C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

XI N L IU B AI L EY, Ap pe lla nt,

v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 00 23 -C R

Appea l from County Court at L aw No. 3 of Collin C ounty , Texas (TC # 003-83846-07)

O P I N I O N Xin L iu Ba iley

was c harg ed with pr o s t i t u t i o n . A jury found her

g uilty , and the tria l court sentenc ed her

to thirty day s in ja il, pr obated for one y ear , plus a fine of $500. A

ppellant bring s two issues for re view. F inding no e rror , we a ffirm. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND On May 10, 2007, Plano Detec tive Curtis Coburn, a twelve-year veteran of the spe cial op e ratio ns se c tio n o f the Inte lli g e nc e Un it, c arr ie d out an und e rc ov e r o pe ratio n r e g ard ingpo ssi ble pros ti tuti o n a t A B C H e a lt h

. Wh e n Co b ur

n ar r iv e d a t A B C H e a lt

h , h e w a s a dmi tt e d b y an Asian fe ma l e w h o l e d

h i md o w na

h a l l w ay an d i n t o a r o o m . Ap p e l l an t , a

l i c e n s e d m a s s a g e the ra

pis t,

e nte re d th e ro om a fe w se c on ds late r we ari ng a re d- and -whit e , s pa g he tti -s tr a p, a bo ve -t he -k ne e dr e ss and bar e leg s. Appellant told Cobu rn , “[ T ] hen you know the pric e.” Coburn told Appe llant he

wa nte d an ho ur -l on g se ssi on . Ap pe lla nt too k $6 0 fr om him and , a s sh e le ft the ro om, sh e tol d h im to “g et comfor

table.” Coburn r emoved a ll his clothi ng and lay fac e down o n the massag e table. When Appellant re -ente red the room, she asked if he wa nted a “ hard ma ssag e” or

a “sof t massag e.” Coburn responde d that he wa nted a soft massa g e.Coburn testified that Appellant pour ed oil on his back a nd started to massag e his bac k and shoulders. Appellant positioned he r body at the hea d of the table , and as she massag ed his bac k and shoulders, she pr essed her crotc h into his hea d. She moved her hips as she bent ove r, thrusting her g roi n ar ea i n t o h i s h ead. She did this five or six ti mes. Next, Appellant moved to the side of the ta ble and be g an ma ssa g ingCob ur

n’ s le g s. She the n ma ssa g e d h is b utt oc ks and th e in si de of his thighs. She moved he r hands be tween his legs and brushed his scrotum with her fing ertips and the ba c k o f h e r h an d s . Sh e u s e d

w h a t h e c a ll e d

“ li g h t t o u c h in g ” li k e a

“ ti c k le , ” g r a zi n g h is s crotum

sever al t imes and movi ng her hand in and out betwee n his thighs. Coburn tol d her it “w as making [hi m] horny .” Appellant re sponded by leaningdown and whispe ringin his ear, “ Ican make you fee l very g ood.” She then kissed him on his chee k. Coburn asked A

ppellant how much it would cost t o “take car e of” him. Appellant answe red “a million dollars.” Coburn asked if $200 would do, and Appe llant said y es. Coburn aske d if she

wa nte d th e mon e y

ri g ht t he n, and she in for med hi m sh e did . A s Co burn a pp ro a c he d h is p ants to

re tr ie ve the mon e y , App e lla nt c ame aro un d th e ta

ble , p ut h e r a

rm s aro un d h is n e c k, and

kis se d h im

on the lips. Coburn remove d $200 from his pa nts a nd handed it to her. After he g ave it to her, she g rabbe d his penis with her hand and stroked it up and down. As she did so, he g ave the “bust” sig nal to the entry

team. The bust signa l was “play with my balls.” Appe llant beg an play ing w ith Coburn’s scrotum then bent at the wai s t an d s t arte d loweringher he ad towar d his penis are a as thoug h she

we re g oin g to p e rf

or m or a l se x. Cob ur

n pu sh e d Ap pe lla

nt ba c k, ste pp e d awa

y , id e nti fi e d h ims e lf as a police office r, and told her she wa s under a

rre st. Appellant testified that she di d not touch C oburn i n any sexual way . She denied pushingher g ro in i nto his he a d w hil e g ivi ng him a ma ssa g e , k iss inghim

on the c he e k o r t ou c hin g or

str ok inghis penis. When a sked about g razing his sc rotum, she said, “I swea r to God I never touch[ed] t here .”Whe n a sk e d w he the r s he re a c he d b e tw e e n h is l e g s, sh e sa id, “ No , no . . . Ine ve r g o into t he mid dle there . Inever

do that.” Appellant cla imed that while she wa s massag ing C o b u rn, he touched her legand buttocks under he r dre ss and panties. She was “kind of nervous” beca use she did not know “what’s g oing on” and she “ just [ did not] want to make the customer mad” at her . She rea cted by moving a round the table o u t o f hi s rea ch. Appe llant expl ained that she laug hed ner vously when Coburn sa id he was horny . When he aske d her “ how much”, she started laughing a g ain, and sai d “okay , a million dollar[s] ” bec ause she “just wanted to ke ep [him] awa y .” Coburn then of

fer ed her $200. Appellant testified: “I

say , okay , I ’m g oing to wa sh my hands. I come back. I

saw the ta

ble. I have $200; it’s put on the table ther e.” Coburn the n arr ested he r. When asked whe ther she a g ree d to Coburn’s offe r, she a nswere d: “Kind of; you know. Th a t’ s w hy

Isay I ’m g oin g to w a shmy

ha nd s. Ic ome ba c k, he put $2 00 bil l th e re .” She a g re e d to the offer becau s e “ h e p u s h , p u s h , p u s h , r igh t, li k e th a t. ” Wh e na s k e d b y d e f e n s e c o un s e l i f

s he finally g ave into Coburn’s offe r, she replied, “Kind of. Ican’ t be liar, so I just talking the situation over the re.” Duringvoir dire, the trial court infor med the venir e pane l of the def ense of entra pment, as did the State and defense. A t the conclusion of the e vidence , howeve r, Appe llant reque sted a jury instruction on entrapme nt which was de nied by the cour t. JU RYIN STR UC TIO N Appellant ar g ues the trial c ourt committed reve rsible err or in r efusingher timely reque st for

an in str uc tio n o n th e law o f e ntr a pme nt. Standard of Review When review ing c harg e er ror, we employ

a two-step a

naly sis. W

ashington v. State, 930S.W. 2d

69 5, 69 8 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 19 96 , no pe t.) . We mus t f ir st d e te rm ine wh e the r e rr or a c tua lly exis ts in the charg e. Almanza v. State, 68 6 S.W.2 d 157 , 171 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); W ashington, 930 S.W .2d at 698. In making this de termination, we view the char g e as a wh o l e a n do u r review should n o t b e l i m i t ed to a series of isolated state ments or par ts of the cha

rg e standingalone. W ashington, 93 0 S. W.2 d at 69 8; see H olley v. State, 766 S.W .2d 254, 256 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989). Se c on d, we mus t de te rm ine wh e ther su ff ic ie nt h arm

re su lte d f

ro m th e e rr or

to r e qu ir e re ve rs a l. Almanza, 68 6 S. W.2 d at 17 1; W ashington, 9 3 0 S

. W

. 2 dat 698. Which harmless er ror standa

rd applies depe nds upon whether the def endant objec ted. A b d

n o r v . State, 8 7 1 S.W .2d 726, 731-32 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ); W ashington, 930 S.W .2d at 698. Where the defe ndant fa iled to object, she must show that she suffer ed ac tual eg reg ious harm. Almanza, 68 6 S. W.2 d at 17 1; W ashington, 930 S.W .2d at 698. A cha rg e on a de fensive issue is re quired if the a ccuse d prese nts affi rm ative evide nce that would constitute a def

ense to the crime char g ed and a jury char g e is properly reque sted. Miller v. State, 81 5 S.W. 2d

58 2, 58 5 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Barnes v. State, 70 S.W .3d 294, 304 (Tex.App.-- For t Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) . In deter mining whether evidenc e raises a defe nse, the c redibility of the evidenc e is not at issue. Muniz v. State, 851 S.W .2d 238, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. de nied, 510 U. S. 83 7, 11 4 S.Ct

. 11 6, 12 6 L .E d. 2d 82 (19 93); Ba rn es, 70 S.W .3d at 304. In other wor ds, if a defe ndant produc es evide nce raisi ng eac h element of a re quested de fensive instruc tion, that defe ndant is entitled to the instruction reg ardle ss of the source and streng th of the evidenc e. Hamel v. State, 91 6 S. W.2 d 4 91 , 4 93 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Ba rn es, 70 S.W .3d at 304. Entrapment Te xas P e na l Co de se c tio n 8 .0 6( a ) p ro vid e s: I t is a de fe ns e to p ro se c uti on

that th e a c tor

e ng a g e d in

the c on du c t c ha

rg e d b e c a us ehe wa s induced to do so by a law e nforc ement ag ent using persua sion or other mea ns likely to cause persons to commit the offe nse. Conduct mere ly aff ordinga per son an op po rt un ity to c omm it a

n o ff e ns e do e s n ot c on sti tut e e ntr a pme nt. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 8.06(a) (Ve rnon 2003). Thus, e ntrapment is a defensive theor y . SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 2.03(c) ,(d). I f evide nce supporting the def ense of entra pment is admitted, the issue must be submitt ed to the jury with the instruction that rea sonable doubt on the issue require s acquittal. Id. § 2.03(d). Entrapment e x ists if the criminal intent orig inates in the mind of the po l i ce age n t and the ag ent then induce s the ac cused to commit the offe nse. Ba rn e s, 70 S.W. 3d

a t 30 4; Torres v. State, 98 0 S. W.2 d 8 73 , 875 (T e x.Ap p. -- San A nto nio 19 98 , n o p e t.) . Co nv e rs e ly , e ntr a pme nt d oe s n ot e xist wher e the police ag ent mere ly furnishes the oppor

tunity for t h e comm ission of the offe nse. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 8. 06 (a ). Th e te st f or e ntr a pme nt u nder S ect io n 8. 06 is c omp os e d o f b oth subjective a

nd objective e lements. England v. State, 887 S.W .2d 902, 913 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994); McG ann v. State, 30 S.W .3d 540, 545 (Tex.App.--F ort Worth 2000, pet. ref’ d). F or the subjec tive element, the a ccuse d must show that she was induce d by law enf orce ment to eng ag e in the illeg al conduct. England, 887 S.W .2d at 913. The a ccuse d who claims entra pment must therefor e produc e evidenc e that the police actua lly and in fa ct induced he r into committi ng the cha rged o ff ense. Id

. On c e the su

bje c tiv e e le me nt o f i nd

uc e me nt i s sh own, th e accu se d mu st a dd iti on a lly demonstrate how

she mee ts the objective e lem en t o f S ection 8.06. Id. at 914. For this second element, the a ccuse d must show that the persuasion used b y t h e p o l i ce was such a s to cause a n ordinarily law abidingperson of

aver ag e re sistance to neverthele ss commit the offense

. Id. The amount of per suasion that it take s to me et this test will vary from ca se to ca se, but examples include pleas ba sed on extreme nee d, sy mpathy , or close persona l friendship; offers of inordinate sums of

m o ney ; and extreme plea s of nee d due to despe rate illness. Guia v. State, 220 S.W .3d 197, 204(Tex.App .- -D a lla s 2 00 7, pe t. r e f’ d) ; Campbell v. State, 8 3 2 S. W. 2 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 0 ( T e x. Ap p . --Corpus Chr ist i 19 92 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; Bec erra v. State, No. 05-99-00412- CR , 2 0 0 0 WL124683, at *2 (Te x .App.-- Dallas, F eb. 3, 2000, pet. r ef’ d)(not desig nated f or publication). Ho we ve r, if

the de fe nd ant d e nie s th a t sh e c omm itt e d the of fe ns e , sh e wi ll no t be e nti tle d to an entr apment instruction. Norman v. State, 58 8 S. W.2 d 3 40 , 3 45 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ). Th is r ule

wa s d e ve lop e d b e c a

us e e ntr a pme nt a ssume s the of

fe ns e wa s committe d, and de nia l of the of fe ns e is thus inconsist ent. Id. The de fenda nt is not required to plea d g uilty , but she ca nnot introduce positive evidenc e that she di d not commit the act. Bec ker v . State, 840 S.W .2d 743, 746 (Tex.App.-- Houston [1s t Dist.] 1992, no pet.). An aly sis Ap p el l an t wa s ch ar ged wi th co m m i t t i n g p ro s t i tu t i o n b y th re e m an n er

o r m ea n s . T h e c h ar ge of the c ourt state d in re le va nt p art : A per son commits an offense if he intentionally offe rs to eng ag e, agree s to eng ag e, or eng ag es in sexual conduct or c ontact with another for a fee

. ‘Sexual contact’ mea

ns any touching of the a

nus, brea st, or any

part of the of anothe r person with intent to arouse or g ratify t h e sexual desire of any person. ‘ Sex ual conduct’ includes sexual contact a nd sexual int erc ourse. ‘Sexual int erc ourse’ means any penetr ation of the fe male sex org an by the male se x org an. The S tate arg ues t hat Appellant wa s not entitled to the entrapment instruction bec ause she did not admit that she committed the conduc t char g ed. In her testimony , Appellant denie d eng ag ing in a ny sexual c ontact or offe ring to e ng ag e in se x ual contac t with Coburn. As to the third means, ag ree ing to eng ag e in sexual contact, he r testimony was unclear. When Coburn made her t he $200 offer, she said, “[O]kay , I ’m g oing to wa sh my hands,” the n left the room a nd was arre sted immediately upon her r eturn. When aske d her a bout her re sponse t o C o b u rn ’s offe r, she did not cha rac terize her

re sp on se a s an out

ri g ht agre e me nt. Ins te a d, sh e tw ic e ans we re d th a t sh e “ kin d o f” a g re e d. Th is i snot an admission that she ag ree d to eng ag e in sexual contact.

But e ven if we wer e to find that Appe llant’s testimony amounted to an ad m i s s i on of the offe nse, she wa s not entitled to the instruction beca use she did not meet the objective element of the de fe ns e . App e lla

nt he rs e lf te sti fi e d th a t sh e le ft

the pr ivate ro om, purp or te dly to w a shhe r h and s. She the n w ill ing ly re tur

ne d. Th e ob

je c tiv e e le me nt r e qu ir e d App e lla nt t o d e mon str a te that be c a us e of Cob ur n’ s a c tio ns , a

n o rd ina ry law a bid ingpe rs on

of ave ra g e re sis tanc e wou ld h ave re tur ne d to the room to commit the offe nse. We are hard p re s sed to conc lude that a r easona ble woman who profe ssed to have be en sexually and inappropriately fondled by

a first-time c lient would return to a private r oom in which a nake d and ar oused man a waited he r. Duringo ra l ar g ument, counsel sug g ested that Appe llant may have fea red Coburn would pursue her i f she attempted to esca pe. He

a lso opin ed that pe rh a

ps the re str oo m to wh ic h s he re tr e a te d h a d o nly on e e ntr y fr om t he pr ivate

ro om. Th a t ma

y we ll b e tr

ue , b ut t he de fe ns e wa s h e rs to p ro ve . We wi ll n ot sp eculate a s to available avenue s of esc ape or retrea t. Be cause we c onclude that Coburn mer ely furnished the opportunity

for the c ommissi on of the off ense, w e over

rule Point of Error

One. JUDICIAL MISCONDUC T AND DUE P ROCESS VIOLATIONS In Point of Error Two, A p p el l ant arg ues the trial c ourt committed judicial misconduct calc ulated to prejudice the rig ht of the defe nse to a fair trial befor e an impartial jury

. She claims the court misled def

ense c ounsel and the ve nire by implying the re would be an instruction on e ntrapment in the final cha

rg e whe n it had no intention of g iving suc h an instruction base d on the fac ts it was

awa re w ere expected to be pr esente d. Standard of Review To prese rve a

complaint for a

ppellate r eview, the party must state the g rounds for the de siredru lin g fr om t he tr ia l c ourt

“ wi th s uf fi c ie nt s pe c if

ic ity to m ake the tr ia l c ourt

awa re of the c omp la int , unless the spec ific g rounds [are] appar ent from the c ontext . . . .” T EX . R.A PP . P

. 3 3 .1(a) (1)( A); R ey n a v. State, 168 S.W .3d 173, 177 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). This is to give the tria l court an opportunity to rule on the def endant’ s appellate rationale

. Rey na, 16 8 S. W.3 d at 17 8. I t is a lso to g ive the trial c ourt the opportunity to c orre ct the err or or remove the basis for the objection. Rey na , 16 8 S. W.3 d at 17 9. Al mos t a ll e rr or , e ve n c on sti tut ion a l e rr or , is wa ive d i f th e a pp e lla nt f a ils to object. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 33 .1 (a ); Drey er v. G reene , 87 1 S.W.2 d 697 , 6 98 (T e x. 19 93 ); Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W .3d 890, 894-95 (Te x .Crim.App. 2003). A def endant may

waive he r due process c omplaint, her complaint about the la ck of a n impartial jury , and her

complaint under A rticle 38.05 of the Code of Criminal Proc edure

. See e .g. , Go od ru m v. Sta te , No. 01-01-00950- CR, 2003 WL 1995634, at *11 (Tex.App.-- Houston [1s t Dist.] May 1, 20 03 , pe t. re f’ d) (n ot de signate d fo r p ub lic a tio n) (j ud ic ia l mi sc on du c t) ; Tho ma s v . S tate , No. 12-07-00048- CR, 2007 W L4216459, at *2 (Tex.App.--Ty ler Nov. 30, 2007, no pet.)(not de signated fo r p ub lic a tio n) (j ud ic ia l vi nd ic tiv e ne ss) ; Ro sb or ou gh v . S tate , N o . 0 6

- 0 6

- 0 0 2 3 7

- CR , 2 00 7 WL 2033762, at *1 (Te x .App.--Tex ark an a J u l y 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , n o p et
. )( n o td es i gn at edfo r p u b l i ca t i o n )(

j u d i ci al vin dic tiv e ne ss) ; Hu ll v . S tate , 67 S.W.3 d 2 15 , 2 17 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 )( du e pr oc e ss) ; Alexande r

v . S tate , 13 7 S.W. 3d

12 7, 13 0- 31 (T e x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 200 4, pe t. r e f’ d) (f

e de ra l and

state du e pr oc e ss r ig hts ); Cole v . S tate , 931 S.W .2d 578, 580 (Tex.App.--Da llas 1995, pet. ref ’d)( due pr oc e ss) ; Ba da ll v . S

tate , 216 S. W

. 3 d 8 65, 867 Tex.App.--B eaumont 2007, pet. r ef’ d)(r ight to an imp art ia l jury

); Liste r v . S

tate , N o. 08 -0 5- 00 02 8- CR, 20 06 WL 73 64 96 , at *1 (T e x.Ap p. -- El Pa so Mar. 23 , 2 00 6, no pe t.) (n ot d e signate d f or pu bli c a tio n) ( Ar

t i c l e 3 8

. 0 5 ) ; Re

se nd e z v . S tate , 160 S.W .3d 18 1, 19 0 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Cor

pu s Chri sti 20 05 , no pe t.) (Art ic le 38 .0 5) ; In re A.B. , 133 S.W .3d 869, 876 (Tex.App.--Da llas 2004, no pet.)(A rticle 38.05).An aly sis Appellant did not raise any of t he is sues s he raises on appea l at trial. She did not object when the tr ia l c ourt de nie d he r r e qu e st f or an e ntr a pme nt i ns tr

uc tio n. She did

fi le a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l, but she cha

rac terized the cour

t’s actions onl y as “material errors.” She did not raise the my riad of issues she now ra ises on appea l such as judicial misconduct or constitutional errors. She ha s thus f a il ed to prese rve h e r

c o mp la int u

n d e r Ru le 3 3

. 1 o f

th e T e xa s Ru le s o f

Ap p e ll a te Pr o c e d

ur e . We

overr ule Point of Error Tw o. Having overr uled bot h issues for r eview, w e af firm the judg ment of the tr ia l c ourt
. September 30, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)