## NO. 12-08-00174-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

TOMMY R OBINSON, § APPEAL F ROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION A jury convicted A

ppellant, Tommy

Robinson, of the offe nse of a g g ravated s exual assault of
a c hil d an d ass e sse d his pun ishme nt at imp ri so nme nt fo r lif e and a $1 0, 00 0 f

ine . App e lla

nt p re se nts five issues on appe al, three of which r elate to the modific ation of the indictment, t he fourth to the trial judge ’s rulingon Appellant’s motion for mistrial, and the f ifth to the admissi on of evide nce of
e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant is the bi ologic al father of two sisters of the ten year old victim. The victim often visited in Appellant’s home. Appe llant does not challeng e the sufficienc y of the e vidence . There fore , n o r e c i t at i o no f

th e f a c t s o f th e o f f e n s e i s n e c e s s ar

y. I n th e indic tment returne d by the grand jury , Appellant wa s char g ed with the ag g ravated sexual assault of a child, the first para g raph alleg ing Appellant committed the offe nse by causingthe contac t and penet ration of the victim’s mouth wit h his sex ual org an. The second pa ragraph a lleg ed that Appellant ca

used the c ontact and pe netration of t he victim ’s s exual org an with his sexual orga n, hand, and fing er. O n Marc h 13, 2008, the State moved to “amend” the indictment by entirely deletingthe2

alleg ations i n t h e first paragraph a nd by deleting“conta ct” f

rom the alleg ations in the second para g raph. Adocket e ntry shows the t rial court g rante d the S tate’s moti on to amend the indictment and Appe llant’s motion for a trial continuance of ten da y s. The re cord c ontains no order g rantingthe State’s motion. Be fore voir dire e x amination on Marc h 24, 2008, the State re urg ed its motion, and the visiting judg e assig ned to tr y the case g rante d the State’s motion over Appe llant’s objection. The indictment was not altere d to r efle ct the deletion of the alleg ations the State soug ht to abandon, nor
wa s a mod if ie d v e rs ion

of the ind ic tme nt re fl e c tin g tho se c ha ng e s inc or

po ra te d in the re c or d. In it s char g e, the tria l court submitted only those alleg ations rema ining in the indictment after the granting of the State’s motion.

M OD I FI C A TI ON OF THE I NDI CT M E NT Ap pe lla nt’ s f ir st thr e e iss ue s r e late to what he a sse rt s w a s th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to a c c o m p lis h the amendme nt of the indictment. Appli cable Law An amendme nt to the char g ing instrument is subj ect to the l imitations and re quirements set out in Tex as Code of Criminal Proce dure a rticle 28.10. Ar tic le 28 .1 0 p ro vid e s a s f

oll ow s:
( a) Af t er n ot i ce t o t h e def

en dan t , a ma t t er of

f or m or s u bs t an ce i n a n i n di ct men t or i n f or mat i on m ay b e am end ed at any t i m e b ef o re t he d at e t he t ri al o n the m eri t s co m m ences. O n t he reque st of t he def en dan t , t h e cou r t s h al l a l l ow t h e def en dan t n ot l es s t h an 10 day s , or a s h or t er per i od i f r equ es t ed by t he d ef end ant , t o res p o nd t o t he am end ed i nd i ct m ent or i nf o rma t i o n. ( b) A mat t er of

f orm or s ubs t anc e i n a n i ndi ct ment or i nf ormat i on may al s o be a mended af t er the trial o n the m e rits c o m m e n c e s if the d e fen d a n t d o e s n o t o b je c t.

(c ) A n in d ic tm e n t o r in fo rm a tio n m a y no t b e a m e n d e d o v e r th e d e fen d a n t’s o b je c tio n a s to f orm or s ubs t anc e i f t he amended i ndi ct ment or i nf ormat i on cha r ges t he def endan t wi t h a n a dd i t i onal or di f f er en t of f en s e or i f

t h e s u bs t an t i al r i g h t s of t h e def en dan t a r e pr ej u di ce d.
T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 28.10 (V ernon 2006)

. “Ne ither the [state ’s ] motion [ to amend] nor the trial judg e’s grantingthere of is an amendment; rather the two c omprise the author ization for the eventua l amendme nt of the cha rg ing instrument pursuant to Article 28.10.” Rine y v . St ate , 28 S.W .3d 561, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)3

(qu o t i n g Wa rd

v . St ate , 829 S.W .2d 787, 793 (Tex. C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 92)). An a cce ptable mea ns of
acc omplishi ngan ame ndment is by the ac tual phy sical alter at i o n o f the fa ce of the cha rg ing instrument. Id. But it is also acc eptable for the state to pr offe r its amended version of a photocopy of the orig inal indictment. Id . I f appr oved by

the trial cour

t, the amended photocopy must be incorpora ted into the rec ord under the direc tion of the trial court. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art
. 28 .1 1 ( Ve rn on

20 06 ); Rin ey , 28 S.W .3d at 565-66. There are situat i o n s , h o weve r, whe re modification of the indictment constitutes an abandonme nt and not an ame ndment subject to t h e re qu i re m ents of ar ticle 28.10, eve n though the modification is acc omplished by a phy sical alteration to the face of the cha rg ing instrument. Eastep
v . St ate , 941 S.W .2d 130, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), overruled on othe r grounds , Rine y v . St ate , 28 S.W .3d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Eastep identified three situations where modification of the char g ing instrument is an a bandonment, rathe r than an amendment: (1) abandonme nt of one or mor e of the a lternative me ans by which an of

fense may b e co mmitt ed; (2) a bandonment of a

n alleg ation if the ef fec t is to reduce the prosec u t i o n to a lesser included off

ense; a nd (3) a bandonment of surplusag e. Eastep , 941 S.W .2d at 135. Abandonments a re not g overne d by

the stricture s imposed by article s 28.10 and 28.11. Id. An abandonment of one of t he theories char g ed for the commission of an offe nse is a

n abandonme nt e ven though denominated an amendment by the state in its motion. See Ga rc ia v

. St ate , 537 S.W .2d 930, 933 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). “I f the c harg ing instrument contains multiple counts or para g raphs c harg ing a lternative w ay s of c o m m i t t ing the offe nse, abandonme nt of as many as all but one of those counts o r par agraphs is per missibl e and doe s not constitute an ame ndment.” 44 Ge org e E. Di x & Robe rt O. Da wson, T EX A S P RACT I CE : C R I MI NAL P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE DURE § 21.65 (2d ed. 2001)

. Discussion Appellant complains in his first issue that the trial court err ed by permitting the State to amend the indictment on the date of trial over his objec tion. In his second issue, he c ontends the trial cour t e rr e d “ by no t a llo wi ngthe ind ictme nt t o b e c ha ng e d o r a lte re d o r h avin gan e ff e c tiv e ind ic tme nt i n place prior to trial.” In his third issue, he maintains “the trial court commit ted error by not havingthe jury char g e conf

orm to the indictment in the case .” Appellant’s f

i rs t t h ree issues assume the a lterations to the indictment constituted an4

amendment. How ever , we conclude the chang es sought by the S tate and approve d by the trial cour t wer e simply

an aba ndonment of alleg ations of the manne r and me ans of committ ing the offe nse and
wer e not an amendment g overne d by article 28.10. The subst ance of the re maining a lleg ations was
no t a ff e c te d. Th e state may a

ba nd on an all e g atio n as t o ma nn e r o r m e ans of

c omm itt ingan o ff

e ns e an d p r o c e e d o n any r e ma in in g o f f e n se. E a step , 9 41 S.W. 2d at 13 3. Th e re fo re , th e re str ic tio n in article 28.10 limit ing the amendment of an indictment or infor

mation to “any

time before the date the trial on the merits commenc es” is inapplica ble. Appellant’ s first issue contending the t rial cour t erre d in gr anting , over his objec tion, an amendment on the date trial commenc ed is overr uled. Be cause we hold that the chang es in the indictment repre sented a n abandonme nt and not an amendment, Appe llant’s second issue c omplaining of the t rial court’s failure to phy sically alter the indictment to r efle ct the amendment or to inc orporate in the rec ord an altere d photocopy showingthe chang es is likewise without merit. Abandonme n t d o es not require such an a lteration of the indictment. Appellant’s sec ond issue is overrule d. Ap p e l l an t ’ s th i r d i s s u e c o mp l a i n s th at th e j ur y c h ar g e d i d n o t c o n f

