Opinion filed October 23, 20 08



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 00 86 -CR

____ ____ __ ROB ERT DE AN BR

YA N, Ap pellant V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 32nd District Court

Nolan Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10192

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Robe rt Dea

n Br y an of inde c e n c y

with a child and a ssessed his punishment

a t c on fi ne me nt f

or tw e nty y e ars . We a ff

ir m. Ba c k gr ou nd Fa c ts Appellant wa s indicted for inde cenc y with a child. S.P. was six y ear s old at t he ti me of the offe nse and ei gh t y ea rs o l d at the time of trial. Appe llant’s wife a nd S.P.’s mot her w ere g ood friends. O n the day

of the charg ed offense, S.P

. was spending the nig ht with appellant and his wife

. She sle pt i n th e be d b e tw e e n a pp e lla nt a nd his wi fe

. S .P

. wok e up duri ngthe nig ht b e c a us e
a pp e lla nt’ s h and wa s to uc hin g he r o n “ [he r] p ri vate , [he r] m ou th, [he r] thig h, and [he r] c he st. ” S.P. ke pt m ov inga

pp e lla nt’ s h and awa y , a nd he ke pt p utt ing it ba c k. S.P. te sti fi e d th a t a pp e lla nt p ut h is

m o u t h o nh e r m o u t h an d

p u th i s t o n g u e i nh e r

m o u t h

. S

. P

. m a d e ano u t c r y t o h e r m o m t h e n e x td ay. The State provide d notice to appe llant that it was g oing to offe r evidence of appellant’ s prior bad ac ts and extraneous off enses unde r T EX
. R. E V ID . 404(b). Appe lla n t fi led a wr itten objection2

to the admission of this evidence, a nd the trial cour

t held a p re t ri al h earing to determine the admissibili ty

of the e vidence . After

the hea ring , the trial court ruled that it would allow the evidenc e
a t tr ia l. Issue on Appe al Appellant asse rts that the trial cour t erre d in admitting, over appellant’ s objection, testimony of three witnesses alleg ing una djudicated e x trane ous offe nses and prior bad acts to prove pattern and intent and to bolster the cr edibility of the c omplainant contra ry to T EX
. R. E V ID . 403 and 404(b)

. Sta nd ar d o f R e v ie w We re v ie w th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s r u li n g o n th e a dmi s s ib il it y o f e v id e n c e u n d e r an abuse of discretion standa

rd. Po we ll v . S

tate , 63 S.W .3d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Montgomery v. Sta te , 8 10 S.W. 2d

37 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). Th is s tand ard re qu ir e s an a

pp e llate c ourt

to u ph old

a tr ia l c ourt ’s a dmi ssi bil ity de c isi on wh e n th a t de c isi on

is w ith in t

he zon e of

re a so na ble disag ree ment. Po we ll , 63 S.W .3d at 438. Rule 404( b) Character Evidenc e Evidence of ot her crimes, wrongs, or bad acts is not admissi ble for the purpose of showing that the pe rs on

a c te d in c on fo rm ity

the re wi th. Rul e 40 4( b) ; Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 386-88. Howeve r, t his evidenc e may be admissi ble when it is rele vant t o a noncha rac ter-c onformity

fac t of conseque nce in the c ase, suc h as i ntent, motive, identity , opportunity , prepa ration, plan, knowle dg e,
or a bs e nc e of mis take or

a c c ide nt. Rul e 40 4( b) ; Po we ll , 6 3 S

. W

. 3 d a t43 8; Mont

go me ry , 810 S.W .2d at 387-88. Evidenc e of e x trane ous offe nses or prior bad ac ts may

also be a dmissibl e to re but

a d e f e n s iv e th e o r

y . Mos es v. State , 105 S.W .3d 622, 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). When deter mining wh e th e r

evidenc e of e x trane ous offe nses is admissible to rebut defe nsive theories, a trial court may consider a defensive theory raised in an openingstatement or r aised by cross-e x amination of State’s witnesse s. Po we ll , 6 3 S. W.3 d at 43 9; Ra ns om v . S tate , 9 20 S.W. 2d

28 8, 30 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1996). T h e me r e f a c t t h a t a p arty in tr o d u c e s e v id e n c e f

o r a p u r p o s e o th e r

th anc h ar a cter confor mity does not, in itself, make that e vidence admissible. Admissibi lity of evide nce hing es on the re levanc y

of the evidenc e to a “fa ct of conseque nce” in the case

. Ra nk in v . S tate , 974 S.W .2d 707, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Evidence of ot her c rimes, wrong s, or bad a cts has noncha rac terconfor mity rele vance wher e it logic ally serve s to make less proba ble def ensive e vidence that undermines a

n elementa l fac t. Po we ll , 63 S.W .3d at 438.3 Balancing Test Under Rule 403 Ev e n if e vid e nc e is a dmi ssi ble un de r R ule 40 4( b), th e tr ia l c ourt may e xclu de the same evidenc e if it determ i n es t h at t he probative value of such evide nce is substantially outweig hed by its unfair pre

judice. Rule 403. In deter mining whe ther the pr obative value o f evide nce of an extraneous offe nse is outweig hed by its preju d i cial effec t, we look to (1) how c ompellingly the evidenc e ser

ves to make a fac t of consequence more or le ss probable, ( 2) the potential the e vidence ha s to impr e ss the jur

y “ in som e ir

ratio na l but ne ve rt

he le ss ind e lib le wa

y ,” (3 ) the tim e the State wi ll need to de velop t he evidence, (4) the forc e of the S tate’s need for the evidence, a nd (5) whe ther the misconduct was of

such a nature t h at a j u ry instruction to disreg ard it for any but its proffer ed purpose would likely

have be en without eff

ect. Mozo n v . S

tate , 991 S.W. 2d

84 1, 84 7 ( Te x. Cr im. A p p
. 1 9 99 ); Mon tg omery , 8 10 S.W. 2d a t 38 9- 90 ; Ri c k

e rso n v . S tate , 1 3 8 S. W. 3 d

5 2 8 , 5 3 2 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2004, pet. re f’d)

. Acc ording ly , when the r ecor d reve als that one or mor e
s u ch re l ev an t criteria

rea sonably

contributed to a r isk that the probative va lue of the te ndere d evidenc e wa s substantially outweig hed by

unfair prejudice , the evidenc e should not have be en admitted. Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 392-93. An aly sis A. Evidenc e at Trial

. I n its case- in-chief

, t h e S t ate f

irst offer ed the testimony of S.P. On cross-e x amination, appellant’s at t o rn ey attacke d S.P.’s credibility by asking if she made up stories at school and by asking if appe llant was sleepingas she ha d testified then how c ould appellant have touched he r. Next, the St ate of

fer ed the testimony

of Off icer Mark Ta y lor. Offic er Taylor testified that he wa s th e le a d inve sti g a tor in t his c a se . D ur ingthe c ours e of his inv e sti g a tio n, he me t w ith appellant a

nd appellant pr ovided a state men t

. Of fi ce r Tay lor rea d that statement into evidenc e. Ap pe lla nt s a id i n h is s tate me nt t

hat S. P. sta

y e d the nig ht a t his ho us e and late r g ot i nto be d w ithhim

and his wi fe

. Ap pe lla

nt de nie d e ve r tou c hin g S.P. e xce pt to mov e he r wh e n sh e tur ne d s ide wa

y s in the bed. O f

f ic e r T ay lo r te s ti f ie d th a t, a f te r a p p e ll an t f in is h e d g iv in g th e s tate me n t, h e a sked appellant if the re w as any thing e lse he wa

nted to add. Of

fice r Tay lor testified that appe llant stated that he believe d that S.P. had been coa ched a nd that her te stimony

could be manipulate d. Offic er Ta

y lor testified that he asked a ppellant if he be lieved DNAevidenc e could be manipulated and that appe llant r eplied no. Offic er Ta y lor testified that he a sked appe llant if he kissed S.P. on the4

mouth. Ap pell ant s tate d th a t he fo rg ot a bo ut t hat and a sk e d to make a

se c on d s tate me nt. Offic er Ta

y lor testified that in the second statement appellant sa id that, when he w oke up, S.P. was on top of him kissi ng him. Appellant told S.P . to ge t off him bec ause she was too y oung to play g a me s li ke that. B. Ev ide nc e of E

x tra ne ou s O

ffe ns es a nd

Pr ior Ba d A c ts

. Amanda B ry an, appe llant’s daug hter, testifi ed that, when she was a bout seven, a

ppellant touched he r in the pubic a rea while she wa s sleeping . She also testified t hat, when she was six teen,

a pp e lla nt w e nt i nto he r r oo m w hil e sh e wa s sl e e pin g and tou c he d h e r o n h e r b re a st u nd e r h e r c lot

he s. She re po rt e d th is i nc ide nt a nd c ha rg e s w e re fi le d, bu t the c ha rg e s we re late r d

ro pp e d at he r r e qu e st. Sus an B ryan Wil liams, a

pp e lla nt’ s e x-w if

e and the mot he r of Am and a B ryan, te sti fi e d th a t, afte r she a

nd appellant we re divorc ed, appe llant visit ed the kids at he r home in Monaha ns. She stated that, on one oc casion, a ppellant visited the children a nd stay ed the night on the couc h. When sh e wo ke up , a

pp e lla nt w a s in he r b e d to uc hin g he r b re a sts and bu tt und e r t

he c ov e rs
. Cy nthia Ann B undick, a c ousin of Susan Wi lliams, testified that, when she wa s seventee n and pre g nant, she wa s visiti ng appellant a nd Wil liams while they

wer e still married. She testified that she wa s sleeping and that, when she woke up, a ppellant was r

ubbing he r belly

underne ath her

c lot he s. C. A pp lic ati on of L aw to th e Fa c ts

. I n this case, the State a

rg ues that the evidenc e was used to r ebut the def ensive theor ies that the inc ide nt t

hat f or me d th e ba sis fo r t

he ind ic tme nt w a s n ot o ne that de mon str a te d a n i nten t to g ratif y a pp e lla nt’ s sexua l des ir e s and that S.P. wa s the on e wh o init iate d th e c on ta c t w itha pp e lla nt. Th e State fu

rt he r a rgue s th a t th e e xtra

ne ou s e vid e nc e g oe s to show a pp e lla nt’ s mo du s o pe ra

nd i in committing the off

ense. M o d

u s o p e r andi re fer s to a defe ndant’s distinctive and idiosy ncratic manner of committing criminal ac ts. Cas e yv . S tate , 215 S.W .3d 870, 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Modus op e ra nd i us ua lly

re fe rs to e vid e nc e of

fe re d to pr ove id entity . H ow e ve r, e vid e nc e of sim ila r a c ts might be admissible to show lack of consent, mot ive, and the m anner of committing a n offe nse under the doctrine -of- chanc es theory

. Id . at 881. T h e doctr ine-of- chanc es theory is the instinctive

re c og nit ion

that e lim inate s th e e le me nt o f i nn oc e nt int e nt by mul tip lying ins tanc e s of the same re su lt until it is perceived that this element c annot explain them all. Plan te v . S tate , 692 S.W .2d 487,5

491-92 (Te x . Crim. App. 1985). The similarity require d of the e x trane ous offe nses is less stringe nt under this theory

than the similarity

require d to show identity

. Plan te , 692 S.W .2d at 492. The e vidence of appe llant’s extra n eo u s o ff enses a nd prior bad a cts was a dmissibl e under Rule 404(b). The evidenc e wa s not used to show appellant’s pr opensity for c ommitt ing c rimes or his bad cha

rac ter in g ener al. Appellant relied on the def ensive theor

y of lac k of intent in that he had no intent to gr atify

his sex ual desire beca

use he was mere ly adjusting S.P.’s position in be d or wa s
a sle e p w he n h e tou c he d h e r. Ap pe lla nt a lso rai sed t

he de fe ns e of

c on se nt b y

sayingthat S. P.

c lim be d o n to p o f h im a

nd kis se d h im. Th e e xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e s a nd pr ior bad acts r e bu tte d th e se defe nsive theories a

nd wer e used to show appellant’s intent a nd S.P.’s lack of conse nt. Furthe r, be c a us e the pr ior

ba d a c ts w e re sim ila

r i n th a t th e vic tim s w e re a sle e p w he n a pp e lla nt t ou c he d th e m, t h e e v i d e n c e t e n d s t o s h o w a p p e l l an t ’ s m o d

u s o p e r an d i u n d e r

t h e d o c t r i n e - o f

- c h an c e s t h e o r

y. The e vidence was a dmissibl e under Rule 4 0 3 b e c a

u s e th e probative value of

the evidenc e wa s not substantially outweig hed by its prejudicial ef fec t. Be cause this was a ca se of “ he said, she sa id” and intent is difficult to show in an indece ncy with a child ca se, th e ev idence had g reat probative value f or the State. The evidenc e was not g raphic but, r ather , simil ar to the e vidence that the jury had alr eady

hear d from S.P. in the charg ed off ense. T h e evide nce did not af fec t the jury

in an indelible way

and wa s not so outrag eous that a jury instruction would not have any eff ect. F urther, the evidenc e wa s quickly and cle arly prese nted such that it did not take too much time and wa s not confusing . The trial c ourt did not e rr in a llowing the evidenc e of appellant’ s extraneous offe nses and pr ior ba d a c ts. We o ve rr

ule a pp e lla nt’ s is su e on

a pp e a l. Conclusion We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

RI CK STRANGE

JUSTI CE October 23, 2008 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.