PDR # PD 0 99 8 -1 5

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS

A T AUSTIN, TEXAS

=============================================== 

## ANTHONY BOYD ROBERTSON

Pet i ti o n er

v
. 

## THE STATE OF TEX A S ,

Ap pel l ee

===============================================
Pet i t i on er’ s Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew t o t h e T ex as Co u rt o f Cri m i n al Ap p eal s fro m h i s ap p eal t o t h e Th i rd Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s i n 0 3 -1 3-0 0 38 1 -CR

===============================================

Su b m i tt ed b y
Law Offi ce o f Al ex an d er L. Cal h o u n 4 3 01 W . W il l i am

Can n o n Dr., St e. B-1 5 0 # 2 6 0 Au s ti n, Tex as 7 8 7 4 9 t el e: 5 1 2 / 7 31 - 3 1 5 9 fax : 5 1 2/ 2 3 3 - 5 94 6 Em ai l : al cal h o u n @eart h l i n k .n et
Oral Arg u m en t i s No t Req u es t edTa bl e o f Co ntents

Tab le o f Co n t en t s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

In d ex o f Au t h ori ti es

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i

St at em en t Reg ard i n g Oral Arg u m en t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i

St at em en t o f t he Cas e.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

St at em en t o f Pro ced u ral Hi s t ory

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Qu es t i o n Pres en t ed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Reas o n fo r Rev i ew..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Gro un d fo r Rev i ew (Res t at ed ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I N E V A LU A T I N G T H E A D M I S S I B I LI T Y O F A S T A T E M E N T U N D E R T H E E X C IT E D U T T E R A N C E E X C E P T I O N T O T H E H E A R S A Y R U LE , T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A LS ’ I M P R O P E R LY S U B S T I T U T E D A N I N Q U IR Y I N T O T H E S P E A K E R ’ S E M O T I O N A L D E M E A N O R F O R T H E D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F W H E T H E R T H E T O T A L I T Y O F T H E C I R C U M S T A N C E S R E F LE C T S H E P O S S E S S E D A N O P P O R T U N I T Y F O R R E F LE C T I O N

. A. Fact s i n Su p p o rt o f Gran t i n g t h is Pet i t i o n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Arg u m en t an d Au t h ori t i es

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Co n cl u s i o n an d Pray er.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

Cert i fi cat e o f Co m

p l i an ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Ap p en d ix A.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

iiI ndex o f Autho ri ti es

Cas es : Ap o li n a r v. S t a t e , 1 5 5 S.W .2 d 1 8 4 (Tex .Cr.Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 9

Cr a wf o r d v. W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 1 U.S. 3 6 (2 0 0 4 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ga y v. S t a t e , 9 8 1 S.W .2 d 8 6 4 (Tex .Ap p . – Ho u s [1 s t Di st

. ] 1 9 9 8 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
Gl o ver v. S t a t e , 1 0 2 S.W .3 d 7 5 4 (Tex .Ap p. – Tex ark an a 2 00 2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Hu g h es v. S t a t e , 1 2 8 S.W .3 d 2 4 7 (Tex .Ap p

. -Ty l er 2 0 0 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Ma r t i n ez v. S t a te , 1 7 8 S.W .3 d 8 0 6 (Tex . Cr. Ap p . 2 0 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 , 1 6

Mo s l ey v. S t a t e , 9 60 S.W .2 d 2 0 0 (Tex .Ap p . – Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 1 9 9 7 ).

. . . . . . . . . 1 0

McCa r ty v. S ta t e , 2 5 7 S.W

. 3 d 2 3 8 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 2 0 0 8 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Ro b er t so n v. S t at e , 0 3 - 1 3- 0 0 3 8 1 - CR (Tex .Ap p .- Au s t i n , J u l y

2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 1 1, 1 2 , 1 3

S a n d o va l v. S t a t e , 4 0 9 S.W .3 d 2 5 9 (Tex .Ap p . - Au s ti n 2 0 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
Th o mp so n v. Tr eva ni o n , Sk i n . 4 0 2, 9 0 En g . Rep . 1 7 9 (K.B. 1 69 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ti en d a v. S t a t e , _

__ S.W .3 d _

_ _ , 1 1 -1 1 -0 0 2 8 3 -CR (Tex .Ap p .-Eas t l an d 5 -1 4 -2 01 5 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4, 1 5 , 1 6

Un i ted S t a t es v. Bo

yce , 7 4 2 F.3 d 7 9 2 (7 t h Ci r. 2 0 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ver a v. S t a t e , 7 0 9 S.W .2 d 6 81 (Tex .Ap p .-San An t o n i o 1 9 86 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Zu l i a n i v. S t a t e , 9 7 S.W .3 d 5 8 9 (Tex

. Cr.Ap p . 2 0 0 3).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 1 6

iiiSt at u t es an d Ru l es :

Tex

. R.Ap p .Pro . Ru l e 6 6 .3 ( c ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Tex

. R.Ev i d . Ru l e 8 03 (2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 , 1 3

M i s cel lan eo u s Au t h o ri t i es :
Cru m p , Dav id , Th e Cas e fo r Sel ect i ve Ab o l it i on o f t h e Ru l es o f Ev i d en ce, 3 5 Ho fs t ra L. Rev . 5 8 5 (W i n ter 2 00 6 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Vo l

. 2 McCo r m i ck o n Evi d en ce , § 2 7 2 (7 t h Ed . 2 0 1 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 , 9

M y ers , Jo h n E.B. et a l

. , Hears ay Ex cep t i o n s : Ad j u s t i n g t he Rat i o o f In t ui t i o n to Ps y ch o lo g i cal Sci en ce, 6 5 Law & Co n t em p . Pro b s . 3 (2 0 0 2 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

ivSta tem ent Reg a rdi ng Ora l Arg um ent

Th i s cas e i n v o l v es a m i s ap p l i cat i o n o f wel l -s et t led cas e law b y t h e C o u rt o f Ap p eal s o f t h i s Co u rt ’ s preced en t

. T h e fact s are s i m p l e. Co u ns el d o es n ot b el i ev e

o ral arg u m en t wo u l d ap p reci ab l y b en efi t th i s Co u rt ’ s rev iew of th e i s s u es i n v o l v ed

.

vTO THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS:

COM ES N OW , Pet i t i o n e r , ANTHONY BOYD ROBERTSON, wh o , b y an d

t h ro u g h h i s u n d e r s i g n ed at t o rn ey o f reco rd , p res en ts t h is Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i o n ary
Rev iew p u rs u an t t o Tex .R.Ap p.Pro . Ru l e 6 6 .1 et s eq

. , an d wo u l d s h ow as fo l l o ws :
Sta tem ent o f the Ca s e
Pet i t i o ner was co n v i ct ed b y a ju ry o f t h e fel o n y o ffen s e of As sau l t wi t h Bo d i l y
In ju r y o n a Fam i l y o r Ho u s eh o l d M em b er, Rep eat Offen d er. [Cl erk ’ s Reco rd (“ C.R.”): 8 , 53 ]

. [C.R.: 5 3 ]

. Sen t en ci n g w as h el d to t h e Co u rt , wh i ch , aft er fi n d i n g

a p ri o r fel o ny co n vi ct i o n , as s es s ed a p u n i s hm en t at 14 y ears co nfi n em en t i n t h e Tex as Dep art m en t o f Cri m i n al J u s t i ce. [C.R.: 5 4 - 55 ]

. Pet i t i o ner t i m el y fi l ed a n o t i ce o f

ap p eal

. Sta tem ent o f Pro cedura l Hi s to ry
Th e Th i rd Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s affi rm ed Pet i t i o n er’ s co n v i ct i o n.
Ro b er t so n v

. S t a te , 03 - 1 3- 0 0 3 8 1 - CR (Tex .Ap p.- Au s t i n , J ul y 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 ) (m em o ran d u m ). Pet i t i o n er d i d n o t fi l e a M o ti o n fo r Reh eari n g

. Fo l lo wi n g a g ran t

o f an ex t en s i o n t o fi l e th e Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret io n ary Rev i ew, t h i s Pet i t i o n i s d u e by

Oct o b er 2 1 , 2 0 1 5

. Ques ti o n Pres ented

W H E T H E R , I N E V A LU A T I N G T H E A D M I SSI B I L I TY O F A S TA TEM EN T U N D ER

1T H E E X C I T E D U T T E R A N C E E X C E P T I O N T O T H E H E A R S A Y R U LE , T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A LS ’ I M P R O P E R LY S U B S T I T U T E D A N I N Q U I R Y I N T O T H E S P E A K E R ’ S E M O T I O N A L D E M E A N O R F O R T H E D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F W H E T H E R U

N D E R T H E T O TA L I TY O F TH E C I R C U M S T A N C E S R E F LE C T S H E P O S S E S S E D A N O P P O R T U N I T Y F O R R E F LE C T I O N

.

