## NO. 12

- 14

- 00200

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAMES TODD ADAMS,
APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL F

ROM THE 294TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Todd Adams appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a child, for which he was

sentenced to imprisonment for two years. Appellant raises one issue challenging the trial court’s

admission of extraneous bad act evidence. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with sexual assault of a child. He pleaded “not

guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the evidence showed tha t J.D., her mother, and her brother moved in with

Appellant and his family in Van Zandt County when J.D. was a child. Appellant began sexually

assaulting J.D. and warned her not to tell anyone. Eventually, J.D.’s mother found out about the

abuse and repo rted it to the police.

Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty” of sexual assault of a child and assessed his

punishment at imprisonment for two years. This appeal followed.

A DMISSIBILITY OF E VIDENCE
In his sole issue, Appellant complains about t he admissibility of certain extraneous bad

act evidence.2

Standard of Review

Generally, we review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence under an abuse of

discretion standard. See Martin v. State , 173 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We

must u phold the trial court’s ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct

under any theory of law applicable to the case. Willover v. State , 70 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2002). We will not reverse a trial court’s ruling admitting e vidence unless that ruling

falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. See Burden v. State , 55 S.W.3d 608, 615

(Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

Analysis

The evidence at trial showed that while Appellant was awaiting trial in this case, J.D. was

living with her father in Odessa. In violation of his conditions of pretrial release, Appellant

drove to Odessa and met J.D. there. He took J.D. to a hotel room and had sexual intercourse

with her. J.D. was sixteen years old at the time.

Appellant argues that th e trial court erred by admitting evidence of the sexual intercourse

in Odessa and the violation of his conditions of pretrial release. He contends that the evidence is

not relevant and, further, meets none of the exceptions under rule of evidence 404(b). Generally,

evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in

order to show action in conformity therewith. See T EX

. R. E VID

. 404(b). It may, however, be

admissible for other purposes, such as proof of moti ve, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,

knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. See id.

In certain cases, r ule 404 is superseded by code of criminal procedure article 38.37. Hitt

v. State , 53 S.W.3d 697, 705 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2001, pet. ref’d). Under that article,

notwithstanding rule 404, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts committed by a defendant

against a child under seventeen years of age who is the victim of an alleged assaultive offense

under penal code chapter 22 shall be admitted for its bearing on relevant matters. See T EX

. C ODE

C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 38.37 § 1 (West Supp. 2014). Such relevant matters include the state of

mind of the defendant and child, and the previous and subsequent relationship between the

defend ant and child. Id.

In this case, Appellant was charged and convicted under penal code section 22.011(a)(2).

The evidence that Appellant violated his conditions of pretrial release and traveled several hours

to have intercourse with J.D. is relevant to th e state of mind of Appellant and J.D., as well as3

their subsequent relationship. We hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.

See id. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

D ISPOSITION
Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice

Opinion delivered August 12, 2015

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 12 , 2015

NO. 12

- 14

- 00200

- CR

JAMES TODD ADAMS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 294th District Court

of Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR1 2

- 00427)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court

below for observance.

James T. Worthen , Chief Justice

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.