1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 02- 07- 308- CR 0 2- 07 - 30 9- CR 0 2- 07 - 31 0- CR 02 - 07 - 31 1- CR 0 2- 07 - 31 2- CR 0 2- 07 - 31 3- CR 0 2- 07 - 31 4- CR 0 2- 07 - 31 5- CR 0 2- 07 - 31 6- CR DON N D E VE R ALM AR T I N AP P E L L ANT A /K /A D O N D E V E R A LM A R T IN V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

-- ----- ---- - FR O M THE 372ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n si x i ssues, A ppel l ant D onn D ever al M art i n appeal s hi s ni ne conv i ct i ons. W e a f f i r m.2 ... The e vi den ces how ed t hatS. S. w asr ef er r i ng t o he rge ni t al s w hen s he

s a i d “ b u tt.” I I . Fa ct ualan d Pr oce duralBac kground M a rt i n, a r es i den tofA bi l ene , oc ca si ona l l y s l eptove rathi s dau g h te r’s h o u s e i n A rl i n g to n . A t ti m e s , M a rti n w a s a l o n e b e h i n d c l o s e d d o o rs w i th S .S ., h is f iv e -y e a r -o ld g r a n d d a u g h t e r . O n t h e m o r n in g o f M a r c h 6 , 2 0 0 6 , S .S . t o ld herm ot hert hatM art i n had com e i nt o herr oom t he pr evi ou s n ightand l i cked h e r “ b u tt.” 2D u r in g t h e in v e s t ig a t io n , t h e p o lic e d is c o v e r e d h u n d r e d s o fc h ild po r no gr a ph y i m a ge s o n M a rt i n’ s c om pu t e r , i nc l ud i ng p ho t og r a ph s o fS. S. F ol l ow i ng t he i nv esti ga t i on , t he S t ate ch arged M art i n, bym u lt ip le i ndi ct m ent s, w i t h f ourcountsofaggr avat ed sexual assaul to f a chi l d und er fo u rt e e n y e a rs o f ag e , th ree c o u n ts o f se x u a l p e rf o rm a n c e b ya c h i l d , a n d tw o coun t s ofi ndecen cy w i t h a chi l d. M art i n pl eaded not gui l t y, and t he case pr oceeded t o t r i al . A f t erhear i ng t he evi dence, t he j ur y f oun d M art i n gui l t y as c h a rge d o n allco u n ts a n d i n a s e p a rate p u n i sh m e n t he a ri n g se n ten c e d h i m to l i fe o n ea c h o f t h e fou r co u n ts, of a g g rav a te d s e x u a l as sa u l t an d to tw e n ty yea r s on e ac h oft he r em ai ni ng c ount s. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. I I I . M ot i on t o S upp r ess In h is f ir s tis s u e , M a rt in c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rt e r r e d in d e n y in g h is
m o ti o n to s u p p re s s e v i d e n c e o b ta i n e d fro m th e i l l e g a l s e a rc h o f h i s c o m p u te r. H e a r gue s t hathi s w i f e d i d notha ve aut hor i t y t o c ons entt o t he s e a r ch; an d3 ... M art i n c l ai m s t hat hi s or al con se nt i s i nva l i d bec aus e he w asunde rt he

i n fl u e n c e o f pa i n m e d i c a ti o n at th e ti m e o f his co n se n t. t her ef or e, t he w ar r ant l es s se ar ch by t he pol i cew asunr ea so nab l e. Addi t i ona l l y, M art i n ar gues t hatbecause hi s w i f e l acked aut hor i t y t o consent and becau se h is o r a l c o n s e n tw a s in v a lid 3t h e p o lic e la c k e d e f f e c t iv e c o n s e n tt o s e a r c h h is
com put er . How eve r , s i nceM art i n’ s w i f e di d hav e aut hor i t y t o c ons entan d s he d id , in f a c t , c o n s e n t , t h e v a lid it y o f M a rt in ’s c o n s e n t is m o o t a n d t h e r e f o r e , w ill notbead dr es se d. A . St andar d ofRev i ew W e r evi ew a t r i al court ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess evi dence un der
a b i fu rc a te d s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . A m a do r v. S tate , 221 S. W . 3d 666 , 673 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); G uzm a n v. S tate , 955 S . W . 2d 85, 89 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 19 97 ) . W e m ustvi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m os tf avor abl e t o t he t r i al
c o u rt’sru l i n g . W

i ede v. S tate , 2 1 4S .W .3 d 1 7 , 2 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); S ta tev. Kelly , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). W h e n th e re c o rd is s ile n to n t h e re a s o n s f o r t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s r u lin g , o r w h e n t h e r e a r e n o e x p lic it f ac tf i ndi ngs and nei t her part y t i m el y r equ es t ed f i ndi ngsan d c onc l us i onsf r om t he t r i al court , w e i m pl y t he necessary f actf i ndi ngs t hatw oul d suppo rtt he t r i al
c o u rt ’s r ul i ng i ft he evi dence, vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he t r i al
c o u rt’s ru l i n g , s u p p o rts th o s e fi n d i n g s . Id .; se e Am ado r, 221 S. W . 3d a t673; W i ede , 214 S . W . 3d at25. W e t hen r evi ew t he t r i al cou rt ’ s l ega l r ul i ng de novounl es s t he i m pl i ed f ac tf i ndi ngss upport ed by t he r ec or d ar e al so di sp os i t i ve of

th e l e g a l ru l i n g . Kelly , 204 S. W . 3d a t819. W e m us tupho l d t he t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng i f i t i s su pport ed by t he r ec or d a nd i s c o rre c t u n d e r a n y th e o ry o f l a w a p p l i c a b l e to th e c a s e e v e n i f th e tri a l c o u rt g a v e th e w ro n g re a s o n fo r i ts ru l i n g . State v. Stevens , 235 S. W . 3d 736, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); A rm en da ri z v. S tate , 123 S . W . 3 d 4 01, 404 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 1 U .S . 9 7 4(2 0 0 4 ). B. A ppl i cabl e Law The F ourth A m end m entpr ot ec t s aga i ns tunr ea so nab l e s ea r che s and
s e i z u re s b y g o v e rn m e n t o fficia l s . U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . I V ; W i ede , 214 S. W . 3d at24. A w ar r ant l es s se ar ch i s unr ea so nab l e p ers e u nl es s i tf i t s i nt o oneoft he fe w s p e c i fi c a l l yd e fi n e d a n d w e l l e s ta b l i s h e d e x c e p ti o n s . Mi nneso ta v. D i cker so n , 5 0 8 U .S . 3 6 6 , 3 7 2 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 2 1 3 0 , 2 1 3 5 (1 9 9 3 ); se e E stradav. S tate , 15 4 S . W . 3d 60 4, 60 8 n. 12 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 05 ) . O n e such
e x c e p ti o n i s a w a rr a n tl e ss se a rch c o n d u c ted a fter a p e rso n h a s g i v e n co n se n t. Bri m ag ev. S tate , 9 1 8 S .W .2 d 4 6 6 , 4 8 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). A l e s s c o m m o n v a ri a ti o n o f th e s ta n d a rd c o n s e n t c a s e i s th a t o f th i rd part y consent. The Fo urt h A m endm entr ecogn i zes a val i d w ar r ant l ess s ear ch i ft he o ff i ce r s se cur e t he con se ntofa t hi r d pa rt y w ho po ss es se s com m on a u th o ri tyo v e r th e p re m i s e s o r e ffe c ts s o u g h t to b e i n s p e c te d . United S tatesv. Matl

