Appellant was indicted for intentionally and knowing ly threatening Gar y Abbott with imm inent 1 bodily injury and using a dea dly

wea pon, a vehic le. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00268- CR

Br ian G at ti s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 20325 72, H ONO RAB LE SAM ROB ERTSON, JR., JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Br ian Gattis appea ls from his conviction for ag g ravated assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2005). After the jury found appe llant guilty , it assessed punishment at 1
seven y e ar s ’ im

p r is o n me n t. A p p e ll an t b r in g s o n e is s u e o na p p e a l, c o n te n d in g th a t t

h e tr ia l c ourt committed reve rsible er

ror by admitting evide nce of

an extraneous of

fense
. Bac kgr ound Around 9:00 p.m. on J uly 3, 2003, Gar y Abbott and his wife Stephanie wer e traveling from Austi n to L ake Buc hanan. Fr om Slaughte r L ane, they enter ed an I -35 entrance ramp he ading north. Stephanie, the dr iver, notice d a 1980s blue Volvo station wagon following closely
. As they enter ed the f

ree way , the Volvo passed be twee n the Abbotts’ ca r and a nother c ar in the ne x t lane,2

trave ling a long the cente r li n e b et we en the lanes. Stephanie fla shed her car ’s lights at the Volvo driver a nd the other d ri v er honked the hor n. The Volvo moved into the rig ht lane, starte d g oing faster , and almost vee red of f the roa d twice. Gary thought the Volvo’s driver was proba bly drunk. Ste ph anie dr ov e c los e e no ug h to the Vo lvo fo r Ga ry to se e the lic e ns e plate numbe r so that sh e c ou ld call 911. As he was doing so, the Volvo driver slammed on its brake s and veere d back towa rd the Ab bo tts . T he dr ive r le ane d ou t the wi nd owand “ sh ot t he fi ng e r” a t th e Ab bo tts , th e n p ull e d in to the center lane behind t hem, approaching so close to their c ar’ s rea r bumper that they

could no long er see the Volvo ’s h ea d l i g hts in their rea rview mirr or. Althoug h Stephanie attempted to e x it the fre ewa y at the Wil liam Ca

nnon exit , the volume of traff ic preve nted her

from so doing . Meanw hile, the Volvo driver

pulled to their left and beg an swerving his ve hicle at them. Mr. Abbott said that the Volvo’s drive r appe are d ang ry and was scre aming something at them while he “ shot the fing er” ag ain. On the third swerve, the Volvo hit the Abbott s’ car, causing their outside mirror to break the Volvo’s re ar pa sseng er- side window. The Abbotts’ red Chevy Cavalier sustaine d damag e to its side. Shaken, the Abbotts pulled over to the s houlder of I -35. The V olvo pulled over a bout 100 y ards in fr ont of them. Gar y ag ain tried to ca ll 911. After the ope rator a nswere d, he beg an explaining what ha

ppened. While he was on the telephone , the Volvo left the sc ene a nd re- enter ed I -35. The A

bbotts pull ed into a par

king lot to wait for

the police. Ros e ann e Ca sti llo ha d ju st e nte re d I -3 5 at Will iam Ca nn on and wa s h e a din g no rt

h in her mar oon F- 150 pickup truck w hen she w itnessed a blue station wag on running a re d car off the road. She honke d at the blue c ar a nd beg an sea

rchingfor he r cell phone to call 911. The re d and b lue ca rs both pulled over to the side of the roa d while she c ontinued north. About a mile up theTh e tim e se qu e nc e wa s n ot e nti re ly c le ar. Te sti mony de sc ri be d the are a of the mot or c y c le c ra sh 2 as beingclose to the strip of hotels runningfrom the 4600 to th e 4 0 0 0 blocks of I -35 and the Me ina rd us -S t. E lmo int e rs e c tio n a s b e inga bo ut a blo c k f ro m th e fr on ta g e ro a d in thi s ar e a and jus t south of Be n Whit e. I t appea rs most logica l that appellant lef t the fre ewa

