### NUM BER 13-06- 0066 6-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
ERASM O GA RZA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Erasmo G arz a, br ing s t his appeal foll ow ing hi s c o n vict io n for sex ual
a s s a u l to f

a c h i l d , a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l to f a c h i l d , a n d i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d

. W e modify the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment and aff ir m itas modi fied. I. B A CKGRO UND Appel lan t sex ual ly abuse d his ow n daug hter , C .G. , from the t ime that she w as sev enT h e c o u n ts , o ff e n s e s , a n d d a te s o f th e o ff e n s e s a p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c te d o f a re a s fo l l o w s : 1 C ount one : Aggr av at ed Sexua l Assaul t of a C hi l d, June 4, 199 9; C o u n t t w o : A g g ra v a te d S e x u a l A s s a u l t o f a C h i l d , A u g u s t 4 , 1 9 9 8 ; C o u n t t h re e : A g g ra v a te d S e x u a l A s s a u l t o f a C h i l d , A u g u s t 4 , 1 9 9 6 ; C o u n t fo u r: A g g ra v a te d S e x u a l A s s a u l t o f a C h i l d , A u g u s t 4 , 1 9 9 7 ; C ount f i v e: I ndecen cy wi t h a chi l d, August 4, 199 7; and C o u n t s i x : S e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a C h i l d , D e c e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 9

. An u nconst i t ut i onal ex post f act o l aw ( 1) pun i shes a s a cr i m e an act pr ev i ousl y com m i t t ed whi ch 2 was i nnocen t when done, ( 2) change s t he puni shm ent and i nf l i ct s a gr eat er pun i shm ent t han t he l aw at t ached to a c r im in a l o ff e n s e w h e n c o m m itt e d , o r ( 3 ) d e p r iv e s a p e r s o n c h a r g e d w ith a c r im e o fa n y d e f e n s e a v a ila b le a t t h e ti m e th e a c t w a s c o m m i tte d

. J o h nson v . S ta te , 9 30 S. W

. 2d 5 89, 591 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 199 6) ( ci t i ng C ol lins v
. Youngblood , 497 U

. S. 37, 42- 43 ( 1990) )

. T he i ssue i n t hi s case f ocuses on t he se cond def i ni t i on; i .e ., p u n i s h m e n t. 2 y ears old u ntil she wa s fourte en, w hen she un expected ly g ave birth to his child. At trial, C. G. tes ti f ie d to nu m e ro u s in st a n ce s o f se xua l a b u se , in clu d in g to u ch in g an d m a st u rbati on,
sex ual i ntercourse, and v ar iou s i nci dents of anal i ntercourse. Appel lan t w as ind ic ted o n four count s of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d, on e countof ind ecency

w it h a c hil d, an d one countof sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. A j ur y found appel lan t g uil ty

on e ach count , as ses sed li fe sent ences for each of the firs t four

co unts of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d, an d tw enty -y ear se ntenc es for th e i ndece ncy and
s e xu a l a s s a u ltco u n t s
. T h e t ri a l c o u rto rd e re d t h a tt h e se n t e n c e s a ll ru n co n s e c u t ive ly. 1 This appeal ens ued. II. E X P OST F A CTO By hi s f irst poi nt of

error , appell ant conte nds the tr ial courtvi ola ted the expost facto provisi ons o f

the sta te an d fede ral constitu tions. Speci f ic a ll y, h e argues the trial court 2
er re d by order ing the sent ences for c ounts three, four , a n d f ive, to r un c onsec uti v ely to each other

. Sect ion 3. 03 o f

the pe nal code p rov ides tha t if a n accuse d is fo und g uilty of more3

than one offen se a ri si ng out of the s ame cr imi nal epi sode, the sent ences may r un
cons ecut iv ely

i f each s entenc e i s for a c onv ic ti on of i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d, ag g ra v ated
sex ual as saul t, and ot her enumerated off enses
. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 3.03( b) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. How ev er , t his par ti cul ar se ction b ecame eff ect iv e Sept ember 1, 1997, and onl y

appl ies to off enses w hic h w er e c ommitt ed after this date. See Ponce v . State , 8 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 9 (T e x. A p p
. – Co rp u s Ch ri s it2 0 0 2 , n o p e t

. ). Pr io r t o t h e e f fe c t ive dat e of the am end me nt, se ction 3 .03 provi ded thatif an accuse d is fo u n d g u il ty of more tha n on e of

fense arising outof

the sam e crimina l episod e, th e sen ten ces for each of fense shal l ru n c oncur re ntl y . Id

. Here, ap pel lan t w as found g uil ty of tw o count s of ag g ra v ated ass aul t and one co unt of indece ncy w ith a child, all co mm itted p rior to S ept em ber 1, 199 7. T hus, b ecau se the se three o f f e n se s occ ur re d pr ior

to the a mendment of s ect ion 3.03 of the p enal co de, t he sent ences shoul d not hav e been order ed to r un c onsec uti v ely

. Beca use the c umulat ion of senten ces es sent ial ly co nst it utes an i ncrease in puni shment , w e c oncl ude t hat “ to al low
c um ul at i on o f pu ni s hm en t un de r a ut ho r i ty

o f a s ta tu te t ha t di d no t s o prov i de a t th e ti me of the of fense v iola t e s t he Ex Post Facto Clause.” Id . (qu o ti n g Johns on v
. State , 930 S.W .2d 5 89, 5 93 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ). Ap pel lan t’ s first is sue is su sta ine d.4 III

. S TA TE ’ S H YP OTHETI CA L Q UE S TI ON By hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel lan t c omplai ns of a hy pothet ic al q uest ion pos ed by the Stat e to his defense ex per t. At t he puni shmentst ag e of tr ial , app ell ant cal led psy chol og is t Dr . W il li am Fl y nn w ho tes ti fied th at he had condu cte d a c o m ple te ps y chi atr icex aminat ion of appel lan t, and formed the opini on that appell ant “has the low estris k of re -o ff endi ng sex ual ly , and has the low estris k of re -o ff endi ng in other v iol ent matters [si c]. ” The record s how s t hat D r. F ly nn
ma de e xten siv e use of

stand ardized tests in m aking this d ete rmina tion. At the hea ring, D r. Fly nn d escribed his e x am inatio n of a ppe llant as con sisting of sev eral parts, one of

w hich inc lud ed a d e te rminati on of w hether appel lan t had any

prev iou s c onv ic ti ons for “ noncont act ” sex ual offenses
. Acc ordin g to Dr . F ly nn, t he fact that appel lan t did not hav e any other “ dev ian t i nterest ,” su ch as, “ loo ki ng thro u gh o ther peopl e’s w ind ow s” or

“ ex posi ng hims elf [t o oth ers], ” pla ced appel lan t i n a l ow -r is k c ateg or y for re- off endi ng
. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , t he St ate a sk ed Dr

. Fl y nn w hether he knew how appel lan t
w as apprehended. D r. F ly nn ans w er ed th at he w as unaw a re o f t he c ircums tanc es
sur ro undi ng appel lan t’ s a pprehens ion

. The Stat e the n as ked to ap proach the b ench. The follo w ing benc h c onferenc e the n oc cur re d: Q [ Stat e]: He w as look ing into w ind ow s w hen he w as caug ht, final ly , a y ear lat er
. An d I wo u ld l ike to g o i nto t hat. I jus t l ear ned t hat my sel f. And he menti oned l ooki ng i nto w ind ow s q uit e a b itdur ing hi s t est imony

. [ D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ] : T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e h e ’ s e v e r l o o k e d i n t o w i n d o w s
. We haven’t he ard an y

ev iden ce on t he record of t hat . If some bod y

is telling him that in the p eanut g all er y , i ts not rele v ant. [Sta te]: That w oul d hav e made t he r is k fact or hi g her

. He ev en bl u rt ed out about loo ki ng in w ind ow s. So I w oul d lik e to be able to ask him, in good faith as I understa nd it , he w as loo ki ng in w ind ow s and that is how he final ly g ot caug ht.5

[The C our

t]: That i s n ot i n ev ide nce. [D efense C ounse l] : I t’ s n ot i n ev ide nce. [Sta te]: Iti s n ot i n ev ide n ce b u t I ca n as k h im a bout itand then I c an br ing of f icers– [The C our

t]: Y ou c an as k a bout a hy pothet ic al [Sta te]: Ok ay
. [The C our

t]: ButI thi nk he al re ady tes ti fied to that

. [D efense c ounse l] : H e alr eady testi fied to that. W hy

do w e need to g o ov er that – [Sta te]: W ell , t hen – [D efense c ounse l] : I ’m g oin g to obj ectto the h y pothet ic al.
T he b ench conf eren ce con clude d, an d the State contin ued w ith its crossex aminat ion : [Sta te]: H y pothet ic all y , D octo r, i f s o meone w er e on the r un for a y ear and w er e c aug ht l ooki ng i nto w ind ow s, and that’ s how theyw er e f ina ll y

caug ht for an out sta ndi ng w ar ra nt, w oul d tha t c hang e the r is k fact or for y ou? [Defense coun sel]: I’m g oing to obje ct to the q uest ion. T here is no ev iden ce that any body

w as loo ki ng in w ind ow s. It is i rrele v ant a nd i t i s n ot i n ev ide nce. [Sta te]: Y our

H onor , t he C our

t al low ed me to ask a hy pothet ic al q uest ion on it

. I wo u ld b e h a p p y t o b lu rto u twh y I fe e l t h a t i t is re le va n t , b u tI t h in kwe need t o approach. [Defense coun sel]: Y our H ono r, w e can g o on hy pot het icals fo re ver, esp ecially w ith a psychologist. W e can ask him a m y riad of hy pot het icals. It is i rrele v ant. Iti s n ot ev en any par t of thi s c ase. [The C our

t]: She is al low ed to q uest ion on h y pothet ic als

. Ov er ru led

. * * * * * Q [ Stat e]: Do y ou th ink thatis so m e thing [s ic ] pretty dang erous w hen someone peeks i nto w ind ow s.6

A: I thi nk iti s p re tty

dang erous and inc re ases the r is k o f re- off endi ng w hen someone is co nv ic ted o f peeping i n w ind ow s. Q: Oka y . So i f someone i s caug ht peeki ng in w ind ow s but n ot c onv ic ted o f ity et, that is – A: Coun selor, I do n’t kno w how to an sw er y our question . Caught me ans – [D efense c ounse l] : Yo ur Honor , I’m g oin g to obj ect r ig ht no w . She i s t ry ing to i nser t i n the j ur

y ’s min d tha t my

cl ien t had been g oin g around pe eki ng throu gh wi ndo w s. None of this is i n evidence and it is irrelev ant . It is improper , t oo. [Sta te]: Y our

H onor , I ’m a sk ing i n g ood fait h. [The Cou rt ]: I thi nk he has answ er ed the q uest ion

. Can w e ple ase mov e on. [Sta te]: Pas s t he w it ness
. The abov e tes ti mony

sh ow s t hat a ppel lan t obj ect ed on the b asi s o f rel ev ance and
a s s u m in g fa c t s n o tin e vid e n c e
. T o t h e e xt e n th e a rg u e s o n a p p e a l t h a tt h e p ro b a t ive
v alu e of the q uest ion w as subst a n ti a ll y outw eig hed by

the dang er

of unfair

preju dic e, appel lan t’ s t ri al obj ect ion di d notpreser v e er ro r for rev iew as to ru le 403 of the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. See Montg om ery v
. State , 8 10 S. W .2d 3 72, 3 88 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990)

. After re v iew ing the re cord, w e find that appel lan t c or re ctl y poi nted out t hat t he St ate did i n fact ask

D r. F ly nn to as sume a fact w h ich wa s n ot i n ev ide nce becau se there w as no te stimo ny tha t app ellanthad pre vio usly bee n cau ght looking through w indo w s. Nev erthel ess , w hen a hy pothet ic al q uest ion i s a ddress ed t o an ex per t w it ness , t he
assum ption s on w hich th e hypoth etical is base d are no t nece ssarily limite d t o tho se
ass umpti ons w hic h are s uppor ted b y the ev ide nce. Pyles v

. State , 755 S .W .2 d 98 , 118 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1988)

. H y pothet ic al q uest ion s may al so inc lud e as sumpti ons based on facts that ar e w it hin the personal kn ow led g e of the w it ness or thatare as sumed from
common or

j udi ci al know led g e. Id

.7

Here, t o det er mine appel lan t’ s future dang erousne ss , D r. F ly nn a d mini ste re d a Stat ic99 e x am, w hic h he deemed as “b oth reli abl e and v ali d.” Ac cordin g to Dr . F ly nn, t he exam ha s a 75% pre diction rate, an d ad ded “if I say som ebo dy is going to be low risk, I’m going to be rig ht a lot. ” T he e x am itself uses ten facto rs to correlate wi th sexual of fense
re ci div is m; among the factors to c onsi der i s w hether

a pe rs on has prev iou s c onv ic ti ons for “n on- cont actse x off enses .” Dr . F ly nn repeated ly emphas iz ed th at be caus e appel lan t doe s not h av e any

prev iou s s ex ual offense conv ic ti ons, he “h as the l ow estr is k o f re- off endi ng sexually .” Onc e Dr

. Fl y nn tes ti fied to thes e conc lus ion s, the S tate w as enti tl ed to i nq uire i nto the circumsta nces o f

his research an d investig ation , the man ner in w hich he cond ucte d his inq uir y , and the mater ial s u pon w hic h he re li ed. See W hee ler v

. S tate , 6 7 S .W .3 d 879, 883 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2002)

. Here, the Stat e’s hy pothet ic al w ent direct ly to the v ali dity of
c o n c lu s io n s b a s e d o n t h e S t a t ic9 9 t e s t , a n d wa s fa c t u a ll y p re m is e d o n Dr

. Fl yn n ’s o wn
ex per t t est imony , i .e., thata pe rs on w ho has ex hib it ed dev iant se xual be hav ior , s uch as loo ki ng throu gh window s, is mor e i ncl ine d to re -o ff end. In ot her w ords, D r. F ly nn w as
me rely asked to factu ally

assum e w hathe a lr e a dy knew, and his an sw er to the State ’s hypothe tical w as me rely a rep eato f

what he had p rev iously att este d to. W e f ind no e rror. See Bar efoot v . State , 5 9 6 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 5 , 8 8 7 -8 8 ( T e x. C ri m
. A p p
. 1 9 8 0 ) ( a n o p p o n e n tm a y,
on c ro ss -e x aminat ion , sec ur e the ex per t’ s opi nio n upon a di ff er ent s et of facts , i ncl udi ng facts ass umed by

the opponenti n ac cordance w it h hi s o w n the or y of the cas e) ; Ex par

te W oods , 745 S.W .2d 2 1, 26 n.4 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1988) (c it ing the S upr eme C our t’ s r uli ng in Bar efoot v . Este lle , 463 U .S. 880 ( 1983) , for the p ro posi ti on th at ex per t testi mony , w hen based on a hy pothet ic al, “ is co mmonly admi tted as ev ide nce w her e itmig ht he lp the fact
-8

finder to do its as si g ned j ob” ); Held v . State , 948 S.W .2d 4 5, 53 ( Tex . Ap p–H oust on [1 4th Di st. ] 199 7, pe t. ref’d ) ( findi ng hy pothet ic al q uest ion proper w her e as sumed facts der iv ed from ex per

t’ s o w n tes ti mony ). Fur ther more, the co n f in e s of “rele v ancy ” ar e notso st ri ct in cross -e x aminat ion as in direct ex aminat ion

. See Carroll v . State , 916 S.W .2d 4 94, 4 97- 98 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996)

. And, dur ing the puni shmentphas e o f t rial for a non- capi tal felony offense, deter mini ng w hat e v ide nce shoul d be admit ted is a functi on of po li cy ra ther than a q uest ion of log ic al re lev ance. See Sunb ury v
. State , 88 S. W .3d 229 , 233 (T ex. C rim. App . 199 9); Roge rs v
. State , 991 S.W .2d 263, 265 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1999)

. A tr ial cour t’ s deci si on to admitor ex cl ude ev ide nce is rev iew ed unde r an abuse o f d iscreti on s tandard. See W eather re d v

. State , 15 S.W .3d 5 40, 5 42 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; Gr een v
. State , 934 S.W .2d 9 2, 10 1- 02 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996)

. W hen t he s tandard of re view i s a b use of dis creti on, a rev iew ing co urt s houl d notrev erse a tr ial j udg e’s deci si on w hose ru li ng w as
w it hin the z one of di sag re ement. W eather re d , 15 S.W .3d a t 542

. T h e t ri a l court’s ruling w as, ata minim um , w ithin th e z one of reason able dis ag re ement, and w as not an abuse of disc re ti on. Appel lan t’ s sec ond iss ue is ov er ru led

. IV. P ROSECUTORI A L M I S CONDU CT By hi s t hird i ss ue, appel lan t asser ts the State engag ed in prosec utor ial mis condu ct. Spec ific all y , app ell ant c ontends that “ th e p ro sec utor ’s announ cementthatsh e w oul d be ‘hap py to blu rt out’ w hy she f elt the hy pot het ical wa s rele v antw as a cynical histrionic atte mp t to preju dice th e jury .” In orde r to preserve error in cases of p rosecu torial misco ndu ct, the d ef end antmust (1) make a time ly and specif ic obje ction; (2) request an instruction thatthe jury disregard9

t h e ma t t e r i mp ro p e r l y p l a c e d b e fo r e t h e j u r y ; a n d ( 3 ) mo v e fo r a mi str ial

. See Penry v. State , 903 S.W .2d 715, 764 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ; Monto ya v . State , 43 S.W .3d 5 68, 5 72 (T e x. Ap p .– W a co 20 0 1 , n o p e t. ). R e gar d in g s p e cif ici ty, a p a rt y sh o u ld “ le t th e tri a l ju d ge know w hat h e w ants , w hy

he t hin ks hi msel f entit led to it , and to do so cl ear ly enoug h for the j udg e to understa nd hi m at a ti me w hen the c our t i s i n proper

pos it ion to do s omethi ng abo ut it.” Lanks ton v

. State , 827 S.W .2d 9 07, 9 09 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992)

. Appel lan t di d not obj ect in the tr ial cour t on the g ro unds of pros ecut or ial mis condu ct,
nor di d he re cei v e an adv erse ru li ng on s uch an obj ect ion

. Appel lan t di d notse ek an instructio n tha t the jury disregard any fa lse testim ony that m ay have bee n ad mitt ed, nor did appel lan t s eek a mi str ial bas ed on any alle g ed pros ecut or ial m is condu ct. Thus , app ell ant f a ile d to pr eser

v e any er ro r for appe al. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1; Pen ry , 9 0 3 S.W .2d a t 764. Appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. V. C ONCL US I ON Acc ordin g ly , w e modi fy the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment by

del eti ng the cumul ati on order for c ounts three, four , and fiv e, an d aff ir m the jud g ment as modi fied.

RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Ma rc h, 20 08.