i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 83 4- CR Da vid Ke nd a ll WILLIAMS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 399th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-8695 Honora ble J uanita A. Va squez-Gar dner, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J anuar y 6, 2010 AFF I RMED A jury found appe llant David Kenda ll W illiams guilty of im p er s onating a public ser vant while on the ca

mpu s o f S an Antonio Colleg e (“ SAC”), and the tr ial court a ssessed punishment at six y e ars ’ c on fi ne me nt. We a ff ir m.04
- 08
- 00 83 4- CR

- 2- STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Eac h of appe llant’s issues on appea l arise unde r Texas Rule of E v i d ence 403. Rule 403 state s, “ [a]lt

ho ug h r e le va

nt, e vid e nc e may

be e xclu ded if it s pro bativ e va lue is s ub sta nti a lly outweig hed by the dange r of unfair prejudice , confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury , or by considerations of undue delay , or nee dless prese ntation of cumulative evidence .” T EX . R. E V ID . 403. This rule ca

rries a presumption that rele vant evidenc e will be more probative tha n prejudicia l. Long
v . S tat e , 8 23 S.W. 2d 25 9, 27 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). Th e ru le re qu ir e s e xclu sio n o f e vid e nc e on ly wh e n th e re e xists a

c le ar d isp ari ty

be tw e e n th e de g re e of

pr e jud ic e of the of fe re d e vid e nc e and

its probative va lue. Y

ou ng v . S tate , 283 S.W .3d 854, 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We reviewthe admission of evidenc e over a Rule 403 objection for an abuse of discre tion. State v. Me chler , 153 S.W .3d 435, 439-40 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). A cour t abuses its discretion when its ruling fa l l s outside the zone of re asonable disag ree ment. Id. Any trial court e rror , other than a c onstitut ional err or, “that doe s not a ffe ct substantial r ights must be disreg arde d.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2(b). A substantial r ight is af fec ted when the err or had a substantial and inj urious eff ect or influence in determining the jury ’s ver dict. See K i n g v . S t ate , 9 53 S.W. 2d

26 6, 27 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997). PH O T O L I NE UPS I n h is f ir st a nd seco nd iss ue s o n a

pp e a l, a pp e lla nt a rgue s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d w he n it
overr uled his objections to the admission of two photo lineups. The photo lineups established prior id e n ti f ic a ti o n s o f

a p p e ll an t b y

tw o e y e w it

n e s s e s : Ro s a li n d a A lm an za an d T a mmy B r o o k s . A lm an za testif i ed t h at o n August 7, 2006, she was lea ving w ork and he ading for he r ca r whe n she noticed appellant in the SAC pa

rking lot. As a student approa ched appellant, Almanza tes t i fi ed “I he ard04
- 08
- 00 83 4- CR

- 3- [appellant] s ay , I was waiting for y ou or I ’ve been looki ng for y ou.” As Almanza walked towa rds her car , wh i ch wa s located only a fe w par

king r ows from a

ppellant and the stude nt, she saw the student with his hands on the hood of a truc k “[a]s i f he w as beingfrisked . . . .” Almanza then g ot i nh er t ru ck an d co n t i nu ed t o wa t ch ap p el l an t an d t h e s tu d en t
. S h e s aw ap p el l an tnu d gi n g, p u s h i n g, and wa lking in cir cles a

round the student. She testified she thought a ppellan t wa s an under cover po lic e of fi c e r. Ho we ve r, a ft e r the inc ide nt wa s o ve r a nd the stu de nt w a lke d a

wa y , A lma nza be c a me frig htened a

nd immediately

drove to the campus police station, at whic h point she noticed appe llant
wa s in his ve hic le be hin d h e r. Al manza the n te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Iwalked in [to the campus police station] and sai d I n ee d h elp. . . . And then [appellant] walked in and I just stood t h er e. . . . [H] e ca me ar ound me, said he neede d to speak to somebody
. And t old them that he had seen some thing s g oing on in the parking lot and that he knew . . . what he w as doing and he kne w his rig hts and h e n e e d e d

t o s p e a k t o s o m e b o dy. Almanza explained she was a fra id of appe llant beca use of what she witnessed in the par king lot. On redire ct, the State aske d Almanza abo u t a detec tive who later came to visit her. She te stified the detec tive took her s t at em en t and showe d her a photo lineup from which she was a ble to identify appellant a

nd on which she place d her initials over appellant’ s picture. O ver a ppellant’s objec tion, the trial cour

t admitted the photo lineup into evidence. The State then c alled Tammy Br ooks. Br ooks testified that on Aug ust 7, 2006, as she wa s leavingwork a

nd walking to her c ar, she saw a man in a white For d F- 150 y elling at a student. She identified the man a s appellant, but she noted that he now “looks kind of diff ere nt
. . . . ” She testified appe llant was first y elling at the student from inside his truc k but the n “put the truck in par k and jumped [out] of the truc k and told the student something like don’t g et smart with me , and put y our hands on the c ar.” Br ooks testified she sawthe student “ha d his hands
. . . on the hood of the04
- 08
- 00 83 4- CR

1 ... B ec au se w e assu m e w i t ho ut d ec i d i ng the tri al c o urt e rred , w e d o no t ap p l y t he R ule 4 0 3 b alan cing f ac t o rs. S e e M a n n in g v . S ta te , 11 4 S.W
. 3 d 92 2 , 92 6 (T ex. C ri m . A p p . 20 0 3 ) ( set t i ng f o rt h f act o rs t o be co nsi d ered ).