y , followed Abdias into a hotel p ar k i n g l ot, then left that lot and enc ountere d the cyclist before flee ing that scene and being a pp re he nd e d at B e n Wh ite and Riv e rs ide . I t a

pp e ars that th e po lic e inv e sti g a te d a ll o f t he inc ide nts at more or

less the same time. The motorcycle wa s later de termined to be stolen. 3 3 road, Castillo saw the same blue ca r behind he r, appr oachingrapidly
. I t b u m p ed t h e bac k of her truck twice , then cut off the vehicle next to her so it could pull up beside her truck. The driver w as
s h a k in g h is h e a d an d le an in g o u t th e w in d o w y e ll in g a t h e r . Co in c id e n ta ll y , Ro s e anne’ s brother Abdias Castillo was driving home from Schlitterba hn t h at eveningand sawappellant’ s Volvo bumping the back of his sister’ s truck. He beg an honking at the Volvo and motioning at the driver. Ab dia s e xite d th e fr e e wa

y a t the B e n Whit e e xit. Al tho ug h the Vo lvo ha d ne arl y pa sse d the e xit, i t made a sharp t u rn, cut over to the exit ramp, and followed Abdia s off the hig hway . Meanw hile, Ros e ann e ha d c a lle d 9 11 to r e po rt the se e ve nts
. Af te r e xitin g , Abd ia s p ull e d in to a ho te l pa rk inglot wi th t he Vo lvo fo llo wi nghim
. Abdias left his ca

r and w av ed at ap pellant. Appellant then “ g unned his ca r” a nd drove stra ight tow ard Ab dia s, wh o w a s st and inga t th e ba c k o f h is g re e n D od g e Ne on . Ap pe lla nt’ s c ar d id n ot h it him bu t hi t th e Ne on , c a

us ingdamage to t

he bu mpe r, ta ill ig ht, and

do or . Abid a s’ s w if

e wa s st ill inside the ca

r and w as upset but phy sically unharme d. Abdias called 911. Appellant lef t the scene
. On that same e vening , Ker ry Spear le ft work, heading north on Meinardus just bef ore its int erse ction with St. El mo. He sawa dar k-colore d car

sideswipe a motorcy cle, knocking the rider off the motorc y cle. The motorcyclist started runningawa y and y elled to Spear to “ca ll the law.” 2 34

Spear c alled 911. Sy lvia Casiano desc ribed see ing a dark- colore d car , wh i ch s h e desc ribed a s an older model Volkswa g on, driving rapidly and makingan unusually wide turn out of a

parkinglot when it “swipe d” the motorc y cle.

Of f ic e r Sc o tt L an d o w a s d is p a tc h e d to th e s c e n e o f th e mo to r c y c le a c cident. He interviewe d the witnesses at the scene
. The motorcy cle was ly ing in the middle of the interse ction of St. Elmo and Meinardus a nd was ba dly

damag ed. The blue ca

r had le ft the sce ne. B ased on the information from the w itnesses at t he scene and the i nformation provide d by office rs investig ating the ot her e me r g e n c y

c a ll s ma d e th a t e v e n in g , O f f ic e r L an d o b e li e v e d

th e b lu e c ar

th a t h it the mot or c y c le wa s th e same ve hic le inv olv e d in the oth e r c oll isi on s. Offic er D allas Goodman also responde d to the m otorcy cle sc ene, the n, shortly afte r
arr iving ther e, re ceive d a ca ll to go to the location of the Neon, w hich was “rig ht up the road” in a motel complex. He observed the damag e to the Ne on and Roseanne ’s truck. H e went back to the motorcy cle’ s location wher e he rec eived a call that office rs had located the blue Volvo a nd arr ested the driver
. Goodman went to that loc ation and obser ved a ve hicle that matche d the desc ription give n by the wi tne sse s at th e sc e ne of the mot or c y c le a c c ide nt. Of fi c e r M ic ha e l B a c on