Rea s o ns fo r Rev i ew
1

. Rev i ew i s ap pro p ri at e an d n eces s ary b ecau se t he Th ird Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s h as ad d res s ed an im p ort an t i s s u e of t h e l aw wh i ch co nfl i ct s wi t h p reced en t
b y t h i s Co u rt an d o t h er Co u rt s o f Ap p eal s . Tex .R.Ap p .Pro . Ru l e 6 6

. 3 ( c ).

Gro und fo r Rev iew (Res ta ted)

I N E V A LU A T I N G T H E A D M I S S I B I LI T Y O F A S T A T E M E N T U N D E R T H E E X C I T E D U T T E R A N C E E X C E P T I O N T O T H E H E A R S A Y R U LE , T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A LS ’ I M P R O P E R LY S U B S T I T U T E D A N I N Q U IR Y I N T O T H E S P E A K E R ’ S E M O T I O N A L D E M E A N O R F O R T H E D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F W H ETH ER U

N D E R T H E T O T A LI T Y O F T H E C I R C U M S T A N C E S R EFL EC T S H E P O S S E S S E D A N O P P O R T U N I T Y F O R R E F LE C T I O N

. A. Fa cts i n Suppo rt o f Gra nti ng thi s Peti ti o n
In t h e l at e ev en i n g o f Au g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , Au s t i n Po li ce res p o n d ed to a d i s t res s
cal l fro m a h o m e i n cen t ral -n o rt h Au s t in rel at i ng t o an as s au lt wh i ch h ad o ccu rred

i n Bu d a, Hay s Co u n t y , Tex as earl i er th at ev en in g

. Offi cer Ru s s el l Ro s e res p o n d ed

t o t h e cal l an d m et wi t h t he co m p l ai nan t , M el i s sa Beat t y , an d h er fri e n d , Fl o ren ce
Bri s en o , at Bri s en o ’ s h o m e

. [ V o l. 3 Rep o rt er’ s Reco rd (“ R.R.”): 2 6 - 2 7 ]

. Beat t y

was vi s i b l y i nju red an d up set

. [Vo l

. 3 R. R

. : 2 8

- 3 0 , 4 2]

. Aft er a p rel i m i n ary

2d i s cu s s i o n o u ts i d e, Ro s e an d t h e t wo wo m en wen t i ns i d e Bri s en o ’ s h o m e. Beat t y ,

d u ri n g in t erm i tt en t m o m en ts o f cal m an d em o ti o n al i t y , rel at ed t o Ro s e t h at s h e h ad
b een as s au l t ed b y h er b o y fri en d , Pet i ti o n er, earl i er t h at ev en i n g at a f r i e n d ’s h o m e
i n Bu da. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 3 -3 4 ]

. Aft er t h e as s au l t , Pet i ti o n er’ s s is t er, wh o h ad
b een p res en t , d ro v e Beat t y t o h er fri en d Bri s en o ’ s h om e i n Au s ti n

. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 3 6 ]

. Beat t y s p eci fi cal l y den i ed p h y s i cal l y p ro v o k i n g t h e fi g h t , cl ai m in g h er p art i ci p at i o n
h ad o n l y b een verb al

. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 3 4 - 3 5 , 4 9 - 50 ]

. Pet i t i o n er t i m el y o b ject ed t h at

Beat t y ’ s s t at em en t t o Offi cer Ro s e was h ears ay , an d d i d n ot m eet an y ex cep t i o n s to

t h e Hears ay

Ru l e. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 3 2 ]

. A po l i ce Vi ct im S e r

vic e s of f icer, St ep h an i e Bu rg es s , res po n ded t o t h e o ffi cer’ s
cal l an d , aft er Ro se’ s q u es t i o n i n g o f Beat t y , a p ro ces s wh ich t o ok ap p ro x i m at el y an
h o u r, al s o q u e s t i o n ed Beat ty

. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 3 8, 7 7 - 7 8 ]

. As wi t h Offi cer Ro s e,
Beat t y as i n t erm i t t en t l y cal m an d em o t i o n al du ri n g h er co n v ers a t i o n wi t h Bu rg es s

. Sh e d es cri b ed Beat t y as “ cal m an d t h en sh e wo u l d g et em ot i o nal an d t earfu l at t i m es
wh en t al k i n g ab o u t cert ai n t h i n g s .” [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 7 9 - 80 ]

. Beat t y d i s p l ay ed a b ru i s e

o n h er arm an d t ol d Bu rg es s t hat Pet i t i o n er as s au l ted h er a few day s b efo re t he recen t
i n ci d en t b y p u sh i n g h e r ag ai n s t a h ard ob ject

. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 8 3 ]

. Beat t y d i d n ot
cl ai m d u ri n g h er s t at em en t t o Bu rg es s t h at s h e h ad ph y s i cal l y pro v o k ed t h e
al t ercat i on wi t h Pet i t i o ner. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 8 6 ]

. Pet i t io n er ti m el y o bject ed t h at Beat t y ’ s

3s t at em en t t o t h e Bu rg es s , s p eci fi cal l y n ot i ng t h at h er s t at em en t s “ an al y si s ” an d “ d eep

refl ect i o n .” [Vo l . 3 R.R.: 8 1 ]

T h e f o l l o w i n g d a y, a r o u n d 1 p .m ., Au s t i n Po l i ce Offi cer J a s o n C a s t i l l o

rep o rt ed t o t h e res id en ce Beat t y s h ared wi t h Pet i t i o n er as p art o f a “ ci v i l s t an d b y ” to

s u p erv i s i n g h er rem o v al o f h er pro p ert y
. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 9 0 , 9 4 ]

. Cas t i ll o as k ed Beat t y

s o m e b a c k g r o u n d q u es t i o n s an d s h e rel at ed i n d et ai l h er fi g h t wi t h Pet i t i o n er t h e

p rev i o u s ev en i n g

. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 94 - 9 6 , 9 9 .] B e a t t y d i d n o t ad m i t t h at s h e h ad

i n i t i at ed t h e p h y s i cal al t ercat i o n . [Vo l . 3 R.R.: 9 9 ]

. F l o r e n c e Bri s en o , t es t i fi ed t h at s h e was at h o m e on Au g u s t 2 5 w h en Beat t y
cal l ed h er an d as k ed t o co m e o v er b ecau se s h e h ad a fi g h t wi t h Pet i t i o ner. [Vo l . 3

R.R.: 1 5 7 - 1 5 8]

. S h e a r r i v ed a wh il e l at er an d Bri s en o no t i ced b lo o d o n h er l eg s

an d t h at sh e h ad b een cry i n g. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 1 58 , 1 6 7 ]

. Bri s en o rel at ed t h at Beat t y

t o l d Bri sen o t h at Pet it i o n er h ad v i o l en t l y “ b eat her” an d t es t i fi ed t h e d et ai l s o f t h e

as s au l t rel at ed t o h er b y

Beat t y
. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 16 1 ]

. Du ri n g t hi s acco u n t , Beat t y
al s o rev eal ed t wo o th er i n ci den t s o f ab u s e up o n h er b y Pet it i on er o n p ri o r o ccas i o n s

. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 1 68 ]

. Bri s en o cal l ed 9 11 t o rep o rt t h e as sau l t

. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 1 6 2 - 1 6 3 ]

. W h i l e wai t i n g , Beat t y r el at ed t o h er fri en d t h at s h e was recei v i n g co n s t an t t ex t

m es s ag es fro m Pet i ti o n er wan t i n g t o sp e a k w i t h h er. Pet i t i o n er t ex t ed Beat t y

t h ro u g h ou t t h e t wo d ay s t h at s he rem ai n ed wi t h Bri s en o . [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 1 6 4 - 1 6 7 ]

.

4Hay s Co u n t y Sh eri ff’ s Offi ce Det ect i ve M ark Op i el a was as s i g n ed t h e

i n v es t i g at i o n i n i t iat ed b y Au s t i n l aw en fo rcem en t an d co n d u ct ed t he i n ves t i g at i o n in Hay s Co u n t y
. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 ]

. He m et wi th Beat t y t wo d a ys a ft er t h e
al l eg ed o ffen s e. He des cri bed h er s t at em en t s t o hi m o f t h e o ffen se were co n s i s t en t
wi t h h er earl i er s t at em en t s t h e Au s t i n p o li ce. [Vo l . 3 R.R.: 1 2 5 - 1 2 6 ]

Pet i t i o ner’ s em

p l oy e r , Sco t t Hi l l , t es t i fi ed t h at Beat t y an d Pet i t i on er were

v i s i t i n g h i m i n Bu d a wh en th e i n ci d en t o ccu rred

. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 1 7 8 - 1 7 9 ] . He d id

n o t s ee t h e al t ercat i o n b et ween t h e t wo , bu t at s om e p o i n t d u ri ng t h e ev en i n g , Beat t y

ran i n t o t h e h o u s e a s k i n g h i m t o hel p h er. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 1 80 - 1 8 1 ]