o r m t o th e ind ic tme nt. Howeve r, the trial c ourt’s cha rg e did not submit any

of the a bandoned a lleg ations but only the
rema ining a lleg ation that Appellant committed the off ense by causingthe pene tration of the victim’s fema le sexual org an with his sexual orga n, hand, and f

inge r. Appe llant’s third issue is overruled.

D EN IAL O F M I S T RI AL In his fourth issue, Appellant contends “[t] he trial court c ommitt ed er ror by g rantinga mistrial based on misconduc t by

a State’s witness, then r econside ringand deny ing the mistrial.” Stand ard of Review an d App licable Law A court’s denial of a mi strial is reviewe d for a buse of discr etion. Archie v . St ate , 221 S.W .3d 69 5, 69 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ). On ly in e xtre me c ir c ums tanc e s whe re the pr e jud ic e is i nc ur a

ble will a mi strial be re quired. Hawkin s v . St ate , 135 S.W .3d 72, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The trial court’s r uling must be upheld if it is wit hin the zone of rea sonable disagree ment. We ad v . St ate , 129 S.W. 3d 12 6, 12 9 ( Te x. Cr im. App

. 20 04 ). “ [A] tr ia l c ourt may pr op e rl y e xer c ise its dis c re tio n to decla re a mistrial if an i m p ar t i al v erdic t cannot be r eac hed, or if a verdic t of conviction could be
rea ched but would have to be reverse d on appea l due to an obvious procedura l error .” La dd v . St ate ,5

3 S.W .3d 547, 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). This determination mu s t b e m ad e b y examining the particula r fa cts of the c ase. Id. Discussion In the cr oss examination of Tony Dana , an investig ator for the Smith C ounty

Sh eriff’s Depa rtment, the followingexchang e occ urre d:

M R . T H O M P S O N : T h e se x u a l as sa u lt re fer re d to in this c a se - - M R

. D A N A : Y es. M R . T H O M P S O N : - - no t t h e d o z e n s o f o the rs tha t yo u ha v e inv e stiga te d , i n this c a se - - M R

. D A N A : Y es, s i r. M R . T H O M P S O N : - - is alle g e d to ha v e o c c u rr e d o n J u ly t h e 2 1 st; i s tha t co rr e c t? M R

. D A N A : I d o n’t rec all ex ac t l y w he n, b ec au se i n t his ca se, i t i s b eli ev ed t ha t t his i s no t
- - t his - - t h is is no t an iso la te d inc id e n t. M R

. T H O M P SO N : O b ject i o n, Y o ur H o no r. T H E COU RT : O u t
. J u r y - - t a k e t h e j u r y do w n t o t h e j u r y r oo m. (J u ry le a v e s the c o u rtro o m .) (O p e n c o u rt, d e fen d a n t p re se n t, n o ju ry.) T H E C O U R T : C o u n se l? M R

. T H O M P S O N : W e w o u ld c e rta inly o b je c t to the sta te m e n t m a d e in the p re se n c e o f the ju ry tha t t h is i s no t an is o l at ed inci d ent
. T he o f f i cer e ven m ad e t he st at em ent - - co nt i nued m aki ng t h e s t at eme n t a s I w as s t an di n g t o obj ec t a n d w ou l dn ’ t s t op. T H E C O U RT : T h e obj ec t i on i s s u s t ai n ed. M R . T H O M P S O N : W e m o v e fo r a n im m e d ia te m istria l. T H E C O U RT : G r an t ed.
Af te r he ari ng argume nts of c ouns e l, the tr ia l c ourt re c on sid e re d a nd wi thd re w i ts gra

nt o f a mis tr ia l. Howeve r, the c ourt withheld a fina l ruling pe nding a clar i fi cation by

the witness that the other ins tanc e s impli e d by

his re sp on se we re the oth e r i ns tanc e s o f s e xua l mi sc on du c t by Ap pe lla nt a g a ins t on ly thi s c hil d v ic tim

