See Tex

. Hea lt h & Safety Cod e Ann. § 48 1.115( d) ( Ver non 200 3)

. The in dictment 1 inc lud ed a habi tual offender noti ce, maki ng appel lan t’ s s ent e nce enhanc eabl e pursuant to sect ion 12 .42 of

the Pe nal Cod e. T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 12. 4 2 (Vernon 200 7). Appel lan t pl ed “ not t ru e” and did not tes ti fy at pu nis hment. NO. 07-08 -002 6-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 JAN UA RY

26, 2010

_________

_________

_________

___ DONALD F. DAVIS, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 37 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; NO . 103 4587D ; H ON ORABLE MO LLEE W ESTFAL L, 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 D onal d F

. Dav is w as charg ed by ind ic tment w it h tw o count s o f posse ss ion of coca ine i n an amount o f four g ra ms or

more but les s than 200 g ra ms. The ju ry found 1 appel lan t g uil ty on one count , sent enci ng him to tw enty -fiv e y ears of c onfin e m e n t in the Institu tiona l Di v ision of the T exas Departm entof Cri min al Just ic e . A p pellan t time ly ap pe al ed , br i ng i ng t en p oi nt s o f er ror . W e affi r m.At t ri al, C ar ri e tes ti fied her daug hter

w as not l iv ing i n the motel room w it h her

. She 2 also agreed thatapp ellantw as liv ing w ith he r in the room “of f and on.” 2 Back g ro und Before Grand Prair ie pol ic e ex ecut ed a search w ar ra nt for a mot el ro om, th ey

us ed a prete xt to rem ove app ellant f rom the room and arrested him purs u a n tt o a n arrest w ar ra nt. At t he ti me of his ar re st, appel lan t had a k ey to th e room and $200 i n c ash. Dur ing the search of the ro om, pol ic e found, among other thi ng s, tw o bat ches of coc ain e, one w eig hin g 4.85 g ra ms, the o ther .07 g ra ms. The Stat e present ed ev ide nce to s how that appel lan t had a l ong -t er m rental for t he room and had pai d i n c ash. Appel lan t pr esent ed ev ide nce that he w as pay ing for the ro om for C ar ri e, t he mothe r of his six -y ear-old d aughte r. Carri e test if ied attrial that ap pellan t lef t the room beca use 2 she and a frie nd w ere hig h on dru g s a nd c lai med the dr ug s found i n the room bel ong ed to her fri end. Ap pel lan t t est ified si mil ar ly , s tati ng he w as li v in g wit h h is sist er and deny ing any kn ow led g e of the dr ug s found i n the motel room. A rebut ta l witne ss for t he St ate tes ti fied appe ll ant a dmit ted h e l iv ed i n the room. Fol low ing the present ati on o f t he ev ide nce, the jur y found appel lan t g uil ty as charg ed i n the se cond countof the i ndi ctment

. Appel lan t di d nottes tify d u ring the puni shmentst ag e butpresent ed one w it ness to tes ti fy on his behal f. The jur y as ses sed the puni shmentw e hav e not ed, a nd th is appeal foll ow ed.3 Ana ly sis On ap peal , app ell ant i denti fies ten p oin ts of er ro r that he c ontends req uire rev ersal of the judg ment and remand for a new tri al. W e di sag re e and aff ir m appel lan t’ s c onv ic ti on and s entenc e. Poi nt of Er ro r One–D eni

al of A ppel

lan t’ s R eques t f

or Additi onal Per em ptor y Chal len ge In ap pel lan t’ s first poi nt of er ro r, he arg ues the tr ial cour t re v ersi bly

er re d i n deny ing h is re que stfo r a n a d d it io n a l p e re m p to ry cha lle n ge af ter it overruled his challen ge fo r cause t o ve n ir e p e rs o n L a in

. Du ri n g j u ry s e l e c t i o n , a p p e ll a n tch a ll e n ge d L a in fo r c a u s e o n two bases : ( 1) i n a bil ity

to not c onsi der

as a c ircums tanc e ag ain st him appel lan t’ s fai lure to test i fy ; an d ( 2) i na bi l i ty to fol l ow th e l aw r el i ed on by ap pe l l an t th at hi s me r e pres ence in the room di d notes tabl is h his poss ess ion of the dr ug s. H is ch all eng e w as deni ed. After appel lan t ex haust ed hi s a ll otted peremptor y ch all eng es, i ncl udi ng thatto Lai n, he as ked the c our t for an addit ion al peremptor y chall eng e. The cour

t den ied thi s req uestas w ell as a p p e l l a n t ’ s l a t e r

r e n e w e d r e q u e s tfor

th e s a me re l i e f. Appel lan t c ontends thatbec ause he w as forced t o use a pere mp tory challen ge on Lain , he w as har med for tw o reason s. Fi rs t, an o bjectio nab le juror w as sea ted w ho h ad p roblem s comp let in g the jury q uest ionn aire becau se of lang uag e, readi ng , c ompreh e nsi on, a nd ot her si mil ar i ss ues. Seco nd, t he har m sus tai ned by

appel lan t w as compound ed bec ause ano t h e r j u ro r w a s l a t e r di sc harg ed, all ow ing a v erdict by

el ev en j urors.4

The Stat e c ontends the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by deny ing the chal len g e for caus e. W e ag re e. The record reflect s t hat t he f o ll ow ing ex chang es took pla ce dur ing v oir

di re : D e fe n s e C o u n s e l : (Aft e r p ro v i d i n g a h y p o t h e t i c a l i n w h i c h a g i r l w a s at a party

w here dr ug s w ere being used, she refused to part ic ipa te, but is ar re ste d) . O kay

. Is there any one–w ho here di sag re es w it h Mr . C ampbel l that hi s d aug hter w oul d notbe i n pos ses si on of the h ash pip e? Oka y . Ms . Lai n. Lain : I’m going to have to partia lly d isagree. She kn ew drugs w ere bei ng us ed, a nd s he’ s p re sent , and I’ d s ay that she has know ing pos ses si on . . . . I u ndersta nd th at t here are s it uati ons li ke the–des cr ibe d the conc ert w here i t’ s [dr ug s] present

. Y ou’ re not in poss ess ion

. But , I me an, it is by circumsta nce. If y ou– if y ou go to a pla ce and y ou k n ow tha t the peo ple th ere are usin g illegal drugs, then I’ d s ay

y ou hav e s ome amount of res ponsi bil ity i n tha t. * * * Defense Coun sel: Ms. Lain, d o yo u f e e l li ke y ou want to he ar f rom b oth sides,

y ou w an t to h ea r from my c l i en t, y ou mi g hth ol d i t ag ai ns t hi m? Lai n: Y ou k now , I do. I w oul d s ay I w oul d s urely

w ant t o hear

both si des of the s tor

y present ed. I don’tkn ow thatI w oul d hav e to hear from hi m person a lly

. And i t i s a co nst it uti onal r ig ht, so I w oul d w ant t o – Defense C ounse l: So y ou w oul d foll ow the jud g e’s i nst ru cti on? Lain : I w ould do m y best to follow instructio ns, yes.5

Defense C ounse l: Y ou say y ou w oul d d o your best , but w oul d y ou deep in y our

hear t hol d i t ag ain st them i f they hadn’ t t est ifie d and tol d y ou thei r si de of the sto ry ? Y ou’ re noddi ng y our head y es. I hate to te ll y ou, y ou a re nod ding y our he ad yes. Lain : If

t h ey didn ’t provi de a ny, y ou kn ow, sort of deb ate against charg es, I w oul d find that v er y hard to acc ept. D e fe n s e C o u n s e l : So y ou–so thi s a l s o g o e s t o a n o t h e r ki nd of l eg al poi nt, criminal law. W e don ’t ever have to prov e anything. W e do n’t hav e to do anythi ng . The Stat e has to do it all

. Theyhav e to prov e al l of it, ev er

y l it tl e el emen t o f

t h e c ase, bey ond a reaso nab le dou bt. An d t h e if, in a posse ssion case , if it’s poss ess ion bei ng ac tual ca re , c ust ody, c ontrol, and manag ement, or

then i f they ’re tr

y ing to make t hat w it h circumsta ntial evidence , even thatcircum s t a ntial evidence must be bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. L a in : I h e a r wha t you ’re sa ying. Defense C ounse l: Oka y . Bu t we nev er hav e to prov e anythi ng . And w e nev er

hav e to saya n yth ing

. And w e c an remain si len t. And y ou mig ht ho ld that ag ain st mycl ien t or ca se if he remains si len t: L a i n : I f– Defense C ounse l: Y ou mi g ht be a be tter j uror i n a c iv il ca se. L a in : I f

li t e ra ll y yo u r s id e wa s ju s tsi le n t , y e a h , I t h in kI wo u ld h a ve probabl y a ha rd ti me understa ndi ng that

. Defense C ounse l: Al l ri g ht. A tr ial courthas di sc re ti on i n r uli ng on c hal len g es for c ause, and it s r uli ng s w il l not be ups et on appeal absen t an abuse of t hat d is creti on. Her ro n v . St ate, 86 S .W .3d 6 21,6

629 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) ; Ki ng v. State, 29 S.W .3d 5 56, 5 58 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)

. The rev iew ing court mustex am ine the reco rd a s a whole to det ermin e w het her the re is sup port for the trial cou rt’s r uling, and , in so doin g, i t mu st gi v e de feren ce to th e trial court, w hich w as in a posi ti on to see and hear the v eni re member

. Her ro n, 86 S.W .3d a t 629 ; Rachal v. State, 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 7 9 9 , 8 1 0 ( Te x .C ri m.App. 1996) , cer t. denied , 519 U .S. 1043, 117 S.Ct. 61 4, 13 6 L.E d.2 d 53 9 (199 6). A def endan t ma y c ha l l en g e a po te nt i al j uror for c au s e w he n th at i nd i v i du al has a “bias or prejud ice against any of the law app licable to the case upo n w hich th e de fense is enti tl ed to rely , ei ther

as a de fense to some phase of t he off ense for w hic h the defendant is bei ng prosec uted or

as a miti g ati on thereof o r of the puni shmenttherefor.” Tex . C ode Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar

t. 35.16( c) (2 ) (V er non 200 6)

. “B ias ag ain st the l aw i s [ th e ] re f u sa l to cons ide r or

apply the re lev ant law ,” w hic h means the panel members’ “ bel iefs or opi nio ns w ould prevent or su bsta ntially imp air th e performa nce of [the ir] duties as a juror.” Sadler v. State, 977 S.W .2d 140, 142 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1998) . A par ty m ay ch all eng e for caus e a v enire me mb er who expresses a clear bias againstthe law perm itting a defend antto ref use to tes ti fy in his ow n behal f. Br own v. Sta te, 9 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 7 , 5 8 0 - 8 1 ( Te x . C r i m. App. 1996). At ria l cour

t' s d eci si on to di smi ss a member of the v eni re for c ause is enti tl ed to “conside rable de feren ce.” Ki ng , 29 S.W .3d a t 568. That deferenc e i s p arti cul ar ly i mport ant w hen the v eni re member' s re spons es are v aci ll ati ng , uncl ear or c o n tradi cto ry . Id.;se e Howar d v . St ate, 941 S.W .2d 1 02, 1 0 7 -0 8 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 996) ( als o di sc uss ing the “v acillating venirem em ber”). Arev iew ing court conside rs w het her the tota lity of the voir dire7

tes ti mony

su ppor ts the t ri al cour

t' s fin din g on w hether the prospecti v e juror i s a ble to follo w the l aw as i nst ru cte d, an d rev erses onl y i f a cl ear

abus e of di sc re ti on i s e v ide nt. Id. Fi rs t, w hil e appel lan t c o n t e n d s L a i n ’ s re s p onses dur ing v oir di re i ndi cat ed an ina bil ity to follow the law

w ith regard to m ere prese nce a nd p ossessio n, w e do not f ind th e record supp orts the conte ntion . W e do not read Lain ’s respo nses a s indicatin g a be lief thatmere pr esenc e i s s uff ic ien t to show poss ess ion of cont ra band. Lai n ex pli ci tl y st ated that other circumst a n c es, such as knowledge of drug use at tha t place , are relevant in ma king this deter minat ion

. After

rev iew ing the re cord, w e c annot say the tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing app ellant ’s challenge for cause on this ba sis. Seco nd, w e agree w ith ap pellan t tha t Lain ex presse d som e he sitation and conce rn re g ardin g a de fendant’s fail ure to tes ti fy on h is o wn b e hal f. H ow ev er , w e do not read Lai n’s respon se as an i ndi cat ion thatsh e w oul d notfoll ow the law w it h reg ard to the defendant’ s r ig hts

. Lai n ex pr ess ly st ated that she w o u ld not hav e to hear from t he def end antperson ally

. She also acknowl edged tha t the rig ht to ref rain f rom te stif y ing i s a cons t it u t iona l ri ght. Further, La in state d she w ould do he r best to follow the trial court’s ins tr uct ion s. W hil e this w as not an unequi v ocal “y es, ” the tr ial courtco uld hav e tak en her re spons e i n the co ntext of the v oir dire to reflecther as sentto follo w

the law

. See B ro wn, 913 S. W .2d 5 80 ( v eni re members w ho ul ti mately st a te t h ey ca n foll ow

the law are not chal len g eabl e f o r caus e)

. W e s ee no abuse of dis creti on i n the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of appel lan t’ s c hal len g es for c ause ag ain st Lai n. Id. W e o verrule appel lan t’ s first poi nt of error.See T ex. Code Crim. Proc. An n. arts. 1 .17 , 35. 16 (Ve rnon 200 5) (Vernon 200 7). 3 8 Poi nts of Er ro r Two, Thr

ee and Four

–Di sm is sal of Jur or In ap pel lan t’ s s econd , t hird and fourth poi nts, h e c ontends the tr ial co urt er re d by ex cus ing j uror

C hatha after the g uil ty

ve rd ic t and after

the puni shmentev ide nce w as cl osed but b efore t he c our

t’ s c harg e on puni shmentw as re ad. Cha tha i nformed t he c our t t hat w hil e he had par

ti ci pated in the g uil ty verdi ct re ndered ag ain st appel lan t, he had reservations ab outcontin uing his jury serv ice in the pun ishm ent pha se. Af ter the defense obj ect ed to proceed ing w it h el ev en j urors, th e c o u rt ex amined C hatha. C hatha tol d the c ou rt he h ad b ee n ha v i ng d r ea ms in w hi c h ap pe l l an t’ s n am e k ep t ap pe ar i ng a nd d r ea ms about w hat w oul d happe n to appel lan t i f he w ere to g o to jai l. H e furt her rela ted t hat i t w as difficul t for him to mak e a d eci si on to put appel lan t or any one in jai l. Cha tha w ent on to sa y tha t he did not t h in kh e was a g ood juror and just did not want to ha v e som eon e else’s future in his hands . He noted that hi s res er v ati ons w ere based on his rel ig iou s beli efs and that he ha d b een di stress ed dur ing the tr ial . The c our t dec lared C hatha w as unabl e to ser v e as a j uror and infor med the par ti es the t ri al w oul d proceed w it h el ev en j urors. The tria l c ou rt th en d en i ed s ev eral o bj ec ti on s p er ta i ni ng t o th i s r ul i ng a nd d en i ed a pp ellant ’s moti ons for a mis tr ial

. Appel lan t, ci ti ng ar

ti cl es 1.17 and 35. 16 of the Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , arg ues 3 the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on bec ause re li g iou s bel ief is not a basi s for di sq ual ific ati on o f a p e rs o n f rom se rv ing i n a crimina l trial. Ap pe l l an t fur th er a rg ue s t ha t un de r

a rti c le9

36.29, C hatha w as not d is abl ed. See Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. a rt

. 3 6 .2 9 ( Ver non 200 7). Det er minat ion of dis abi li ty that may prev ent a juro r from disc harg ing his or her duti es is w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s s ound di sc re ti on. Ti m m ons v. State, 952 S.W .2d 8 91, 8 92 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1997, n o pe t. ), citi ng Land ru mv. Sta te, 788 S.W .2d 5 77, 5 79 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1990)

. The tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion does not g iv e r is e to re v ersi ble er ro r unl ess i t c onst it utes an a buse of dis creti on. Tim m ons, 952 S.W .2d at 892 . A trial court abuse s i ts dis creti on w hen it acts in an ar bit ra ry and capr ic iou s mann er . Montg om ery v. State, 810 S.W .2d 3 72, 3 80 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1990) ( op. o n reh’ g ). W e do not re ad the tr ial cour t’ s deci si on to di sc harg e C hatha as one rendered on the b asi s o f rel ig iou s b eli efs. I nst ead, w e understa nd the tri al cour t’ s rul ing to be bas ed on Chath a’s me nta l distress that the court foun d cau sed h im to b e un able to f ully and f inally per form hi s d uti es as juror. F or pur poses of arti cl e 36. 29( a) , t he te rm “d is abl ed” means any conditio n tha t inhibits a juror f rom f ully and fairly

performin g the f unct ions of a juror. Gr if fin v. State, 486 S.W .2d 9 48, 9 51 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1972)

. An i nhi bit ing co ndi ti on c an be phy si cal , ment al or

emoti onal

. Car

ri ll o v . St ate, 597 S.W .2d 7 69, 7 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1980)

. Tex as cour

ts hav e det er mined that v ar iou s condi ti ons w il l re nder a j uror di sabl ed w it hin the meanin g of

arti cl e 36. 29. Tim m ons, 952 S.W .2d at 893 (collecting cases). We find the t ria l cour

t reason abl y

co uld hav e c oncl uded t hat C hatha’ s e moti onal or mental distress, cau sed a t least in part by the dream s abo ut ap pellan t he experien ced d uring tri al,See Tex . C onst . ar t. V, § 13. 4 10 w as of such a na ture as to inhibit him f rom f ully and fairly

performin g the f unct ions as a juror. Th e trial court did no t err in discharging Chath a an d proce edin g w ith eleven jurors. W e f ind also thatapp ellant ’s right t o a jury t rial was n ot v iolate d by the trial court’s 4 act ion i n c onnec ti o n w it h C hatha. W e ag re e w it h the Sta te t hat a ppel lan t’ s reli ance on Cas taneda v. State, 28 S .W .3d 6 85 (Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 2000, no p et.) , i s mi spl aced. As the S tate poi n ts o ut, the j uror i n tha t c ase became dis abl ed dur ing del ibe ra ti ons and acc ordin g ly , ar

ti cl e 36. 29( c) appl ied , re q uir ing di sc harg e of the jur y unl ess the par

ti es ag re ed to proceed w it h el ev en j urors. Here, Chat ha w as found to be di sabl ed before the charg e w as rea d and before the jur y ente re d del ibe ra ti ons. Ar ti cl e 36. 29( a) thus appl ied , per mitt ing the tr ial to proceed w it h ele v en j urors, ev en i n the face of an o bje cti on. See T e x. Cod e C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 36.29( a) ( prov idi ng i n par t, that if a j uror

bec omes d is abl ed from si tti ng at any

ti me before the c harg e of the cour t i s read t o the j ur

y , t he remaind er

of the jur y sh all hav e the pow er

to re nder

the v erdic t)

. See Roj

as v. State, 986 S.W .2d 2 41, 2 49 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1998) , citi ng Sanchez

v. Sta te, 837 S.W .2d 7 91, 7 95 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14 Dis t.] 1992, pet. ref’d) (“ charg e” as used in ar ti cl e 36. 29( a) means the las t i nst ru cti on th given i n e a ch phas e of a bi furcat ed tr ial ); Gr ay v. State, N o . 0 9 - 0 3 - 0 4 5 - C R , 2 0 0 3 WL 21767079 (Tex .App. –BeaumontJu ly 30 2 003, p e t. r e f ’d) (mem. op., not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) (n oti ng same)

. F or the same reason , w e find Cha vez v. Sta te, 34 S .W .3d 6 92 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2000, pet. g ra nted) , on r em and, 134 S.W .3d 244 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 2003, pet. re f’d) al so ci ted b y appel lan t, to be di sti ng uis habl e.11

W e l ik ew is e fin d the other ca ses on w hic h appel lan t reli es dis ti ng uis habl e. For examp le, app ellantcites Ex Par te S m it h, 817 S.W .2d 7 97, 8 00 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1991, no pet.) for the proposi ti on that a mis tr ial i s req uired w hen a juror i s a bsol utel y

di sq ual ified from s er v i c e. H ere, h ow ev er , C ha th a w as no t ab s ol ut el y di s q ua l i fi ed ; i ns te ad , he b ec am e dis abl ed from s it ti ng on t he j ur y due to a mental or

emoti onal co ndi ti on. App el la nt also poi nts to other c ases i n w hic h c our ts found jurors w ere notsu bje ct to di sc harg e for an ina bil ity to be fair

. This ag ain is not the si tuati on w e hav e here. Cha tha n ev er st ated he coul d not be fair

. Ins tead, he re lat ed dis tress to suc h a d eg re e tha t i t i mpaired hi s a bil ity to full y f u n ct ion as a j uror . W e do not fin d s uppor t for appel lan t’ s p osi ti on i n any of the cas es ci ted b y

appel lan t. W e overrule a ppe llant’s seco nd, third and fourth point s of error. Poin t of Error Five–Denia l of Right to Jury Trial In ap pel lan t’ s fifth p oin t of er ro r, he c ontends hi s r ig ht t o a j u ry t rial w as v iol ated w hen one of the j urors fel l asl eep for some peri od of ti me dur ing tr ial

. The record reflect s tha t w hile prese nting evi den ce of app ellant ’s prior conv ictions du r i ng t he p un ishm entpha se of tri al, the prosec utor

as ked to ap proach the bench, stati ng , “[r ]eal qui ck , I w onder

i f the Court m ight mind waking up o ur juror. I w ond er if you might m ind w aking up our juror tha t’s in the f ront row the re.” Subs eq uentl y , t he foll ow ing ex chang e too k p lac e: D e fe n s e C o u n s e l : Oh , y o u k n o w , I d o w a n t t o ma k e a r e c o rd t h a t M s . D elg ado,

juror number tw o from t he v oir

di re panel , t hat w as her number , t hat she w as asl eep duri ng the puni shmentphas e of tr ial and that [the prosec utor ] noti ced that w hil e w e w ere at the bench

.12

Th e C o u rt : And I hav e h a d m y e y e o n M s . D e l g a d o , a n d s h e h a s b een extremely

ti re d at ti mes, and she has had her ey es cl osed, but the o nly ti me thatI noted that she seeme d to be ac tual ly not aw ake w as the b ri ef time w hen [ the p ro secutor ] as ked to approach the b ench. Be caus e I hav e been wa tc h ing her my sel f, and I w il l note that for th e record, t hat w hil e s he has had her ey es opened and cl osed, she’ s nev er had he r eyes cl ose d fo r a n e xt e n d e d p e r i o d o t h e r t h a n w h e n w e h ad th e break, and the brea k s eemed to w ake her up, and s he’ s b een ale rt and li ste nin g ev er si nce then. That is w hat I hav e not ed. W hil e appel lan t made a re cord at tr ial of t he juror ’s condu ct, he did not o bje ct at an y t im e , n o r d id h e m o ve fo r a m is t ri a l o r f il e a m o t io n fo r n e w tr ia l o n t h is is s u e . T o p re s e rve er ro r , t h e r e mu s t b e a t i me l y , s p e c i fi c r e q u e s t , o bj e c t i o n o r mo t i o n . Te x . R . Ap p. P

. 33.1( a) (1 ); Me nar

d v . St ate, 193 S. W .3d 5 5, 60 ( Tex .App. –Ho u st on [1 D is t.] 2006, pet. st re f’d) , citi

ng T hie lem an v

. St ate, 187 S.W .3d 455 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) . Thus , t his poi nt of error present s n othi ng for o ur rev iew

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue. Poi nt of Er ro r Si x–D eni al of Appel

lan t’ s Ri ght to J ur

y T ri al in Jur y’ s C onsi der ati on of “Other Evi dence ” Appel lan t’ s si xth po intrais es a c omplai nt reg ardin g Sta te’ s e x hib it71. H e c ontends that thi s e x hib itw as nev er admitted in to ev ide nce but w as nev erthel ess publi shed to t he jur y . The record reflect s, and app ell ant c onced es, that he did not obj ectto the p ubl ic ati on of t his ex hib it

. Appel lan t arg ues that the publ ic ati on of t he ex hib it not ad m it te d into evidence p reclude d ef

fective cross-ex am inatio n an d con f ronta tion o f the exhibit an d thu s, his fail ur e to obj ectsh oul d the re fore be “e x cus ed.” W e di sag re e.13

Ev en c onst it uti onal er ro r maybe w aiv ed by fail ure t o r a ise the i ss ue attr ial

. See B r i g g s v . S ta te , 7 89 S. W .2d 9 18, 9 24 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 990) ( en banc ) (h old ing that , by faili ng to obj ect , appell ant w aiv ed c lai m thatadmi ss ion of v ide otape v iol ated his r ig hts to confro ntati on and due proces s/d ue co u rse of law ); see Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1 ( re q uir ing obj ect ion to preser

v e error for appeal) . Speci fical ly , a defendant w aiv es his co nst it uti onal ri g ht t o confro ntati on if he d oes not o bje ct to t he deni al of that r ig ht attr ial

. Hol lan d v . St ate , 802 S. W .2d 6 96, 7 00 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 991) ( en banc ) (h old ing thatappel lan t' s h earsay obje ction d id notpreserve claim thate v iden ce v iolate d ap pellan t's rig ht of conf ronta tion); Thacker v. Sta te , 999 S.W .2d 5 6, 61 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th D is t.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (e mphasi z ing thathearsay object ion s and objec ti ons to v iol ati ons of the c onst it uti onal r ig ht of confront ati on are not sy nony mous; thus , app ell ant' s fai lure to obj ecton t he bas is of the confro ntati on clau se w aiv ed appell ant' s ri g ht to c onfront w it ness es) ; Saldiv ar v. Sta te , 980 S.W .2d 475 , 496 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 8, pet. ref 'd) (holdin g tha t app ellant 's obj ect ion to hearsay and failu re to obj ect on the g ro und that th e he a rsa y a dmis si on v iolate d ap pellan t's rig ht to conf ronta tion w as insuf f icient to prese rv e error). App ellant ’s si xth po intpresent s n othi ng for o ur rev iew , and i s o v er ru led

. Poi nts of Er ro r Seve n and Ei

ght–D eni

al of A ppel

lan t’ s M oti on fo r Mi str ial D ue toPr

osec utor Ar gum ent Vi a appel lan t’ s sev enth and ei g hth p oin ts, he c ontends the tr ial co urt abu sed it s discretion in denying his mo tions fo r mistrial stem min g f rom th e prose cuto r’s arg um ent s.14

Dur in g h i s a rg u me n t t o t h e j u r y o n g u i l t - i n n o cenc e, t he pr osec utor re ferr ed to all eg ed s ale s o f crack

co cai ne oc cur ri ng short ly before appell ant w as arrest ed. Appel lan t cont end s t hese sa les w ere ou tside th e record in th is case and the argum entw as imp rope r. W hen app ell ant o bje cte d on tha t b a sis at tr ial , t he c our t s ust ain ed th e obj ect ion and inst ru cted the jury to disregard the argumen t. How ever, the cou rt denie d ap pellan t’s moti on for a mi str ial , w hic h r uli ng i s t he s ubj ectof appel lan t’ s s ev enth poi nt of er ro r. The deni al of a moti on for mis tr ial i s rev iew ed unde r the sta ndard of abus e of dis creti on. W

ebb v. S tate, 232 S.W .3d 1 09, 1 12 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)

. A tr ial co urt doe s not abuse it s dis creti on w hen i ts deci si on i s w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. W ead v . St ate, 129 S.W .3d 1 26, 1 29 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ; Mo ntgom er y v . St ate, 810 at 391. M is tr ial i s a dev ic e us ed to ha lttr ial proceed ing s w hen an er ro r is so preju dic ial that ex pendi ture of further

ti me and e x pense w oul d be w ast eful and futil e. Ladd v. Sta te, 3 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 67 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999) . To deter mine w hether a g iv en er ro r neces si tates a mi str ial , w e mustex amine the par ti cul ar facts of t he c ase. Id. A mistrial is required on ly w hen the im prop rietyis cl early calculat ed to in f la m e t h e mind s of the jury and is of su ch a c haract er

as to sug g estthe impos si bil ity of w it hdraw ing the impress ion produce d on the minds of the j ur

y . Hi noj o sa v. St

ate , 4 S.W .3d 2 40, 2 53 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)

. See also Ha wki ns v. State , 13 5 S. W .3 d 72 , 77 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 2 00 4) ( on l y i n extrem e ci rc umstan ces , w here the preju dic e i s i ncurabl e, w il l a mi str ial be req uired) . An appel lat e cour t pres umes the jur

y w il l follo w

i nst ru cti ons to di sreg ard the ev ide nce. Dr ake v. State , 123 S.W .3d 596, 604 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14th Di st. ] 2003, pet . re f 'd ), citi ng Ladd , 315

S.W .3d a t 567 as quoti

ng Gardn er

v. St ate , 730 S.W .2d 6 75, 6 96 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 987) ( en banc)

. See al

so Br ock v. Sta te, 2 75 S.W .3d 5 86, 5 91 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2 008 , pet . ref ’d). Dur ing defense couns el’ s c los ing , s he arg ued i n par t, “O kay

. In a poss ess ion w it h inten t to deliver case , y ou would usua lly see, you know, these little pa ckaging things, little pack ag ing thi ng s. Y ou w oul d s ee probabl y recei pts

. Y ou w oul d s ee cell phones

. Y ou w ould see do pe n ote s. Y ou would see n am es of hoo kups a n d conn ection s. Y ou would see th at kind of

stuf f . You would have thatstuf f . Y ou would have–you w ould really truly probabl y hav e more c ocai ne. The amount that’ s all eg ed i s o nly 4.9 g ra ms, y ou k now , and it ’s –the w ay

–the w ay he i s charg ed is four to 200. I thi nk thi s d oes not c ertai nly r is e to the lev el of poss ess ion w it h i ntentto del iv er . I think their case is w eak . . . .” In respon se, the Stat e arg ued, “O h, an d w e br ing y ou rec eip ts. Defense c ounse l sai d w e s houl d–w e br ing y ou recei pts from–i f w e had int ent t o del iv er here. I’ m sor ry , y ou geta w ar ra nty w it h dope, is thati t? W hat? Y ou geta 30- day m oney back g uarantee? Co me on. W e broug ht y ou the inten t to de liv er here. Okay ? He knew–he w as still selling. T his isn’t a lot of crack? El ev en rock s i s n ot a lotof crack ? W ell , forg iv e us for not cat chi ng him earl ier i n the day w hen he sol d the restof itand the d ay before. ” Thereafter , t he foll ow ing ex chang e oc cur re d: Defense C ounse l: Obj ect ion

. Outs ide the re cord and

– The Co urt: Sust ain ed. Defense C ounse l: Cou ld w e hav e an ins tr uct ion ?16

T he Cou rt: And jury w ill disregard last state me nt of prosecu tor. Defense Counse l: Mov e for mistrial. The Co urt: Den ied

. Prosecu tor: (Continu ing cl osing a rg um ent )Th ere’s 11 crack rocks he re. He

h a d $ 5 0 0 w o rt h o f c ra c k ro c k s i n t h a t mo t e l ro o m. H e had a hundred- dol lar

bi ll on t op of it

. He had $200 on hi m w hen he w as ar re ste d. At t he outs et, w e not e tha t al thoug h the tr ial co urt s ust ain ed appe ll ant’ s o bje cti on, the prosec utor ’s arg ument w as onl y marg ina ll y outs ide the re cord i f at al l. The amoun t of cocain e prese nt, co uple d w ith t he a mo untof cash foun d w ith it and on ap pellan t, are factors from w hic h the j ur y co uld hav e i nferred appel lan t’ s int ent to de li v er . See Jordan v. State , 139 S.W .3d 7 23, 7 26 (T ex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 04, n o pet .) ; Tay lor v. Sta te , 106 S.W .3d 8 27, 8 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2003, no pet .) ; W il li am s v. State, 902 S.W .2d 5 05, 5 07 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 1994, pet. ref'd) (li sti ng factors c our ts cons ide r in re v iew ing f in d in gs o f

in te n t t o d e live r). Im p lic iti n s u ch a n i n fe re n ce b a se d o n t h e pre se n ce of la rge amounts of cas h i s t he furt her i nferenc e tha t t he cas h w as der iv ed from d ru g sa les

. See Hooper v. State, 2 14 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 200 7) (discussing ration al inferen ces). That factor

ai ds our

co ncl usi on th at t he tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard c ure d any pr eju dic e f ro m the pros ecut or ’s arg ument. See, e.g., Mo ra les v. Sta te, 32 S .W .3d 8 62, 8 67 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) ( the c haract er of the a ll eg ed e rro r is c onsi dered i n as ses si ng the li kel iho od th at t he j ur

y ’s dec is ion w as adv ersel y af fected bythe er ro r) ; W

aldo v . St ate, 746 S.W .2d 7 50, 7 54 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1 9 8 8) ( the c haract er of the a ll eg ed er ro r impac ts the ev alu ati on of curati v e effectof ins tr uct ion ); Rod ri guez v. Sta te, N o. 08 -0 1- 00103- CR , 200 417

Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 237 ( Tex .App. –El Pas o F eb. 1 0, 20 04, n o pet .) (m e m . op. , not designat ed for pub lication) (not ing sam e). W e f urthe r f ind the rema rk in the prosecu tor’s cl osi n g was not s o i nflammator y thatthe tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard i t c oul d not hav e had it s p re sumed curati v e effect

. W e find the tri al cour t did not abuse its di sc re ti on in den y ing appe llant’s mo tion fo r a mistrial, and overrule app ellant ’s sev ent h po int of error. In ap pellan t’s eighth poin t, he conte nds a not hera rg u m e nt of the pro secut or, this ti me du r i n g t h e p u n i s h me n tp h a s e o f t r i a l , e n t i t l e d h i m t o a m i s t r i a l

. W e a g a i n d i s a g r e e. Appel lan t testi fied duri ng the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e of hi s t ri al. D ur ing the Stat e’s cl osi ng arg ument atpuni shment , t he St ate referred to thattes ti mony , arg uin g : “I f y ou remember [ap pellan t’s] testim ony during the guilt/innoce nce pha se, y ou know, [t he o the r prosecut or] w entthrough th ose [o the r convi ctions] w ith him . A nd this w as his day, this w as his w eek, thi s w as his ti me to–t o puthi s b estfoot forw ard, t o do the b estsa les job he’d e v er done, and he’ d s ay , ‘ Y eah, y eah, that w as me. I gotthos e c onv ic ti ons. I w as conv ic ted o f that. I t ook the rap for it , butI did n’tdo i t.’ H is oppor tuni ty to put h ims elf i n t he bes t l ig ht he could and minim iz e the bad action s he’s had

. T hat ’s the choice he too k. [App ellant ] didn ’t get up he re and say , ‘I’m a tw o-time co nvicted drug d eale r, a nd I feel ho rrible, I fe el horrible for putt ing poison in th e ho me s and the bo dies of peo ple.’ He didn ’t t ell you tha t. He didn’t giv e y ou h is sincerity . He g ave y ou h is attem pt to minim iz e.” Defense co unsel apparentl y obj ect ed and the fol low ing ex chang e too k p lac e: Defense co unsel : Commenton fai lure to tes ti fy at pu nis hment. Prosec utor : I’ m tal ki ng abouthi s t est imony at g uil t and i nnoce nce.18

The Co urt: Sust ain ed. Defense co unsel : Mo v e to– ask the jur y to dis re g ard. The Co urt: And I’ ll ins tr uct the jur y to d isr eg ard las t comment of couns el re ga rd in g t h e De fe n d a n t ’s t e s t im o n y. Defense coun sel: Mov e for mistrial. Prosecu tor: I w ant y ou to consid er the w ay he acted and wh a th e said

whe n h e te st if ie d in guil t a n d in n o ce n ce . T h a t’ s a ll I ’m sa ying. Oka y ? B ecaus e the l aw al low s y ou to do that. So cons ide r it

. W as he g enui ne w it h y ou w hen t est ified , and w as he s inc ere? W e agree w ith app ellant , and t he Sta te conce des, t hatt he p rosecu tor’s referen ce to hi s refusal to ex press re mors e and, by extens ion , app ell ant’ s c hoi ce not t o tes ti fy at t ri al at t he puni shmentstag e, w as improper . W e find, how ev er , t hat t he tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard s uff ic ien tl y cu re d the er ro r becau se the S tate’ s referenc es w ere br ief, i sol ated and not so prejud icial a s t o be incurab le. G iv en the b rev ity o f the com me nt in the ov erall cont ext of the Stat e’s arg ument, the t ri al cour t di d n o t abuse i ts dis creti on i n deny ing app ellant ’s motio n for a mistrial. W e overrule appe llant’s eighth po int of error. Poin t of Error Nine–Den ial of Motion for Mistr ial Due to Evide nce o f Earlier Drug Buys I n a p p e ll a n t ’s n in t h p o in t , h e co m p la in s o f a n o n -r e s p o n s ive a n s we r b y a d e t e c t ive c o n c e rn in g a n a ll e ge d e xt ra n e o u s o f fe n s e , a n a rc o t ic s p u rc h a s e f ro m a p p e ll a n tb y a confide nti al infor mant. Dur ing d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’ s c ro ss -e x aminat ion of the o ff ic er dur ing the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e, c ounse l ask ed a q uest ion co ncer nin g pol ic e s ur v eil lan ce of the19

mo tel. T he o f

f ic er answered non -respon siv ely and men tione d a previous narco tics pur chas e f ro m appel lan t. Appel lan t as ked for and re cei v ed an ins tr uct ion to dis re g ard the off ic er ’s non- re spons iv e ans w er , buthi s mot ion for mi str ial w as deni ed. Appel lan t arg ues on appe al that the o ff ic er ’s ans w er i nje cte d har mf ul er ro r int o the tr ial that w as compound ed by the prosec utor ’s l ater cl osi ng arg ument i n w hic h he re ferred to prev ious drug sales, th e subject of app ellant ’s sev ent h po int of error. As w e di d w hen add ressing appe llant’s seventh point , we n o t e i n a ssessing the im pactof the of f icer’s answ er thatthe subj ectof dr ug sa les by appel lan t w as not forei g n to t his record. Ag ain , t h e a m o u n to f

c o c a i n e a n d t h e a m o u n to f ca s h p re s e n twe re p ro p e rl y b e fo re t h e ju ry. Conside ring the ent ire record and ev en taking into consid eratio n the State ’s refe rence in it s c los ing arg ument, w e find the c our t’ s i nst ru cti on c ured th e off ic er ’s referenc e to the extraneous dr ug sa le. The c our t i n Coe v. Sta te, 683 S.W .2d 4 31, 4 35 ( Tex .C rim .App. 1984 ) , a n a g g r a v a t e d ro b b e r y c a s e , fo u n d t h e c o u rt ’ s i n s t r u c t i o n t o d i s r e g a rd c u r e d any error fro m an of

f icer’s non-respo nsive answ er referrin g t o e xtrane ous rob bery off ense s, noti ng “ tes ti mony re ferr ing to or i mply ing extraneous offenses al leg edl y co mmitt ed by

the def e n d a nt m ay be ren dere d ha rmless by the trial court’s instruction to disregard.” Id. at 436. See als o Shan non v . St ate, 942 S.W .2d 5 91, 5 97- 98 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) ( comment out side record thatdefend antw as a sociop ath cured by promp t instruction to disregard); Bor ner v. Sta te, 827 S.W .2d 6 5, 68 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1 9 9 2 , pet . ref’d) st (o bje cti onabl e s tatementthatanony mous i nformant w as in fear of retali a ti on, c onsi sti ng of four w ords that were n o t repeated , c oul d hav e been cured by an i nst ru cti on to20

dis re g ard)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude t he tr ial co urt di d not abuse it s d is creti on in deny ing app ellant ’s motio n for mistrial. W e overrule appe llant’s nint h po int of error. Poi nt of Er ro r Ten– State’

s U se of P ri or C onvicti ons to Im

peach Appel

lan t Throug h appel lan t’ s l astpoi nt of er ro r, he a ss er ts the t ri al cour

t er re d by

al low ing the S tate to ut il iz e appel lan t’ s p ri or co nv ic ti ons for i mpeachm e n t p u rp oses . The is sue arose after the d efense el ic it ed te sti mony from a w it ness to t he effect tha t app ell ant w as giv ing Carrie m one y

t o pay for t he m ote l room. The State argued tha t only appellan t could hav e g iv en th e w it ness that informati on. The Stat e then arg ued t o the co urt t hat a ppel lan t must be c onsi dered the decl arant of t he hearsay sta tements to w hic h the w it ness tes ti fied, a n d it w as enti tl ed to i mpeach his credi bil ity pursuantto ev ide nti ar y r ule s 8 06 and 609. Tex . R . Ev id. 806, 609. The trial cour

t ag re ed, a nd al low ed th e prosec utor to ask the w it ness i f she k new a p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d o f p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a , d e l i v e ryo f a cont rolled sub stan ce, th ef t of prope rt y o n tw o sep arate occasion s, and theft by check. Later i n the tr ial , app ell ant t est ified , admi tti ng to pay ing for t he motel room for C ar ri e and hi s d au g ht er

o n s ev eral oc c as i on s . The St at e i nt rod uc ed re c ei pt s c on fi r mi ng tw o roo ms at t he motel under

appel lan t’ s n ame. The ev ide nce of appell ant’ s p rio r co n vi cti ons w as p re s e n t e d wit h o u to bje c t io n d u ri n g a p p e ll a n t ’s t e s t im o n y. Assum ing, arg uen do, t he trial co urt abu sed its d iscretion by allowi ng th e Sta te to ask the w it ness q uest ion s c oncer nin g w hether appel lan t pai d for the motel ro om and q uest ion s about appel lant’ s p ri or co nv ic ti ons, any

har m ar is ing from t he er ro r w as cured w hen21

app ellantlater testif ied th at he paid for the m ote l room– the v erysame conclusio n imp licit in the w it ness ’s tes ti mony –and w hen ev ide nce of appell ant’s conv ic ti ons w as admit ted with o u t objec ti on dur ing hi s t est imony

. See R eyes v. Sta te , 84 S.W .3d 6 33, 6 38 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 02) (a def end ant w ho allow s evidence to be introduce d f rom o ne so urce w i tho ut ob

j ec ti on for

fei ts a ny s ub s eq ue ntc om pl ai nt s a bo utt he i nt rod uc ti on o f t he s am e evidence f rom a not her sou rce). W e overrule appe llant’s f inal po int of error. Con cl usi on Fi ndi ng no rev ersi ble er ro r, w e ov er ru le each of ap pel lan t’ s ten p oin ts of error and aff ir m appel lan t’ s c onv ic ti on and sent ence.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h. Pi rt le, J. , di ss enti ng .