See T EX AS P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22 .11 (a)(2) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 08). 1 Furthe r referen ce to th e T exas Rules of Ev iden ce w ill be b y

ref e re n c e to “Rule 2

___ ”. NO. 07-08 -048 9-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER11, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ GINA MART INEZ, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 58, 385- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Gi na M arti nez , w as conv icted o f haras sment of a publ icse rvant and 1 sent enced to four y ears c onfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce (I D- TDC J) and a f ine of $2500. Throug h tw o i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends that the t ri al cour

t c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r in: 1) admi tti ng extraneous offense tes ti mony in cont ra v enti on to Tex as Rul e of Ev ide nce 404( b) and, 2) findi ng thatthe probati v e v alu e 22

of the evidence adm itted w as no t outw eighed b y th e u n due prejudice of thatev iden ce under R ule 403. W e di sag re e and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und On A ug ust7, 2008, Amar il lo pol ic e off ic ers w ere di spat ched to an address on N orth Pol k t o i nv est ig ate a repor t of cr iminal mis chi ef being co mmitt ed by a female breaki ng w ind ow s i n an apar

tment compl ex . Off ic er Sl atten w as the first off ic er to ar ri v e on the sc ene. H e obs er

v ed a female, late r id enti fied as appell ant, st andi ng betw een tw o of the apar tment bui ldi ng s, w ho matc hed t he g eneral desc ri pti on h e had been g iv en. W hen Sl atten sa w

appel lan t, he approache d and ask her t o i denti fy hersel f. As Sl atten w as attempt ing to ide nti fy appel lan t, w it ness es sta rt ed adv is ing him that she w as the person he w as loo ki ng for a nd th at s he mi g ht be arm e d
. U p o n recei v ing thi s i nformati on, S latten decid ed to deta in app ellant , puthan d restraint s o n he r, and p lace he r in the back o f his patrol car

w hil e he cont inu ed th e i nv est ig ati on. After condu cti ng so me addi ti onal inv est ig ati on, Slatten ret ur ned to his patrol car to adv is e appel lan t t hat s he w as bei ng arrest ed for cri minal m is chi ef. Appel lan t bec ame i ra te and belligerent up on h earing this informa tion. At that time , app ellant began cursing loudly and bangin g h e r h ead on the p atrol car w ind ow s. Sl atten w as attempt ing to transfer appel lan t t o anot her

patrol car

for t ra nspor

tati on, w hen he noti ced sh e h a d s li pped he r hand rest ra int s o ff
. After pla ci ng her in the sec ond patrol car , t he officers n oti ced she w as ki ck ing the w ind ow s o f the pat ro l car . At t his ti me, th ey dec ide d to pla ce appel lan t i n l eg re strain ts. W hil e Slatt en w as attempt ing to pla ce her in leg rest ra int s, appel lan t attempted3

to bi te him sev eral ti mes. Based upon this acti on, a decis ion w as made to pla ce a “ Red Man he lme t” on ap pellan t’s hea d. Slatt en te stif ied th at th is wa s d o ne to make it more difficu lt f or

appel lan t t o tr

y and bit e s omeone. Sl atten tes ti fied th at after he p lac ed th e hel met on appel lan t, he w as lean ing ov er appell ant in an attempt to gether secured in t he re ar se at of the patrol car

w hen s he spat at hi m, hi tti ng hi m in the left ey e. Sl atten furth er testif ied th at, im me diate ly af ter spitting on him , app ellant ma de a state me nt to the ef fect that she had AI DS
. At t he tr ial , w hen Sl atten w as ask ed w hy he h ad been di spat ched to t he apar tment compl ex , app ell ant’ s t ri al couns el obj ect ed s tati ng , “ He’ s g oin g to g et into w hy they sh ow ed up, Y our H onor , w hic h g oes to propens ity to comm itothe r cr imes , w ro ng s o r act s . . . . ” Appel lan t’ s c ounse l further obj ect ed that the propose d ev ide nce w as more preju dic ial than probati v e and lac ked re lev ance. The tri al cour t ov er ru led the obj ect ion s. Bas ed upon the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng s t o the se obj ect ion s, appel lan t has appeal ed th e j udgment of the tr ial cour t. Standa rd of Rev iew W e re v iew a tr ial cour

t' s deci si on re g ardin g the admis si bil ity of ev ide nce under an abuse of dis creti on sta ndard. See Cameron v . St ate, 241 S. W .3d 1 5, 19 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2 0 0 7 ). Beca use trial cou rts are in the be st positio n to de cide questio ns of adm issibility, app ellate courts w ill uph old a trial co urt's adm issibility decision w hen thatdecision is w ithin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Id. An appel lat e c ourt m a y n o t rev erse a tr ial4

court's de cision regarding th e adm issibility o f e v iden ce solely because the ap pellat e cou rt dis ag re es w it h the dec is ion
. Id. Rul e 404( b) Appel lan t’ s first is sue cont end s th a t the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on to al low

Sl atten to tes ti fy w hy

he w as ini ti all y

di spat ch e d to the s cene, v iol ated Rul e 404( b) by al low ing ev ide nce of extraneous offenses before the j ur y . Ini ti all y , w e obs er

v e tha t, acc ordin g to the rules of ev iden ce, evidence of ot h e r crime s, w rongs, or acts tha t do no t have relev ance apar t from charact er confor mity is ina dmis si ble
. See Rul e 404( b)
. How ev er , ev ide nce of extraneous offenses i s admis si ble i f it is rele v ant t o a factof cons eq uence apar t from the tendency

to show co nductin conformity

w it h charact er . See C asey v . St ate, 215 S. W .3d 8 7 0 , 8 7 9 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). As th e rul e its e lf no te s, evid e n ce of

ot h e r cri m e s, w ro n gs or ac ts are admi ss ibl e for other pur poses , s uch a s, to prov e moti v e, op por tuni ty , i ntent , p re para tion, plan, knowl edge, ide ntity, or absen ce of mistake or acciden t. See Rule 404( b)
. Separate a nd apar t from the e x cept ion s n oted in Rule 4 0 4 (b ), “ extraneous offenses may

be a dmis si ble as sa me transacti on c o n t e xt u a l e v ide nce w hen ‘ sev eral cr imes are inte rmixed, or blend ed w ith one ano the r, or conn ecte d so tha t the y form a n indivisi ble criminal transaction .’” See Marand a v . Sta te, 253 S. W .3d 762 , 767 -68 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 200 7, pe t. dism ’d) (q uot ing Pri ble v . Sta te, 175 S .W .3d 7 24, 731 -32 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 05)). W hen this ty pe o f

ev iden ce is presen t, avoiding referen ce to it w ould make the St ate ’s case dif f icult to un dersta nd o r incomp lete. Id. a t7 6 8
. Un der the se circumst ance s, the jury is en ti tl ed t o rec ei v e al l t he rel ev an t s ur rou nd i ng facts for a n offen s e i s no t tr i ed i n a v ac uu m. Id. (c it ing M oreno v . St ate, 721 S. W .2d 2 95, 3 01 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) ).5

The ev ide nce in the cas e before the C our t rev eal s t hat S latten d id not j usthappen onto appel lan t outof the c lea r blu e. A c all to the p oli ce w as made and Sl atten w as, i n tur n, dis patc hed t o tak e the ca ll
. To pla ce the act iviti e s o f the day i n c ontext, the S tate w as e n t it le d t o sh o w why t h e o f f ic e r wa s p re s e n to n t h e sc e n e . F u rt h e r, t h e o f f ic e r h a d t o h a ve a reason to detai n appell ant duri ng his ini ti al inv est ig ati on. Al l of the al leg ed extraneous offenses thatappel lan t c omplai ns of w ere par t of the cont ext of

the off ic er ’s co ntact w it h app ellantand intertwi ned w ith tha t initial conta ct. As such, the se extraneo us of fense s w ere admis si ble as an e x cept ion to Rul e 404( b)
. Id. Therefore, the t ri al cour t did not abuse i ts d is c re t io n in o ve rr u li n g a p p e ll a n t ’s o bje c t io n . Ca m e ro n , 2 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d a t1 9
. Ac c o rd in gl y, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. Rul e 403 App el l an t ne xt c on te nd s t ha t ev en i f t hi s e v i de nc e of e xtran eo us o ffens es w ere admis si ble , t he proba ti ve value is outw eig hed by the undue p re

jud ic e c aused by

i ts admis si on. W hen ev alu ati ng R ule 4 0 3 iss ues, w e beg in w it h the presumpt ion thatthe probati v e v alu e is not subs tanti all y outw eig hed byother factors. See Gal lo v . St ate, 239 S.W .3d 7 57, 7 62 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 200 7 ). I n c onduc ti ng the bal anci ng tes t reg ardin g admis si bil ity , t he tr ial co urt mus t bal ance 1) the in h e rent probati v e forc e of the proffered it em of ev ide nce alo ng w it h 2) the proponent ’s need for tha t ev ide nce ag ain st 3) any tendency

of the e v ide nce to s ug g estdec is ion on an i mprop er bas is , 4) any

tend ency

of the ev ide nce to c o nfuse or di stractthe jur

y from t he mai n i ss ue, 5 ) any tend ency

of the ev ide nce to be g iv e n undue w eig ht by a j ur y thathas not been eq uip ped t o ev alu ate t he prob ative fo rce of

the evidence , and 6) the likelihoo d tha t prese nta tion of the evidence w ill6

c o n s u m e a n in o rd in a t e a m o u n to f t im e o r r e p e a te vid e n c e a lr e a d y a d m it t e d
. Se e Ca s e y, 215 S. W .3d a t 880
. Appel lan t’ s i nit ial co mplai nt ab out t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng under R ule 403 is that the tr ial co urt d id not ev en c onduc t a bal anci ng tes t. Apparentl y , ac cordin g to appel lan t, becau se the record does not re flect that the tr ial cour t sai d someth ing on t he record about a b a la n c in g t e s tb e fo re o ve rr u li n g t h e o bje c t io n , t h e n t h e t ri a l c o u rtm u s tn o th a ve condu cte d s uch a tes t. H ow ev er , as the Stat e poi nts out, w hen t he tr ial co urt ov er ru led the obj ect ion i t nec ess ar il y con d u ct e d t h e req uired bal anci ng tes t. See Y ates v . St ate, 941 S.W .2d 3 57, 3 67 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1997, pet. re f’d)
. As to t he q uest ion of the b ala nci ng tes t, our rev iew of the record rev eal s t hat t he ev ide nce in is sue, w hil e onl y sl ig htl y probati v e of the offense that appel lan t w as ind icted for, w as needed by the Stat e to put the act ion s of t he pol ic e off ic er i n proper

co ntext for the jur y . The amount of ti me exp ended in pro v idi ng this informati on w as mini mal as reflect ed by the fact th at t he obj ect ed to tes ti mony took onl y tw o li nes of t est imony
. There i s n othi ng in the record t o s u ggestthatthe jur y took thi s e v ide nce and made a dec is ion on a n improper bas is , s uch as emoti onal
. Lik ew is e, t his tes ti mony di d notco nfuse the j ur y nor dis tractthem from the main is sue. Al l in all , t he probati v e v alu e of the ev ide nce w as not subs tanti all y

outw eig hed by

the undue pre

jud ic ial impact of the ev ide nce. Id. Therefore, the t ri al co u rtdid notabus e i ts dis creti on by admi tti ng the tes ti mony of Sl atten that appel lan t objected to. Cameron, 2 41 S. W .3d a t 19. Ac cordin g ly , app ell ant’ s s econd i ss ue is ov er ru led
.7 Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Do notpub lish