- 4- . . . car and his leg s sprea d[]
. . . like in a y ou’re -under -ar rest posi tion,” and she be lieved appe llant to b e law e nf

or c e me nt. Th e State a sk e d if sh e ha d s ub se qu e ntl y

be e n c on ta c te d b y

law e nf or c e me nt. She said she had, and the contac ting of fice r had shown he r a photo lineup fr om which she a lso was
a ble to i de nti fy app ellan t. O ve r a pp e lla nt’ s o bje c tio n, the tr ia l c ourt a dmi tte d th e se c on d p ho to lineup into evidence . On appe al, appe llant argues these two e x hibits shoul d have be en excluded under Rule 403 be cause “[t] he probative value of the phot o lineup is very weak, and there wa s no need f or the State to plac e them into evidenc e” beca use bot h witnesses i dentified him in open cour t
and his ide nti ty

wa s n ot c on te ste d. Ap pe lla nt t he re fo re c on c lud e s th e e vi den ce w a s “ c omp le te ly
c umu la tiv e ,” and

the “ ve ry fa c t th a t a

lin e up wa s u se d mu st h a ve imp re sse d th e jur y that [a pp e lla nt] was guilty .” I n addition to the State presentingthree witness es , al l of whom testified appe llant was the pe rs on wh o c on fr on te d th e stu de nt, a pp e lla nt f re e ly a dmi tte d h e wa s th e pe rs on inv olv e d. B e c a us e
a pp e lla nt’ s id e nti ty

wa s n ot at is su e , th e ph oto lin e up s w e re c umu lati ve. How eve r, any e rr or in admitting the photo lineups did not have a substantial and injurious effe ct or influenc e on the jury ’s
ve rd ic t be c a

us e the int

ro du c tio n o f the ph oto lin e up s add e d littl e or no thi ngto t

he thr e e wi tne sse s’ identification testimony
. Se e Lan dr yv . S tate , 706 S
. W.2d 105, 109 (Tex. C rim. App. 1985) (althoug h admission of photo lineups was improper c orrobor ation evidenc e, photos could not have added more cre dibilit y to pr ior identification testimony beca use photos wer e mer ely

redunda nt and, there fore , could not have i n fl u en ced jury on issue of identification). Acc ording ly , any err or wa s ha rm le ss. 1 See T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2(b).04
- 08
- 00 83 4- CR

2 ... Ap pel l ant admi t s i n hi s bri ef he f ai l ed t o pr es er ve er r or un der T exa s R ul es of E vi dence 40 4(b) ( evi dence of ot h er c r i mes , w r on g s , or a ct s g en er al l y i n admi s s i bl e as c h ar ac t er e v i den ce ) a n d 609( b) ( ev i den ce of c on v i ct i on general l y i nad m i ss i b l e i f m o re t han t en y ears have el ap sed si nce l at t er of da t e o f co nvi ct i o n or rel ease f

rom co nf i nem ent fro m sa m e c o n v ic tio n ). T EX . R. E V ID . 4 0 4 (b), 6 0 9 (b ).

- 5- P RI OR CO NV IC TIO N I n h is thir d is su e on

a pp e a l, a pp e lla nt a rgue s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d w he n it

ov e rr ule d h is objections to questions from the State about his prior c onviction. 2 Duringhis testimony , appellant stated both (1) that he was a “cre dible person” and (2) “[t] hat is my testimony

and that’s the tr

uth.” On c ro ss- e xami natio n, the State a sk e d a pp e lla nt, “ So te ll thi s jur

y a bo ut your p ri or

c on vic tio n a s a f e l o n , ” t o w h i c h d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l o b

j e c t e d
. O u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e j u r y , a p p e l l an t ar g u e d h is Rule 4 0 3 o b

j ec t i o n but alternatively

reque sted a limiting instruction on the prior c onviction. The trial court ov er ru l ed the Rule 403 objection, stating “I am g oing to a llow the State to inquire, not g o int o the fa c ts, ple a se , be c a us e that’ s n ot why

we ’r e he re bu t I

wi ll a llo w the m to inq

uir e br ie fl y . . . .” The co u rt gra n t ed the limiti ng instruction and instructed the jur y upon its return that “the [ev ide nc e ] of

a c ri min al c on vic tio n is be ingof fe re d f or the lim ite d p ur

po se of a ssi sti ngy ou , if

it does, i n assessing [appellant’s] cre dibilit y .” The S tate then asked appellant “a bout his conviction
and tim e se rv e d at th e Tex as De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio ns on

an a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly
wea pon case .” On a

ppeal, a ppellant ar g ues “the evidenc e re g arding [ h i s ] prior conviction was unfairly prej u d icial, and . . . substantially outweig hed any

probative va lue” of

his verac ity

for tr uth fu lne ss b e c a

us e it o nly

inv olv e d a

n Augus t 20 00 or de r r e vo kin g pr ob a tio n f or a 19 93 of fe ns e of ag g ravated assault with a dea dly wea pon. Appellant conc ludes his testimony about the convic tion ha d th e “ se ri ou s p ote nti a l to imp re ss t he jur y that [hi s] c ri min a l hi sto ry was dete rm inativ e of thi s
case .”04
- 08
- 00 83 4- CR

- 6- When confronte d with a Rule 403 objection, the tria l court must balance the probative value of the e vidence ag ainst the unfair prejudice of its admission. Se e Mo ntgom e ry v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 37 2, 38 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ) ( op . o n r e h’ g ); Is e nh owe r v . S tate , 2 6 1 S.W .3d 16 8 , 1 7 7 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 08 , n o p e t.) . In d e te rm in ingwh e the r a tr ia l c ourt

ha s e rr e d in
a dmi tti nge vid e nc e ov e r a Rul e 40 3 o bje c tio n, we a

pp ly the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s: (1 ) h owc omp e lli ng ly the challeng ed evidenc e serve s to ma ke a fac t of conseque nce more or le ss probable; (2) the potential the challeng ed evidence has to impress the jury “in some irrational but neverthe less indelible way”; (3) the time the pr oponent will need to deve lop the evidenc e; and ( 4) the fo rc e of the proponent’s
ne e d f or the e vid e nc e , i. e ., do e s the pr op on e nt h a ve oth e r p ro bativ e e vid e nc e a va ila ble to h im t o h e lp establish the fa ct of c onsequenc e. Ma nn ing v . S tate , 114 S.W .3d 922, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). As to t he fi rs t f a c tor , th e fa c t of

c on se qu e nc e a t is su e is a

pp e lla nt’ s c ha ra c te r f or tr uth fu lne ss. As the State admits in it s b ri ef, a “c onviction for ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon does not normally

have the impeachme nt va lue of a case involving theft or any other c rime of de ception . . . .” S e e C u b a v . Stat e , 9 0 5 S.W .2d 729, 734 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, no pet.) (noting ag g ravated assault is not offe nse that usually involves truthfulness or dece ption, a nd thus is not one that would ordinarily

bear heavily ag ainst witness’s vera city ). This fac tor, there fore , weig hs “somewhat ag ainst admissibil ity .” See id. As t o t h e sec ond fac tor, appe llant’s prior off ense ha d littl e potential to impress the j ury in some irrational but indelible way beca use t he details of the prior offe nse we re not a dmitted pursuant to the court’s lim iting ins truction. There fore , this factor w eig hs in favor of

admission. As to the third fac tor, the State require d very littl e time to question appellant
a bo ut h is p ri or

c on vic tio n. Th e e nti re lin e of qu e sti on ingand

a pp e llant’ s re sp on se s to tho se qu e sti on s c on sis te d o f o nly a fe w p a g e s w ith in t

he re c or d. As to t

he fo ur th f a c tor , a pp e lla nt p ut h is04
- 08
- 00 83 4- CR

- 7- c re dib ili ty

in to i ssu e by

takin g the sta

nd and de c lari ng

he wa s a

“ c re dib le pe rs on ” and

“ [his ] testimony . . . [i s] t he truth.” H is defense relied on the truth and ver acity of his own testimony

that (1) he acte d in the manner he did be cause he fea red the student would “pummel” him, (2) the student “put himself up ag ainst [appellant’s] truc k,” (3) the student put his own ha nds behind him, and (4) appellant ne ver told the student he was a police office r. Thus, the State’s nee d to counter a ppellant’s story and ca ll his credibility

into question was high. Howeve r, appe llant’s prior convic tion does not
car ry the same impea chment value of a c ase involving theft or a ny other c rime of de ception. See id. T h i s f a c t o r , t h e r e f

o r e , a l s o w e i g h s s o m e w h a ta g a i n s ta dm i s s i b i l i t y. I n balanc ing the above f

actor s, we c o n cl u d e t h e trial c ourt’s dec ision to admit appellant’ s te sti mony wa s w ith in t

he zon e of

re a so na ble dis a g re e me nt
. Th e re fo re , w e ho ld t he tr ia l c ourt

did
no t a bu se its dis c re tio n by de te rm ini ng that the pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t of the e vid e nc e did

no t su bs tanti a lly outweig h its probative value unde r Rule 403. CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule a pp e lla nt’ s is su e s o n a

pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH