. The Court: Denie d. [Prosecutor]: Read Paragraph 10. Oka y ? We’re on l ytr y i ng [the vi ct i m’s] case. That the on ly decisi on you have to make i s to use your common sense, l iste n to theevid ence yo u heard about th e case invol ving [the vi ctim].

The fou r a re as of

per mi ssi ble ju ry

argument

are ( 1) summati on of th e evi dence; (2 )
re as on ab le deducti on fro m t he ev ide nc e; (3 ) re s po ns e t o a rg um en t o f o pp os ing co un s el; and (4)pl eas to l aw enforcement. Long v. State, 82 3 S.W .2d 259, 267 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991), cert. deni ed , 505 U .S. 1 224, 1 12 S .Ct. 3 042, 1 20 L.E d.2d 9 10 (1 992) . Re versibl e error results from i mproper

j ury argument

onl y wher

e, when examin ed i n l ig ht of t he enti re record, t he argu ment is ext reme, man if estl y i mproper , i nj ects new and harmful facts i nto the case, or viol ates a man datorysta tutor y pr ovisi on. Her nandez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 806, 820 (Tex.Cr .App. 1991), cert. deni ed , 5 04 U.S. 97 4, 11 2 S. Ct. 29 44, 11 9 L .Ed .2 d 5 68 (1 992 ). An in structi on to th e jur y to d i sr egard a n imprope r jury argum ent is gen erally sufficient to cu re

### 7

error. Di nki ns v. State, 89 4 S.W .2d 330, 357 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995), cert. deni ed , 516 U.S. 832 , 116 S . Ct. 10 6, 133 L. Ed .2d 59 (1995). Improper

j ur yargum ent

i s er ro r o f n on- con sti tu ti ona l di men si on. Tex . R. App . P. 44.2(b ); Mosley

v. State, 983 S .W .2d 24 9, 259 (Tex.C r.Ap p. 199 8) (on reh’g), cert. deni ed , 526 U. S . 1 07 0, 11 9 S .C t. 14 66 , 1 43 L. E d. 2d 55 0 ( 19 99 ). I n e s ta bli shing the e ffect of im proper

argument , three factors are consi dered: (1)the severi tyor magni tude of the misconduct; (2)the measure taken to cure t he mi sconduct; and ( 3) thecertai nty of convi ctio n absent the misconduct. Mosley , 983 S.W.2d at 259.
As is apparent from the foregoi ng record, al th ough ap pel la nt’s ex peri enced tri al
coun se l anti cipated that State’s counsel was poi sed to make an i naccurate or misl eadi ng argument

regar di ng the j usti fi cati on for app el l ant ’s d ete nti on, coun sel ’s vi gi l ance effe c tiv ely precl uded the comple t io n of thestatement o r poi nt whi ch State’s counsel may have been try in g to make. M or eo v er , g ive n a pp ella nt ’s te s tim on y, t he sc ien tif ic and other evid ence, and considerin g the cer

tai nty of convi ctio n absentthe pr os ec ut or ’s ar gu me nt , t he ar gu me nt did not rise to the level to ad vers ely prejudice appellant’s substanti al ri ghts. Fur ther, where an obj ecti on i s sustaine d, the a ppropria te reme dy f or a curabl e, err

on eou s argument

i s an in structi on to di sregard. McGinn v. Stat e, 961 S.W.2d 161, 165 ( Tex.Cr. App. 1998). After the trial cou rt sus tained ap pellant’s obj ecti on, he moved for mi stri al , but di d not request an

### 8

in structi on to di sregard. Thus, the i ssue is not presented for our review. Id . Ap pellant’s second poi nt i s overrul ed. According ly , the j udgment of the tria l court i s affi rmed.

Do n H . R ea v is Just i ce Do not publ ish.