. Pet i t i o n er
wal k ed i n aft er her an d th e t wo p l ay ed a cat an d m o u s e g a m e aro u n d t h e fu rn i t u re. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 1 8 2 ]

. Hi l l ret ri ev ed a p i st o l fro m h i s b ed ro o m , co n fro n t ed Pet i t i o n er,

an d aft er a b ri ef s t ru g g l e, ev i ct ed Pet it i o n er, wh o t h en d ro v e o ff. [Vo l. 3 R.R.: 1 8 2

-
1 8 3 , 1 8 5 ]

. Beat t y t es t i fi ed at t ri al , b ut cl ai m ed t h at s h e h ad i n i t i at ed t h e fi g h t

. Sh e s t at ed

t h at s h e an d P e t i t i o n e r had go t t en in t o an arg u m en t aft er s h e b ecam e an g ry u p o n
d i s co v eri n g Pet i t i o ner had b een recei v i n g t ex t m es s ag es ab o ut an o t her wo m an

. [Vo l

. 4 R.R.: 1 5 - 1 6 , 43 - 4 4]

. Sh e h ad b een d ri nk i ng t hro u g ho u t t h e ev en i n g an d b ecam e

ag g res s i v e. [Vo l

. 4 R.R.: 19 , 43 - 44 ]

. Th e ar g u m e n t s u b s id ed fo r a w h i l e, b ut

s u b s eq u en t l y r e - i g ni ted , d u ri n g wh i ch s h e s lap p ed an d p u s hed Pet i t i on er. [Vo l

. 4

5R.R.: 1 7, 4 5 - 46 ]

. He p u s h e d h e r b a c k a n d t he t w o en gag ed i n a sh o vi n g m at ch

.

[Vo l. 4 R.R.: 1 7 - 1 8 ]

. Sh e g rab b ed Pet i t i o ners h ai r, p u l l i n g h im o ff b al an ce an d t h e

t wo fel l , g r a p p l i n g o n t h e ro ck y g ro u n d

. [Vo l

. 4 R.R.: 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 5 ]

. Sh e

ev en tu al l y g o t up an d wen t i n t o t h e h ou s e an d t o ld Hi l l t o rem o v e Pet i t i o n er’ s

p ro p ert y fro m h er h o us e. [Vo l. 4 R.R.: 2 3 , 4 6 ]

. Beat t y l at er wen t t o h er fri en d , Fl oren ce Bri s en o ’ s , h o u se. [Vo l

. 4 R.R.: 4 7 ]

. W h i l e rel at i n g h er al t ercat i o n w i t h Pet i t i o ner to Bri sen o , s h e wi t h h el d h er o wn

ag g res s i v e co n d u ct t o m ak e h ers el f ap p ear bet t er, an d was co n cern ed t h at s h e m i g ht

g et i n t o tro u b l e fo r i n i ti at i n g an as s au l t o n Pet it i o n er. [Vo l

. 4 R.R.: 11 , 4 7 - 4 8 , 4 8

-
4 9 , 5 0 - 5 1 , 5 3 , 5 5]

. Bri s en o w a s h e r s el f a v i ct i m o f d o m es ti c ab u s e an d was

ag g res s i v e i n p res s i ng Beat t y t o i n i t i at e a co m p l ai n t ag ai n st Pet i t i o n er. [Vo l

. 4 R.R.:

5 0 , 5 2 , 6 9 ]

. Th e ju ry s u b s e q u e n t l y co n v i ct ed Pet i t i o ner o f t he ch arg ed offen s e. [Vo l

. 4

R.R.: 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 ]

. Pet i t i o ner c h a l l en g ed o n ap p eal t h e ad m i s s i o n o f Beat t y ’ s s t at em en t s as ex ci t ed

u t t eran ces t o Ro s e, Bu rg es s , Cas t i ll o an d Bri s en o b u t t h e Th i rd Di st ri ct C o u rt o f Ap p eal s h el d t h e t es t i m on y was ad m i s si b l e. Ro b er t s on v. S t at e , 03 -1 3 -0 0 3 8 1 -CR,

s l ip o p . at 3 - 6 (Tex .Ap p . – Au s t i n , J u l y

2 3 , 2 01 5 ).

