S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 1 

## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 06- 271- CR
AR T HURL E E P I E R S ON, J R . AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 371STDI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- A ppel l antA rt hurLee Pi er son, Jr . appeal s hi s convi ct i ons and sent ences f orf our cou nt s of agg r ava t ed se xua l as sa ul t of a chi l d und erf ourt ee n ye ar s of
a g e . W e a ffir m . I n 2004, ap pel l ant ’ s f or m ers t ep- dau ght erB. H . al l ege d t hatap pel l ant
se xua l l y as sa ul t ed her on t hr eedi f f er entoc ca si onsi n O ct obe r1999 , w hen s heT h e tri a l c o u rt o rd e re d th e s e n te n c e sto ru n c o n c u rre n tl y . 2 I n t he t r i alco urt , ap pel l antobj ec t ed t o t hi s t es t i m ony bas ed on r ul esof 3 e v i d e n c e 4 0 3 a n d 80 3( 4) and , t o s o me o ft h e t e s t i mo n y , a sb o l s t e r i n g . On app ea l , how eve r , app el l ant ’ s poi nt of er r or i s l i m i t ed t o r ul e 803 ( 4) . Appel l ant ar gue s i n pa ss i ng t hat“ [ t ] he onl y pu r pos e . . . w as t o bol st er t he t es t i m ony of t he com pl ai nan t , ” buthedoe s notci t e r el eva ntca sel aw t o s upport a b ol st er i ng a rg u m e n t. T h u s , w e d o n o t a d d re s sth i sg ro u n d . S eeT EX . R. A PP . P . 3 8 .1 (h ). T EX . R. E VID . 8 0 3 (4 ). 4 2 w ast hi rt ee n yea r s ol d. Ea ch oft he t hr eei nci den t s f ol l ow ed a s i m i l arpa t t er n: app el l antw okeB. H . f r om he rs l ee p; h a d s e xua l i nt er cou r sew i t h he ran d, on
o n e o c c a s io n , o r a l s e x ; a n d t h e n m a d e B .H . g o t o t h e b a t h r o o m a n d g iv e h im herunder w ear . A p pel l antt hr eat ened B . H . t hathe w oul d ki l l herand ot her f am i l y m em ber s i fshe t ol d anyo ne. Fol l ow i ng a f i ve- day t r i al , a j ur y convi ct ed appel l antoff ourcountsofaggr avat ed sexual assaul tofa chi l d und erf ourt een yea r s ofag e a nd s ent enc ed hi m t o f our ni net y- ni ne yea r t er m s ofi nca r ce r at i on. 2 I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , appel l ant ar gues t hat t he t r i al courti m pr oper l y adm i t t ed B .H .’ s 2 0 0 4s t a t e m e n t st o s e x u a l a s s a u ltn u r s e D o n n a D u c lo w o v e rh isru le 803 ( 4) obj ec t i on. 3 Texa s Rul e of Evi den ce 803 ( 4) con t ai ns a hea r sa y exce p ti o n f or
s t a t e m e n t s m a d e f o rm e d ic a l d ia g n o s iso rt r e a t m e n t . A p p e lla n tc la im s 4 D ucl ow ’ s t es t i m ony doe s notf i tunde rt hi s exc ept i on. W her e s ubs t ant i al l y t he
sam e e vi den ceco m pl ai ned ofon a ppe ali s r ec ei ved w i t houtobj ec t i on f r om aBeh eler v. S tate , 3 S .W .3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 7 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 9 , p e t. 5 re f’d ) (h o l d i n g th a t a p p e l l a n t fa i l e d to p re s e rv e e rro r re g a rd i n g c o m p l a i n a n t’s st at em ent s t o s exu ala s s a ul tnur sew her e c om pl ai nan tt es t i f i ed, w i t hout o bj e c ti o n , to s u b s ta n ti a l l y s a m e fa c ts a sn u rs e re l a te d ); se e a l so Re yes v. S tate , 84 S. W . 3d 63 3 , 638 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2002 ) ( hol di ng t hata def end antw ho al l ow s evi den cet o be i nt r oduc ed f r om ones our cew i t houtobj ec t i on f or f ei t s any su bs equ entco m pl ai nt s abo utt he i nt r oduc t i o n o f the s am e e vi den cef r om a n o th e r s o u rc e ); Ma ss e yv. S tate , 933 S .W .2 d 141, 149 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 6 ) (sa m e ); Ma yes v. S tate , 816 S .W .2 d 7 9 , 88 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1991 ) ( hol di ng t hatt h e ad m i ss i on ofonew i t nes s’ s t es t i m ony w i t houtobj ec t i on r ender ed t he i m pr operadm i ssi on of anotherw i t ness’ s t est i m ony h ar m l ess b e c a u s e th e w i tn e s s e s ’ te s ti m o n y e s ta b l i s h e d s u b s ta n ti a l l yth e s a m e e v i d e n c e ). 3 di f f ere n ts our ce , how eve r , an ap pel l antf or f ei t s hi s com pl ai ntr ega r di ng adm i ss i on oft he obj ec t i ona bl e t es t i m ony. 5 D u c l o w i n terv i e w e d B .H . o n S e p tem b e r 3 , 2 0 0 4at J o h n P e ter S m i th H os pi t al ( “J PS ” ). A s w ashe rpr ac t i ce , s he w r ot e B. H . ’ s hi st ory “ w or d f or
w or d. ” O verappel l ant ’ s hear say obj ect i on, D ucl ow t est i f i ed t hatB. H . st at ed t he f ol l ow i ng:

• T h e “ f i r s te v e n t ” o c c u r r e d o n O c t o b e r 2 2 , 1 9 9 9 b e t we e n 2 a n d 3 a . m. A ppe l l anten t er ed B. H . ’ s r oom , w okehe r , pi ck ed herup, pl ac ed heron t h e f lo o r , a n d h a d s e x u a l in t e r c o u r s e w it h h e r . H e t h r e a t e n e d t o k ill h e r , h e r s is t e r , o r g r a n d m o t h e r if s h e t o ld a n y o n e . H e s a id h e w o u ld “pop [ her ] cher ry. ” A ft er w ar ds, a p p e ll a n tt ol d B . H . t o gether und er w ear and go i nt o t he bat hr oom , and he asked w het hershe w as b l e e d i n g .

• O n O ct obe r12, 1999 ap pel l antag ai n w oke B. H . f r om he rs l ee p i n t he m i ddl e oft he ni ght, got her out of her bed, and l ai d her dow n on her f l oor . A ppel l ant per f or m ed or al sex on her and t he n h a d s e x ual i nt er cou r se w i t h he r . He t ol d he rnott o t el l be ca us e h erm om an d4

si st erw oul d be m ad because appel l antpai d t he bi l l s. H e di r ect ed her to g o to th e b a th ro o m a n d to o kh e r u n d e rw e a r.

• Jus t bef or e Hal l ow ee n 1999, ap pel l antag ai n c am e a nd go tB. H . f r om herbed, pushed her t ow ar d t he l i vi ng r oom , and l ai d her dow n t her e. H e h a d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e wi t h h e r , f i r s t wi t h a p p e l l a n t o n t op a nd t hen w i t h B . H . i n t hatposi t i on. A w om an c a l l ed “A unti e” w as slee p i n g o n the co u c h i n the l i v i n g roo m . A fterw a rds , B .H . w e n t t o th e b a th ro o m , a n d a p p e l l a n t to o kh e r u n d e rw e a r. D ucl ow di d not perf or m a p hys i ca l ex am i nat i on be ca us e “ aft era f i ve- yea rpe r i od anyt r aum a o r i nj ury di r ec t l y r el at ed t o t he as sa ul t[ w oul d be ] he al ed, gone , or not vi si bl e. ” The f ol l ow i ng da y, B. H . t es t i f i ed t o t he f ol l ow i ng:

• O n O c to b e r 2 , 1 9 9 9 , a p p e l l a n t c a m e i n to h e r r o o m a ro u n d 2 o r 3 a .m ., w o k e h e ru p , to o kh e r o ff h e r b e d , a n d p u t h e r o n th e fl o o r. A ppel l antki ssed her on her neck and br east , sai d he w oul d “pop her cher ry, ” and asked her i f she w ant ed t o be hi s gi r l f r i end. H e t hen had s e x u a l i n te rc o u rs e w i th h e r, th re a te n i n g th a t i f s h e to l d a n y o n e , th e re w oul d be no o ne t o t ake car e oft he f am i l y. A ft er i tended, he pushed hert ow ar dst he r es t r oom , t ol d he rt o gi ve hi m h e r u n d er w ea r , an d a s k e d i f s h e w a sb l e e d i n g .

• O n O ct ober12 , 19 99 , ar oun d 3 a. m . , appel l antw oke B . H . up, pi cked her up of f her bed , and put her on t he f l oor . H e p erf or m ed or als ex on h e ra n d t h e n h a d s e x u a l in t e r c o u r s e w it h h e r . H e t h r e a t e n e d t o k i ll h e r , h e r s is t e r , a n d h e rg r a n d m o t h e rifs h e t o ld a n y o n e . H e t h e n t o ld h e r to g o to th e b a th ro o m a n d to o kh e r u n d e rw e a r.

• A t th e e n d o f O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 , b e fo re H a l l o w e e n , a ro u n d 1 o r 2 a .m ., appel l antw oke herup and p ushed heri nt o t he l i vi ng r oom w her e a w om an sh e ca l l ed “Aunt i e”w asas l ee p on t he cou ch. Ther e a ppe l l ant had s exu ali nt er cou r sew i t h B. H .; a tf i r stap pel l antw ason t op a nd t hen hem ove d B. H . t o t hat pos i t i on. A ft er w ar ds , ap pel l antha d he rgo to th e b a th ro o m a n d g i v e h i m h e r u n d e rw e a r.A ts om e p oi ntbe f or e t el l i ng t he pol i ce , how eve r , B. H . t es t i f i ed t hats he 6 h a d to l d h e r m o th e r, h e r b i o l o g i c a l fa th e r, a n d th re e fri e n d s . S eeT EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Lagron ev. S tate , 942 S. W . 2d 602, 7 6 1 7

– 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 5 2 2 U .S . 9 1 7 (1 9 9 7 ). 5 A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t o bj e c t to a n yo f th i ste s ti m o n y . A f t erB. H . de sc r i bed t he t hr ee occ ur r enc es , sh e exp l ai ned t hats he di d not i m m edi at el y contactt he pol i ce because ofappel l ant ’ s t hr eat s. I n 2 00 4, aft er 6 gr aduati ng f r om hi gh schoo l , she appr oached a pr obati on off i cerw ho di r ect ed hert o C PS and t he pol i ce, and she event ual l y sp o k e t o sexual assaul tnur se Duc l ow . Af t e r t he pr os e c ut or a s k e d, “ And ob vi ou s l y yo u t ol d [ Duc l ow a tJ PS]

w hatha ppe ned , r i ght ?” app el l ant att em pt ed t o “r ene w ” t he hea r sa y obj ec t i on h e m a d e th e d a yb e fo re to D u c l o w ’ste s ti m o n y . Th e r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat appel l ant ’ s obj ect i on r ef er r ed t o t he S t at e’ s l ast que st i on, “ A nd ob vi ous l y yo u t ol d [ D ucl ow at JPS] w hatha ppe ned , r i ght ?, ” and i ft he obj ect i on w as i nt ended t o r el at e back t o B. H . ’ s descr i pt i ons oft he sexual assaul t s, i tw as unt i m el y f ort hatpur pose and di d not pr eserve er r oras t o t hat te s ti m ony. Thus , app el l ant di d not m ak e a pr ope r obj ec t i on t o B .H .’s

7 te s ti m o n yd e s c ri b i n g th e s e x u a l a s s a u l ts .T h e r e isa n in c o n s is t e n c ya s t o t h e d a t e o f t h e f ir s t a s s a u lt ; D u c lo w s a id 8 B .H . t o ld h e rt h a tito c c u r r e d O c t o b e r2 2 , w h e r e a sB .H . t e s t if ie d t h a tit occ u r r ed O ct obe r2. How eve r , D ucl ow al so s t at ed t hats he bel i eve d t he i nci den tB. H . de sc r i bed f i r stw ast he f i r stas sa ul t , and t hen w enton t o de sc r i be a s e c o n d e v e n t o n O c to b e r 1 2 a n d a th i rd e v e n t a t th e e n d o f O c to b e r b e fo re H a l l o w e e n . F u rt h e r, t h e d e tai l s o f t h e tw o d e sc ri p ti o n s o f t h e “fi rst ev e n t” m at ch ver y cl osel y. W e concl ude t hat , despi t e t he di f f er ence i n dat es, D ucl ow ’ s t est i m ony r egar di ng t he f i r st event w as subst ant i al l y t he sam e as B .H .’s.S ee Beh eler, 3 S. W . 3d a t187– 88; see al so Reyes , 84 S. W . 3d a t638; 9 Massey , 933 S. W . 2d a t149; Mayes , 816 S. W . 2d a t88. 6 D ucl ow and B . H . ’ s t est i m ony w as very si m i la r. Both descr i bed sexual
a s s a ul t s a pp e l l a nt pe r pe t r a t e d on B. H. on t hr e e ni gh t s i n O c t ob e r1 999. 8 D et ai l s su ch asap pel l ant ’ s w or ds , t he sp ec i f i c se xua l ac t i ons he perf or m ed ( and t he or dert her eof ) , t he l oca t i onsof t he as sa ul t s, t he pr es enc e o fA unt i e, an d
a p p e lla n t ’s c o n d u c ta n d d e m a n d sf o llo w in g e a c h a s s a u ltw e r e p r a c t ic a lly i d e n ti c a l . B e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t o bj e c t to th e r e l e v a n t p o rti o n so f B .H .’s t es t i m ony, an d i ti s su bs t ant i al l y t he sa m e as w hat he now com pl ai ns abo uton
a p p e a l (D u c l o w ’ste s ti m o n y ), h e fo rfe i te d th e e rro r, i f a n y , re g a rd i n g D u c l o w ’s tes ti m o n y . W e o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t.

9 I n hi s se con d poi nt , ap pel l antco nt end s t hathew asde ni ed ef f ec t i ve assi st ance of coun sel und er t he U ni t ed S t at es and Tex as C onst i t ut i ons because h i s tri a l co u n se l o p e n e d the d o o r o n c ros s-e x a m i n a ti o n o f D e tec ti v e M a rk P i ttStr i ckl and v. W ashi ngton , 466 U. S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct . 2052 , 2064 10 (1 9 8 4 ); Sa l

i n a s v. S tate , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Ma l le tt v. S tate , 6 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 , 6 2

– 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Thomps on v. S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). Str i ckl and, 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 ; Herna n dez v. S tate , 11 7 2 6 S .W .2 d 5 3 , 5 6

– 5 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d a t813– 14. 12 Sal i nas , 163 S . W . 3d at740 ( quot i ng Ma l le tt, 6 5 S .W .3 d a t 6 3 ). 13 7 t o al l ow t he S t at e t o show t he j ur y t hatappella n t w as i n cust ody i n another
cou nt y. To es t abl i sh i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el , app el l ant m us ts how by a pr epo nde r anc e o f t he evi den ce t hat hi s cou ns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l bel ow t he
s t a n d a r d o fp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m sa n d t h a tt h e r e isa re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hat , but f or cou ns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul toft he t r i alw oul d ha ve been di f f er ent . Th e t est f or i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel i s t he sam e 10 und ert he f eder al and st at e const i t ut i ons. 11 A r evi ew i ng cou rt , how ever , w i l lr ar el y be i n a posi t i on on di r ectappeal to fai rl yev a l u a te th e m e ri ts o f an i n e ffec ti v e as sistan c e c l a i m . I n th e m aj o ri ty 12
o fc a s e s , t h e re c o r d o n d ir e c ta p p e a l isu n d e v e lo p e d a n d c a n n o ta d e q u a t e ly
r ef l ec tt he m ot i vesbe hi nd t r i alco uns el ’ s ac t i ons . To ov er com e t he 13 pr es um pt i on ofr ea so nab l e p r of es si ona l as si st anc e, an y a l l ega ti o n of i nef f ect i veness m ustbe f i r m l y f ou n ded i n t he r ecor d, and t he r ecor d m ustId. ( quot i ng Thomps on , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 3 ). 14Ma ta v. S tate , 2 2 6 S .W .3 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 15 8 af f i r m at i vel y de m ons t r at e t he al l ege d i nef f ec t i ven es s. I t i s notap pr opr i at e f or 14 an appel l at e courtsi m pl y to in f eri nef f ect i ve assi st ance based upo n uncl ear port i onsoft he r ec or d. 15 D ur i ng cr oss- e x a mi n a t i o n o fDet ect i ve Pi t t , appel l ant ’ s att or ney sugg est ed t hatt he det ect i ve di d not c o n d u c tan i m part i al , “f ul l and com pl et e” i n v e sti g a ti o n o f B .H .’ s a l l e g a ti o n s b e fo re w ri ti n g a n arres t w a rr a n t f o r ap p e l l a n t. To t haten d, ap pel l ant ’ s a tto rn e y e l i ci t ed t he f ac tt hatD et ec t i ve Pi t tdi d not sp ea k w i t h t he r es pondi ng of f i ce r s but onl y r ea d t hei rr epo rt , s ugge st ed t hatt he det ect i ve’ s t r ai ni ng w as not as ext ensi ve as i tcoul d have been , i nsi nuated t hat chi l d a dvoc at esare p re d i sp os ed t o be l i evea chi l d i s t el l i ng t he t r ut h, an d qu e s t i o n e d t h e d e t e c t i v e ’ sf a i l u r e t o s p e a kt o a p p e l l a n tt o g e th i ss i d e o ft he
s to ry . T o th e l a s t a l l e g a ti o n , D e te c ti v e P i tt re s p o n d e d , “T h e re w e re re a s o n s .” O ut si de t he pr esence oft he j ur y, t he S t at e ar gued t hat def ense counsel open ed t he doo ras t o w hy t he det ect i ve di d not i nt ervi ew appel l ant . The t r i al
c o u rtag ree d . W i th the tr ia l c o u rt ’s p e rm i ss i o n , th e refo re, D e tec ti v e P i tt t est i f i ed on r edi r ectt hathe di d not i nt ervi ew appel l antbecause he l ear ned t hatS e eBo n ev. S tate , 7 7 S .W .3 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). 16 Tri al counsel i nqu i r ed ofD et ect i ve Pi t t , f orexam pl e, “W hen yo u l ocat ed 17 [ appel l ant ] and you knew . . . [ appel l ant ] w as h e re i n T ar r antC oun t y, Texas, obvi ousl y t he next t hi ng yo u di d w as go speak t o hi m , cor r ect ?” H e al so l at er st at ed t o t he t r i alco urt , “ H e w asi n Tar r antCount y j ai l . The of f i ce rco ul d ha ve i nt ervi ew ed hi m i fhe w ant ed t o. ” 9 a p p e l l a n t w a s “ i n cu sto d yi n an o th e r co u n ty,” a n d i t w a s n o t un u su a l n o t t o tra v e l o u ts i d e th e c o u n tyto a tte m p t to s p e a kw i th a s u s p e c t. A ppe l l ant ac kno w l edg es t hat t he r ec or d on di r ec t app ea l i s us ual l y s i l ent
o n t h e q u e s t io n o ft r ia l s t r a t e g y . H e a r g u e s , h o w e v e r , t h a tt h e re c o r d in t h is
ca ser e f l e c t st r i a l c o u n s e l ’ smi s t a k e n b e l i e ft h a ta p p e l l a n twa si n t h e T a r r ant C oun t y Jai l at t he t i m e of t he i nvest i gat i on and t hatt hi s i s an er r orf orw hi ch no exp l anat i on of t r i al st r at egy i s needed because app el l ant ’ s t r i al counsel had
c l e a rl yn o t c o n d u c te d a th o ro u g h i n v e s ti g a ti o n . To pr eva i l on hi s i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e p oi nt , ap pel l antm us tpr oveby a pr epo nde r anc e o f t he evi den ce t hat t her e i s “n o pl aus i bl e pr of es si ona l r ea so n f or a spec i f i c a c to ro mi s s i o n . ” I n d e e d , t h e r e c o r d s h o ws t h a tt r i a l c o u n s el 16 app ea r ed t o bel i eve app el l ant w as i n t he Tar r antCount y Ja i l att he t i m e o ft he i nve st i gat i on. The r ec or d doe s not r eve al , how eve r , t he r ea so n or r ea so nsf or 17 tr i a l co u n se l ’s b e l i e f; thu s, i t i s u n c l e a r w h e th e r th i s m i sta k e (i f i t w a s, i n fac t,
a m i s ta k e ) re s u l te d fro m i n c o rre c t i n fo rm a ti o n a fte r a n i n v e s ti g a ti o n , aSee Bon e , 77 S . W . 3d a t836. 18 S e eR yl

a n der v. S tate , 101 S . W . 3d 107, 1 10– 11 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 19 2 0 0 3 ); Bone , 77 S . W . 3d a t836. S e e F reem a n v. S ta te , 125 S . W . 3d 505, 506– 07 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 20 2 0 0 3 ); R yl

ander, 1 0 1 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 0

– 1 1 ; Bone , 77 S. W .3 d at 836–37 ; Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d a t814. 10 m i sc om m uni ca t i on, an i nad equ at e i nve st i gat i on, ors om e o t herca us e. F r om t hi s r ec or d, w e w o u l d h a ve t o s pec ul at e t o c onc l udet hatt her e w er e n o l e g i ti m a te a n d p rofe ss i o n a l l yso u n d rea so n s fo r co u n se l ’s co n d u c t. 18 T r ia l c o u n s e l s h o u ld o r d in a r i lyb e a f f o r d e d a n o p p o rt u n it yt o e x p la in h is
ac t i onsbe f or e b ei ng de nounc ed asi nef f ec t i ve eve n w her e t he i nci den t
r ea so nab l y r ai se s q u e s ti onsast o c ert ai n t r i alpr epa r at i on a nd s t r at egy d e c is io n s . In t h e a b s e n c e o fe v id e n c e o f c o u n s e l’s re a s o n in g , t h e re c o r d is

19 in s u f f ic ie n tt o o v e r c o m e t h e p r e s u m p t io n t h a tt r ia l c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c tf a lls

w it h in t h e w id e ra n g e o fp r o f e s s io n a l, c o m p e t e n ta s s is t a n c e . W e o v e r r u le 20
a p p e l l a n t’ s s e c o n d p o i n t. In h is t h ir d a n d f o u rt h p o in t s , a p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e S t a t e im p r o p e r ly
c o m m e n t e d o n a p p e lla n t ’s f a ilu r e t o t e s t if ya n d t h e t r ia l c o u rte r r o n e o u s ly d e n i e d h i sm o ti o n fo r m i s tri a l . W h e n , a sh e re , th e tri a l c o u rt s u s ta i n s a n o bj e c ti o n a n d i n s tru c ts th e j u ry t o di sr egar d but deni es a def endan t ’ s m ot i on f or a m i st r i al , t he i ssue i s w het herHa wki n s v. S tate , 1 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 2 , 7 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 21 Id. ; Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S . W . 2d 249 , 259 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 199 8) ( op. 22 o n re h ’g ), cert. denied, 5 2 6 U .S . 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ). Hawki ns , 135 S. W . 3d a t77; see al so Si mpson v. State, 119 S. W . 3d 23 2 6 2 , 2 7 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 2 U .S . 9 0 5 (2 0 0 4 ). E v e l y n n , a p p e l l a n t’ s b i o l o g i c a l d a u g h ter, tes ti fi e d th a t sh e l i v e d w i th 24 a p p e l l a n t a n d s l e p t i n th e s a m e r o o m a sB .H . d u ri n g O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 , b e fo re m ovi ng a w ay i n Decem ber1999 . Ev el ynn’ s aun tal so t estif i ed t hatEve l ynn l i ve d i n a ppe l l ant ’ s hous e i n O ct obe r1999 . A FortW ort h I SD r ec or ds cus t odi an, how eve r , ha d r ec or ds f or Eve l ynn f or t he 199 8–9 9 sc hool yea r , but n o t fo r th e 1 9 9 9

– 2 0 0 0 s c h o o l y e a r. 11 t he t r i al co urt a bus ed i t s di sc r et i on i n de nyi ng t he m i st r i al . I n de t er m i ni ng 21

w het her t he t r i al court abused i t s di scr et i on i n deny i ng t he m i st r i al , w e bal ance t hr eef ac t or s: ( 1) t he se ver i t y of t he m i sc onduc t ( pr ej udi ci alef f ec t ) , ( 2) cu r at i ve
m e a s u r e s , a n d (3 ) t h e c e rt a in t yo fc o n v ic t io n a b s e n tt h e m is c o n d u c t . O n ly 22 in e x t r e m e c ir c u m s t a n c e s , w h e n t h e p r eju d ic e isin c u r a b le o rt h e c o m m e n tis “s o pr ej udi ci alt hatex pen di t ur e off urt hert i m e a nd e xpe ns e w oul d bew as t ef ul and f ut i l e, ” w i l l a m i st r i alber equ i r ed. 23 D u ri n g clos i n g arg u m e n t, the p ros e c u to r state d , “T h e re i s n o ev i d e n c e to
con t r ove rthe rs t at em ent . Her

— [ B. H . ] , w hats he t ol d yo u i s unc ont r ove rt ed. Eve l ynn, co nf us ed. ” The t r i al cou rt su st ai ned app el l ant ’ s obj ec t i on t hatt he 24
rem a rk c o m m e n ted o n ap p e l l a n t’ s fa i l u re to tes ti f y an d i n stru c ted the j u ry to di sr ega r d i t . The pr os ec ut or t hen att em pt ed t o exp l ai n hi s com m ent . H e s ai d,E v e l y n n te s ti fi e d th a t V a l o n e , th e S ta te ’si n v e s ti g a to r, te l e p h o n e d h e r, 25 butt he t r i alco urts us t ai ned t he St at e’ s hea r sa y obj ec t i ons ast o de t ai l s oft he c o n v e rs a ti o n . See Hawki

ns , 1 3 5 S . W .3 d a t 7 8

– 8 0 ; Ko sickv. S tate , No. 02- 06- 26 00056

- CR, 2007 W L 24603 51, a t *13 ( Te x. App.

— Fo rtW ort h Aug. 31, 2007 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p . o n re h ’g , n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). Wo lfe v
. S tate , 91 7 S . W . 2d 27 0, 27 9 (T ex. C r i m . A pp. 19 96 ) ( “A 27 pr osecut orcannot com m enton t he l ack ofevi dence pr esent ed w h e re t hat com m entne ce ss ar i l y r ef er s t o t he def end ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y, butl ang uag e t hatca n r ea so nab l y be con st r ued as a f ai l ur e t o pr es ent evi den ce ot hert han t he d e fe n d a n t’ste s ti m o n yi sn o t a c o m m e n t o n th e fa i l u re to te s ti fy .” ); Har r i s v. S tate , 1 2 2 S .W .3 d 8 7 1 , 8 8 4(T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f’d ). S e eWo lfe , 917 S. W . 2d a t279. 28 12 W h a t I m e a n i s th a t i n c ros s-e x a m i n a ti o n . . . th e re w a s n o th i n g to con t r ove rt[ B. H .]’s s tory. W hat

— w hatde f ens e c ouns elha s you bel i evei s La r ry Val one. . . ouri nve st i gat or , I co u l d n’ tbr i ng y ou th a t b e c a u s e i t w a s h e a rs a y . It w a sn o t a d m i s s i b l e . H e h a d e v e ry chance t o cal l Lar ry hi m sel fand ask hi m t hose quest i ons. 25 W h e n as se ss i n g the p rej u d i c i a l effe c t of a sta tem e n t, i t i s i m p o rt a n t t o
v i e w i t i n c o n te x t. T h e a rg u m e n t a t i s s u e c o u l d h a v e re fe rre d to a p p e l l a n t’s 26 f a ilu r e t o c a ll t h e S t a t e ’s in v e s t ig a t o r a s a w it n e s s , a n d t h e S t a t e m a yp r o p e r ly
com m enton an accused’ s f ai l ur e t o pr odu ce t est i m ony f r om sour ces ot hert han hi m sel f . Thu s, t he com m ent ati ssue w as ar guab l y pr operand const i t ut ed at

27

w or stan i ndi r ec tco m m enton t he def end ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f y. Fu rt her , t he 28 al l ege dl y i m pr ope r ar gum entonl y oc cur r ed atonepoi nt , i n r ebu t t al , an d t he
o bj e c ti o n a b l e l i n e o f re a s o n i n g w a sn o t p u rs u e d o r e m p h a s i z e d .Hawki ns , 1 3 5 S . W . 3 d a t 8 4 ; L o ng o ri av. S tate , 154 S. W . 3d 747, 29 7 6 3

– 6 4(T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 4 , p e t. re f’d ). Hawki ns , 135 S. W . 3d at84 ( cha r ac t er i z i ng a pr os ec ut or ’ s apo l ogy and 30 re tra c ti o n a fte r i m p ro p e r a rg u m e n t a sc u ra ti v e m e a s u re s ); Ca n a les v. S tate , 98 S . W . 3d 69 0, 69 6– 97 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. ) ( hol di ng t hat any er r orw as har m l ess w h e r e p r o s e c u t o rc o r r e c t e d a n ym is s t a t e m e n t so ft h e la w im m e d ia t e ly fo l l o w i n g o bj e c ti o n a b l e c o m m e n ts ), cert. denied, 5 4 0 U .S . 1 0 5 1 (2 0 0 3 ). 13 Secon dl y, t he t r i alco urtan d t he pr os ec ut or bot h att em pt ed t o c ur e a ny p rej u d i c e fro m th e c o m m e n t . A fte r s u s ta i n i n g th e o bj e c ti o n , th e tri a l c o u rt i n s tru c te d th e j u ryto “ d i s re g a rd th a t l a s t s ta te m e n t b y[th e p ro s e c u to r].” G ener al l y, a pr om pti nst r uct i on t o di sr egar d w i l l cur e any pr ej udi ce associ at ed

w i t h a n i m pr ope r ar gum ent . Furt her , t he pr os ec ut orex pl ai ned hi s ar gum ent 29 t o t he j ury, i ndi ca t i ng t hat he m ea ntt o s ay t hatap pel l antco ul d ha ve br ought t he St at e’ s i nve st i gat or t o t es t i f y. A pr os ec ut or ’ s cur at i ve com m enti s r el eva nt i n det er m i ni ng har m and can, i n appr opr i at e ci r cum st ances, r enderan i m pr oper
com m enthar m l ess. 30 Fi nal l y, absent t he pr osecut or ’ s com m ent , t he S t at e st i l l had a sol i d case. The m ai n i s s u e a tt r i a l wa swh e t h e rB . H . ’ sc l a i ms , ma d e f i v e y e a r sa ft e rt he
s e x u a l a s s a u lt so c c u r r e d , w e r e c r e d ib le , a n d a p p e lla n te m p h a s iz e d t h e d e la yin h e r o u tc ry . A l th o u g h th e S ta te ’s c a s e re s te d m a i n l yo n B .H .’s te s ti m o n y , th e re
w as som e cor r obo r at i on: one ofB. H . ’ s f r i ends noti ced a dr am at i c chang e i n her behavi orand act s ofsel f

- m ut i l at i on a ro u n d t he t i m e oft he al l eged assaul t s.E. g. , Ma rgra ves v. S tate , 3 4 S .W .3 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 31 See Hawki

ns , 135 S. W . 3d a t77. 32 W e , t her ef or e, ne ed notad dr es s app el l ant ’ s t hi r d poi nti n w hi ch he 33 c o n te n d s th a t th e S ta te ’sa rg u m e n t w a si m p ro p e r. S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 1; Ha r r is , 122 S. W . 3d a t887. 14 T h e ju ry , w h o is t h e s o le ju d g e o ft h e c r e d ib ilit yo ft h e w it n e s s e s , e v id e n t ly 31 b e l i e v e d B .H . I n sum m ar y, not hi ng i n t he r ecor d suggest s t hat th is i s an “ext r em e ci r cum st ance” w her e t he pr ej udi ce f r om t he al l egedl y i m pr operar gum entw as i ncu r abl e. Accor di ngl y, w e h o l d t hatt he i ns t r uct i on t o di sr ega r d a nd

32 p ro s e c u to r’sc u ra ti v e c o m m e n t c u re d th e p rej u d i c e , i f a n y , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n i n d e n y i n g a p p e l l a n t’sm o ti o n fo r m i s tri a l . W e
o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s fo u rt h p o i n t. 33 In h is f i f t h p o in t , a p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rte r r e d w h e n it al l ow ed t he St at e t o i nt r oduc e, dur i ng pu ni sh m ent , ext r ane ousof f ens esw i t hout p ro p e r n o ti c e a sre q u i re d b yT e x a sC o d e o f C ri m i n a l P ro c e d u re a rti c l e 3 7 .0 7 , s e c ti o n 3 (g ). Unde r a rt i c l e 37. 07, s e c t i on s 3( a ) a nd ( g) , a t r i a l c ou rt a bu se s i ts di sc r et i on i n a dm i t t i ng e vi den ce of an ext r ane ous of f ens e dur i ng t he puni sh m ent st age i ft he S t at e f ai l ed t o pr ovi de noti ce ofi t s i nt entt o i nt r odu ce t he of f enseT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 37. 07, § 3( a ) , ( g) ( Ver no n 2006 & 34 S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Mitc h el l v. S tate , 982 S . W . 2d 425, 426 n. 1 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 8 ); S c o tt v. S tate , 5 7 S .W .3 d 4 7 6 , 4 8 1 ( T e x . A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 1 , p e t. re f’d ). 15 af t era “t i m el y r equest ” by t he def endan t . O n Jul y 18 , 20 06 , appel l antf i l ed 34
a m ot i on r equest i ng no t i ce of t he S t at e’ s i nt entt o i nt r odu ce evi dence of ot her
cr i m es , w r ongs , an d a ct s. O n Ju l y 24, 200 6, t he St at e f i l ed a r es pons e, gi vi ng
n o ti c e o f i ts i n ten t t o o ffer t h i rt y -se v e n ex tr a n e o u s o ffen se s a n d b a d ac ts i n c l u d i n g th e fo l l o w i n g : ( 26) O n or a b o utA pr i l 30, 1989 , i n Tay l orCount y, Texa s, t he D e fen d a n t ki d n a p p e d A u rora A n n e tte B a l l e n g e r [ sic] at g u n p o i n t. D ur i ng t he puni sh m entpha se , A nne t t e Roya l , an ex- gi r l f r i end ofap pel l ant
w ho w as pr evi ousl y know n as A ur or a Bal l i nger , t ook t he st and. R oyal t est i f i ed t ha t , a m on g ot he ra c t so fv i ol e nc e c om m i t t e d by a p p e l l a nt , i n Apr i l 1989 appel l anthi ther i n t he f ace w i t h t he buttofa shot gun , ki dnap ped herand her son, and dr ove her f r om Tay l or C oun t y t o Tarr ant C oun t y. D ur i ng t he cour se oft hi s or deal , Ro yal t est i f i ed, appel la n t ra ped hert w i ce, once i n vi ew ofher chi l d. Appel l antobj ec t ed t o t hi s t es t i m o n y , a r gui ng i tdi d notap pea ri n t he St at e’ s not i ceofex t r ane ousof f ens es . The t r i alco urtove r r ul ed t he obj ec t i on. T h e S t a t e ’s d u t yt o p r o v id e n o t ic e u n d e rA rt ic le 3 7 .0 7 , s e c t io n 3 (g ) isT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 3 7 .0 7 , § 3 (g ); Mitch ell, 98 2 S . W . 2d at 35 427. S e eMitch ell, 9 8 2 S .W .2 d a t 4 2 7 ; Woo dwa rd v. S tate , 170 S. W . 3d

36 7 2 6 , 7 2 8

– 2 9 (T e x . A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ). Mitch ell, 9 8 2 S .W .2 d a t 4 2 7 ; Wo o d wa rd, 170 S. W . 3d a t728– 29. 37 16 t r i gge r ed onl y i f t he def end ant m ak es a t i m el y r equ es t . W he n a d o c u m ent 35
s e e k s t r ia l c o u r t a c t i o n (a so p p o s e d t o b e in g a “ s e lf -e x e c u t in g re q u e s t ” ), it
canno tal so serve a s a r equestf ornot i ce t r i gger i ng t he S t at e’ s dut y und er
se ct i on 3( g) . I fa doc um ent ’ s su bs t ant i ve f or m i s l i kea m ot i on a nd t he 36

m ova ntdoe s no t o b ta i n a r ul i ng byt he t r i alco urt , t he doc um entw i l l not
con sti tu te a t i m el y r equ es ts uf f i ci entt o t r i gge rt he St at e’ s dut y t o pr ovi de noti ce. 37 H er e, appel l ant ’ s r equestf ornot i ce w as cl ea rly a m o t i on. I tw as t i t l ed “D ef endan t ’ s M ot i on R equest i ng N ot i ce ofPr secut i ons [ si c] I nt ent t o I nt r odu ce Evi d e n c e o f Ot h e r Cr i me s , W r o n g s o r Ac t s , ” a n d i t wa s f i l e d wi t h t he t r i al
court . I tw as al so addr essed t o t he t r i al court , and it s cert i f i cat e ofservi ce char act er i zed i tas a “m ot i on. ” I ti ncl uded a f i l l

- i n- t he- bl ank “or der ” f or t he t r i al
c o u rt to g ra n t o r d e n yth e re q u e s t. The t r i al cou rt app ar ent l y nev er r ul ed on t he m ot i on. W e hav e f ound no i ndi ca t i on i n t he cl er k’ s r ec or d t hatt he t r i alco urtgr ant ed orde ni ed t he m ot i on,I ti s us ual l y t h e a ppe al i ng pa rt y’ s bur den t o pr es enta r ec or d s how i ng 38 p ro p e rl y p re s e rv e d , re v e rs i b l e e rro r. Wo rd v. S tate , 206 S. W . 3d 646, 651– 52 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). S e eMitch ell, 9 8 2 S .W .2 d a t 4 2 7 ; Wo o d wa rd, 170 S . W . 3d a t728– 29. 39 S e eWo o d wa rd, 17 0 S . W . 3d at72 9 ( r ej ect i ng app el l ant ’ s ar gum entt hat 40 b e c a u se the S tate p rov i d e d n o ti c e o f so m e ex tr a n e o u s o ffen se s o r ba d ac ts w it h o u ta p r o p e rre q u e s t , itw a so b lig a t e d t o p r o v id e re a s o n a b le n o t ic e a st o a ll b a d a c ts i t w o u l d u s e ). 17 and t he cou rt ’ s doc ke tdoe s notr ef l ec ta r ul i ng. The r epo rt er ’ s r ec or d doe s not
con t ai n a ny h ea r i ng oror alr ul i ng on t he m ot i on. 38 Beca us e a ppe l l ant ’ s r equ es tw asa m o ti o n fi l ed w i t h t he cou rtan d he fai l e d to o b tai n a ru l i n g , th e S tate w a s n o t r e q u i red to p rov i d e n o ti c e o f i ts i nt entt o i nt r oduc e e xt r ane ousof f ens esatpuni sh m ent . T h e fa ctt hatt he 39 St at e p r ovi ded not i ceofs om e e xt r ane ous of f ens es orba d a ct s doe s notr el i eve t he def endan tf r om havi ng t o m ake a t i m el y r eq u e s t fo r noti ce ofot her ext r aneou s of f enses. A ccor di ngl y, w e hol d t hatt he t r i al courtdi d not abuse 40 i t s di sc r et i on i n ov er r ul i ng app el l ant ’ s obj ec t i onst o t he t es t i m ony ati ss ue, an d

w e o v e rr u l e h i s fi fth p o i n t.S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 1. 41 18 H avi ng ov er r ul ed appel l ant ’ s f i r st , second, f ourt h, and f i ft h poi nt s, w hi ch
a re d i sp o sit i v e o f t h e ap p e a l , w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. 41

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL F: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 13, 2008