NO. 0 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 3 2 - CR I N TH E CO UR T O F AP PE ALS F OR THE SEVENTH DI STRI CT OF TEXAS

AT AMAR I LLO PA NE L C JULY 30, 20 09

______________________________ PHI L ANDERSON, APPEL L ANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPEL L EE

_________________________________ FR O M T H E 364 DI S T R I C T CO U R T O F LUB B O C K CO U N T Y; TH N O. 2 0 0 5 - 4 0 9 , 5 2 2 ; H ON OR A B L E B R A D U N D E R W OOD , J U D GE

_______________________________ Befor e QU I NN , C. J. , an d HANC O CK an d PI RT LE, JJ
. MEMORA N D U M OP I N I ON Appel l ant , Phi l Ande rson , was con v i ct ed bya j ury of sex ual as sau l tof a chi l d y oun ger t han se v ent een y ears of age and sen t enc ed t o foury ears c onf i nem ent
. Appel l antco nt end s t he t r i al co urter r ed by : ( 1) pe r m i t t i ng t he St at e t o p r ese ntev i den ce of ex t r ane ous offens es w h e n th e S ta te fa ile d t o g iv e h im r e a s o n a b le n o tic e o fits in te n t to u s e th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l;Ar t i cl e 38
. 37 st at es as fol l ows: 1 Sec. 1. T hi s art i cl e ap pl i es t o a pr oceedi ng i n t he p r osecut i on o fa defendan tforan offense un de r t he fo l l ow i ng p rovi s i on s o f t he P en al C od e, i f co m m i t t ed ag ai ns ta c hi l d u nd er 17 y ea rs ofage : (1) C ha pter 21 (Se x ua l O ffen s es );

(2) C ha pter 22 (As s au l t i ve O ffen s es ); (3) S ec t i on 25
. 02 (Pro hi bi t ed S ex ua l C on du c t ); (4) S ec t i on 43
. 25 (Se x ua l P erform an c e b ya C hi l d); ( 5) an at t em ptorconsp i r acyt o com m i tan offense l i st ed i n t hi s sect i on. Sec. 2. Notwi t hst andi ng Rul es 40 4 an d 405, T exas Rul es of Ev i dence, ev i dence ofot her cr i m es, wr ongs, oract s com m i t t ed byt he defendan tagai nstt he chi l d who i s t he v i ct i m of t he al l eged offense shal l be adm i t t ed fori t s bea r i ng o n r el ev antm at t er s, i ncl udi ng:

( 1) t he st at e of

m i nd o ft he d efendan tand t he ch i l d; and ( 2) t he p r ev i ous a nd su bseque ntre l at i onshi p be tween t he d efendan tand t he chi l d. Sec. 3. O n t i m el yre questbyt he defendan t , t he st at e sha l l gi v e t he d efendan tnot i ce of t he st at e’ s i nt entt o i nt r oduce i n t he case i n chi efev i dence descr i bed bySect i on 2 i n t he sa m e m anneras t he st at e i s r equi r ed t o gi v e not i ce underR ul e 40 4( b) , T exas Rul es of Ev i dence. T e x . C o d e C rim . P ro c . A n n a rt. 3 8 .3 7 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 

### 2 and ( 2) ov er r ul i ng hi s obj ect i on t o t he St at e’ s c hal l eng e forca use of v eni r em an Ray m ond D a b i l a . W e affir m . Backg r oun d I n J ul y20 05, a Lub boc k Count yG r and Juryi ndi ct ed Appel l antforse x ual l yas sau l t i ng N. C. , a chi l d y oun gert han se v ent een y ears o fag e. O n J ul y28 , 200 6, Appel l antf i l ed a re q u e s t fo r n o tic e o fth e S ta te ’s in te n tio n to u s e e v id e n c e o fe x tr a n e o u s o ffe n s e s a t tr ia l. Appel l ant ’ s requ estsp eci f i cal l yi ncl ude d a requ estforno t i ce of the S t ate’ s i nt entt o o ffer ev i den ce att r i al pu rsua ntt o a rt i cl e 3 8. 37 of t he Tex as Code of