ock , 415 U . S. 164, 171, 94 S. Ct . 988, 993 ( 197 4) . W het herco m m on aut hor i t y e xi st s, t ur nson e vi den ceof “m ut ual us e o ft he pr ope rt y bype r so ns g e n e r a l l y h a v i n g j o i n t a c c e s s o r c o n t r o l f o r mo s t p u r p o s e s . ” Id. a t 1 71 n . 7; Welchv. S tate , 93 S. W . 3d 50, 52 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2002 ) . Fu rt her m or e, t he
c o u rto f cri m i n a l ap p e a l s h a s e m p h a sized tha t “th ethir d p a rt y ’s l e g a l p rop e rt y i n tere st i s n o t disp o sit i v e i n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r he h a s t h e a u t h o ri ty to consent t o a sear ch. ” Max wel l v. S tate , 73 S. W . 3d 278, 281 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ). C . A p p l i c a b l eF a c ts In M a r c h , 2 0 0 6 , w h ile in v e s t ig a t in g a n o u t c r yo fs e x u a l a s s a u lta lle g e d ly
com m i t t ed by M art i n agai nstS. S . , D et ect i ve M i ke W eberoft he A r l i ngton pol i ce d e p a rt m e n t w e n t t o M a r t i n ’s h o m e i n A b i l e n e an d sp o k e w i th M a rt i n ’s w i fe Beve r l y. Bev er l y di sc us se d he ran d M art i n’ s f am i l y hi st ory w i t h Det ec t i ve W ebe r . Ats om e p oi nt , D e te c ti v e W ebe ras ke d w het hert her e w er e a ny com puter s i n t he hou se. Beverl y show ed D et ect i ve W ebera com puterl ocat ed i n the d o w n sta i rs h a l l w a yan d D e tec ti v e W e b e r a sk e d i f he co u l d tak e i t w i th hi m . Bever l y hesi t at ed and sai d t hatshe w oul d need t o cal l M art i n, w ho w as i n t he hospi t al r ecover i ng f r om sur ger y, t o ask h is per m i ssi on. She cal l ed M a rt i n an d i n fo rm e d h i m tha t t h e p o l i c e w e re a t th e h o u se a n d w e re a sk i n g to t a k e h is c o m p u t e r . M a rt in r e p lie d , “ W e ll, B e v , if t h a t w ill c le a rt h is u p , g iv e itt o t hem . ” Bever l y t hen si gned a w r i t t en consent f or m and t ur ned t he com puter

o v e r to D e te c ti v e W e b e r. D . A n a ly s is Bef or e t r i al , M art i n f i l ed a m ot i on t o su ppr es s t he evi den ceobt ai ned f r om hi s c o mp u t e ro n t h e g r o u n d s t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e h a d b e e n i l l e g a l l yo b t a i n ed. S p e c if ic a lly , h e a r g u e d t h a tt h e s e a r c h o fh is c o m p u t e rw a s u n r e a s o n a b le bec aus e t he pol i cel ac ke d va l i d c ons entt o s ea r ch. D ur i ng t he su ppre s s i o n he ar i ng, Beve r l y t es t i f i ed t hatt he t i t l e t o t he h o u se sh e an d M a rt i n l i v e d i n w a s s o l e l yi n h e r na m e , th a t sh e co u l d g o i n to
a n ya re a o f th e h o u s e , a n d th a t s h e h a d a u t h o ri tyto u s e M a rti n ’sc o m p u te r. H ow eve r , M art i n a r gue s t hat bec aus e Beve r l y nev er us ed t he com put erw i t hout h i s h e l p an d b e c a u se i t be lo n g e d s o le ly to h i m , sh e d i d n o t ha v e au th o ri ty to consent t o t he sear ch. W e di sagr ee. The a ut hor i t y t o c ons enti s not det er m i ned by o w ner sh i p orac t ualus e b ut b yj o i n t a c c e s s o r c o n tro l . S ee Matlock , 41 5 U . S . 16 4. H er e, Beverl y shar ed equ al ac ce ssw i t h M art i n. M art i n’ s com put er w asl oca t ed i n a n ope n a r ea of th e h o u s e a n d n o t b e h i n d l o c k e d d o o rs ; th e c o m p u te r d i d n o t h a v e p a s s w o rd pr ot ec t i on e xce ptf ori nt er netpur pos es ; an d t her e w a s n o ev i den cei n t he
r ec or d, nor di d M art i n di r ec t us t o any , t hatBeve r l y w aspr ohi bi t ed f r om us i ng h i s c o m p u te r.4 ... A t tri a l , B e v e rl yte s ti fi e d th a t th e re a s o n s h e d i d n o t u s e M a rti n ’s

c o m p u ter w i th o u t M a rt i n b e i n g the re w a s b e c a u se sh e w a s n o t ve ry g o o d w i th com puter s.

5 ... W hen asked i ft he r eason she di d no t g iv e consentr i ght aw ay w as bec aus e t he com put erbe l o n g e d to M art i n, Beve r l y r epl i ed, “ N o. W el l , t he r ea so n I di dn’ tw a n t t o do t hatw asbe ca us e o fal l ofhi s r es ea r ch on t he com put er . M ayb e I ’ ve w at che d t oo m anys how s, butI di dn’ tw antt o m es s up y e a rs a n d y e a rs o f re s e a rc h .” Th er ef or e, i tdoes not m at t ert hatBeverl y neverused M art i n’ s com puter
w i t houthi s hel p. 4The f act r em ai ns t hat she had access t o and author i t y t o use hi s com put er . M art i n al so ar gue s t hat Beve r l y ac kno w l edg ed her l a c kof aut hor i t y t o consent w hen she t ol d t he pol i ce she needed t o cal l M art i n t o get hi s per m i ssi on. A gai n, w e di sagr ee. Th e f actt hatBeverl y cal l ed M art i n t o ge thi s per m i ssi on i n no w ay d i m i n i s h e s h e r a u th o ri ty to c o n s e n t. S ee Welch , 93 S. W . 3d 50 ( hol di ng t hat t hi r d part y consent— at l east a t hi r d part y t hathas m ut ual access— i s val i d even

w hen t he ow ner i s pr es ent and doe s not con se nt t o t he se ar ch) . Her e, w e’ ve a l re a d ye s ta b l i s h e d th a t B e v e rl yh a d m u tu a l a c c e s s to M a rti n ’sc o m p u te r; t her ef or e, Beve r l y’ s aut hor i t y t o c ons enti s notco nt i nge nton M art i n gr ant i ng p e rm i s s i o n . Id. I n f act , Beverl y onl y asked t o cal l M a rt i n because she w as
w or r i ed abou tt he i nt egr i t y ofhi s r e s e a r ch, and not because s he l acked aut hor i t y. 5 Ther ef or e, Beve r l y pr ovi ded val i d and ef f ec t i ve con se nt w hen s he
s i g n e d t h e wr i t t e n c o n s e n tf o r m.B e c a u se the rec o rd s u p p o r t s a fi n d i n g tha t B e v e rl yh a d j o i n t ac c e ss to

M art i n’ s com put er , an d be ca us e M art i n’ s ar gum ent s sh ow , atm os t , a l ac k o f equal , but not j oi nt , access overhi s com puter , w e concl ude t hatM art i n f ai l ed t o dem onst r at e t hatt he t r i al courter r ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i o n to suppr ess. A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e M art i n’ s f i r sti ssue. I V . Fact ualSu ff i ci ency I n hi s se con d i ss ue, M art i n ar gue s t hatt he evi den ce , w hen vi ew ed i n a neu t r al l i ght , i s f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci entt o s upporthi s ni ne con vi ct i ons . I n t he
a l tern a ti v e , M a rt i n as se rt s th a t e v e n i f t h e ev i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o suppo rtt he conv i ct i on f ort he M ar ch 5 , 20 0 6 , coun tofaggr avat ed sexual
as sa ul t o fa c h i l d u n d e rt h e a g e o ff o u rt e e n , i ti s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u p p o rtt he
r em ai ni ng e i ghtco nvi ct i ons , ar gui ng t hat t he St at e f ai l ed t o i den t i f y hi m ast he
m an i n t he pho t ogr aphs. W e di sagr ee. A . St andar d ofRev i ew W h e n rev i e w i n g the fac t u a l s u f fi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e vi ew al l t he evi den ce i n a neu t r al l i ght , f avo r i ng nei t herpa rt y. W a tso nv. S tate , 2 0 4S .W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); D r i cha sv. S tate , 17 5 S . W . 3d 79 5, 79 9 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 05 ) . W e t hen ask w het her t h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is
nev ert hel es s so w ea k t hatt he j ury’ s d et er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a ndm ani f es t l y un j us torw het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y o u tw e i ghst he

e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n t h a t t h e ju r y ’s d e t e r m in a t io n ism a n if e s t ly
u n j u s t. W

