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

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 089- CR NO. 2 - 07 - 09 0- CR J AS ON E AR LW HI T E AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 355TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F HO O D CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on In th re e p o i n ts , A p p e l l a n t J a s o n E a rl W h i te c o m p l a i n sth a t th e tri a l c o u rt er r ed by ( 1) adm i t t i ng t en- yea r - ol d A . V . ’ s vi deo t ape d i nt ervi ew , ( 2) de t er m i ni ng t hatA ndr ea Car m ac k w ast he pr ope rout cry w i t nes s, an d ( 3) ad m i t t i ng e x tra n e o u se v i d e n c e th a t h e p o s s e s s e d c h i l d p o rn o g ra p h y . W e a ffir m .2 I I . Fa ct ualan d Proce duralBac kground O n O ct ober21 , 2 0 0 2 , A . V . , a t en- year - ol d gi r l , t ol d a school gui dance cou ns el or , A ndr ea Car m ac k, t hats he di d notf ee l s af e a thom e a ft e r t he cou ns el or ’ s di s c u s s i o n on s af et y. A. V . an d t he cou ns el ort hen w entt o t he c o u n s e lo r ’s o f f ic e w h e r e A .V . t o ld t h e c o u n s e lo rt h a ts h e h a d b e e n s e x u a lly a b u se d b yh e r un c l e , A p p e l l a n t. A .V . re c a l l e d A p p e l l a n t’sd ri v i n g h e r to a fa rm , m a k i n g h e r c l i m b o v e r a c a ttle g u a rd g a te , a n d ta k i n g h e r d o w n a p a th . A fte r re a c h i n g a “ b i g ro c k ,” A ppel l ant i nst r uct ed A . V . t o und r ess and she di d. A ppel l ant th e n u ndr essed a n d h a d v a g i n a l i n t e r c o u r s e wi t h A. V. A . V . al so r ecal l ed a gam e c a ll e d “Bar bi e Say s. ” D ur i ng t he gam e, A p p e lla n tw o u ld t a k e a n a rt ic le o f c lo t h in g o f f o f A .V .’ s B a r b ie d o ll a n d t h e n t e ll A . V . t o r em ove t he s a m e art i cl e ofcl ot hi ng. A ppel l antw oul d al so undr ess d u r in g t h e g a m e . A f t e r A .V . a n d A p p e lla n t w e r e u n d r e s s e d , A p p e lla n tw o u ld h a v e v a g i n a l i n t e r c o u r s e wi t h A. V. A . V . s t at ed i n s pec i f i c det ai l t hatA ppe l l antw oul d puthi s “s t i ckt hi ngy” i n her“m i ddl e” and m outh and t hatshe w oul d have t o put A ppel l ant ’ s “s t i ck t hi ngy” i n herhands. A . V . al so sai d t hat A ppel l ant asked her t o pi ck bet w een a cor n dog and a “pl ast i c t ub t hi ng” t o be put i nsi de her“m i ddl e. ”2 ... The j ury a l so f ound A ppe l l antgui l t y oft hr eea ddi t i ona l co unt s of

agg r ava t ed se xua l as sa ul t , one cou ntofi nde ce ncyw i t h a ch i l d byco nt ac t , an d t hr e e c ou nt so fi nd e c e nc y w i t h a c hi l d bye xp os ur e i n c a us e n um be rCR10077 . A p p e lla n td o e sn o tra is e a n y p o in t s r e g a r d in g t h e s e c o n v ic t io n s in h isa p p e a l. 3 A f t er l i st eni ng t o A . V . f ort hr ee and a hal fhour s, t he coun sel orcal l ed C h i l d P ro te c ti v e S e rv i c e s(“C P S ” ) a n d th e p o l i c eto n o ti f y t h e m o f A .V .’s out cry. La t er t hat sa m e day , a C PS i nve st i gat or w ent t o t he sc hoo l a nd in ter vi ew ed A . V . r egar di ng t he sexual abuse. Thi s i nt ervi ew w as vi deotaped a n d C a rm a c kw a sp re s e n t d u ri n g th e i n te rv i e w . O n O ct ober3, 20 03 , a j ur y f oun d A ppel l ant gui l t y ofaggr avat ed sexual as sa ul tof a c hi l d a nd s ent enc ed hi m t o f ort y ye ar s’ co nf i nem ent . How eve r , on S e p te m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , th i sc o u rt re v e rs e d a n d re m a n d e d th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t after h o l d i n g th a t th e tr i a l c o u rterred b yfai l i n g to re q u i re th e S tate to m a k e a n e l e c ti o n i n th e j u ry c h a rg e . W hite v. S tate , No. 02- 03- 00456

- CR, 2 0 0 5 W L 2 2 4 5 1 0 2 , a t * 2 -3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth S e p t. 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). O n Fe br ua ry 5, 2007, t he St a t e r e t r i e d t he c a s e . O n Fe br ua ry 8, 2007 , af t erA ppel l antpl eaded no t gui l t y, a j ur y f oun d hi m gui l t y ofaggr avat ed sexual a ss a u l t an d se n ten c e d h i m to s i x ty-fi v e y e a rs’ co n fi n e m e n t. T h e tr i a l c o u rt 2 l at err ed u c ed A ppe l l ant ’ s se nt enc e t o f ort y ye ar s’ co nf i nem entt o m at ch t he p u n i s h m e n t i m p o s e d d u ri n g th e fi rs t tri a l .4 I I I . V i deotaped I nt ervi ew I n hi s f i r st poi nt , A ppe l l ant con t end s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by a dm i t t i ng A .V .’ s v id e o t a p e d in t e rv ie w w i t h C P S . A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tu n d e ra rt ic le 38 . 07 1 o ft he T exas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr oce d u re , t he vi deotaped i nt ervi ew sh oul d notha ve bee n a dm i t te d b e ca us e A. V . t es t i f i ed att r i al ; t her ef or e, t he vi deotaped i nt ervi ew w as i nadm i ssi bl e hear say. The S t at e assert s t hatt he t r i al cou rtpr ope r l y a dm i t t ed t he vi deo t apebe c a u s e A ppe l l antope ned t he doorby r epe at edl y cr os s- exa m i ni ng w i t nes se s abo ut t he vi deo t ape , a n d al t er nat i vel y, because even i ft he t r i al courter r ed b y a d m itti ng t he vi deotaped i nt ervi ew , A p p e l l a n td i d n o ts u f f e rh a r m. A . AbuseofD i sc r et i on Th e st andar d of r evi ew f or a t r i al court ' s adm i ssi on of evi dence i s abuse o f d i s c re ti o n , a n d w i d e d i s c re ti o n i sa ffo rd e d to th e tri a l j u d g e . T h e us v. S tate , 845 S. W . 2d 874, 881 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1992 ) . The t r i alco urt ' s dec i si on sh oul d ber eve r se d on app ea l onl y i ft her e i s a s how i ng ofa cl ea rab us e o f d i s c re ti o n . Id. O n ly if t h e c o u rt 's d e c is io n f a llso u t s id e t h e “ z o n e o fre a s o n a b le d i s a g re e m e n t,” h a s i t a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n . Ra nki nv. S tate , 974 S. W . 2d 707, 7 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ); Mo n tg o m ery v. S tate , 810 S. W . 2d 3 7 2 , 3 9 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ).5 B. A ppl i cabl e Law A rt i cl e 38. 071 oft he Texa s C odeofCri m i nalPr oce dur e d es cr i best he pr ocedu r e f ora chi l d you ngert han t hi rt een year s ol d t o t est i f y w hen t he t r i al cou rtde t er m i nest hatheors he i s una vai l abl e t o t es t i f y i n t he pr es enc e oft he d e fe n d a n t. S ee T EX. C ODEC R I M.P RO C. A NN.a rt. 3 8 .0 7 1 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e p e rt i n e n t se c ti o n o f arti c l e 3 8 .0 7 1 sta tes tha t [ t ] he r ec or di ng o f an or als t at em entoft he chi l d m adebe f or e t he in d ic t m e n tisre t u r n e d o rt h e c o m p la in th a sb e e n f ile d isa d m is s ib le i nt o evi dence i ft he courtm akes a dete rm in a t i on t hatt he f act ual i ssues ofi denti t y or act ual occur r ence w er e f ul l y and f ai r l y i nqu i r ed in a d e t a c h e d m a n n e rb ya n e u t r a l in d iv i d u a l e x p e r ie n c e d in c h ild a b u s e c a s e sth a t s e e k sto fi n d th e tru th o f th e m a tte r. Id. a rt . 3 8 .0 7 1 (2 )( a ). T h ein t r o d u c t io n o fa v id e o t a p e d in t e rv ie w w h e n a c h ild
v i c ti m te s ti fi e s a t tri a l c o n s ti tu te sh e a rs a y . Ma tz v. S tate , 14 S. W . 3d 746, 746 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). C . E r r o rA n a ly s is To beg i n w i t h, w e f i nd t he St at e’ s ar gum entt hatA ppe l l antope ned t he d o o r to th e i n tro d u c ti o n o f th e v i d e o ta p e u n p e rs u a s i v e . C.f . , Feld m a n v. S tate , 71 S. W . 3d 738 , 755 –56 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 200 2) ( “a n app el l ant w ho ‘ ope nst he doo r ’ t o ot her w i se i n a d m iss i bl e evi dence r i sks havi ng t hatevi dence adm i t t ed and used agai nsthi m ”) . Th e S t at e ar gues t hat A ppel l ant open ed t he doo rw hen h e m e n ti o n e d D e l o res P h i l l i p s, the C P S i n v e sti g a to r, d u ri n g v o i r d i re, r e ferred to6

t he C PS i nt ervi ew dur i ng h is o p eni ng st at em ent , and w hen he qu est i oned C ar m ack abou t cal l i ng C PS and si t t i ng w i t h A . V . dur i ng th e C P S int ervi ew . A l t hough A ppe l l antm ent i one d Phi l l i psdur i ng voi r di r e, he di d notr ef er enc e t he vi deo t ape d i nt ervi ew . Dur i ng hi s ope ni ng s t at em ent , A ppe l l antm ent i one d t he C PS i nt ervi ew ; how eve r , hedi d nots ay t hatt he i nt ervi ew w asvi deo t ape d. A ddi t i onal l y, w e canno t s a y t hatA ppel l antopened t he doo rdur i ng hi s cr ossexam i nat i on of C ar m ack because nei t herA ppel l antnorC ar m ack m ent i oned t hat t he int ervi ew w as r ecor ded. The S t at e f urt herpoi nt s t o A ppel l ant ’ s cr ossexa m i nat i on ofA . V . Dur i ng c r os s- exa m i nat i on, A ppe l l a n ts t at ed, “ D o yo u re m e m b e r te l l i n g M s . P h i l l i p s o n th e v i d e o ta p e th a t -- l e t m e re p h ra s e th a t.” A l t hou gh A ppel l antm ent io n e d th e vi deotape, he di d not di scl ose t hati tw as A . V . ’ s i nt ervi ew t hat w as m om ent ar i l y r ef er enc ed i n t hi s abb r evi at ed que st i on nordi d he di sc us s t he det ai l s of t he vi deo t ape d i nt ervi ew . Thus , w e c onc l ude t hatA ppel l antdi d not open th e d o o rt o t he adm i ssi on of t he vi deotaped i n t e rv i e w. W e n ow t ur n t o a n e xam i nat i on a boutw het heri tw aser r ort o a dm i tt he vi deotaped i nt ervi ew att r i al . A s st at ed abov e, a chi l d vi ct i m ’ s vi deotaped i n terv i e w i s a d m i ss i b l e u n d e r arti c l e 3 8 .0 7 1 w h e n t h e ch i l d i s u n a v a i l a b l e to te s ti fya t tri a l . T EX. C ODE C R I M. P RO C. A NN.art . 38 . 07 1 ( 1) , ( 2) ( a) . Because7

A . V . di d t es t i f y at t r i al , w e hol d t hati tw aser r orf ort he t r i alco urtt o a dm i tt he
v i d e o ta p e o v e r A p p e l l a n t’so bj e c ti o n . Id. D . H a r m A n a ly s is H avi ng f ound er r or , w e m us t con duc ta har m an al ys i s t o de t er m i ne w h e th e r th e e rro r c a l l sfo r re v e rs a l o f th e j u d g m e n t. T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .2 . If t he er r ori s constitu tio n a l, w e appl y r ul e 44 . 2( a) and r ever se unl ess w e d e term i n e b e y o n d a re a so n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e erro r di d n o t co n tr i b u te to a p p e l l a n t’sc o n v i c ti o n o r p u n i s h m e n t. T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 . 2 ( a ) . O t h e r wi s e , we a p p l y ru l e 4 4 .2 (b ) a n d d i s re g a rd th e e rro r i f i t d i d n o t a ff e c ta p p e l l a n t’s s u b s ta n ti a l ri g h ts . T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .2 (b ); see Mosley v. State, 9 8 3 S. W . 2d 2 4 9 , 2 5 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), cert. denied, 526 U. S. 1070 (1 9 9 9 ); Cogg esh a l

l v. S tate , 9 6 1 S .W .2 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 2 -4 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 8 , p e t. re f’d ). H e r e , t h e t r ia l c o u rte r r e d b ya d m it t in g t h e v id e o t a p e b e c a u s e A .V . d id te s ti fya t tri a l . S e eJen sen v. S tate , 66 S. W . 3d 528, 535 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [1 4 th D i s t . ] 2 0 0 2 , p e t. re f’d ); Ma tz v. S tate , 21 S. W . 3d 911, 912 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 0 , p e t . r e f ’d ). E r r o rin t h e a d m is s io n o fe v id e n c e is su bj e c t to a h a rm a n a l y sis u n d e r R u l e 4 4 .2 (b) o f th e R u l e s o fA p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re . Ma tz , 2 1 S W .3 d a t 9 1 2 ; se e a l so Jo hn so nv. S tate , 967 S. W . 2d3 ... D ur i ng t he gam e t hat i n v o l v e d oneofA . V . ’ s bab y do l l s, A ppe l l ant

m adeA . V . puton a dr es s t hatw as t oo sm al l f or her and t hen hew oul d r em ove an art i cl e oft he babydol l ’ s cl ot hi ng a n d in s tr u c tA . V . t o r em ove t he sam e art i cl e ofcl ot hi ng. A f t er A . V . had und r essed, A ppel l anthad vagi nal i nt er cour se w i th h e r. 8 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); C o u c h m a nv. S tate , 3 S. W . 3d 155, 160 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 9 , p e t. re f’d ). B e c a u s e w e d e t e r m in e t h a tt h e e r r o r is n o tc o n s t it u t io n a l, r u le 4 4 .2 (b ) is a p p l i c a b l e . T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 2( b) . A subs t ant i alr i ghti s af f ec t ed w hen t he e rro r h a d a s u b s ta n ti a l a n d i n j u ri o u s e ffe c t o r i n fl u e n c e i n d e te rm i n i n g th e j u ry ’s
v e rd i c t. K

i ngv. S tate , 953 S. W . 2d 266 , 271 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1997 ) ( ci t i ng Kotteakos v. United S tates , 3 2 8 U .S . 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 , 6 6 S . C t. 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 5 3 (1 9 4 6 )); Cogg esh a ll, 961 S. W . 2d at 643 . I n m ak i ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, w e r evi ew t he re c o rd a s a w h o l e . See Johnson , 967 S. W . 2d a t417. A . V . ’ s l i ve t est i m ony d i d not di f f ersubst ant i al l y f r om hervi deotaped i n te rv i e w . S ee Jensen , 66 S. W . 3d at53 5. D ur i ng t h e v id e o tap ed i nt ervi ew , A . V . r ec al l ed sp ec i f i c i ns ta nce s ofs exu alab us e. A. V . s t at ed t hatA ppe l l ant rep e a ted l yp u t his “s ti c kthing ” i n h e r “m i d d l e ,” th a t A p p e l l a n t stu c kh i s p ri v a te in h e rb o t t o m , a n d t h a th e p u t h i s “ s t ic kt h in g ” in h e rm o u t h . A .V . a ls o s a id t hatA ppel l antm ade herpl ay “Bar bi e Say s” and a s i m i l argam e t hati nvol ved one of A . V . ’ s baby dol l s. 39

A tt r i al , A . V . t est i f i ed t hatA ppel l ant put hi s “st i ck t hi ngy” i n herm i ddl e, t ouch ed herpr i vat es w i t h hi s “pr i vat e part s and hi s hands, ” m ade herputher m outh on hi s “pr i vat e part s, ” put hi s “pr i vat e part ” i n herbot t om , and m ade her pl ay “Bar bi e Say s. ” I ti s w el l

- es t abl i sh ed t hatt he i m pr ope rad m i s s i o n ofev i den cedoe s not c o n s t it u t e re v e r s ib le e r r o rift h e s a m e f a c t sa r e p r o v e d b yo t h e rp r o p e r ly a d m i tte d e v i d e n c e . Ma tz , 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 9 1 2 ; se e a l so Broo ksv. S tate , 990 S .W .2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Couch m an , 3 S . W . 3d at16 0. H er e, A . V . r ecal l ed t he sam e i nst anc e s o f s exual abuse dur i ng t he vi deotaped i n te rv i e w a ss h e d i d d u ri n g h e r te s ti m o n y . A ppel l antar gues t hat t he vi deotape w as dam agi ng t o hi s case because A . V . r ec al l ed sp ec i f i c s exu alac t s, i ncl udi ng a nals ex, on t he vi deo t apet hats he di d no t t el l C arm ac k i m m ed i atel y pri or t o t he i ntervi ew . W e ho ld t h a tt h is a rgu m e n t i s u n p e rsu a sive . A t t ri a l , A .V . tes ti fi e d th a t A p p e l l a n t p u t his “p ri v a te part ” i nsi de her“back pr i vat e. ” Th us, A . V . t est i f i ed t hatA ppel l anthad anal sex w i t h her . Because t he vi deotape i s cum ul at ive ofA . V . ’ s pr oper l y adm i t t ed t es t i mo n y o n t h e s a me i s s u e , e v e n i f t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r e d b y a d mi t t i ng t he vi deotape, w e m ustdi sr egar d t he er r orbecause i tc o u ld not have af f ect ed A p p e l l a n t’ss u b s ta n ti a l ri g h ts . S ee T EX. R . A PP . P . 4 4 .2 (b ); Jensen , 66 S . W . 3d a t 5 3 5

– 3 6 . A c c o rding l y , w e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t.10 I V . Pr operO ut cry W it ness I n h i s s e c o n d p o i n t, A p p e l la n t a r g u e s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di scr et i on bydet er m i ni ng t hatC ar m ack w as t he f i r stout cry w i t ness. S p e c i fi c a l l y , A p p e l l a n t c o n te n d sth a t C y n th i a C o o kW h i te (“W h i te ” ), A .V .’s gr and m ot her , i s t he pr ope r out cry w i t nes s bec aus e A. V . f i r stt ol d W hi t e a bout th e s e x u a l a b u s e . T h e S t a te a rg u e sth a t W h i te w a sn o t th e p ro p e r o u tc ry w it n e s s b e c a u s e s h e t o ld a D is t r ic t A t t o r n e y ’s o f f ic e in v e s t ig a t o r t h a t A .V . d id nott el l he rt hats he had be en abu se d. A t r i alco urtha s br oad di sc r et i on i n de t er m i ni ng t he adm i ss i bi l i t y oft he p ro p e r o u tc ryw i tn e s s . Ga rci av. S tate , 792 S . W . 2d 88, 92 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 19 90 ) . T h e e x e r c i s e o ft h a td i s c r e t i o n wi l l n o tb e d i s t u r b e d u n l e s sa c l ear a b u s e o f th a t d i s c re ti o n i se s ta b l i s h e d b yth e re c o rd . Id. ; s e ea l s o Mo n tg o m ery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d at 3 9 1 ( sta ti n g tha t a t r ia l co u rtab u se s i ts d i sc reti o n w h e n i ts ru l i n g i s o u ts i d e th e “ z o n e o f re a s o n a b l e d i s a g re e m e n t.” ). A rt i c l e 3 8 .0 7 2 o f th e T e x a s C o d e o f C ri m i n a l P roc e d u re “ a p p l i e s o n l yto s t a t e m e n t st h a td e s c r ib e t h e a lle g e d o f f e n s e t h a t ( 1 ) w e r e m a d e b yt h e c h ild aga i ns tw hom t he of f ens e w asal l ege dl y com m i t t ed; and ( 2) w er e m adet o t he f i r st per son , 18 yea r s of age or ol der , ot her t han t he def end ant , t o w hom t he chi l d m ade a st at em entabout th e o f f ense. ” T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 3 8 .0 7 2 , § 2 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ) (e m p h a s i sa d d e d ).11

I n F o rem a nv. S tate , t he A us t i n CourtofA ppe al s, i n a ddr es si ng t he m eani ng of art i cl e 38 . 07 2, det er m i ned t hatt he “‘ f i r stper son’ r ef er s t o t he f i r st adu l tw ho c an r em em beran d r el at e a tt r i al t he chi l d’ s st at em entt hati n s om e di s c e r na bl e m a nn e rd e s c r i be st hea l l e ge d of f e ns e . ” 995 S .W .2 d 854, 859 (T e x . A p p .— A u s t in 1 9 9 9 , p e t . r e f ’d ). In t h a t c a s e , t h e c h ild v ic t im f ir s tt o ld h e r m o t h e ra n d s t e p f a t h e rt h a ts h e h a d b e e n s e x u a llya b u s e d b yh e r“ U n c le R o d n e y ” d u ri n g a v a c a ti o n . Id. a t 8 5 5

– 5 7 . A t a h e a ri n g , h o w e v e r, th e v i c ti m ’s m o th e r a n d s te p fa th e r to l d th e tri a l c o u rt th a t th e yd i d n o t h a v e a n ym e m o ry o f th e v i c ti m te l l i n g th e m a b o u t th e a b u s e . Id. Th e t r i al courtdet er m i ned t hat t h e p r o p e r o u t c ry wi t n e s s u n d e r a rt i c l e 3 8 . 0 7 2 wa s a c o u n s e l o r a n d nott he
v i c ti m ’s m o th e r an d ste p fath e r be c a u se th e c o u n se l o r w a s th e fi rst pe rso n to re m e m b e r a n d re l a te th e c o n v e rs a ti o n . Id. a t 8 5 7 , 8 5 9 . H e r e , W h it e t o ld t h e D is t r ic t A t t o r n e y ’s o f f ic e in v e s t ig a t o rt h a tA .V . d id n o t te l l h e r a b o u t th e a b u s e . A c c o rd i n g l y , C a rm a c kw a sth e p ro p e r o u tc ry w i t ness because she w as t he f i r st adul tt hatA . V . t ol d abou tt he sexual abuse
w h o re m e m b e re d th e c o n v e rs a ti o n a n d c o u l d re l a te i t to o th e rs . S ee i d. Th us, t he t r i al courtdi d not abuse i t s di scr et i on by adm i t t i ng C ar m ack’ s t est i m ony as th e p ro p e r o u tc ryw i tn e s s . W e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’ss e c o n d p o i n t.12 V . Adm i ss i bi l ity ofChi l d Por nograph y I n hi s f i nalpoi nt , A ppe l l antas se rt s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by a dm i t t i ng evi den cet hathep o s s e ss ed chi l d por nogr aph y: St at e’ s exh i bi t s f ourt hr ough t en. A ppel l ant ar gues t hat t he por nog r aphi c pho t ogr aphs w er e n o t i denti f i ed b yA .V . a sp h o t o st h a t A p p e lla n t h a d s h o w n h e r ; a n d t h e r e f o r e , e v id e n c e o fh is possessi on of t hem const i t ut ed ext r aneo u s p riorbad act s. H e cont ends t hat eve n i f t he se ven phot ogr aph s w er e r el eva nt , t heyw er e h i ghl y pr ej udi ci al . The S t a t e a r g u e st h a tt h e p h o t o g r a p h sw e r e p r o p e r lya d m it t e d b e c a u s e u n d e rR u le 40 4( b) , t hey t end t o show A ppel l ant ’ s i nt entorm ot i ve. The s ta n d a rd o f r evi ew f ora t r i alco urt ' s r ul i ng un dert he Rul esof E v i d e n c e i sa b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . Sa u c e dav. S tate , 129 S. W . 3d 116, 120 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); A ngle to nv. S tate , 971 S . W . 2d 6 5 , 67 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 19 98 ) . I ft he r ul i ng w as cor r ecton any t heor y ofl aw appl i cabl e t o t he case, i n l i ght of w hat w as bef or e t he t r i al court at t he t i m e t he r ul i ng w as m ade, t hen
w e m u s t u p h o l d th e j u d g m e n t. Sauce da , 1 2 9 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 0 ; S tate v. Ro ss , 32 S .W .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Wea th e rred v. S tate , 15 S . W . 3d 5 4 0 , 5 4 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ro m e ro v. S tate , 800 S. W . 2d 539, 5 4 3

– 5 4 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). R u l e 4 0 4 (b) p rov i d e s th a t13

[e]vide n c e o f oth e r cri m e s , w ron g s o r ac ts i s n o t ad m i ss i b l e to p r o v e t h e c h a r a c t e ro fa p e r s o n in o r d e rt o s h o w a c t io n in confor m i t y t her ew i t h. I tm ay, how ever , be adm i ssi bl e fo rot her pur pos es , s uch as pr oof ofm ot i ve, oppo rt uni t y, i nt ent , pr epa r at i on, p l a n , k n o w l e d g e , i d e n ti ty , o r a b s e n c e o f m i s ta k e o r a c c i d e n t . . . . T EX. R . E V ID . 40 4( b) . A ddi t i onal l y, art i cl e 38 . 37 of t he T exas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedu r e st at es t hat notw i t hst andi ng R ul e 40 4( b) , evi dence of ot hercr i m es, w r ongs , orac t s com m i t t ed by t he def end antag ai ns tt he c h i l d v i ct i m oft he al l ege d of f ens e “ sh al l bead m i t t ed f ori t s bea r i ng on r el eva ntm att er s, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) t he st at e ofm i nd oft he def end antan d t he chi l d; an d ( 2) t he pr evi ousan d subsequen tr el at i onshi p bet w een t he def endan tand t he chi l d. ” T EX. C ODEC R I M. P RO C. A NN.a rt. 3 8 .3 7 (2 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). Evi dence adm i ssi bl e underRu l e 40 4( b) or art i cl e 38 . 37 m ay be excl uded ifit s p r o b a t iv e v a lu e iss u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e ig h e d b yt h e d a n g e ro fu n f a ir p rej u d i c e . T EX. R . E V ID . 40 3. I n eval uat i ng t he t r i al court ’ s det er m i nat i on un der Rul e 403, a r evi ew i ng c ourti s t o r eve r set he t r i alco urt ’ s j udgm ent“ r ar el y a nd onl y a f t e r a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , ” r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r ti s i n a s u p e ri o r p o s i ti o n to g a u g e th e i m p a c t o f th e re l e v a n t e v i d e n c e . Jo n es v. S tate , 119 S. W . 3d 412, 421– 22 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 3, no pe t . ) . W hen t he r el eva ntc ri te ri a a r e v i ew ed obj ec t i vel y a nd l ea d t o t he con cl us i on t hatt he dan gerofunf ai rpr ej udi ce su bs t ant i al l y ou t w ei ghst he pr oba t i ve val ue oft he pr of f er ed evi dence, t he appel l at e court shoul d decl ar e t hatt he t r i al courter r ed14

by f ai l i ng t o e xcl udei t. Sa rab i av. S tate , 227 S . W . 3d 320, 323 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , p e t. re f’d ); s e ea l s o Mo n tg o m ery , 810 S. W . 3d a t392; Jones , 119 S. W . 3d a t422. Th e r el evantcr i t er i a i n d e te rm i ni ng w het hert he pr ej udi ce ofan ext r ane ousof fe ns e o ut w ei ghsi t s pr oba t i ve val ue i ncl ude( 1) t he i nhe r ent p ro b a ti v e fo rc e o f th e p ro ffe re d i te m o f e v i d e n c e a l o n g w i th (2 ) th e p ro p o n e n t's need f ort hatevi dence agai nst( 3) any te n d e n cy oft he evi dence t o suggest dec i si on on an i m pr ope rba si s, ( 4) any t end enc y oft he evi den cet o c onf us e o r di st r ac tt he j ury f r om t he m ai n i ss ues , ( 5) an y t end enc y oft he evi den cet o be gi ven undue w ei ght by a j ury t hat has not bee n equ i ppe d t o eva l uat e t he pr oba t i ve f or ceoft he evi den ce , an d ( 6) t he l i ke l i hood t hatpr es ent at i on oft he evi dence w i l l consum e an i nor di nat e am oun toft i m e orm er el y r epeatevi dence a l re a d ya d m i tte d . Gi gl i o b i a n c o v. S tate , 2 1 0 S . W . 3 d 6 3 7 , 6 4 1

- 4 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). A ppe l l antr el i eson T h ri ft v. S tate , fo r t h e p rop o sit io n tha t t h e “S tate c o u l d n o t o f f e r th e ad d i ti o n a l i m a g e s a s e v i d e n c e o f A p p e l l a n t’ s ‘i n ten t t o ar ous e o rgr at i f y [h i s] s exu alde si r e. ’ ” 134 S . W . 3d 475, 477 ( Tex. A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 4 ), af f ’d on other

grounds , 176 S . W . 3d 221 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 20 05 ) . H ow ever , w e have pr evi ousl y hel d t hatw e decl i ne t o f ol l ow t he T h ri ft re a s o n i n g . Sa ra b ia , 227 S . W . 3d at324- 25 ( hol di ng t hatt he el em entof‘ i nt ent15

t o a r ous e o rgr at i f y s exu alde si r e’ can n o t b e i n f er r ed by c onc l udi ng t hatt he d e fe n d a n t c o m m i tte d th e o ffe n s e ). H e r e , t h e S t a t e in t r o d u c e d s e v e n p o r n o g r a p h ic p h o t o g r a p h s o f y o u n g g ir ls e v e n tho u g h A .V . tes ti fi e d tha t sh e d i d n o t r e m e m b e r vi e w i n g the m w i th A ppe l l ant . “I nt ent t o ar ous e or gr at i f y se xua l des i r e” i s an i m pl i ci tel em entof 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 . Id . a t 3 2 3

– 2 4 ; se e a l so O ch o av. S tate , 98 2 S . W . 2d 90 4, 9 0 8 (T e x . C r i m . A pp. 19 98 ) . Ther ef or e, t he seven phot ogr aph s w er e a dm i ss i bl e u nde rRul e 404( b) be ca us e t heyt end t o s how A p p e l l a n t’si n te n t o r m o ti v e to g ra ti fy h i ss e x u a l d e s i re w i th u n d e ra g e g i rl s . S ee Sa ra b ia , 2 2 7 S .W .3 d a t 3 2 4 ; Jones , 11 9 S . W . 3d at42 2. A ccor di ngl y, t he t r i al 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 b ya d m i ttin g th e p h o to g ra p h s . W e n ow tu rn t o t he bal anc i ng f ac t or s unde rRul e 403( b) . The phot ogr aph s do ha ve so m e p r oba t i ve val ue of evi den ce of A ppe l l ant ’ s i nt entor m o ti v e to g ra ti fyh i s s e x u a l d e s i re sv i a u n d e ra g e g i rl s . F u rth e rm o re , th e S ta te ’s need f ort he evi d e n c e w as m oder at e because t he pho t ogr aphs cor r obo r at ed A .V .’ s s t a t e m e n t st h a tA p p e lla n tm a d e h e rv ie w c h ild p o r n o g r a p h yo n h is com puter . A ddi t i onal l y, w e bel i eve t hatpr esent i ng t he j ur y w i t h t hi s evi dence
w oul d notl ea d t o a de ci si on on an i m pr ope rba si s. Next , t he pr es ent at i on of t he phot ogr aph s di d not hav e a t end enc y t o con f us e or di st r ac t t he j ury f r om t he m ai n i ss u e s . Furt her , t he por nog r aphi c photogr aphs di d not have a16

t enden cy be gi ven un due w ei ght by t he j ur y because e v e n th o u gh such phot ogr aph s dep i ct i ng c hi l dr en ar e t ypi ca l l y i nf l am m at ory, t he phot ogr aph s depi ctnaked und er age gi r l s, and duri ng hert est i m ony, A . V . i denti f i ed t w o ot her p o rn o g ra p h i c p h o to g ra p h sth a t A p p e l l a n t m a d e h e r l o o ka t o n h i sc o m p u te r. F i n a l l y , th e p res e n tati o n o f t h e p h o to g rap h s d i d n o t co n su m e an i n o rdina te a m o u n t o f ti m e o r m e re l yre p e a t e v i d e n c e a l re a d ya d m i tte d . A cc or di ngl y, w e h ol d t hatt he t r i alco urtdi d notab us e i t s d i sc r et i on by adm i t t i ng t he se ven por nogr aph i c p hot ogr aph s ove rA ppe l l ant ’ s obj e c ti on. T h e re fo re , w e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’sth i rd p o i n t. V I . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’sth re e p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j udg m ent s. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL F: M C C O Y, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 29, 2008