Cr i m i nal Pr oce dure. 1

### 3

I n resp ons e, t he St at e f i l ed i t s Notice of Extr ane ous O f

f ens es and Pr

ior Convictions . I n p ar agraph on e o ft hatno t i ce, t he St at e e x pr ess ed i t s i nt entt o o fferev i den ce att r i al of “[ a ]nyan d all m a tt e rs re l a ti n g t o th e m u ltip l e offe n s e s ofS e xu a l A s s a u l t, vi c ti m N .C ., occ ur r i ng on orab outJa nua ry 1, 200 5 unt i l Apr i l 30, 200 5, Lub boc k County , Tex as. ” O n t he sam e da y , t he St at e a l so f i l ed i t s wi t nes s l i stwhi ch i ncl ude d, am ong ot hers, Dom i ni que A n d e rso n an d tw o fo ren s i c i n tervi e w e rs w i th th e C h i l d A d vo c a c yC e n ter (C A C ). Ata pr et r i al he ar i ng i n 2 006 , Appe l l antm ade a bl ank etobj ect i on t o t he St at e’ s n ot i ce a s “ va g u e ,” an d sp e c i fica l l yob j e c te d t o p a rag rap h s tw o t h rou g h eigh t. T h e t ri a l co u rt sus t ai ned Appe l l ant ’ s o bj ect i on and i ndi cat ed t he St at e n eed ed t o s upp l em entt he not i ce i fi ti nt end ed t o u se t he ev i den ce att r i al
. O n J une 6, 20 08, t he St at e f i l ed i t s s upp l em ent al n o tic e . P a ra g ra p h te n o fth a t n o tic e s ta te d th e S ta te in te n d e d to o ffe r a t tr ia l “[a ]n y a n d a ll m a tt e rs re la tin g to th e m u ltip le o ffe n s e s o fS e x u a l A s s a u lt, I n d e c e n c y w ith a c h ild , v ic tim , N .C ., a m i n o r c h i l d oc c u rr i n g on or a b o u t J a n u a ry1, 2 0 0 3 t h rou g h Ju l y1, 2 0 0 5 .” Att r i al , ov erAppe l l ant ’ s o bj ect i on, N. C. and Dom i ni que A nde rson w er e b ot h a l l owed t o t est i fyt o i nst anc es of se x ual co nt actbetween Appel l antand N. C. , ot hert han t he offens e reli e d up o n byt h e S tate i n su p p o rtoft h e all e g a ti o n s co n taine d i n t h e i n d i c tm e n t. A j u ry foun d App el l antgui l t yof sex ual assau l tof a m i norchi l d und ersev ent een y ears o fag e a nd, fo l l o w i n g t h e pu n i s h m e n t p h a s e oft ri a l , a s s e s s e d A p p e l l a n t’ s se n ten c e at fo u r y e a rs c o n fine m e n t. T h i s ap p e a l fo l l o w e d
.

### 4 Di scu ssi on Appel l antco nt end s t hatDom i ni que ’ s a nd N. C. ’ s t est i m onyr ega r di ng ex t r ane ous o ffe n s e s s h o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a d m itte d b e c a u s e th e S ta te d id n o t g iv e h im re a s o n a b le not i ce ofi t s i n t e n tt o u s e t h e t e s t i m o n ya tt r i a l
. A s a r e s u l t , A p p e l l a n ta s s e rt s h i s cr oss ex am i nat i on of

Dom i ni qu e, N
. C
. , an d a CAC for ens i c e x am i nerwas i nhi bi t ed orl ess e ff e c ti ve. H e al so assert s t he t r i al courter r ed byov er r ul i ng hi s obj ect i on t o t he State cha l l eng i ng v eni r em an Ray m ond Dabi l a forca use . The St at e a sse rt s suffi ci entno t i ce of t he ex t r ane ous offens e e v i den ce was g i v en t h r o u g h t h e St a t e ’ s o r i g i n a l a n d s u p p l e m e n t a l not i ce s o fe x t r a n e o u s o ffe n se s; CAC i nt erv i ews; Chi l d Prot ect i v e Serv i ces ( CP S) r eco r ds; an d o t herdi sco v eryf r om t he St at e. T h e S tate also as s e rt s t h e t ri a l co u rtpro p e rl ygra n ted t h e S tate ’ s ch a l l e n g e fo r c a u s e t o ve n i rem a n D a b i l a be c a u s e he t e s ti fied t h a t, du ri n g t h e p roc e e d i n g s , h e w o u l d b e un a b l e t o putou tof

hi s m i nd t he fal se acc usa t i on of a si m i l aroffens e m ade ag ai nsta cl ose f r i end
. I . 38. 37 Not i ce Att r i al , D et ect i v e Dw ay ne Dur ham , Lubb ockPol i ce Depart m ent , t est i f i ed t hat , du r i ng h i s i n v e st i g a t i o n , App e l l a n tsi g n e d a wr i t t e n co n fe ss i o n d e sc r i b i n g a s i n g l e s e xa ctwi t h N. C. The wr i t t en con fess i on was a dm i t t ed a tt r i al wi t hou tobj ect i on. Dom i ni que t est i f i ed t o a n ey ewi t nes s a cco untof a di ffer ent i nci den t , occ ur r i ng wi t hi n t he t i m e p er i od des i gna t ed i n t he St at e’ s s upp l em ent al no t i ce, where App el l antse x ual l yas sau l t ed N. C. an d N. C. t es t i f i edT h e tr ia l t r a n s c r ip t a ls o in d ic a te s c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n b y A p p e lla n t’s c o u n s e l s p a n n e d a p p r o x im a te ly 2 fo u rte e n p a g e s . A s u b s ta n ti a l p o rti o n o f t h e c ro s s -e x a m i n a ti o n w a s d e v o te d to d i s c re d i ti n g h e r te s ti m o n yw i th i n c o n s i s te n t s ta te m e n ts re l a te d to th e fre q u e n c ys h e a n d A p p e l l a n t e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l a c ts
.

Appel l antdoe s notchal l enge t he a dm i ssi bi l i t yof t he e xt r aneou s offense ev i dence bu t onl yt he 3 r easona bl eness oft he St at e’ s not i ce. Art i cl e 38
. 37 p r ov i des t hata defendan twho t i m el yr equest s not i ce of t he St at e’ s i nt entt o i nt r oduce ext r aneou s offenses dur i ng t he case- i n- chi ef i s ent i t l ed t o no t i ce “ i n t he sa m e m a n n e r a s th e s ta te i s re q u i re d to g i v e n o ti c e u n d e r R u l e 4 0 4 (b ). S up ra , n. 1. Rul e 40 4( b) pr ov i des t hatt he n o ti c e o f th e S ta te ’ s i n te n t n e e d o n l yb e re a s o n a b l e . See T ex. R
. Ev i d. 404 ( b)
. T he St at e do es no tcont est t he a dequa cyof

Appel l ant ’ s r equestforsuch not i ce. 

### 5 gen er al l yt hatsh e a nd Appel l an t e ng aged i n m ul t i pl e s exac t s–twi ce a m ont h d ur i ng t hat sam e t i m e p er i od. A pp el l ant ’ s o bj ect i ons t o t hi s e v i den ce of ex t r ane ous offens es was 2 o ve rr u l e d
. W e rev i ew cl ai m s c hal l eng i ng t he adm i ssi on of ev i den ce of

ex t r ane ous offens es for an abu se of

di scret i on and wi l l affi r m the tr i al co urt ’ s d eci si on i fi ti s wi t hi n t he zon e o f rea s o n a b l e d i s a g ree m e n t. M c D o n a ldv. S tate , 1 7 9 S .W .3d 57 1 , 5 7 6 ( T e x.C ri m .A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). Ifa n a b u s e o fd is c re tio n is fo u n d b e c a u s e n o tic e w a s u n re a s o n a b le , a h a r m a n a ly s is is 3 req u i red u n d e r T e xa s R u l e o f A p p e l l a n t P roc e d u re 44 .2. Wa lla c e v . S tate , 13 5 S. W
. 3d 114 , 118 ( Tex
. App. –Ty l er20 04, no pe t
. )
. Not i ce i s u nr eas ona bl e i ft he acc use d was su r pr i sed b yt h e ev i d e n c e ; S h a rp v. S tate , 2 1 0 S .W .3d 83 5 , 8 3 9 ( T e x.A p p .–A m a ri l l o 20 0 6 , n o pe t. ) ( ci t i ng H e rna n d e zv. S tate , 1 7 6 S .W .3 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 5 -2 6 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 2 0 0 5 )) , a n d h a rm f u l i f t he l ackof r eas ona bl e not i ce affect ed t he acc use d’ s a bi l i t yt o m oun tan ad equ at e d efens e; M c D o n a ld, 179 S. W
. 3d at57 9, e.g ., affect ed hi s a bi l i t yt o p r epa r e c r oss - ex am i nat i on or p res e n t m i ti g a ti n g ev i d e n c e . Wa lla c e v. S tate , 1 3 5 S .W .3d at 1 1 8 -19
. See Her nan dez , 17 6 S. W
. 3d at82 5- 26.A pp el l ant ’ s r el i ance on B u c h a n a n v . S ta te , 9 1 1 S .W .2 d 1 1 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (e n b a n c ), is 4 m i spl aced. I n Buchanan , t he C ou rtof C ri m i na l A pp ea l s h el d t ha tthe S t ate’ s n oti c e i s u nre as on ab l e w he re th e s o l e re fe re n c e to th e e x tra n e o u s o ff e n s e is a n o ff e n s e re p o rt i n th e p o l i c e fi l e . I d. at15 ( open f i l e po l i cy a l o n e i s i n s u ff i c i e n t n o ti c e o f S ta te ’ s i n te n t t o i n tro d u c e s u c h e v i d e n c e i n i ts c a s e -in -c h i e f)
. 