ini tia lly dis c ov e red a nd a

pp re he nd e d a

pp e lla nt n e ar E a st Riverside and B en White. When Bac on first saw a ppellant, he wa s slumped over the stee ring whee l of the blue V olvo, which had sustained c ollisi on damag e. The appellant then g ot out of the ca r. Ba con thoug ht that appellant wa s highly intox icated. Appellant was bang ing his head a nd kicking the door of the squad ca

r af ter his arrest; restra ints had to be placed on his leg s, and the officer s used
a sh or t bl a st o f p e pp e r s pr ay

a t on e po int

to s ub du e him
.Her eaf ter, in both text and footnotes, the T exas Rules of Evidence will be cited as Rule . 4 5

Gar y wa s a s k e d

to c ome to the location of a ppellant’s ar

rest. He identified appe llant’s blue Volvo as the c ar that sideswiped his car and appe llant as the driver of that ca r. Appellant testified in his own defense. He said that he had been c elebr ating his new job by drinking with his new boss. He had four or five vodkas, then lef t to drive himself home. He
a dmi tte d h e wa s d

ru nk a nd wa s n ot w e ari nghis pr e sc ri pti on g la sse s a s c a lle d f

or in hi s li c e ns e restric tion. He said he was having trouble with a bald tire, causing his car to veer to the rig ht, and said that the ca

r wa s stalling occ asionally . He r emember ed hitting the A bbotts’ red car but cla imed it was unint entional. He did not reme mber being bellige rent, deny ing that he wore g lasses, or telling the police that he had not bee n involved in a collis ion. Appellant conc eded that he had a criminal history including a ssault, bodily injury , resisting arr est, family viol ence, violation of a prote ctive
o r d e r , an d

D W I.
Discussion I n his only

issue, appellant c ontends that th e tria l c ourt err ed in admitting the e vidence
conce rning the collision with the motorcy cle in violation of Texas Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 40 4( b) a s an e xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e . T he State re sp on ds that th e mot or c y c le c oll isi on wa s a dmi ssi ble to s ho w a c on tin uin g c ours e of

c on du c t th a t r e bu tte d a

pp e lla nt’ s d e fe ns ive the or

y of a c c ide nt.
Extran eous Offe nses

A d e f e n d an tm ay n o t b e t r i e d

f o r c o l l a t e r a l c r i m e s o r

f o r b e i n g a c r i m i n a l g e n e r a l l y. Tex. R. Evid. 404(b); Nob le s v . S tat e , 843 S.W. 2d 50 3, 51 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); J on es v . S tat e , 46

119 S.W .3d 412, 418 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2003, no pet.). The ref ore, e x trane ous offe nses ar e
no t a dmi ssi ble a t the g uil t- inn oc e nc e ph a se of tr ia l to pr ov e that a de fe nd ant a c te d in c on fo rm ity wi th his c ha ra c te r b y c omm itt ingthe c ha

rg e d o ff e ns e . Ru le 40 4( b) ; Jones , 119 S.W .3d at 418-19. Howeve r, an e x trane ous offe nse that tends to make a n elementa l or evidentiar

y fac t
mor e or le ss p ro ba

ble or te nd s to re bu t a

de fe ns ive the or

y ha s r e le va

nc e be y on d th e te nd e nc y to p ro v e a person’s c hara cter
. Mo ntgom e ry v . S tat e , 8 1 0 S. W. 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 7 ( T e x. Cr im
. A pp. 1990); J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 932 S.W .2d 296, 301 (Tex . App.—Austin 1996, pet. ref ’d). Evide nce of

other crimes or misconduct may

be admissi ble to prove motive, opportunity , intent, prepa ration, plan, kn ow le dg e , a

bs e nc e of mis take or

a c c ide nt, or

to r e bu t a

de fe ns ive the or

y . Ru le 40 4( b) ; Johnston

v . S tat e , 145 S.W. 3d

21 5, 21 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); Po we ll v . S tat e , 6 3 S. W. 3 d

4 3 5 , 4 3 8 ( T e x. Crim. A p p . 2 0 0 1 )
. T h e li s t o f e xc e p ti o n s in Ru le 4 0 4 ( b ) is n e it h e r mutu a ll y e xc lu s ive nor exhaustive. See J

ohnston , 1 45 S.W. 3d

a t 21 9; P o n d

e x t e r v . S t a te , 94 2 S. W. 2 d

5 7 7 , 5 8 3

- 8 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1996).

