1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 08- 024- CR
J OHN P AULGAL B R AI T H AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 211TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antJoh n Pa ul G al bra i t h a ppe al s hi s con vi ct i on on t w o c ount s of agg r ava t ed se xua l as sa ul t of a chi l d a nd t w o c ount s ofi nde ce ncyw i t h a ch i l d. I n tw o p o i n ts, he arg u e s th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rterred b yd e n y i n g h i s m o ti o n to
sever and by adm i t t i ng i nt o evi dence a l et t eral l egedl y w r i t t en by A ppel l antover A p p e l l a n t’so bj e c ti o n th a t th e l e tte r w a sn o t a u th e n ti c a te d . W e a ffir m .2 Back gr ound Beca us e Appel l antdoe s notch al l eng e t he l ega l orf ac t uals uf f i ci enc y of th e e vi de nc e , w e w i l l r e s t r i c t ou r s um m a ry of t he r e c or d t o t ho s e p a rt s necessary t o pr ovi de contextf orA ppel l ant ’ s poi nt s. A gr and j ur y r et ur ned t w o i ndi ct m ent s agai nstA ppel l ant . The f i r st i ndi ct m ental l eged a si ngl e coun t ofaggr avat ed sexual assaul tofa chi l d und er t he ageoff ourt ee n, T. P. , co m m i t t ed i n 2004. The se con d i ndi ct m ent
— and t he one f r om w hi ch t hi s appeal ar i ses— al l eged t w o coun t s ofaggr avat ed sexual
as sa ul tan d t w o c ount s ofi nde ce ncyw i t h a di f f er entch i l d u n d e r th e ageof fo u rte e n , M .G ., c o m m i tte d i n 2 0 0 6 . T h e S t a t e f ile d a n o t ic e o f it s in t e n t t o c o n s o lid a t e t h e t w o c a s e s f o rt r ia l. A ppe l l antf i l ed a m ot i on t o s eve rt he t w o c as es “ u n d e r Texa s Pena l Code S ect i on 3 . 04 . ” Th e t r i al courthear d t he m ot i on i m m edi at el y bef or e voi rdi r e. A ppel l antar gued t hatt he c a s es w er e notf act ual l y r el at ed and i nvol ved al l egat i ons of“com pl et el y di f f er ent m annerand m eans. ” The t r i al courtdeni ed th e m o ti o n to s e v e r a n d tri e d th e c a s e sto g e th e r. D ur i ng i t sc a s e i n c h i e f , t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a h a n d wr i t t en l e tter pu rpo rt e d l yw ri tten b yA p p e l l a n t. T o au th e n ti c a t e the l e tter, the S tate
o ffered the tes ti m o n yo f S e rge a n t B i l l yC o rde l l , th e D e n to n C o u n ty d e p u ty sher i f fi n char ge ofi nm at e m ai l att h e c o u n ty j ai l w her e A ppel l antw as3

i nca r ce r at ed bef or e t r i al . Ser gea ntCor del l t es t i f i ed t hather evi ew s out goi ng i nm at e m ai l and t hathe r evi ew ed t he l ett er i n quest i on w hen i tw as deposi t ed i nt o t he pr i so n m ai l sy st em . The env el oper ec i t ed t he nam e “ J. G al br ai t h”an d A p p e lla n t ’s u n iq u e “ S O ” n u m b e rin t h e r e t u r n a d d r e s s . S e r g e a n tC o r d e ll s a id t h a th e h a d r e a d “ q u it e a b it ” o fA p p e lla n t ’s m a il a n d re c o g n iz e d h is hand w r i t i ng, w hi ch he cal l ed “easi l y r ecogn i zabl e. ” A ppel la ntobj ect ed t o t he l et t eras i m pr oper l y aut henti cat ed. The t r i al
courtover r ul ed hi s obj ect i on and adm i t t ed t he l et t er i nt o evi dence. Th e l et t er c o n t a in s t h e f o llo w in g s e n t e n c e s : “ N o ta llo w in g [M .G .] t o t e s t if yw ill t o t a lly dr op t he case. N o w i t ness, no case. I w oul d gi ve up m y par ent al r i ghtst o her i fshe [ w oul d] j ustdr op i t ! ” Th e j ur y acqui t t ed A ppel l ant on t he char ge concer ni ng T . P. butconvi ct ed h i m o n a l l fo u r c h a rge s c o n c e rning M .G . T h e j u ry a ss e ss e d p u n i sh m e n t of l i fe i n pr i son on each o ft he aggr avat ed sexual assaul tchar ges and t w ent y year s’ confi nem enton ea c h o f th e i ndecen cy char ges. The t r i al courtr ender ed ju d g m e n ta c c o r d in g ly , a n d A p p e lla n tf ile d t h isa p p e a l. M ot i on t o S ever In h is f ir s t p o in t , A p p e lla n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rt e r r e d b yd e n y in g h is
m o ti o n to s e v e r.4

A def endan tm ay be pr osecut ed i n a si ngl e cr i m i nal act i on f oral l of f enses ar i si ng ou toft he sam e cr i m i nal epi sode. Tex. Penal C o de A nn. § 3 . 02 ( a) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). “C ri m i n a l e p i s o d e ” m e a n sth e c o m m i s s i o n o f tw o o r m o re of f ens es , r ega r dl es s ofw het hert he har m i s di r ec t ed t ow ar d ori nf l i ct ed upon mo r e t h a n o n e pe r s on , i ft h e o f f e n s e swe r e c o mmi t t e d p u r s u a n tt o t h e s a me t r ans ac t i on orpur su an t to t w o orm or e t r ans ac t i onst hatar e c onne ct ed t o or const i t ut e a com m on schem e orpl an ori ft he o ff e n s e s ar e t he r epeat ed
c o m m i s s i o n o f th e s a m e o r s i m i l a r o ffe n s e s . Id. § 3 .0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). W henever t w o orm or e of f enses have been consol i dat ed orj oi ned f ort r i al und ersect i on 3 . 02 , t he def endan thas a r i ght t o sever ance oft he of f enses, e x c e p tt h e r i g h tt o s e v e r a n c e d o e sn o ta p p l yt o a p r o s e c u t i o n f o ra n o f f e nse des cr i bed by se ct i on 3. 03( b) unl es s t he t r i alc o u rt det er m i nest hatt he def endan tort he S t at e w oul d be unfai r l y pr ej udi ced by j oi nderoft he of f enses. Id. § 3. 04( a) , ( c) ( V er non Supp . 2008 ) . The of f ens esde sc r i bed by se ct i on 3. 03( b) i ncl udeag gr ava t ed se xua l as sa ul t and i nde ce ncyw i t h a ch i l d und ert he
a g e o f s e v e n te e n y e a rs . Id. § 3. 03( b) ( 2) ( A ) ( V er non Supp. 200 8) . Ther e i s no p r e s u m p t io n t h a t t h e jo in d e r o f c a s e s in v o lv in g a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u lt
a g a i n s t d i ffe re n t c h i l d re n i s u n fa i rl yp rej u d i c i a l . Sa l aza r v. S tate , 127 S. W . 3d 355 , 365 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2004 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( ci t i ng D i azv. S tate , 1 2 5 S .W .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 2

– 4 3 (T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t.5

r ef ’ d. ) ) . The def end antm us tex pl ai n how hew o ul d beunf ai r l y pr ej udi ce d by
c o n s o l i d a ti o n . L a nev. Sta te , 1 7 4 S. W . 3d 376, 380 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ), cert. denied, 12 7 S . C t . 24 6 ( 20 06 ) . W e r evi ew th e t r i al co urt ’ s den i alofa def end ant ’ s m ot i on f ors eve r anc e f orab us e o f d i s c re ti o n . S e eSa l

aza r, 127 S. W . 3d a t365. T o p res e rve a c o m p l a i n t f o r ou r rev i e w , a p a rt ym u st h a v e p res e n ted to t he t r i al courta t i m el y re q uest , obj ect i on, orm ot i on t hats ta testh esp e cif ic groundsf

or the desi

red rul i ng i f t hey ar e not app ar entf r om t he con t extoft he
re q u e s t, o bj e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), c ert. deni e d , 526 U. S. 10 70 ( 19 99 ) . The com pl ai nt on app eal m ustcom portw i t h t he com pl ai ntr ai sed
a t tri a l . Hei

del b erg v. S tate , 1 4 4S .W .3 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a l l e g e u n fa i r p rej u d i c e i n h i s w r i tte n m o ti o n to s e v e r. A tt he sever ance hear i ng, he ar gued t hatt he cases s hou l d be sever ed because “t heyar e n otf ac t ual l y r el at ed” and i nvol ved “a n e nt i r el y di f f er entm ann eran d
m eans. ” I n ot herw or ds, A ppel l antar gued t h a t th e cases shoul d be sever ed bec aus e t heydi d noti nvol ve t he sa m e “ cr i m i nalep i so de”asde f i ned by se ct i on 3. 01 , notbecause j oi nderw as unfai r l y pr ej udi ci al und er sect i on 3. 04 ( b) . Even
w hen asked by t he t r i al court , “[ W ] hy do you say t hat ’ s unf ai r l y p r ej udi ci al ?” A p p e lla n t ’s c o u n s e l o n ly s t a t e d t h a tt h e o f f e n s e sw e r e u n r e la t e d . A p p e lla n td id6

n o ta r g u e , a sh e d o e so n a p p e a l, t h a tjo in d e r w o u ld p r eju d ic e h im b e c a u s e it f or ce d hi m t o di vi de hi s def ens e bet w ee n t he t w o i ndi ct m ent s and al l ow ed t he St at e t o of f erev i den ceoft he al l ege d of f ens e i nvol vi ng T. P. t hat m i ghtnotha ve b e e n o th e rw i s e a d m i s s i b l e i n th e c a s e i n v o l v i n g M .G . B e c a u s e A p p e lla n t ’s c o m p la in to n a p p e a l d o e sn o tc o m p o rtw it h h is
a r g u m e n ta tt h es e v e r a n c e h e a r in g , w e h o ld t h a th e f a ile d t o p r e s e rv e h is
c o m p l a i n t fo r o u r re v i e w . S ee Hei del b erg , 1 4 4 S .W .3 d a t5 3 7 . E v e n if A ppel l anthad pr eserved er r or , w e w oul d hol d t hat t he t r i al court di d not abuse it s d is c r e t io n b yd e n y in g t h e m o t io n t o s e v e r b e c a u s e A p p e lla n td id n o te x p la in how he w oul d be unfai r l y pr ej udi ced by j oi nder as he w as r equi r ed t o do un der
s e c ti o n 3 .0 4 (b ). S ee T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 .0 4 (b ); Te x. R. App . P. 33. 1; Lane , 1 7 4S .W .3 d a t3 8 0 (h o ld in g t r ia l c o u rtd id n o ta b u s e i t s d is c r e t io n in
r e f u s in g s e v e r a n c e w h e r e a p p e lla n td id n o te x p la in h o w jo in d e r c r e a t e d u n f a ir p rej u d i c e ). M or eov er , w e di sa gr ee t hat ei t heroft he gr oundsar gue d byA ppe l l anton appeal est abl i shes t hathe w as unf ai r l y pr ej udi ced . W hi l e evi dence of ot her
cr i m es i s notadm i ssi bl e t o pr ove t he char act erofa per son t o show he act ed i n co n fo rm i ty th e rew i th , i t m a yb e ad m i ss i b l e fo r o th e r pu rpo se s s u c h as to
re b u t a d e fe n s i v e th e o ry . Se e T e x . R . E v i d . 4 0 4 (b ); Ma tthe ws v. S tate , 152 S .W .3 d 7 2 3 , 7 3 1 (T e x . A p p .— T y l e r 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.); Sal azar, 12 7 S . W . 3d at7

36 5. O ne ofA ppel l ant ’ s m ai n def ensi ve t heor i es as t o M . G . w as t hatshe w as not t el l i ng t he t r ut h because she w ant ed t o please t hose w ho had i nf l uence ove r her . W e a gr eew i t h t he St at e t hati ti s pr oba bl e t hatt he evi den cer el at i ng to T .P . ’ s al l egat i ons agai nstA ppel l antw oul d have been adm i ssi bl e f ort hat p u rp o s e e v e n if a s e v e ra n c e h a d b e e n g ra n te d . S ee Sal azar, 12 7 S . W . 3d at 36 5 ( hol di ng j oi ndern o t u n fai r l y pr ej udi ci al w her e i tw as l i kel y t hatot her vi ct i m s’ t est i m ony w oul d have been adm i ssi bl e t o r ef ut e def ensi ve t heor y t hat
c o m p l a i n a n ts ’ st o ri e sw e re i n fl u e n c e d b ys u g g e s ti v e q u e s ti o n i n g ). N o r d o e si t a p p e a r th a t th e re fu s a l to s e v e r re s u l te d i n p rej u d i c e o r h a rm by i m pai r i ng A ppella nt ’ s abi l i t y t o pr esenthi s def enses as t o ei t hercause. A ppel l ant ’ s def ense of t he cause i nvol vi ng T. P. w as t hat i t w as a s i m pl e case of“he sai d- she sai d” i n w hi ch no new evi dence w as devel oped i n t he t hr ee yea r s f ol l ow i ng t he al l ege d s i ngl e a cti nvol vi ng he r . A p p e l l a ntco nvi nce d t he j u ry o f his d e fen se as sh o w n b yi ts “n o t gu i l ty” v e rdict as to T .P. C o n tr a ry to h isa r g u m e n to n a p p e a l, t h e re c o r d r e v e a ls t h a t A p p e lla n t w a s a b le t o a n d d id
concen t r at e hi s def ense on M . G . ’ s case, i ncl udi ng la c k ofphysi cal evi dence, M . G . ’ s i nco ns i st ent st at em ent s, and i m pl i ca t i ons t hat sh e em bel l i s h e d an d f abr i ca t ed f ac t s t o pl ea set he out cry i nt ervi ew er and ot her s. A ppe l l antha s not
e x p l a i n e d h o w h e w a s p rev e n ted fr o m furth e r de v e l o p i n g h i s d e fen se as to M .G . F o r t h e se rea so n s, 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.8 A ut henti cat i on of Lett er 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 sc r et i on byad m i t t i ng t he han dw r i t t en l ett er ove r hi s obj ec t i on t hat i t w asnot aut henti cat ed. W e r evi ew a t r i al court ’ s deci si on t o adm i torexcl ude evi dence
u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . Greenv. S tate , 934 S. W . 2d 92, 1 0 1

– 0 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), cert. denied, 5 2 0 U .S . 1 2 0 0 ( 1 9 9 7 ); Mo n tg o m ery v. S tate , 810 S . W . 2d 372, 391 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 199 1) ( op. on re h ’g ). The r equ i r em entofau t hen t i ca t i on ori den t i f i ca t i on a s a c ondi t i on pr ec ede ntt o a dm i ss i bi l i t y i s sa t i sf i ed by evi den ce su f f i ci entt o s upporta f i ndi ng th a t th e m a tte r i n q u e s ti o n i sw h a t th e p ro p o n e n t c l a i m s . T e x . R . E v i d . 9 0 1 (a ). Evi den cem ay be aut hen t i ca t ed by t he t es t i m ony ofa w i t nes s w i t h k now l edg e t hata m att er i s w hat i t s pr opone ntcl ai m s i tt o be , none xpe rtopi ni on a s t o t he genu i neness ofhandw r i t i ng based upo n f am i l i ar i t y not acqui r ed f or t he pur poses o f th e l i ti g a ti o n , o r o th e r d i s ti n c ti v e c h a r a c t e ri s ti c s . T e x . R . E v i d . 9 0 1 (b )(1 ), ( 2) , ( 4) . A t r i al court does not abuse i t s di scr et i on byadm i t t i ng evi dence w hen i tr easonabl y bel i eves t hata r easonabl e j ur or coul d f i nd t hatt he evi dence has b e e n a u th e n ti c a te d o r i d e n ti fi e d . D ruery v. S tate , 225 S . W . 3d 491, 502 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 1 2 8 S . C t. 6 2 7 (2 0 0 7 ).9

Ser gea ntCor del l i den t i f i ed t he l ett er as hav i ng bee n w r i t t en by Appel l ant based on hi s f am i l i ar i t y w i t h A ppel l ant ’ s handw r i t i ng f r om ot herl et t er s he had
r evi ew ed aspa rt of hi s j ai l hous e d ut i esan d f r om A ppe l l ant ’ s nam e a nd un i que “SO ” num beri n t he env el ope ’ s r et ur n a ddr es s. Appel l antar gue s t hatSer gea nt C o rde l l ’s te s t im o n yd i d n o t au th e n ti c a te th el e tter be c a u se h e d i d n o t t e sti fy th a t he p e rso n a l l ykn e w A p p e l l a n t, tha t t h e re w a s o n l y o n e p e r s o n w i th A p p e lla n t ’s n a m e in t h e D e n t o n C o u n t yJ a il o n t h e d a t e S e r g e a n tC o r d e ll
r evi ew ed t he l et t er , orw hat A ppel l ant ’ s S O num ber w as. Bu t r ul e 90 1( b) does
n o t re q u i re th a t th e p e rs o n a u th e n ti c a ti n g a w ri ti n g p e rs o n a l l yk n o w th e a u th o r, a s o p p o s e d to k n o w i n g th e a u th o r’sh a n d w ri ti n g . S eeT e x . R . E v i d . 9 0 1 (b ). Furt her , and contr ar y t o A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent , S er geant C or del l di d t est i f y t hat t he S O num beron t he envel ope w as A ppel l ant ’ s uni que S O num ber , w hi ch al so e l i m i n a te sth ep o s s i b i l i tyth a t a d i ffe re n t J o h n G a l b ra i th w ro te th e l e tte r. W e h o ld t h a tS e r g e a n tC o r d e l l ’ sid e n t if ic a t io n o ft h e le t t e rf r o m h is f am i l i ar i t y w i t h A ppel l ant ’ s hand w r i t i ng and A ppel l ant ’ s nam e and S O num ber on t he env el opes uf f i ci ent l y a ut hen t i ca t ed t he l ett erasha vi ng be en w r i t t en by A ppe l l ant . Ther ef or e, t he t r i alco urtdi d not abu sei t s di sc r et i on byad m i t t i ng t he l ett eri n t o e vi den ceove rA ppe l l ant ’ s aut hen t i ca t i on obj ec t i on, an d w e o v e rr u l e h i s s e c o n d p o i n t.10 C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o f A p p e l l a n t’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u r t ’s j u d g m e n t. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: G A RD N ER, D A U PH I N O T, an d HO LM A N , JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Nov e m be r6, 2008