. On re dir e c t e xami natio n, the pr os e c uto r q ue sti on e d O ff

ic e r D ana , a s f

oll ow s:6 M R. V AN CE : D et ec t i v e D an a, j u s t t o cl ar i f y s om et hi ng , y ou s ai d i n f r ont of t he j ur y , I bel i eve y ou s ai d t hat s om et hi ng abou t t hi s was n’ t an i s ol at ed inc id e n t; is tha t co rr e c t? M R

. D A N A : Y es, s i r. M R

. V A N C E : J u st to c la rify w ith the ju ry, w h e n yo u sa id tha t, y o u w e r e r e f

e r r i n g t o t h e f

a c t t h a t b a s e d u pon y o u r i n v es t i g at i on , t h er e wa s a n a l l eg at i on of penet r at i on wi t h t he peni s , an al l ega t i on of ora l se x be t we en t h e def

en dan t a n d t h e v i ct i m, a nd an al l egat i o n o f t he d ef end ant t o uchi n g the p ri vat e area on the o ut si d e o f her cl o t hes? A re t h os e t h e i n ci den t s y ou ’ r e r ef er r i n g t o? M R

. D A N A : Y es, s i r. M R

. V A N C E : A nd that is w hat you m ean t in respo nse t o M r. T ho m p son’ s q uest i o n? M R

. D A N A : Y es, s i r. M R

. V A N C E : N o f urt her quest i o ns, Y o ur H o no r. M R

. T H O M P SO N : T hank y o u, Y o ur H o no r. We c on c lud e the tr ia l court a c te d pro pe rl y in wit hd ra wi ng its g ra

nt of a mis tr ia l, a

nd that it did not err in ther eaf

ter re fusingto gr ant Appellant’ s motion. Off icer Dana satisfac torily

explained that the other instanc es implied by his testimony that “this was not an isolated inc ident” we re instanc es of cr iminal sex ual misconduct ag ainst the child victim in th i s ca s e. These a cts had a lrea dy been dis c los e d to the jur

y thr ou g h th e te sti mony of the v ic timand he r m oth e r, and

we re sp e c if

ic a lly
a dmi s s ib le b y s tatute. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.37, § 2 (V ernon Supp. 2008) (p ro vid ingthat e vid e nc e of oth e r cr ime s, wr on g s, or a c ts co mmi tte d by de fe nd ant ag a ins t c hil d v ic tim of a lle g e d o ff

e ns e is a dmi ssi ble “ fo r i ts b e ari ngon re le va nt m atte rs ” ). Ap pe ll ant ’s fo ur th i ssu e is
overr uled.

E X TR A N EO U S C ONDUC T In h is f if th i ssu e , App e lla

nt c omp la ins that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a dmi tti nge vid e nc e of

his
e xtra ne ou s c on du c t.7

Appli cable Law “An e x trane ou s o ff

en se is any

act of misconduct shown to have be en committed by the
acc used, whe ther resulting in prosec ution or not , which is not shown in the cha rg ing instrument a

nd
w h ic hw a s to h av e b e e nc o mm itte d b y th e a c c u s e d

. ” Bro wn v

. St ate , 6 S. W. 3 d

5 7 1 , 5 7 5 ( T e x. App.–Tyler 1999, p et
. ref’d) ( emphasis omitted). Evidence of a de fenda nt’s other ba d acts is not admissible to pr ove the defe ndant’s cha rac ter in orde r to show that he a cted in conf ormity there with. T EX . R. E V ID . 4 0 4 ( b )

. T h e e v i d e n c e m ay, h o w e v e r , b e a d m i tt e d a s p r o o f o f m o t i v e , o p p o rtun i ty, intent, prepa

ration, plan, knowle dg e, identity , or abse nce of mistake or ac cident. Id. A spec ial statute applies to the prosec ution of a defe ndant for sexual and assaultive off enses committed ag ainst a child under seventee n y ear s of age

. In such a case , the Texas Code of Criminal Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s:

Se c. 2. N ot wi t h s t an di n g Rul es 404 an d 405, T ex as Rul es of Cr i mi n al Evi den ce , e v i den ce of o t her cri m es, wro ngs, o r act s co m m i t t ed b y t he d ef end ant agai nst t he chi l d who i s t he vi ctim o f t he al l eged off

ense s hal l be ad m i t t ed f o r i t s b eari ng on rel evant m at t ers , i ncl ud i ng: (1) t he st at e o f

m i nd of t he d ef

end ant and t he chi l d ; and ( 2) t h e pr ev i ou s a n d s u bs equ en t r el at i on s h i p be t we en t h e def en dan t a n d t h e ch i l d.
T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art
. 38.37, § 2. The trial c ourt may exclude rele vant evidenc e if the probative va lue of the e vidence “is substantially outweig hed b y

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice,
c on fu sio n o f t

he iss ue s, or

mis le a din gthe jur

y , or by c on sid e ratio ns of

un du e de lay , o r n e e dle ss prese ntation of cumulative e vidence .” T EX . R. E V ID . 403. Atria l c o urt’ s e v id e n ti ar

y r u li n g s ar e r e v ie w e d

f o r a b u s e o f d is c r e ti o n . Po we ll v

. St ate , 63 S.W .3d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Discussion Appellant first c omplains that the State solicited testimony fro m t h e v i ct im that she had
s u f f e r e d p hys i c a l a

b u s e b y Ap p e l l an t an d th at h e h a d p hys i c a l l y a b u s e d o th e r m e mb e r s o f

h e r f am i l y. The e vidence of Appe llant’s other a cts of phy sical and se x ual ab u s e commit ted ag ainst the
c hil d v ic timwe re a dmi tte d w ith out ob je c tio n. In a

ny e ve nt, the e vid e nce was a dmi ssi ble de sp ite objection under

the provisions of article 38.37 as bearing on the state of mind of Appe llant and the8

c hil d a nd a s d e mon str atin gthe re latio ns hip be tw e e n th e m. In the prosec utor’s re direc t examination of the victim, t he followingexchang e occ urre d:

Q

. Let me as k y ou [ vi ct i m] h ave y ou ev er se en N ay-N ay or C i

- C i af t er t hey ’ ve been a lo n e w ith T o m m y? A

. (N o d s h e a d .) Q

. Is t ha t a yes? A

. Y es. Q

. W er e t h ey ma d or s ad? A. Sa d. Q

. H ow do y ou k n ow t h ey w er e s ad. A

. B ecause t hey were cry i ng. Ap pe lla nt ob je c te d that the pr os e c uto r’ s qu e sti on s we re an atte mpt to sh ow Ap pe lla nt h a d s e xua lly abused the other g irls. At the bench confe renc e that followed, the trial court overr uled Appellant’ s objection but instructed the State not to g o any further into the matter. Th e vic tim ’s te sti mony

that sh e ha d se e n he r ha lf sis te rs c ry ing a ft e r the y ha d be e n a lon e wi th their father fa lls short of evidencing an extraneous offe nse. The tr ial court did not abuse its discre tion in overrulingAppellant’s objec tion. Finally , Appellant compl a in s that the State solicited testimony that he had phy sically

assaulted and thre atene d to kill the vi ctim’s mother. Testimony reg arding Appellant’s a ssaults on the victim’s mother an d h is thr e ats to k il l h e r mo th e r o r h av e h is g ir lf r ie n d k il l h e r w a s o f

f e r e d to e xp la in the victim’s delay

in reportingsome incidents o f Ap p ellant’s abusive conduct to her mother. The testimo n y wa s ad m itted without objection, and there fore nothing is pre serve d for our revie w. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a)

. Appellant’s f

ifth issue is overruled. D I S P OS I T I ON Th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt i s affirm ed

. 

### BI LL BASS J ustice Opinion delivere d J uly

24, 2009. P a n e l co n siste d

of W o rth e n , C .J

., H o y le , J., a n d

B a ss, R e tiredJ

u stice , Tw e lfth C o u rt of A p p e a ls, Ty le r, sitt ing by as sig n m e n t. (DO N OT PUBL I SH)