atso n , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 ; Jo hn so nv. S tate , 23 S . W . 3d 1, 11 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 00 ) . To r ever se und er t he second gr oun d, w e m ust det er m i ne, w i t h s om e o bj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he r ec or d, t hatt he gr ea tw ei ghtan d pr epo n d e ra nceofal l t he evi den ce , t hough l ega l l y s uf f i ci ent , co nt r adi ct s t he

v e rd i c t. W

atso n , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r t h e ev i d e n c e i s fac tu a l l y i n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not
e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e le v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e t h a t a c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly

w r o n g o rm a n if e s t lyu n ju s ts im p lyb e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju r yo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju r y ’s r e s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin th e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m ay not si m pl y subst i t ut e ourj udg m entf ort he j ur y’ s. John so n , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 ; Ca i nv. S tate , 9 5 8 S . W . 2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n le s s t h e re c o r d c le a r lyre v e a ls t h a ta d if f e r e n tre s u ltis appr opr i at e, w e m ustdef er t o t he j ur y’ s det er m i nat i on of t he w ei ght t o be gi ven contr adi cto ry te st i m oni al evi dence becau se r esol ut i on of t he confl i ct“oft en t u r n s o n a n e v a lu a t io n o fc r e d ib ilit ya n d d e m e a n o r , a n d t h o s e ju r o r s w e r e in at t endan ce w hen t he t est i m ony w as del iv e r ed. ” John so n , 23 S . W . 3d a t8.T h u s , w e m u s tg iv e d u e d e f e r e n c e t o t h e ju r y ’s d e t e r m in a t io n s , “ p a rt ic u la r ly

th o s e d e te rm i n a ti o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e .” Id . a t9. B. A ppl i cabl e Law A n opi ni on add r es si ng f ac t ual su f f i ci enc y m us t i ncl udea di sc us si on oft he
m os ti m port ant and r el eva nt evi den ce t hat su pport s t he app el l ant ’ s com pl ai nt
o n a p p e a l . Si

m s v. S tate , 9 9 S . W . 3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 ( T e x . Cr i m. Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) . As a f ac tf i nde r , t he j ury i s ent i t l ed t o d raw r ea so nab l e i nf er enc esf r om c i rc u m s ta n ti a l e v i d e n c e to u l ti m a te fa c ts . V i l l a n i v. S tate , 116 S. W . 3d 297, 3 0 3 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i st.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t . r e f ’ d ). T h u s, i d e n ti ty o f a per pet r at orcan be pr oved b y di r ectorci r cum st ant i al evi dence; eyew i t ness i d e n ti fi c a ti o n i s n o t n e c e s s a ry . Ea rl s v. S tate , 7 0 7 S . W . 2 d 8 2 , 8 5 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 8 6 ); Co u chm a n v. S tate , 3 S .W .3 d 1 5 5 , 1 6 2 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 9 , p e t. re f’d ). C . A n a ly s is O ut of M art i n’ s ni ne con vi ct i ons , onl y on e a r os e f r om S. S. ’ s out cry. The
re m a i n i n g e i g h t c o n v i c ti o n s w e re th e re s u l t o f p h o to g ra p h s fo u n d o n M a rti n ’s
c o m p u ter. B e c a u se M a rt i n ’s fac tu a l i n su ffi c i e n c yarg u m e n t i s s e p a rate d i n to ( 1) t he conv i ct i on t hatar o se f r om S. S . ’ s out cr y and ( 2) t he conv i ct i ons t hat
ar ose f r om t he pho t ogr aphs, w e w i l l t ai l orouranal ysi s t o hi s ar gum ent s.1 . C o n v i c ti o n A ri s i n g F ro m S .S .’s O u tc ry

M art i n c l a i ms t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s f a c t u a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p or t t he aggr avat ed sexual assaul tconvi ct i on r esul t i ng f r om S. S . ’ s out cr y because S . S . ’ s t est i m ony ab out t he eventst hatoccur r ed w er e unc le a r a n d l acked
cr edi bi l i t y. S .S . w a s s ixy e a r s o ld a tt h e t im e o ft r ia l. S h e t e s t if i e d t h a ts h e c o u ld
n o tre m e m b e re x a c t ly w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d t o h e rw h e n s h e w a s f iv e y e a r s o ld but, upon f urt her quest i oni ng, she t est i f i ed t hatshe di d r em em bert el l i ng her
m o t h e rt h a ts o m e t h in g b a d h a d h a p p e n e d w h e n h e r “ g r a n d d a d d y ” h a d b e e n in t he r oom w i t h her . O n cr oss, i n r esponse t o t he def ense at t or ney’ s quest i ons, S .S . t esti f i ed t ha tA r i el , K i ng T r i t on , an d F l ou nd er, f r om t he m ov i e T he Li t t le M e r m a i d , w e r e re a l. O n re d ir e c t , h o w e v e r , S .S . in d ic a t e d t h a ts h e h a d o n ly seen D i sney char ac te rs i n a m ovi e and t hata cart oon char act er , unl i ke her f am i l y, had nevervi si t ed her i n herhom e orengaged i n any r eal –l i f e act i vi t i es
w i t h he r . How eve r , S. S. ’ s t es t i m ony w as not t he onl y evi den ce putbe f or e t he j ury. S . S . ’ s m o th er , t est i f i ed t haton M ar ch 5 , 20 06 , herf at herM art i n had
s p e n t t h e n ig h t a t h e r h o u s e . T h e f o llo w in g m o r n in g , h e rf i v e -y e a r -o ld d a u g h te r, S .S ., to l d h e r th a t M a rti n h a d “ l i c k e d [h e r] b u tt . . . a n d [s h e ] d i d n ’t l i kei t . ” M art i n a ck now l edg ed sl ee pi ng ov erathi s dau ght er ’ s hous e o n t hen ig h to ft h e a lle g e d in c id e n tb u td e n ie d d o in g a n y t h i n g in a p p r o p r ia t e t o h is

g ra n d d a u g h te r. T h e S t a t e in t r o d u c e d e v id e n c e t h a td u r in g t h e s u b s e q u e n t s e x u a l a s s a u lt
e x a m a t t he hos pi t al , S. S. r epe at ed t he sa m e a l l ega t i on t o t he doc t or . The doc t orco l l ec t ed S. S. ’ s unde r w ea ras evi den ce and a f or ens i c bi ol ogi stf ort he T a r r a n tC o u n t yM e d ic a l E x a m in e r ’s O f f ic e e x a m in e d t h e m . T h e f o r e n s ic bi ol ogi stt est i f i ed t hatD N A com pr i sed of m at t er consi st ent w i t h f em al e vagi nal
se cr et i ons com bi ned w i t h sa l i va had be en i den t i f i ed and t hatM art i n c oul d not be excl uded as a contr i butor . M art i n t est i f i ed t hata “t um m y -b lo w ing” gam e c o u l d h a v e re s u l te d i n th es a l i v a o n S .S .’s u n d e rw e a r. The St at e a l so i nt r oduc ed i nt o evi den ce t he chi l d por nogr aph y f ound on M art i n’ s com put er . M art i n r es ponde d by i nt r oduc i ng evi den ce t hathi s so n- i nl aw w or ked as a com puter consul t antand t hat , al t hou gh hi ghl y unl i kel y, i tw as possi bl e f orsom eone t o r em ot el y hack i nt o a com puterand dow nl oad pho t ogr aphs onto i t . M art i n’ s def ensi ve t heor y w as t hatt he al l egat i ons agai nst hi m had been co nt r i ved by h i s daughterand herhus b a n d because ofan ar gum entove ra hous e t heyw er e p ur cha si ng f r om hi m . To s upportt hi s t heo r y, M art i n i nt r oduc ed i nt o e vi den ce , by w ay ofva r i ouspe r so ns ’ t es t i m ony, t hathe
ow ned t he hou se t hathi s daughterand herf am i l y l i ved i n and t hat he had had a f al l i ng ou t w i th h e rove rs el l i ng t he hous e. The St at e r es ponde d byi nt r odu ci ng i nt o evi dence t w o pr i oroccasi ons w her e M art i n had been i nvol ved

i n m i sc onduc tw i t h a ch i l d. A fte r e x a m i n i n g a l l th e e v i d e n c e i n a n e u tra l l i g h t, w e fi n d th a t M a rti n ’s
con cl us i on t hatt he evi den ce i s f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci ent r ea di l y con f l i ct s w i t h t he st and ar d ofr evi ew f orf ac tu a l s u ffic i enc y. M art i n a r gue s t he cr edi bi l i t y of S. S. ’ s t es t i m ony i n i so l at i on i n or dert o a r r i ve athi s con cl us i on; how eve r , t he f act ual suf f i ci ency st andar d r equi r es t hat w e vi ew a ll t he evi dence i n a neut r al l i g h t. See W

atso n , 204 S. W . 3d at 414 . Ther ef or e, aft erex am i ni ng a l l oft he evi dence i n a neut r al l i ght, f avor i ng nei t herpart y, w e hol d t hatt he evi dence suppo rt i ng M art i n’ s convi ct i on f ort he M ar ch 5 , 20 06 , aggr avat ed se xual
as sa ul tch ar ge i s nots o w ea k t hatt he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong o r
m a n i fes tl yu n j u st. 2. Convi ct i onsA r i si ng F r om Phot ograph s A ddi t i onal l y, M art i n ar gues t hatt he S t at e f ai l ed t o i denti f y hi m as t he m an in t h e p h o t o g r a p h s f o u n d o n h is c o m p u t e r ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e e v id e n c e isf a c t u a lly i ns uf f i ci e n t t o s upportt he ei ghtco nvi ct i onst hatar os e a s a r es ul toft he phot ogr aph s. To su pport hi s ar gum ent , M art i n cl ai m s t hat he di d nott ak e t he pi ct ur es, t hathe di d not com m i t any of t he al l eged of f enses, and t hat he w as outoft he cou nt r y on t he dat es t hat t he al l ege d of f ens es occ ur r ed. The j ury, how ever , r ecei ved t he f ol l ow i ng di r ectand ci r cum st ant i al evi dence.D et ect i ve M i ke W eaver of t he A r l i ngton pol i ce depart m entt est i f i ed t hat

a s ea r ch ofM art i n’ s com pute r tu rn ed up hu ndr edsofch i l d por nogr aph y phot ogr aph s. M art i n t es t i f i ed t hat he di d notkn ow t he phot ogr aph s w er e o n hi s com put eran d t hatt he co m p ut erw asnotpa ss w or d pr ot ec t ed. Det ec t i ve W e a v e r a l s o te s ti fi e d th a t h e h a d i d e n ti fi e d th e d a te s th e p h o to g ra p h s w e re t a k e n a nd t he t yp e ofc a m e r a u s e d t o t a k e t he m , a So nyCyb e r s ho tDSC- P32 . M art i n r es ponde d t hat h e w asei t heri n Abi l eneoroutoft he cou nt r y on t he dat es t he pho t ogr aphs w er e t aken. H ow ever , the S t at e i nt r odu ced evi dence t hatM art i n’ s passportr eveal ed t hat he w as unacco unted f or dur i ng t he t i m es he cl ai m ed t o be o u t o f t he coun t r y. The S t at e al so ent er ed i nt o evi dence a S ony C yber shotD S C

- P3 2 cam er a r et r i eved by the pol i ce f r om M art i n’ s hom e. M a rt i n res p o n d e d t h a t the ca m e ra b e l o n g e d to h i s w i fe; h o w e v e r, h i s w i fe t est i f i ed t hatM art i n w as t he pr i m ar y useroft he cam er a. Som e o ft he phot ogr aph s di sc ove r ed on M art i n’ s com put ers how ed t he i m a geo fa n a du l tm a l e , w ho s e f a c e i s u ns e e n, p e r f or m i ng s e xu a l a c t s w i t h S. S. I n a fe w oft he phot ogr aph s, t he m an’ s sh i rt , ha nds , an d s ex or gan ca n be
se en. M art i n’ s dau ght eran d w i fe b o th t es t i f i ed t hatt he m an’ s sh i rti n t he p h o to g ra p h l o o k e d l i k e o n e o w n e d b y M a rti n . M a rti n d e n i e d o w n i n g th e s h i rt
a n d th e p o l i c e w e re u n a b l e to fi n d th e s h i r t a t M a rti n ’sh o u s e . H o w e v e r, M art i n’ s w i f e t es t i f i ed t hat sh e m i ghtha ve pac ke d t he sh i rti n M art i n’ s bag f or6 ... M art i n’ s dau ght erba se d he ri den t i f i ca t i on ofhi s han d on a sc aran d

fre c k l e s h o w n i n th e p h o to g ra p h th a t m a tc h e d a s c a r a n d fre c k l e o n h e r fa th e r’s han d. hi s st ay att he hos pi t al . Furt her m or e, M art i n’ s dau ght ert es t i f i ed t hatt he han d sh ow n i n one of t he phot ogr aph s bel onge d t o M art i n. 6 Fi nal l y, D et ect i ve W eber t es t i f i ed t hatt he m al e’ s se x or gan i n t he phot ogr aph w asci r cum ci se d, t hathe p h o t o g r a p h e d M a rt in ’s s e xo r g a n , a n d t h a tM a rt in w a s c ir c u m c is e d . M a rt in t est i f i ed t hathe had no tb een ci r cum ci sed. H ow ever , M art i n’ s w i f e t est i f i ed t hatM art i n ha d t ol d he rt hatheha d ha d a pa rt i al ci r cum ci si on. A f t erex am i ni ng a l l t he evi den ce i n a n eut r al l i ght , w e c ann ots ay t hatt he evi den ce i n t hi s ca se i s so w ea k t hat t he ver di ct s ar e cl ea r l y w r o n g an d
m ani f es t l y un j us tort hatt he con f l i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y o u tw ei ghst he
e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e v e r d ic tt h a tt h e j u r y ’s d e t e r m in a t io n ism a n if e s t ly
u n j u s t. See Johns on , 23 S. W . 3d at9. A deci si on is n o t m a n i f est l y unj ust
m er el y be ca us e t he j ury r es ol ved co nf l i ct i ng vi ew s of t he evi den cei n f avo rof th e S ta te . Ca in , 9 5 8 S . W .2 d a t 4 1 0 . D e fe rri n g , a s w e m u s t, to th e j u ry ’s
r es ol ut i on ofco nt r adi ct ory t es t i m ony and ev al uat i on ofcr edi bi l i t y a nd d e m e a n o r , w e c o n c lu d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e , w h e n v ie w e d in a n e u t r a l lig h t , is f act ual l y suf f i ci entt o suppo rtt he j ur y’ s f i ndi ng t hat M art i n w as t he uni denti f i ed
m a n i n the p h o to g rap h s; an d th e refo re, th e ev i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o s u p p o rt th e e i g h t c o n v i c ti o n s th a t a ro s e fro m th e p h o to g ra p h s . See Johns on ,23 S. W . 3d a t9.

H avi ng f ound t hatt he evi den ce i s f ac t ual l y su f f i ci entt o s upportal l ni ne ofM art i n’ s convi ct i ons, w e over r ul e M art i n’ s second i ssue. V . C om pet ency of a C hi l d W it ness I n h i s t h i r d a n d f o u rt h i s s u e s , M a rt i n c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r ed i n a l l ow i ng s i x- yea r - ol d S. S. t o t es t i f y. A . St andar d ofRev i ew A tr i a l co u rt ’s d e term i n a ti o n o f w h e th e r a c h i l d w i tn e ss i s c o m p e ten t t o t est i f y and i t s r ul i ng on t he i ssue w i l l notbe di st ur bed on appeal absentan a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . Brouss a rd v. S tate , 9 1 0 S . W . 2 d 9 5 2 , 9 6 0 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ), cert. denied, 5 1 9 U .S . 8 2 6 (1 9 9 6 ) . W e re v i e w th e c h i l d ’s
res p o n se s to q u a l i fi c a ti o n q u e sti o n s a s w e l l as the ch i l d ’s en ti re tes ti m o n yto det er m i ne w het hert he t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng c ons t i t ut ed a n a b u seofdi sc r et i on. D eLo s Sa n to s v. S tate , 2 1 9 S .W .3 d 7 1 , 8 0

– 8 1 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n t o n io 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.). B. A ppl i cabl e Law Rul e 601 oft he Rul esof Evi den ce , cr ea t esa pr es um pt i on t hata per so n i s c o m p e te n t t o t e s ti fy. T e x . R . E v i d . 6 0 1 . T h e tr i a l co u rth a s n o d u ty to
c o n d u c t a p re l i m i n a rye x a m i n a ti o n o n i ts o w n m o ti o n . Mc Gi nnv. S tate , 961 S .W .2 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 5 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) . O n c e t h e c o m p e t e n c yo fa c h ildw i t nes s i s cha l l eng ed, t he t r i al co urtm us t as su r e i t se l f t hatt he chi l d ha s ( 1) t he

abi l i t y t o i nt el l i gen t l y ob se r ve t he eve nt s i n que st i on a tt he t i m e o ft he
o c c u rr e n c e , (2 ) th e ca p a c i ty to rec o l l e c t t h e ev e n ts, an d ( 3 ) th e ca p a c it yto
n a rra te th e e v e n ts . T o rres v. S tate , 33 S. W . 3d 252, 255 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 0) ( quot i ng W

a ts onv. S tate , 596 S . W . 2d 867, 870 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 8 0 )) . In c o n s is t e n c ie s o rc o n f lic t s in a c h ild ’s t e s t im o n yd o n o ta u t o m a t ic a lly
r end ert he chi l d i nco m pet entt o t es t i f y bu t , i ns t ea d, af f ec t the w ei ghtt o be g i v e n to th e c h i l d ’ste s ti m o n y . S ee U p to nv. S tate , 894 S. W . 2d 426, 429 (T e x . A p p .— A m a ri l l o 1 9 9 5 , p e t. re f’d ). H owe v e r , t o p r e s e r v e a c o mp l a i n t f o r o u r r e v i e w, a p a rt y mu stha ve pr es ent ed t o t he t r i al cou rt a t i m el y r equ es t , obj ec t i on, or m ot i on t hats t at est he sp ec i f i c g r oundsf ort he des i r ed r ul i ng i ft heyar e n otap par entf r om t he con t ext
o f th e re q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mosley v. S tate , 9 8 3 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), c ert. den i e d , 526 U . S. 1 0 7 0 ( 199 9) . An obj ec t i on m us tbem adeass oon a s t he b a s i s fo r th e o bj e c ti o n b e c o m e s a p p a re n t. T e x . R . E v i d . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ); Lagronev. S tate , 9 4 2 S .W .2 d 6 0 2 , 6 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 917 (1 9 9 7 ); Po l

kv. S tate , 7 2 9 S .W .2 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). F u rth e r, t he t r i al court m ust have r ul ed on t he r equest , obj ect i on, or m ot io n , ei t her expr essl y or i m pl i ci t l y, or t he com pl ai ni ng part y m usthave obj ect ed t o t he t r i alc o u rt’sre fu s a l to ru l e . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 ); Men dez v. S ta te , 138

S .W .3 d 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). C . A n a ly s is H er e, M art i n com pl ai ns t hat t he t r i al co urter r ed i n f i ndi ng S. S. co m pet ent to te s ti fya n d fu rth e r e rre d i n h a v i n g o v e r r u l e d h i s m o ti o n to s tri k e S .S .’s tes ti m o n y . H o w e v e r, M a rt i n fai l e d to ti m e l yp res e rve h i s c o m p l a i n t. I n a hear i ng hel d outs i de t he pr esence oft he j ur y, t he t r i al courtpr obed S. S. ’ s abi l i t y t o di s ti ngui sh t he t r ut h f r om a l i e b y a sk i ng, “ [ I ] fI s ai d, how do you l i kem y w hi t e r obe , w oul d t hatbet el l i ng you t he t r ut h or w oul d I bet el l i ng you a l i e? ” S. S. co r r ec t l y ans w er ed t hat i t w as a l i e. A l so , w hen as ke d by t he S t at e, “[ W ] e know t hatyou’ r e notsupposed t o t el l l i es, don ’ tw e?”, S. S . r epl i ed

“ y e s .” Af t e ra s k i ng h e ra s e r i e s o fq ue s t i on s , t het r i a l c ou rtf ou n d S. S.
com pet entt o t es t i f y. Dur i ng t he cou rt ’ s que st i oni ng ofS. S ., M art i n di d not obj ec t , nordi d heobj ec tw hen t he t r i al cou rt m ade i t s f i ndi ng ofco m pet enc y. Furt her m or e, M art i n di d notm ak e a ny o bj ec t i o n s w h en S. S. t es t i f i ed i n t he pr esence oft he j ur y. I n f act , M artin ’s o n ly obj ect i on cam e aft ert he w i t ness h a d b e e n p a s s e d a n d th e j u ry h a d l e ft fo r th e d a y . T h a t w a s to o l a te . S eeTex. R . E v i d . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ); L agro n e, 94 2 S . W . 2d at61 8 ( hol di ng t hatt he obj ect i on w as unti m el y because appel l antdi d not obj ectunt i l t he pr osecut or ’ s quest i on hadb e e n a s k e d a n d a n s w e re d , a n d th e p ro s e c u to r h a d p a s s e d th e w i tn e s s ); Po lk ,

729 S. W . 2d at753 ( hol di ng t hatf oran obj ec t i on t o beti m el y, i tm us tbe l odge d “ att he ea r l i es toppo rt uni t y, ” or“ ass oon a s t he gr ound f orobj e c t i on b e c o m e s a p p a re n t” ). Becau se M art i n f ai l ed t o obj ectathi s ear l i estoppo rt uni t y, he has p r e s e r v e d n o t h in g f o r a p p e l l a t e re v ie w o n t h is p o in t ; t h e r e f o r e , w e o v e r r u le M art i n’ s t hi r d and f ourt h i ssues. V I . Doubl e J eop ardy I n h i s fi fth i ss u e , M a rt i n co m p l a i n s th a t his n i n e co n v i c ti o n s c o n sti tu te
m ul t i pl e p uni sh m ent s f ort he sa m e o f f ens e; t her ef or e, hi s r i ght t o bef r eef r om doubl e j eop ar dy w asvi ol at ed. A . St andar d ofRev i ew Th e D oub l e Jeopar dy C l ause oft he U ni t ed S t at es C onst i t ut i on pr ovi des t hatno p er so n s hal l bes ubj ec t ed t o t w i ce hav i ng l i f e or l i m b i n j eop ar dy f ort he
sam e of f ense. U . S . C onst . am end. V . G ener al l y, t hi s cl ause pr ot ect s agai nst
m ul t i pl e puni sh m ent s f or t he sa m e of f ens e. Bro wn v. O h io , 432 U. S. 161, 1 6 5 , 9 7 S . C t. 2 2 2 1 , 2 2 2 5 (1 9 7 7 ); Ex p a rte Her ron , 790 S. W . 2d 623, 624 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ). To dete r m i ne w het herof f ens esar e t he sa m e, w e m us tex am i ne t he el em ent s of t he appl i cabl e st at ut es t o det er m i ne w het hereach st at ut e “r equi r espr oof ofan addi t i onal f actw hi ch t he o th e r d oes not . ” Blockbur ger v. United S tates , 2 8 4 U .S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 , 5 2 S . C t. 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 (1 9 3 2 ); se e United Statesv. D i xon , 5 0 9 U .S . 6 8 8 , 6 9 6 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 2 8 4 9 , 2 8 5 6 ( 1 9 9 3 ); Pa rr i sh v. S tate , 8 6 9 S .W .2 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 3

– 5 5 (T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). H o w e v e r , in m u lt ip le p u n i sh m e n t ca se s, th e c o u rt o f c ri m i n a l a p p e a l s h a s re c o g n i ze d tha t Blockbur ger i s not t he exc l us i ve t es t and t hat t hes es ca se s r equ i r e a t w o- st ep ana l ys i s. The fi rst step i s to ex a m i n e the p roo f ne c e ss a ry to es tab l i sh the sta tu to ry e l e m e n ts
o f e a c h o ffe n s e a s a l l e g e d i n th e i n d i c tm e n t. V i n e ya rd v. S tate , 958 S. W . 2d 834 , 836 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 199 8) . The s ec ond s t ep r equ i r esan an al ys i s oft he le g is la t iv e in t e n t , i. e ., w h e t h e ritw a s t h e le g is la t u r e ’s in t e n tt o im p o s e m u lt ip le p u n i s h m e n t s o ro n l yo n e . E xp a rteE

rvin , 9 9 1 S . W . 2 d 8 0 4 , 8 1 4( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). B. A ppl i cabl e Law A pe r so n c om m i t s agg r ava t ed se xua l as sa ul tofa chi l d und ert he ageof f ourt ee n, i f t he per so n i nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y: ( 1) ca us est he pen et r at i on of th e an u s o r se x u a l o rga n o f a c h i l d b yan ym e a n s o r ( 2 ) c a u se s th e a n u s o f a chi l d t o c ont ac tt he m out h, an us , or se xua l or gan of ano t herpe r so n, i ncl udi ng th e a c to r. T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 1 .0 2 (a )(1 )(B )(i ),(i v ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). A per so n com m i t s t he of f ens e of i nde ce ncy w i t h a chi l d youn g e r the
se ven t ee n ye ar s, i f t he per so n: ( 1) eng age s i n s exu al co nt ac tw i t h t he chi l d orca us est he chi l d t o e nga ge i n s exu al co nt ac to r (2 ) w i t h i nt entt o a r ous e o r

gr at i f y t he se xua l de si r e ofan y pe r so n ( A ) ex pos est he per so n’ s anu s oran y partoft he per so n’ s gen i t al s, kn ow i ng t he chi l d i s pr es entor( B) ca us e s t he chi l d t o expo se t he chi l d’ s anus orany partoft he chi l d’ s geni t al s. Tex . Penal C odeA nn. § 21. 11( a) ( 1) , ( 2) ( V er non 2003) . Sexu al co nt ac tm ea nsan y t ouc hi ng of any part of t he body of a chi l d, i ncl udi ng t ouc hi ng t hr ough cl ot hi ng,
w i th th e a n u s , b re a s t, o r a n yp a rt o f th e g e n i ta l s o f a p e rs o n . Id . a t (c )(2 ). C ourt s have hel d i ndecen cy w i t h a chi l d t o be a l esseri ncl uded of f ense o f ag g rav a ted se x u a l as sa u l t i n ce rt a i n cir c u m sta n c e s— n a m e l y , w h e n th e S tate
u s e s o n e a c t to p ro v e b o th o ffe n s e s . S e e, e .g., O ch o av. S tate , 982 S. W . 2d 9 0 4 , 9 0 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); Beltra nv. S tate , 30 S. W . 3d 532 , 534 ( Tex. A pp. — S a n A n to ni o 2 00 0, no pet . ) . H ow ever , w hen evi dence supp ort i ng an i nde ce ncych ar ge i s nott he sa m e a s th a ts upport i ng t he pr os ec ut i on f or aggr avat ed sexual assaul t , t he f or m erw i l l notbe deem ed t o be a l esseri ncl uded
o f f e n s e o ft h e la t t e r , a n d b o t h m a y b e p r o s e c u t e d w it h o u t v io la t in g t h e d o u b le j e o p a rd y c l a u s e . S e e, e .g., Bo tten fi eld v. S tate , 77 S. W . 3d 349, 358 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , p e t. re f’d ), c ert. den i ed , 539 U. S. 916 ( 2003) ( evi den ces how ed app el l antt ouc hed vi ct i m ’ s “w i nki e”t w i ce , t huss upport i ng c o n v i c ti o n s fo r b o th a g g ra v a te d s e x u a l a s s a u l t a n d i n d e c e n c y ). C . A n a ly s is7 ... D et ec t i ve W ea vert es t i f i ed t hatal t hough s om e o ft he pi ct ur esdi d not

sh ow t he f ac e o fS. S. , o th e r pi ct ur est ak en ar ound t he sa m e t i m e a nd a tt he sa m e l oca t i on di d. The j ury c oul d ha ve r ea so nab l y i nf erred t hatt he youn g f em al e i n t he pho t ogr aphs w as S. S . Furt her m or e, w e h a v e al r eady hel d t hat t h e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e t o s u p p o rt t h e ju r y ’s d e t e r m in a t io n t h a tM a rt in is t he m al e i n t he pho t ogr aphs. M art i n assert s t hatt he tr i al courtdepr i ved hi m ofhi s const i t ut i onal pr ot ec t i onsag ai ns tdoub l e j eop ar dy b y a l l ow i ng t he St at e t o pr os ec ut e a nd puni sh h i m tw i cef ort he sa m e o f f ens e. Spec i f i ca l l y, M art i n a r gue s t hatt he S t a t e d id n o tc o n c lu s iv e lye s t a b lis h w h e n t h e p h o t o g r a p h s f o u n d o n h is
com put erw er e t ak en and , asa r es ul t , M art i n r ec ei ved m ul t i pl e p uni sh m ent s f or th e s a m e o ffe n s e . I n t h e a l t e r n a ti v e , M a rti n a rg u e s th a t, i f th e d a te s w e re c on c l us i ve l y e s t a bl i s he d, t he n t het w o ph ot og r a ph s t a k e n on Dec e m be r16, 200 4, co ns t i t ut e o ne of f ens e; an d t her ef or e, t he con vi ct i onsher ec ei ved f ort he D ecem ber1 6 , 2 0 04 , photogr aphs— i ndecen cy w i t h a chi l d and agg r avat ed sexual assaul t

— const i t ut e m ul t i pl e puni shm ent s. W e di sagr ee. The f ol l ow i ng i s a l i stofM art i n’ s con vi ct i onsar i si n g f r om t he p h o to g ra p h s fo u n d o n h i s c o m p u te r: 7 2- 07- 309- CR – 05/ 28/ 2005 In d e c e n c yw ith aC h i l d (F o n d l i n g ): Pho t o ofa chi l d l ayi ng betw een an adu l tm al e’ s l egsr ea chi ng up be hi nd h e rs e l f a n d g ra s p i n g th e a d u l t m a l e ’s se x or gan . 2- 07 - 31 0- CR– 12 / 16/ 2004 In d e c e n c yw ith aC h i l d (F o n d l i n g ): Phot o ofa chi l d’ s han dsgr as pi ng t he end ofan ad ul tm al e’ s se x or gan . 2- 07 - 31 1- CR– 05 / 28/ 2005 A g g r a v a t e d S e x u a l A s s a u lto faC h ild(u n d e r 1 4 ): P h o to o f a n a d u l t m a l e ’s se xo rga n tou c h i n g the v a g i n a o f a youn g f em al e. 2- 07 - 31 2- CR– 04 / 18/ 2005 A g g r a v a t e d S e x u a l A s s a u lto faC h ild (u n d e r 1 4 ): P h o to o f a n a d u l t m a l e ’s se xo rga n tou c h i n g the v a g i n a o f a youn g f em al e. 2- 07 - 31 3- CR–12/ 16/ 2004 A g g r a v a t e d S e x u a l A s s a u lto faC h ild (u n d e r a g e1 4 ): Phot o s how i ng t he m out h ofa chi l d be i ng pe net r at ed by an adu l tm al e’ s se x or gan . 2- 07 - 31 4- CR–12/ 16/ 2004 Sexua lPerf or m anc e b y aChi l d: D i gi t al Fi l e o fa youn g f em al e e x– posi ng hergeni t al s. 2- 07 - 31 5- CR–01/08/ 2005 Sexua lPerf or m anc e b y aChi l d: D ig it a l F ile o fa y o u n g f e m a le t ouch i ng t he outs i de ofhervagi nal ar ea and spr eadi ng t he vagi nal ar ea t o som e degr ee. 2- 07 - 31 6- CR–12/ 11/ 2004 Sexua lPerf or m anc e b y aChi l d: D i gi t al Fi l e o fa youn g f em al e p ul l i ng back herpant i es and exposi ng her vagi nal ar ea. A tt r i al , t he j ur y hear d t est i m ony b y D et ect i ve M i ke W eaver , a cert i f i ed f or ens i c c om put erex am i nerw i t h t he A r l i ngt on p o l i c e de part m ent . Det ec t i ve W eavert est i f i ed ext ensi vel y on t he m et hod s he used t o det erm in e t he dat es t hatthe ph ot ogr aphs w er e t aken. O n cr oss, M art i n asked D et ect i ve W eaver
w het heri tw as possi bl e t o m ani pul at e t he dat e and t i m e on t he i m age. D e t e c t iv e W e a v e r ’s re p lyw a s , “ Is itp o s s ib le , y e s . U n lik e ly , n o . It ’s n o tlik e ly i n th i s c a s e i n m yo p i n i o n .” D ef er r i ng, as w e m us t , t o t he j ury’ s r es ol ut i on of con t r adi ct ory t es t i m onyand e v a l u a t i o n o fc r e d i b i l i t ya n d d e me a n o r , we c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e e v i d ence

s u p p o rts th e j u ry ’sre l i a n c e o n th e d a te s e s ta b l i s h e d b yD e te c ti v e W e a v e r’s t est i m ony. C onsequ ent l y, because t he pho to g ra p hs, w i t h a f ew except i ons,
w e r e t a k e n o n d if f e r e n td a t e s , M a rt in ’s c o n v ic t io n s d o n o tv io la t e t h e d o u b le j eop ar dy c l aus e. How eve r , si ncet her e w er e m ul t i pl e p uni sh m ent s f or phot ogr aph s t ak en on Dece m ber 16, 2004 , w e m us tad dr es s M art i n’ s ar gum ent th a t t h e S tate p u n i sh e d h i m tw i c e for the sa m e ac t. I n separ at e i ndi ct m ent s, t he S t at e char ged M art i n w i t h aggr avat ed sexual
as sa ul tofa chi l d u n d e r t he ageoff ourt ee n a nd i nde ce ncyw i t h a ch i l d. The
c h a rge s s tem m e d fr o m tw o p h o to g rap h s fo u n d o n M a r ti n ’s co m p u ter; b o th t ak en on Dece m ber16, 2004 . The phot ogr aph s cl ea r l y sh ow t w o s epa r at e a nd di s t i nc ta c t s ; ( 1) c on t a c tb e t w e e n S. S. ’ s h a nd s a nd M a rt i n’ s s e x or ga n a nd ( 2)
c o n ta c t b e tw e e n S . S .’s m o u th a n d M a rti n ’ss e xo rg a n . See, e. g. , Mur ray v. S tate , 24 S. W . 3d 88 1, 88 9 ( Tex . A pp. — W aco 2 00 0, pet . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng t hat def endan tm ay be conv i ct ed ofbot h i ndecen cy w i t h a ch il d a nd agg r avat ed
s e x u a l a s s a u l t w h e n e v i d e n c e i n d i c a te s th a t d e fe n d a n t p e n e tra te d v i c ti m ’s fe m a l e s e x u a l o rg a n w i th h i s fi n g e rs a n d to u c h e d h e r g e n i ta l s w i th h i s to n g u e ). Becau se t he evi dence supp ort i ng M art i n’ s i ndecen cy char ge i s not t he sam e as t h a t s u p p o rt i n g t h e e v i d e n c e f o r h i s a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t c h a r g e , t he fo rm e r w i l l n o t be d e e m e d to b e a l e ss e r i n c l u d e d o ffen se o f t h e l a tter, an d b o thm ay be pr os ec ut ed w i t houtvi ol at i ng t he doubl e j eop ar dy c l aus e. Accor di ngl y,

w e over r ul e M art i n’ s f i f t h i ssue. V I I . Ext r aneou s O ff enses I n h i s s i x th an d fi n a l i ss u e , M a rt i n c o n ten d s th a t th e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di scr et i on i n adm i t t i ng evi dence of ext r aneou s of f enses. A . St andar d ofRev i ew A t r i al court ’ s r ul i ng on t he adm i ssi bi l i t y of evi dence i s r evi ew ed und eran a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . Mo ses v. S tate , 105 S. W . 3d 622 , 627 (T e x. C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). If t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s r u lin g w a s w it h in t h e z o n e o fre a s o n a b le d i s a g re e m e n t, th e re i s n o a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . Id. Fu rt her , a t r i al c o u rt’s dec i si on r ega r di ng a dm i ss i bi l i t y of evi den cew i l l bes us t ai ned i fco r r ec ton a ny t heo r y ofl aw ap pl i ca bl e t o t he ca se , eve n w hen t he cou rt ’ s unde r l yi ng r ea so n fo r th e d e c i s i o n i s w ro n g . Ro m ero v. S tate , 800 S. W . 2d 539, 543– 44 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1990 ) ( ci t i ng Sp a nnv. S tate , 448 S . W . 2d 128 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 6 9 )). B. A ppl i cabl e Law P u r s u a n tt o ru le 4 0 4 (b ), e v id e n c e o f e x t r a n e o u s o f f e n s e s is n o ta d m is s ib le d u r in g t h e g u ilt -in n o c e n c e p h a s e o fa t r ia l t o p r o v e a d e f e n d a n ta c t e d in
con f or m i t y w i t h hi s bad ch ar ac t er . Tex. R. Evi d. 404 ( b) . H ow eve r , ex t r ane ous of f ens e e vi den cem ay be “a dm i ss i bl e f orot herpur pos es , s uch aspro ofofm ot i ve, oppo rt uni t y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i denti t y, orabsence

ofm i st ak e o rac ci den t ” w hen i tha s r el eva nce b e y o nd c har ac t erco nf or m i t y. Id .; Moses , 105 S. W . 3d a t626. Rebutt al ofa def ens i ve t heo r y i s al so one of t he per m i ss i bl e p ur pos esf or
w hi ch evi den ce m ay be adm i t t ed unde r r ul e 404 (b ). M oses , 10 5 S . W . 3d at 62 6. Th e court of cr i m i nal appeal s has hel d t hatext r aneou s of f ense evi dence i s adm i ss i bl e u nde r r ul e 404 ( b) t o r ebu t a d ef ens i ve t heo r y r ai se d i n a n ope ni ng s ta te m e n t. Ra n s o m v. S tate , 920 S. W . 2d 288, 301 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1994 ) ( op. on r eh’ g) . I n s exu al as sa ul tca s e s , e x tr ane ousof f ens e e vi den cem ay be adm i t t ed unde rr ul e 404( b) t o r ebu tde f ens i ve t heo r i esofr et al i at i on ort hatt he def endan ti s an i nno centvi ct i m ofa “f r am e- up. ” W h e eler v. S tate , 67 S . W . 3d 879 , 887 n. 22 ( Te x . Cr i m . A pp. 2002 ) ( i nvol vi ng t he def ens i ve t heo r y of
c o n s p i ra c y o r fra m e -u p m o ti v a te d b yg re e d o r m o n e y ); Moses , 10 5 S . W . 3d at 627 ( i nvol vi ng a r et al i at i on de f ens i ve t heo r y ); D enn i s v. S tate , 178 S. W . 3d 172 , 178 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2005 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( i nvol vi ng f r am e- up d e fe n s i v e th e o rym o ti v a te d b ya n g e r o r re v e n g e ). E v e n i f re l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i s o ffe re d a n d a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r ru l e 4 0 4 (b ), a t r ia l c o u rts h o u ld n e v e rt h e l e s s e x c lu d e itifit s p r o b a t iv e v a lu e iss u b s t a n t ia lly
o u tw e i g h e d b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa i r p rej u d i c e . T e x . R . E v i d . 4 0 3 ; Moses , 105 S . W . 3d at 62 6. Th e t r i al court m ust cond uct a r ul e 40 3 b al anci ng t estt o m ake8 ... Th e st at ut or y r ape char ge w a s la te rdr opp ed w hen M art i n pl eaded

g u i l tyto a l e s s e r c h a rg e o f c o n tri b u ti n g to th e d e l i n q u e n c yo f a m i n o r.