### 6 Her e, pa r agraph t en of t he St at e’ s s upp l em ent al no t i ce cou pl ed wi t h t he produ ct i on o fD o m in iq u e ’s vid e o t a p e d s ta te m e n t w e ll in a d v a n c e o ftria l g a v e A p p e lla n t re a s o n a b le n o ti c e oft h e na tu re an d co n ten t o f D o m i n i q u e ’ s ex p e c ted t e s ti m o n yan d t h a t the S tate i n ten d e d t o us e t h a t te s tim o n y a t tri a l
. S e e H a yd e n v. S tate , 66 S. W
. 3d 269 , 27 2 ( Tex
. Cr i m . App. 20 01)
. Thi s i s p art i cul ar l yso where, as he r e, Appe l l ant ’ s c oun sel di d n ot 4 di spu t e rece i v i ng act ual not i ce of D om i ni que ’ s v i deo t ape d st at em enti n t i m e t o p r epa r e for tr i a l ; Hayde n , 6 6 S .W .3d at 2 7 2 , a n d t h e S tate offe red D o m i n i q u e as a w i tne s s pri m a ri l yt o d e s c ri b e h i s e y e w i tne s s a c c o u n t o f the e xtran e o u s o ff e n s e . See Her nan dez , 17 6 S. W
. 3d at82 6. Furt her , con si der i ng how r el ev ant an ey ewi t nes s a cco untof an ex t r ane ous offens e w o u l d be i n t h e pro s e c u ti o n o f a s e xu a l a s s a u l t c h a rge , i t s tra i n s c red u l i tyt o t h i n k t h e S tate w o u l d no t h a ve i n ten d e d t o us e D o m i n i q u e ’ s ey e w i tne s s a c c o u n t a t tr i a l
. I d. T h e s a me a n a ly s is a p p lie s to th e vid e o ta p e d in te rv ie w s o fN .C . a n d D o m in iq u e b y C A C fo re n s ic i nt erv i ewers. A s s u m i n g , a s A p p e l l a n t s u g g e s ts, the S tate ’ s disc o ve rydid n o t c o n tain s tate m e n ts byN. C. t hatsh e a nd Appel l antha d p erfor m ed n um erou s sexac t s o v era per i od of t i m e, p a rag rap h ten o f the S tate ’ s s u p p l e m e n tal n o ti c e p u t A p p e l l a n t o n n o ti c e th a t th e S ta te in te n d e d to o ffe r s u c h e v id e n c e . In a d d itio n , p r io rt o h e r te s tim o n y, th e S ta te s p e c if ic a lly i nfor m ed Appel l antt hatN. C. ’ s t est i m onyw oul d i ncl ude su ch ex t r ane ous ac t s a nd, al t hou ghA p p e l l a n t’ s b rie f i s u n c le a rw h e th e rh e i s a l s o a p p e a l i n g th e s u ff i c i e n c yo f th e S ta te ’ s n o ti c e o f i ts 5 i n te n t t o u s e e v i d e n c e o f e x tra n e o u s o ff e n s e s i n th e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e . See A rti c l e 3 7 .0 7 , § 3 (g ). P rio r to begi nni ng t he p uni shm entpha se, bot h pa rt i es annou nced t hei r r eadi ness. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t he St at e r eur ged i t s ev i dence offer ed d ur i ng t he g ui l t/ i nnocen ce ph ase o ft he t r i al and , dur i ng i t s cl osi ng a r gum entt o t he j ury , m ade speci f i c r efer ence t o t he e xt r aneou s offense descr i bed byD om i ni que. Appel l antm ade no o bj ect i on t o t he St at e’ s ev i de nc e orj ur ya r gum ent a nd, a s a r es ul t , p r es erv ed n o i ss ue fora pp ea l
. Tex. R. Ap p. P. 3 3 .1 (a ). S e e C o c kre ll v . S ta te , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d 7 3 , 8 9 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); Vo n B yrdv . S ta te , 569 S. W
. 2d 8 83, 8 8 9 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 7 8 ), cert
. den ied , 4 4 1 U .S . 9 6 7 , 9 9 S .C t. 2 4 1 8 , 6 0 L .E d .2 d 1 2 3 , reh’ g de nied , 44 4 U
. S. 8 8 8 , 1 0 0 S .C t. 1 9 0 , 6 2 L .E d .2 d 1 2 3 (1 9 7 9 ). 

### 7 Appel l antobj ect ed, he di d n otse ek a c ont i nua nce t o b et t erprepa r e h i s c r oss - ex am i nat i on. Mor eov er , N. C. ’ s t est i m onyde scr i bed a con t i nuo us sex ual r el at i ons hi p wi t h App el l ant spa nni ng t he t i m e per i od des i gna t ed by t he not i ce. Under t he ci r cum st anc es, we ca nn ot s a yt h e t ri a l co u rt ’ s r u l i n g w a s ou tside t h e zo n e ofr e a s o n a b l e disa g ree m e n t. Thatsa i d, ev en i fwe were t o f i nd t hatt he t r i al courter r ed byadm i t t i ng t he ev i den ce, Appel l antas sert s n o m or e t han a gen er al i nab i l i t yt o c ond uctcross - ex am i nat i on orde v el op m i t i gat i ng ev i den ce as a resu l t
. He do es notatt em ptt o e st abl i sh how hi s d efens e s t r at egy m i ghtha v e d i ffer ed orwhet herhe was una bl e t o pr epa r e hi s defens e. The r eco r d, on t he ot herha nd, r ef l ect s App el l antr ece i v ed suff i ci entno t i ce t o pr epa r e fo rt r i al , hi s s t r at egyat t r i al was t o di scredi tt he t est i m onyof Dom i ni que an d N. C. an d h i s c r oss - ex am i nat i on was l eng t hyan d v i gorous . Appel l ant ’ s f i rsti ssu e i s o v er r ul ed. 5W het herAppel l antpr eserv ed h i s com pl ai ntforapp eal i s notdi sput ed. 6 

### 8 I I . Chal l eng e forCaus e Appel l ant ’ s s eco nd i ssu e a sse rt s t he t r i al co urter r ed i n g r anti ng a cha l l eng e for cau se byt he St a t e o f a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r wh o a l l e g e d l y e x p r e s s e d a b i a s i n fa v o rof A p p e l l a n t. 6 A cha l l eng e forca use i s “ an obj ect i on m ade t o a pa rt i cul arj uror , al l egi ng som e fact t hatr end ers t he j urori nc apa bl e o run f i tt o s erv e o n t he j ury . ” Art i cl e 3 5. 16( a) ( Ver non 200 6)
. A cha l l eng e forca use m aybe m ade on t he groun d t hata prosp ect i v e j urori s b i ase d orprej udi ced for orag ai nstt he defend ant
. Art i cl e 3 5. 16 ( a) ( 9)
. “ Bi as” m ean s a n i ncl i nat i on t oward o ne si de of

an i ssu e rat hert han t o t he ot herl ead i ng t o t he nat ur al i nfer enc e t hatt he j u ror w i l l n o t a c t w i th i m p a rt i a l i ty
. A n d e rso n v. S tate , 63 3 S. W
. 2d 851 , 85 3 ( Tex
. Cr i m . App. 1 9 8 2 ). I fbi as orprej udi ce i s n otes t abl i she d a s a m at t erof l aw, t he t r i al co urtha s d i scret i on t o deter m i ne w he t he r bi as or prej ud i ce ac t ua l l y exi sts t o suc h deg r ee t ha t a p ro sp ec t i ve j u ror i s disq u a l i fied an d t h a t the ch a l l e n g e f o r c a u s e sh o u l d be su s taine d
. L ittle v. S tate , 7 5 8 S
. W
. 2 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 6 ( Te x . Cr i m . Ap p . 1 9 8 8 ) ( c i t i n g Ander son , 63 3 S. W
. 2d at85 4)
. I ft he prosp ect i v e j urori s s hown t o b e b i ase d as a m at t erof l aw, he orsh e m ustbe ex cus ed when c h a lle n g e d , e v e n if h e o r s h e s ta te s th a t s h e c a n s e t a s id e h e r b ia s a n d p ro v id e a fa ir tr ia l. T ran v. S tate , 2 2 1 S .W .3d 79 , 8 3 -84 ( T e x.A p p .–H o u s ton [ 1 4 D i s t. ] 2 0 0 5 , p e t. r e f’d). th

### 9

W e r evi ew t he voi

r di r e r e c o r d i n i t s e n t i r e t y a n d a s k wh e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u rt h ad a rati o n a l b a s i s fo r i ts c o n c l u s i o n s ; G ran a d o sv . S tate , 85 S. W
. 3d 217 , 23 1 ( Tex
. Cr i m . App. 200 2) , whi l e a ffordi ng t he t r i al co urtc on si de r abl e d efer enc e, be cau se i ti s i n t he bes t p o s i ti o n t o ev a l u a te a p ros p e c ti ve juro r’ s d e m e a n o r a n d r e s p o n s e s . R u s s e a uv. S tate , 17 1 S. W
. 3d 87 1, 8 79 (T ex. Cr i m . App. 20 05)
. W e wi l l t hus r ev erse a t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng on a c h a l l e n g e fo r c a u s e on l yfo r a n ab u s e ofdisc reti o n . I d. Thi s i s esp eci al l yt r ue when t he t r i al c o u rti s fa c e d w i th a va c i l l a ti n g or e q u i vo c a ti n g pro s p e c ti ve j u ror. Kin gv . S tate , 29 S. W
. 3d 5 5 6 , 5 6 8 (T e x . C r im .A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (p a rt ic u la r d e fe re n c e is g iv e n w h e n th e p o te n tia l j u ro r’s a n s w e rs a re va c i l l a ti n g , u n c l e a r, or c o n tra d i c tory ). Dur i ng j uryse l ect i on, pr osp ect i v e j urorD abi l a adv i sed t hata good f r i end ha d b een cha r ged wi t h s ex ual as sau l tof a chi l d und ersev ent een y ears ofag e. The fol l owi ng col l oqu y o c c u rr e d be tw e e n t h e S tate , A p p e l l a n t, an d t h e t ri a l co u rt : ST AT E: Mr
. Dabi l a, y ou i ndi cat ed t haty ou had a f r i end t hatwas acc use d. D A B ILA : Y e s , s i r. ST AT E: And t hatt he v i ct i m r eca nt ed i n t hat cas e a nd t hatt hatca se ki nd of w e n t a w a y ; i s t h a t ri g h t? D A B ILA : Y e s , s i r. ST AT E: Anyt hi ng abo ut t he way t hatwas han dl ed byt he pol i ce dep art m ent ort he Di st r i ct At t or ney ’ s off i ce or anyt hi ng l i ke t hat woul d i nf l uen ce i n a ca se suc h a s t hi s? DA BI LA: W el l , co nsi der i ng t hati tt ookawhi l e a nd whatt heydi d t o h i m , i tki nd o fh u rtm e , to o , b e c a u s e h e w a s a g o o d f rie n d o f m in e a n d I k n e w h e h a d n ’t

### 10

don e i t , b u t t h e y we r e a c c u s i n g h i m o f d o i n g s o m e t h i n g t h a t wh e n y o u j ust hug so m ebo dy , i t ’ s j usta hug
. I t ’ s n ott hatt hi ng. ST AT E: Do y ou t hi nk t hatt hatwoul d b e s om et hi ng t ha t w ou l d be on y our m i nd and de pen di ng on t he fact s a nd ci r cum st anc es cou l d m ake y ou t hi nk of th a t w h ile yo u ’re d e lib e ra tin g o n th is c a s e a n d c o u ld in f lu e n c e y o u r v e rd ic t in t hi s c ase ? DA BI LA: I t woul d bec aus e a s l ong — I woul d s ayy ou l ookathi m , an d h e’ s a goo d f r i end an d e v eryt hi ng, an d t hen sh e t ur ned aroun d and sai d l i es abo ut h im , yo u k n o w . A n d p lu s th a t, w h a t h u rtm o re , w a tc h in g h im
— h is o w n fa m ily g o ta k e n a w a y f ro m h im
– S T A T E : O k a y. D A B ILA : –a n d t h a t w a s n ’ t ri g h t. S T A T E : T h a n k y o u , s i r. W e ch a l l e n g e fo r c a u s e , Y o u r H o n o r. DE FENS E: I ’ v e g ota cou pl e o fqu est i ons . C O U R T : A l ri g h t. D E F E N S E : M r. D a b ila , a re y o u s a yi n g th a t yo u r e x p e rie n c e w o u ld m a k e it wher e y ou woul d a ut om at i cal l yv ot e forno tgu i l t yi n a l l ega t i ons l i ke t hi s? D A B ILA : I’ d ha ve t o r e a l l yl o o k at the ev i d e n c e fi rst. DE FENS E: W el l , l etm e p uti tt o y ou ki nd of f l i p s i de of t hat
. I f y ou bel i ev ed t ha t the S t at e h ad prov ed t hei rca se beyond a r eas ona bl e d oub t , co ul d y ou fol l ow t he l aw an d v ot e g ui l t yi ft hatwas whaty ou– DA BI LA: I tde pen ds on t he ev i den ce. I ’ d h av e t o l oo k at the ev i den ce and t ake t he j udg m ent
. And t hen I ’ d st i l l be t hi nki ng abo utwhatha ppe ned t o m y f r i end , t hou gh. CO UR T: Le tm e a sk y ou a q ues t i on , s i r . Based on whatha ppe ned t o y our f r i end
— DA BI LA: Un- huh
. CO UR T: Do y ou feel t hatt hatm i ghti nf l uen ce y ourv erdi cti n t hi s c ase ?S e e C h a u n c e y v . S ta te , 8 3 7 S .W .2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 1 -8 2 (T e x .A p p .– E l P a s o 1 9 9 2 ), a f f’d , 877 S. W
. 2d 3 05 7 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 4) ( t r i al court ’ s r ul i ng i n fav or ofst at e’ s chal l enge forcause uph el d wher e pr ospect i v e j ur or d e m o n s tra te d b i a s i n fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t b e c a u s e a fa m i l ym e m b e r s u ff e re d fr o m a l c o h o l a b u s e ); Burton v . S ta te , 8 0 5 S .W .2 d 5 6 4 , 5 6 8 ( T e x .A p p . – D a l l a s 1 9 9 1 , p e t. r e f ’d ) ( tr ia l c o u rt’s r u lin g in fa v o ro fs ta te ’s chal l enge forcause uph el d wher e prospect i v e j ur ordem onst r at ed bi as i n f av orofdef endan tbeca use h erson h a d re c e n tl yb e e n a rr e s te d fo r c a r th e ft); P e te e t v . S ta te , 631 S. W
. 2d 8 16, 817 ( T ex. App. –For tW ort h 19 82, no p et
. ) ( t r i al court ’ s r ul i ng i n fav orof st at e’ s chal l enge forcause uph el d wher e pr ospect i v e j ur ordem onst r at ed b i a s i n fa v o r o f d e fe n d a n t b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n c h a rg e d w i th b u rg l a ry a s a ju v e n i l e ). 

### 11 DA BI LI A: I t hi nk i twoul d. CO UR T: O kay
. The c hal l eng e i s s ust ai ned
. D u rin g e x a m in a tio n b y th e S ta te a n d th e tria l c o u rt , D a b ila in d ic a te d th a t h is f rie n d ’s exp er i enc e “ woul d” i nf l uen ce hi s v erdi ct
. Al t hou gh Dabi l a t est i f i ed dur i ng ex am i nat i on by Appel l ant ’ s c oun sel t hathe woul d h av e t o l ookatt he ev i den ce befor e co nvi ct i ng, he n e ve rt h e l e s s r e i tera ted t h a t h e w o u l d “ s ti l l be t h i n k i n g ab o u t w h a t h a p p e n e d to m yfri e n d .” Undert he ci r cum st anc es, we f i nd t he t r i al co urtdi d not abu se i t s di scret i on i n s ust ai ni ng t he St at e’ s c hal l eng e forca use . Appel l ant ’ s s eco nd i ssu e i s o v er r ul ed. 7 Concl usi on The t r i al co urt ’ s j udg m enti s a ff i r m ed.

Pat r i ck A. Pi rt l e Ju st i ce Do no tpu bl i sh.