“Same tra

nsaction conte x tual evidenc e” ma y be admissible if seve ral c rimes ar e intermix ed, blende d with on e an o t her, or connec ted so that they

form an indivisible criminal transac tion, and full proof of a ny one of them ca

nnot be g iven without showing the others. W y att
v . S tat e , 2 3 S. W.3 d 1 8, 25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Ro ge rs v . S tat e , 8 53 S.W. 2d

29 , 3 3 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1993). An of

fense is not tried in a vac uum. Mo re no v . S tat e , 7 21 S.W. 2d

29 5, 30 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1986). The jury

is entitled to k n o w al l re levant surr ounding f acts a nd circ umstances of

the char g ed off

ense. Id
. Sa me tr ans a c tio n c on te xtua l e vid e nc e is a dmi ssi ble , h ow e ve r, on ly if the of fe ns e would make little or no sense without bringingin that evidence
. W y att , 2 3 S
. W
. 3 d at 2 5 . The7

conduct must be blended or connected to the act for which the def endant is beingtried so that they form an indivisible cr i m i n al t ransa ction, such that full proof of one could not be g iven without showing the other. Se e Bu c ha na n v . S tat e , 9 1 1 S
. W
. 2 d

1 1 , 1 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( ci t i n g Maye s
v . S tat e , 816 S.W. 2d 79 , 86 n .4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 )) ; Lam v . S tat e , 2 5 S. W. 3 d 2 3 3 , 2 3 7 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.).

The State, a s the proponent of extraneous offe nse evidenc e, bear s the initial burden of showing admissibili ty
. Se e Ra nk in v . S tat e , 974 S.W .2d 707, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The court’s task is then t o deter mine whether

extraneous offe nse evide nce is re levant for a purpose other than the prope nsity

of the de fenda

nt to commit crimes or

other ba d acts. Jones , 119 S.W .3d at 419. The trial c ourt’s ruling on rele vance will be revie wed f or an a buse of discr etion. Mo re no v . S tat e , 85 8 S. W.2 d 4 53 , 4 63 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Cor le yv . S tat e , 9 8 7 S. W. 2 d 6 1 5 , 618 ( T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 99 , no pe t.) . App e llate c ourt s sh ou ld g ive g re a t di sc re tio n to tr ia l c ourt s in
e vid e nti ary

ru lin g s, re ve rs ingon ly if the tr ia l c ourt

a c ts out si de “the zon e of re a so na ble disag ree ment.” Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 391.

I f a trial court determines t hat evidence of other crimes or ex trane ous misconduct has rele vance aside fr om char acte r conf ormity , and a timely , proper Rule 403 objection is made, the trial court must make the balanc ing deter mination c alled for in Rule 403. Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 38 8- 89 . U nd e r R

ule 40 3 r e le va

nt e vid e nc e may

ne ve rt hel ess b e e xclu de d if its pr ob a tiv e va lue is substantially

outweig hed by

the dange rs of unfair prejudice , confusion of the issues, or misleading the jur y , o r b y c on sid e ratio ns of un du e de lay or ne e dle ss p re se ntatio n o f c umu la tiv e e vid e nc e . Ru le 403. Only “unfa ir” prejudice provides the ba sis for exclusion of releva nt evidence
. Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 389. Unfa ir prejudice arises f rom evidenc e that has an undue tendenc y to sugg est that8

a decision be made on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one. Id. I n evaluating the tr ial court’s de terminati o n u n d er Ru l e 403, a r eviewingcourt is to reve rse the tr ial court’s judg ment “ra rely and only afte r a c lear

abuse of discretion,” re co gn i z i n g t hat the trial c ourt is in a superior position t o g aug e the impac t of the re levant evide nce. Mozo n v . S tat e , 9 9 1 S. W. 2 d

8 4 1 , 8 4 7 ( T e x. C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 389).

When assessing the trial cour t’s balanc ing de terminati o n , t h e appellate cour t considers: (1) how compelling ly the extraneous off

ense e vidence serve s t o make a fac t of conseque nce mor e or le ss probable—a fac tor which is re lated to t h e s t reng th of the evide nce prese nted by

the proponent to show the defe ndant in f act committed the extraneous offe nse; (2) the potential the extraneous offe nse evidenc e has to impress the jur y in a rational but indelible way ; (3) the time the propone nt will need to develop the e vidence , during which the jury will be distracted from conside ration of the i ndicted offense; and (4) the forc e of the proponent’s ne ed for this evidence to prove a fac t of conseque nce. Id
. Application Appellant arg ues t hat t he evidence c oncer ning the motorcy cle a ccide nt should have been e x cluded a s ext rane ous offe nse evide nce be cause there was not ade quate identific ation of
a pp e lla nt o r his ve hic le in co nn e c tio n with that ac c ide nt. Th e State ’s the or y of a dmi ssi bil ity

in t his
c a s e i s t h a ta

p p e l l an tw a s i n v o l v e d

i nt h r e e s i m i l ar

a c c i d e n t s i na

s h o rtt i m e f

r a m e w i t h i na

c l o se g eog raphic al location. The ref ore, the evidenc e about the motorc y cle a cciden t acte d to rebut
a pp e lla nt’ s d e fe ns e of

a c c ide nt o r m ist a ke , th a t is , h e wa s in toxic a te d b ut h a d n o in te nt t o h a rm .9 We f ir st o bs e rv e tha

t th is e vid e nc e is no t th e kin d th a t ha s a n und ue te nd e nc y

to sug g est that a decision be made on an improper basis as hig hly

emotional evidenc e. Se e Mo ntg me ry , 81 0 S. W .2 d at 38 9. No de a ths re su lte d f ro m th e mot or c y c le a c c ide nt; in f a c t, t he mot or c y c lis t walked a way and it was late r di s co vere d he wa s on a motorcycle that ha d been “ hotwired” and repor ted stolen. The thre e incidents oc curr ed in a short pe riod of t ime. Goodman had just arr ived at the motorcy cle hit-a

nd-run sc ene w hen he r ece ived a c all to go to the ne arby parkinglot where the appellant h a d

a lr e a dy s ma s h e d in to th e N e o n . T h e lo c a ti o nan d ti mi n g o f

th e mo to r c y c le w r eck logic ally appea red to be a continuation of a sequenc e of e vents that started at I -35 and Slaug hter L ane
and e nd e d at B e n Whit e and Riv e rs ide
. Go odman h a d ju st r e tur ne d to the loc a tio n o f t

he mot or c y c le
acc ident when he rec eived a call notifying him that the blue Volvo had been l ocate d and appe llant appre hended. A ll thr ee ac ci d en t s involved many simil arities. An older

model blue Europe an ca

r dr ivi nga g g re ssi ve ly

and reck le ssl y

a pp e are d, wi tho ut p ro vo c a tio n, int e nti on a lly to c oll ide wi th another vehicle a

nd t h en l ef

t t he sce ne. The Abbotts and the Castillos described a ppellant’s d em ea n o r a s an gry ; h e “ s h o tt h e f i n ger ” a n d

wa s y el l i n g. The fa cts conc erningthe motorcy cle a ccide nt were rele vant to the issue of a ppellant’s int e nt, sp e c if

ic a lly to re bu t his c on te nti on of mis take or a c c ide nt. Ap pe lla nt c la ime d his reckl ess dr ivi ngwa s th e pr od

uc t of int oxic a tio n, fa ilure to we ar g la sse s, and me c ha nic a l pr ob le ms w ithhis
ve hic le . T he mot or c y c le a c c ide nt e vid e nc e , w he n c omb ine d w itht h e o t h e r e v i d e nc e a dmi tte d at tr ia l,
r e b u t t e d t h i s d e f e n s e b y s h o w i n g a

p a t t e r no f b e h a v i o r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f

w h a tw a s e s s e n t i a l l y a sin g le e ve nt o r t

ra ns a c tio n. F ur

the r, a s some of the same of fi c e rs we nt fr om sc e ne to s c e ne , it wo uld10

have be en diffic ult to describe c ompletely the automobile ac cident s without describing the mot or c y c le a c c ide nt.

Appellant complains that the e vidence linking him to the motorcy cle a ccide nt was
we a k. Th e str e ng th o r w e a kn e ss o f t he ide nti fi c a tio n is bu t on e fa c tor in t he ba lanc ing ana ly sis , to which we now turn.

One f actor in the analy sis is how compellingl y th e e xtr a n eous off ense e vidence serve s to make a f

act of conseque nce mor e or le ss probable, a fac tor which is related t o the s treng th of the
ev i d en ce p re s en t edb y

t h e p ro p o n en tt o s h o w t h e d ef en d an ti nfa ct co m m i t t edt h e e x t ra n eo u s o ff en se. See M ozon , 991 S.W .2d at 847. I n this c ase, weaknesses in the evidenc e prese nted by the State, such
as one w itness’s descr iption of the car as a “ Volkswag en” r ather than a Volvo, g o to the streng th of the State’s evide nce. T he si milarities in the description of t he car as a dar k blue fore ign c ar a

nd the
c los e ne ss i n ti me and

loc a tio n a

re a ll f a c tor s to be we ig he d. Th is f a c tor a pp e ars ne utr a l. An oth e r f a c tor is the po te nti a l the of

fe ns e e vid e nc e ha s to imp re ss the jur y in s ome irrational but never t h el es s indelible way
. Id . This fac tor weig hs in favor of admission. The mot or c y c le wr e c k w a s si mpl y on e of thr e e wr e c ks that w e re inv e sti g a te d at mo re or le ss t he same tim e and we re a ll p art

of a c on tin

uo us e ve nt. As no te d a

bo ve , th e re wa s n oth ingpa rt ic ula rl y
e mot ion -i nd

uc inga bo ut t he e vid e nc e c on c e rn ing the mot or c y c le wr e c k tha t wou ld u nf a ir ly imp re ss t h e j u r y. The third fa ctor is the time the proponent will ne ed to de velop the evide nce, dur ing which time the jury

will be distracted f

rom consider ation of the indicted e vidence
. Id
. This fac tor also weig hs in favor of ad mission. The investigation of, a nd thus the testimony

about, the thre e inc ide nts wa s in te rt

wi ne d, a s o ne of

fi c e r w a s g oin g ba c k a

nd fo rt h b e tw e e n lo c a tio ns .11 The four th fac tor is the forc e of the proponent’s need for the e vidence to prove a fac t of c on se qu e nc e , i. e ., do e s th e pr op on ent hav e oth e r p ro bativ e e vid e nc e a va ila ble to h im t o h e lp establi s h t h i s fac t. Id . The fa ctor we ighs somew hat ag ainst the admission of the evidenc e in that t h e r e w a s d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y g o i n g t o a p p e l l an t ’ s i n t e n t ; t h a ti s , t h e t e s t i m o n y t h a th e a p p e ar e d a n g r y,
wa s y e lli ng , a

nd wa s ma kin g ob sc e ne g e sture s. B a sed on our r e vie w o f t he fa c tor s, we c ann ot s ay that th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion in admitting the e vidence of the motorcycle a ccide nt. See M ozon , 9 9 1 S. W. 2 d

a t 8 4 7
. We
overr ule appe llant’s only

issue.
Conclusion We have ove rruled a

ppellant’s only

issue and af

firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 29, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh