WITHDRAWN 4/13/11

REISSUED 4/13/11

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00016-CR

DAVID LESTER BETHARDS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. F42895

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found David Lester Bethards guilty of fourteen counts of possession of 

child pornography. The trial court assessed his punishment at five years’ imprisonment 

for counts one through nine and ten years’ imprisonment for counts ten and twelve 

through fifteen.1 In three issues, Bethards appeals. We will affirm.

In his first issue, Bethards contends that the trial court erred in denying his 

motion to suppress because his consent to search was involuntary.

 

1 The State had waived count eleven.
Bethards v. State Page 2

Bethards moved to suppress “[a]ny and all tangible evidence seized by law 

enforcement officers or others . . . in connection with the investigation of this case, 

including but not limited to the computers” that were seized from his residence. 

Cleburne Police Department Investigator Shawn Bagwell testified that, on July 24, 2007, 

Investigator Kelly Summy informed him that she had received information that 

Bethards might have child pornography on his home computer and that she had begun 

the process of obtaining a search warrant for Bethards’s residence and, specifically, for 

his computer. The next day, however, Summy told Bagwell that the complainant had 

called and revealed that she had told Bethards about the complaint, even though she 

had previously agreed not to tell him until the police could meet with him. Bagwell 

and Summy thus went to Bethards’s home to prevent destruction of any potential 

evidence.

Bethards answered the door, and Bagwell and Summy introduced themselves. 

Bethards stepped out onto the porch and shut the door. Bagwell explained to Bethards 

that they had received a complaint that there might be child pornography on his 

computer. Bethards stated that, during the previous few days, he had been “goofing 

around” on the computer when he clicked on the wrong button, causing multiple 

images of child pornography to appear on his computer screen. He said that each time 

an image would appear, he would attempt to close the image but that he had not 

attempted to delete any of the images of child pornography from his computer because 

he had wanted to show his wife what had happened. Bagwell then asked Bethards for 

consent to take his computer. Bagwell told Bethards that he did not have to give them 
Bethards v. State Page 3

consent and that they had already begun the process of attempting to obtain a search 

warrant for his house and computer but that they would like to have his consent.

Bethards denied consent. Bagwell then told Bethards that until the search warrant was 

either granted or denied, he was not going to allow Bethards to go back into his house

because it was necessary to preserve the electronic evidence. Bethards then let Bagwell 

and Summy inside the house and told them that they could take the computer.

Bagwell and Summy ultimately took two computers from Bethards’s home.2 

Bagwell sought Bethards’s consent to seize each computer individually, and Bethards 

affirmed his consent. Even after Bagwell and Summy were in the house and Bagwell 

had unplugged Bethards’s computer, Bagwell explained to Bethards that they still had

not left with the computers and he had the right to revoke his consent and wait until the 

search warrant was either granted or denied. Bethards again affirmed his consent. At 

the conclusion of the search, Bagwell asked Bethards to come visit with him at the 

police department the next day. Bethards indicated that he would. 

The next day, Bethards went to the police station and met with Bagwell. During 

the meeting, Bethards again expressed his consent to their taking the computers. 

Bethards stated that although he had thought at one point that he should have made 

Bagwell get a search warrant, he thought that it would make him look guilty, so he 

decided to let Bagwell have the computers. Furthermore, Bagwell called Bethards later 

that day to inform him that he was taking his computer to have it analyzed and he just 

 

2 Bethards’s mother’s computer was also in the home, and it was seized.
Bethards v. State Page 4

wanted to make sure that Bethards had not changed his mind. Bethards again affirmed 

his consent.

Bethards testified that when Bagwell first arrived at his home, he felt like he had

the choice to consent or refuse to allow Bagwell into his home; he at first had denied 

consent. However, when Bagwell then told Bethards that he was going to keep him out 

of his home, Bethards felt like he no longer had any choice, and he let Bagwell into his 

home.

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under a 

bifurcated standard of review. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2000). We give almost total deference to the trial court’s rulings on (1) questions of 

historical fact, even if the trial court’s determination of those facts was not based on an 

evaluation of credibility and demeanor; and (2) application-of-law-to-fact questions that 

turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 652-

53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citing Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997)). But when application-of-law-to-fact questions do not turn on the credibility and 

demeanor of the witnesses, we review the trial court’s ruling on those questions de novo. 

Id. When, as here, the trial court does not make explicit findings of fact in ruling on a 

motion to suppress evidence, we “review the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

trial court’s ruling and assume that the trial court made implicit findings of fact 

supported by the record.” Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) 

(quoting Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)); Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d 

at 327-28.
Bethards v. State Page 5

A search conducted without a warrant issued on probable cause is per se 

unreasonable. Fancher v. State, 659 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). However, 

consent to search is one of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement. 

See State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The State must prove by 

clear and convincing evidence that the consent to search was voluntary. Id.

Bethards argues that there are two key factors to consider in determining that his 

consent was involuntary: (1) he believed he “had been constructively evicted from his 

own home for an indefinite period of time” and (2) law enforcement had a less 

restrictive restraint available to them but chose not to employ it. First, while the state of 

Bethards’s mind is a factor to be evaluated in assessing the voluntariness of his consent, 

it alone is not determinative. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-27, 93 S.Ct. 

2041, 2047, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2000). The question of whether a consent to search was “voluntary” is a question of fact 

to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. Reasor, 12 S.W.3d at 818. 

Second, even though Bethards states that if he had been informed that he could have 

waited inside his home, with law enforcement accompaniment, during the time 

required to obtain a ruling on the requested search warrant, “he would not have been 

put to the choice of being either constructively evicted from his home or giving consent 

for law enforcement to search it,” our analysis of whether his consent was given 

voluntarily remains the same. As Bethards acknowledges in his brief, “[t]he question 

before the Court on appeal in the present case is not whether law enforcement could 

reasonably prevent Appellant from reentering his residence, but whether, upon a 
Bethards v. State Page 6

review of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant’s consent was involuntary.” Cf. 

Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 331-33, 121 S.Ct. 946, 950-51, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) (in 

deciding brief warrantless seizure of premises was reasonable while waiting on 

warrant, court considered police made reasonable efforts to reconcile law enforcement 

needs with demands of personal privacy by imposing least restrictive restraint).

Although Bagwell and Summy were wearing badges and firearms, they did not 

exhibit a show of force and instead consistently spoke with Bethards in a professional 

and conversational manner. Bethards was not arrested. Bagwell informed Bethards 

more than once that he had the right to refuse to allow the search. When Bethards once 

protested that if he refused, then the investigators were going to throw him out of his 

own home, Bagwell clarified that they were not, in fact, going to throw Bethards out of 

his home. Rather, they were only temporarily going to disallow him from going into 

the house until the search warrant was either granted or denied. See Goines v. State, 888 

S.W.2d 574, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d) (informing appellant 

that officers had right to get search warrant did not render appellant’s subsequent 

consent involuntary). Bagwell had previously told Bethards that the District Attorney’s 

office was already reviewing the search warrant for the home. Considering the totality 

of the circumstances, we conclude that Bethards’s consent to search was voluntary and 

that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. We overrule 

Bethards’s first issue.

In his second issue, Bethards contends that the trial court abused its discretion in 

admitting testimony about voluminous pornographic images found on his computer 
Bethards v. State Page 7

because the probative value of such evidence was substantially outweighed by unfair 

prejudice. Special Agent John Day of the United States Secret Service testified that he 

found more than 1,200 child pornography images on Bethards’s computer. The trial 

court then gave the jury a Rule 404(b) instruction on this extraneous-offense evidence.

We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of 

discretion. McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “Under an 

abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s 

decision if the ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.” Bigon v. State, 

252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Under Rule 403, otherwise relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative 

value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the 

issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless 

presentation of cumulative evidence.” TEX. R. EVID. 403.

In its seminal decision in Montgomery v. State, the Court of Criminal 

Appeals identified four non-exclusive factors to be considered in 

determining whether evidence should be excluded under Rule 403. 810 

S.W.2d 372, 389-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on reh’g). Those factors 

were: (1) the probative value of the evidence; (2) the potential to impress 

the jury in some irrational, yet indelible way; (3) the time needed to 

develop the evidence; and, (4) the proponent’s need for the evidence. See 

id. (citing 22 CHARLES A. WRIGHT & KENNETH W. GRAHAM, FEDERAL 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 5250, at 545-51 (1978); EDWARD J.

IMWINKELRIED, UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT EVIDENCE §§ 2:12, 8:03, 8:07 

(1984)); accord Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 733 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

More recently, the Court has looked to the language of Rule 403 

and restated the pertinent factors.

[A] trial court, when undertaking a Rule 403 analysis, must balance 

(1) the inherent probative force of the proffered evidence along 
Bethards v. State Page 8

with (2) the proponent’s need for that evidence against (3) any 

tendency of the evidence to suggest decision on an improper basis, 

(4) any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the jury from 

the main issues, (5) any tendency of the evidence to be given undue 

weight by a jury that has not been equipped to evaluate the 

probative force of the evidence, and (6) the likelihood that 

presentation of the evidence will consume an inordinate amount of 

time or merely repeat evidence already admitted. Of course, these 

factors may well blend together in practice.

Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) 

(footnotes omitted); accord Subirias v. State, 278 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 590 

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d); Stafford v. State, 248 S.W.3d 400, 

411-12 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d); but see De La Paz [v. State], 

279 S.W.3d [336, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)] (applying Montgomery 

factors).

Newton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, pet. ref’d) (footnote 

omitted).

Probative force of the evidence: The testimony about the over 1,200 child 

pornography images found on Bethards’s computer is probative because it assists the 

jury in determining that the images did not arrive there by accident or mistake. 

Bethards acknowledges this in his brief. This factor weighs in favor of admissibility. 

 Proponent’s need for that evidence: The State needed the testimony to rebut the 

defensive theories raised by Bethards (i.e., that the images were on his computer by 

accident or mistake because they were pop-ups, caused by viruses, and/or occurred 

when he hit a wrong key). This factor weighs in favor of admissibility.

Tendency of evidence to suggest a decision on an improper basis: A limiting 

instruction was given (both orally and in the jury charge) limiting the jury’s 

consideration of this extraneous-offense evidence. Bethards argues that the “sheer 
Bethards v. State Page 9

volume of images referred to is not the type of evidence which the jury could 

reasonably consider only for a limited purpose, even with the instruction requested by 

Appellant’s trial counsel and granted by the trial court.” But juries are presumed to 

follow the trial court’s instructions in the manner presented. See Williams v. State, 937 

S.W.2d 479, 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). And here, there is no evidence that the jury 

was confused by the instruction or the charge. Furthermore, the jury was only told that 

there were over 1,200 images of child pornography found on Bethards’s computer. 

They only viewed images that were subject matter of the indictment. This factor does 

not weigh in favor of exclusion of the evidence.

Jury confusion or distraction, undue weight, and amount of time or repetition: These 

factors concern whether presentation of the evidence consumed an inordinate amount 

of time or was repetitious, and the evidence’s tendency to confuse or distract the jury or 

to cause the jury to place undue weight on its probative value. See Gigliobianco, 210 

S.W.3d at 641-42; Newton, 301 S.W.3d at 320. Bethards acknowledges that the amount of 

time required to develop this evidence was relatively short. We do not believe that it 

could cause jury confusion or distraction or cause the jury to give it undue weight. All 

of these factors thus favor admission.

Rule 403 “envisions exclusion of [relevant] evidence only when there is a ‘clear 

disparity between the degree of prejudice of the offered evidence and its probative 

value.’” Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (quoting Conner v. 

State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). We cannot say that there is a “clear 

disparity” between the danger of unfair prejudice posed by the extraneous-offense 
Bethards v. State Page 10

evidence and its probative value. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

overruling Bethards’s Rule 403 objection. We overrule Bethards’s second issue.

In his supplemental issue,3 Bethards contends that the evidence was insufficient 

to support his conviction because the State did not prove that he intentionally or 

knowingly possessed child pornography.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the 

elements of a penal offense, we must determine whether, after viewing all the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 

307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Our duty is to determine if the 

finding of the trier of fact is rational by viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in 

the light most favorable to the verdict. Adelman v. State, 828 S.W.2d 418, 422 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1992). In doing so, any inconsistencies in the evidence are resolved in favor of the 

verdict. Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

A person commits the offense of possession of child pornography if he 

“knowingly or intentionally possesses visual material that visually depicts a child 

younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made who is 

engaging in sexual conduct; and . . . the person knows that the material depicts the child 

[engaging in the sexual conduct].” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a) (Vernon 2003). A 

person possesses something when he exercises actual care, custody, control, or 

management over it. Id. § 1.07(a)(39) (Vernon Supp. 2011).

 

3 Bethards requested and was granted leave to file a supplemental appellant’s brief.
Bethards v. State Page 11

A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his 

conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to 

engage in the conduct or cause the result. Id. § 6.03(a) (Vernon 2003). A person acts 

knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to 

circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or 

that the circumstances exist. Id. § 6.03(b). A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, 

with respect to the result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably 

certain to cause the result. Id. Proof of a culpable mental state almost invariably 

depends upon circumstantial evidence. Gant v. State, 278 S.W.3d 836, 839 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (citing Lee v. State, 21 S.W.3d 532, 539 (Tex. App.—

Tyler 2000, pet. ref’d)). A jury can infer knowledge from all the circumstances, 

including the acts, conduct, and remarks of the accused and the surrounding 

circumstances. Id.

Relying on Barton v. State, 648 S.E.2d 660 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007), and several federal 

circuit court cases, Bethards contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he 

intentionally or knowingly possessed the images in this case because the images were

stored in temporary internet files. However, the Texas courts that have addressed this 

issue have concluded that images stored as temporary internet files can amount to 

possession by the user of the computer. See Gant, 278 S.W.3d at 840-41; see also Anders v. 

State, No. 10-09-00247-CR, 2010 WL 4813678, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 24, 2010, pet. 

filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Bethards v. State Page 12

Special Agent Day testified that the images corresponding to counts one through 

five, seven through ten, and twelve through fifteen were found in the unallocated space

of the hard drive. The image corresponding to count six was found in the temporary 

internet files of the hard drive. Day testified that when one looks at a web page, the 

graphics become artifacts that are automatically placed into the temporary internet 

history. If a person wanted to open a temporary internet folder, then they could click 

on those pictures and look at them again. When the temporary internet folders are full, 

the oldest content is then emptied into unallocated space. 

Bethards’s sister testified that when she visited him in late April of 2007, 

Bethards told her that he had bought the computer used. During that visit, she did a 

“basic tune-up” on the computer, which included deleting the temporary internet files 

on the computer at that time. Day testified that the computer had dates going back to 

2000, and there was no way to tell when the fourteen pictures that were found in the 

unallocated space were placed on the hard drive, but the image in the temporary 

internet file was stored on the computer on July 23, 2007.

Day also testified that from July 23 to July 24, 2007, Bethards’s computer was 

used to visit over 400 websites containing child pornography images and to make over 

115 searches for child pornography. There were some viruses on Bethards’s computer, 

but he did not think they were capable of or designed to generate child pornography on 

the computer. In his opinion, the images were not the result of pop-ups due to the 

sheer volume of the images and the various types of images.
Bethards v. State Page 13

Bethards’s wife testified that she saw Bethards looking at a child pornography 

website on the computer. On July 24, 2007, she called and asked her son to come over 

and pull up the Internet history on the computer. He found several child pornography 

websites that had been placed under “favorites.” Investigator Bagwell testified that 

when he talked to Bethards on July 26, 2007, Bethards acknowledged that there was 

child pornography on his computer and stated that it began appearing on his computer 

a few weeks prior. Bethards testified that he was on a “legal” website when web pages 

containing child pornography began popping up. He eventually had to unplug his 

computer. The next day, the same thing happened, but before unplugging the 

computer, he bookmarked the websites so that he could report them to the webmaster. 

Bethards testified that he had intentionally searched for child pornography no more 

than six times because he was curious and was looking for information on whether the 

websites were legal and how to stop them from taking over his computer.

In this case, there is evidence that the images on Bethards’s computer did not 

appear by default. We are required to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight 

determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the 

weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; 99 S.Ct. at 2793. 

Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence is 

sufficient to support Bethards’s conviction. We overrule Bethards’s supplemental issue.

Having overruled all Bethards’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Bethards v. State Page 14

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 30, 2011

Do not publish

[CR25]