9 ... Roger s t es t i f i ed t hati n 1992, w hen s he w asar ound t he age ofni ne o r te n , M a rti n , w h i l e s ta y i n g th e n i g h t a t h e r p a re n t’s h o u s e , h a d k i s s e d h e r, had i ns ert ed hi s f i nge ri nt o he rva gi na, and had t ouc hed her i nap pr opr i at el y on th i s d e t e r m i n a ti o n . S e eMo zo nv. S tate , 9 9 1 S . W . 2 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Ba rga s v. S tate , 252 S. W . 3d 876, 890– 91 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 08 , no pet . h. ) . W hen un dert aki ng a r ul e 40 3 a n a ly s is , a t r i al
cou rtm us tba l anc e ( 1) t he i nhe r entpr oba t i ve f or ceoft he pr o ffe re d i t em of evi den ceal ong w i t h ( 2) t he pr opone nt ’ s nee d f ort hatev i den ceag ai ns t( 3) an y t end enc y oft he evi den cet o s ugge stde ci si on on an i m pr o p e r b as i s, ( 4) an y t enden cy oft he evi dence t o confuse ordi st r actt he j ur y f r om t he m ai n i ssues, ( 5) any t enden cy oft he evi dence t o be gi ven un due w ei ght by a j ur y t hathas notbe en equ i ppe d t o e val uat e t he pr oba t i ve f or ceoft he evi den ce , an d ( 6) t he l i ke l i hood t hat pr es ent at i on of t he evi den cew i l l co ns um e a n i nor di nat e a m ount
o f ti m e o r m e re l y re p e a t e v i d e n c e a l re a d ya d m i tte d . Gi gl i o b i a n c o v. S tate , 210 S .W .3 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). C . A n a ly s is M art i n c ont end s t hatt he t r i al cou rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on bype r m i t t i ng t he S t a t e t o q u e s t io n h im re g a r d in g a s t a t u t o r yra p e c h a r g e f ile d a g a in s th im in 1983. 8 H e al so ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on byal l ow i ng t he t est i m ony o fA m anda R oger s. 9 M art i n com pl ai ns t hat t he evi den ce w a s tooot herpa rt s ofhe rbody .

r em ot e t o be pr obati ve ; o r al t er nat i vel y, t hatt he pr obati ve val ue, i fany, w as subst ant i al l y outw ei ghed by i t s pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . Th e Stat e how ever , ar gues t hati ts oughtt o a dm i tt he evi den ceoft he ext r ane ous o ff ens est o r ebu t M art i n’ s def ensi ve t heor y t hathi s daughterand son- i n- l aw had “or chest r at ed t hi s eve nt . ” I n hi s ope ni ng s t at em ent , M art i n s t at ed: K e e p a n o p e n m in d u n t il y o u ’v e lis t e n e d t o a ll t h e e v id e n c e in t h is c a s e , b e c a u s e th e r e ’ s a l o t th a t h a s n ’t b e e n s a i d . W h a t y o u ’re g o i n g to fi n d o u t i s th a t i n 2 0 0 1 [S .S .] a n d h e r pa ren ts m o v e d i n to t he hous e t hat w asow ned by [ M art i n] . . . Theym ove d i n a nd t hey deci ded t hat t hey w ant ed t hathouse. W el l , t hey w er e never a b le t o g e tt h e m o n e yt o g e t h e r t o b u yt h e h o u s e . W h a tt h e yd id d o , th e h o u s e w a s d a m a g e d i n 2 0 0 2 b yh a i l a n d ra i n . . . a n d th e re w as s ubs t ant i al f undst hatw er e n eve rgi ven t o [ M art i n] . [ The f unds ] w er e p uti n [ S. S. ’ s par ent s’ ] ac cou ntan d k eptan d s om e o f t he r epa i r s w er e p ai d f or . . . . Theyne verca m e t hr ough. S u b s e q u e n t to th a t ti m e [,] th e tw o o f th e m k e p t a s k i n g [ M a rti n ],
“ W h yd o n ’ ty o u j u s tg i v e u s t h e h o u s e ? . . . A n d h e s a i d , “ N o , we h a d a d e a l th a t y o u w e re g o i n g to b u yth e h o u s e fro m m e .” A nd w h athas happened i s [ S . S . ’ s f at her ] , w ho i s a com puter expert , you’ l l f i nd w or ked on t hi s com putert hat[ M art i n] had b o u g h tin 2 0 0 5 a th is h o u s e o k a y ? T h e s e p h o t o s t h a t a r e o n t h is com pute r w i l l gi ve you a s t r i ng ofda t esofw hen s uppos edl y t he p h o to s w e re ta k e n a n d w h e n th e yw e re p l a c e d o n th e c o m p u te r. You’ l l f i nd ou tt hatal l t hos e d at esan d t i m es ca n be m ani pul at ed by a n e x p e rtt h a tk n o wsh o w t o ma n i p u l a t e t h e m. I ti s cl ea rf r om hi s ope ni ng s t at em ent , t hatM art i n r ai se d a “ fra m e- up” d e fe n s i v e th e o ry . T h e re fo re , u n d e r Moses , w e h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urt di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n det er m i ni ng t hatt he st at ut or y r ape char ge and R oger s’tes ti m o n yw e re rel e v a n t reb u ttal e v i d e n c e to s h o w the j u ry th a t S .S .’ s p a ren ts

w er e n otm ot i vat ed by gr ee d orm one y i n m ak i ng t he al l ega t i onsag ai ns tM art i n. S ee Moses , 1 0 5 S .W .3 d a t6 2 7 . H o w e v e r , a s p r e v io u s lyn o t e d , e v e n if
re le v a n tevi dence i s of f er ed and adm i ssi bl e underr ul e 40 4( b) , w e m ust
nev ert hel es s exc l udei ti fi t s pr oba t i ve val ue i s su bs t ant i al l y ou t w ei ghe d byt he d a n g e r o f u n fa i r p rej u d i c e . T e x . R . E v i d . 4 0 3 ; Moses , 105 S. W . 3d a t626. A cc or di ngl y, w e m us tco nduc ta 403 bal anc i ng t es t t o de t er m i ne w het hert he p ro b a ti v e v a l u e i s o u tw e i g h e d b y u n d u e p rej u d i c e . See Mozon , 99 1 S . W . 2d at 8 4 7 ; Bargas , 252 S. W . 3d a t891– 92. Th e f i r stoft he t hr ee f act or s— t he st r ength oft he evi dence t o m ake a f act ofco ns equ enc e m or e o rl es s pr oba bl e— w ei ghss t r ongl y i n fa vorof adm i ss i bi l i t y. Thi s i s so , pr i m ar i l y bec aus e t he evi den ceoft he st at ut ory r ape cha r ge a n d th e t es t i m ony by Roge r s w er e p r oba t i ve t o r ebu tt he def ens i ve t heor y t hatS. S . ’ s par ent s h a d f r am ed M art i n i n or dert o gett he hou se. T h e re fo re , th e a d m i s s i o n o f th i s e v i d e n c e m a k e s i t l e s s l i k e l yth a t S .S .’s al l ega t i onsco nce r ni ng t he cha r ged of f ens esw er e t he r es ul tofa f r am e- up. A s t o t he se con d a nd t hi r d f ac t or s, a l th o u gh t he evi den ceha d t he p o t e n t ia l t o i m p r e s s t h e ju r yin a n in d e lib le w a y , a n yu n f a irp r eju d ic e is
o u tw e i g h e d b y th e p ro b a ti v e v a l u e o f th e e v i d e n c e . S ee Bar gas , 252 S. W . 3d at893– 94. Fu rt her m or e, t he St at e d i d notel i ci tde t a i l e d a cc ount s oft he10 ... M art i n el i ci t ed t est i m ony fr om L. S . t o suppo rt hi s t heor y t hatL. S . , as

a c o m p u te r e x p e rt, h a d th e a b i l i tyto ta m p e r w i th h i s c o m p u te r. of f ens es , butonl y a sk ed a f ew que st i o n s i n or dert o s how s i m i l ar i t i est o t he char ged off enses. Fi nal l y, ot her t han t he det ai l s and ci r cum st ances oft he char ged off enses, t he S t at e had no ot her evi dence t o r ebut M art i n’ s def ensi ve t heor y. Ther ef or e, t he St at e d i sp l aye d a ne ed f ort he evi den cet o c ount erM art i n’ s def ens i ve t h e o r yt h a tS .S .’ s p a r e n t s w e r e t r y in g t o f r a m e h im . 10 I n b a l a n c i n g the ab o v e fac to rs, w e fi n d th a t th e tr i a l co u rt ’s d e c i sion to
a d m itt h e e x t r a n e o u s o f f e n s e e v id e n c e w a s w it h in t h e z o n e o fre a s o n a b le di sa gr ee m ent . A s su ch, w e hol d t hat t he t r i al cou rt di d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on unde rr ul e 403 i n a dm i t t i ng t he ext r ane ous of f ens e evi den ce ; and ac cor di ngl y,
w e over r ul e M art i n’ s si xt h and f i nal i ssue.V I I I . Concl us i on

H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l s i xo f M a rti n ’si s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u r t’s j u d g m e n t.

B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Nov e m be r6, 2008