6B. Arg um ent a nd Autho ri ty

I. Es t ab l is h ed p reced en t o n t he “ ex ci t ed u t teran ce” ex cep t i o n i s b as ed o n th e s p eak er’ s i n cap ab il i t y o f refl ect i o n rat h er t h an h er em o t io n al s t at e vel

n o n at t h e t i m e o f t h e s t at em en t.
Th i s Co u rt is pres en t ed w i t h wh et h er t h e Th i rd Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f A pp eal s h as
fai l ed t o co n s i d er t h e k ey i n q u i ry u n d er t h e ex ci t ed u t t eran ce ex cep t io n t o t h e Hears ay
Ru l e – t he s p eak er cap aci t y fo r refl ect i o n – an d s u b s t i t u t ed a n arro wer i n q u i ry i n to

t h e s p eak er’ s em o t i o n al s tat e vel n o n at t h e t i m e o f h er s t at em en t.
Th e “ ex ci t ed u t teran ce” ex cep t i o n t o t he Hears ay Ru l e, Tex .R.Ev i d

. Ru l e
8 0 3 (2 ), h as b een d i s cu s sed i n s c h o l arl y co m m en t ary as wel l as b y th e co u rt s o f

ap p eal s

. Th e ex cep t io n i s p rem i s ed o n t he gro u n d t h at st at em en t s wh i ch are n o t t h e

p r o d uct o f co n s ci o u s r ef

l ect i o n are s u ffi ci en t l y rel i ab le as ev id en ce b ecau s e t h ey are
free fro m t h e d an g ers o f i n t en t i o n al fab ri cat i on

. Vo l

. 2 McCo rmi ck o n E vi d en ce , §

2 7 2 at 3 6 5 (7 t h Ed

. 2 0 1 3 ). 1 Th e Su p rem e Co u rt h as al s o co m m en t ed t h at t h e b as i s
f o r a d m i s s io n of an “ ex ci t ed ” u t t eran ce i s prem i sed o n t h e s t at em en t h av i n g b e e n

1 Even this premise, based on common law principles, is not without criticism, however as empirically

unsupported. See McCormick , § 272, at 366; David Crump, The Case for Selective Abolition of the Rules of Evidence, 35 Hofstra L . Rev. 585, 615 (W inter 2006); and , J ohn E.B

. My ers et al. , Hearsay Ex ceptions: Adjusting the Ratio of I ntuition to Psy cholog ical Science, 65 L aw & Contemp. Probs. 3, 8 (2002) (noting that field of psy c holog y “has little direct [ empirical] evidence” to support premise of ex cited utterance ex ception.). See also , United States v. Boyce , 742 F .3d 792, 801 (7 t h Cir. 2013) (Posner, Circuit J udg e, concurring ) (" " T he entire basis for the [ ex cited utterance] e x ception may . . . be questioned.”) (quoting 2 McCormick on Evidence § 272, p. 366 (7th ed.2013)).
7m ad e p ri o r t o th e op p o rt u n i ty fo r co n s ci o u s refl ect i o n. Cr a wf o rd v. W as h i n g t o n , 5 4 1 U.S. 3 6 , 5 8 n .8 (2 0 0 4 ) (“ t o t h e ex t en t t h e h ears ay ex cep t i o n f o r s po n t an eo u s
d ecl arat io n s ex i s t ed at al l [i n co m m o n l aw] , i t req u i red t h at t he s t at em en t s b e m ad e

" i m m ed i at [el y ] u po n t h e h u rt recei v ed , an d b ef o r e [ t h e d ecl a ra n t ] ha d ti m e t o d

evi s e

o r co n t ri ve a n

y th in g fo r h er o wn a d

va n t a g e ." ) (em

p h as i s ad d ed ) (q u o t in g Th o mp so n
v. Tr eva n i o n , Sk i n . 4 0 2 , 9 0 En g . Rep . 1 7 9 (K.B. 1 6 93 ).

Th i s Co urt h as d i s cu s s ed t h e ex ci t ed ut t eran ce ex cep ti o n i n a s eri es o f s em i n al

cas es , d efi ni n g t he i n qu i ry i n t o wh et h er a s t at em en t m eet s t h e cri t eri a fo r ad m i s s i o n.
In Zu l ia n i v. S ta t e , 9 7 S.W .3 d 5 8 9 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 2 0 0 3 ), t h e Co u r t e x p l a i n ed t h at
wh et h er a s t at em en t i s an ex ci t e d u t t e r a n ce u n der Ru l e 80 3 (2 ) i s co n t i n g en t o n
wh et h er i t was m ad e “ u n d er s u ch ci rcu m s t an ce a s wo u l d r e as o n ab l y s ho w t h at i t

res u l ted f r om i m p u l s e rat her t han reas o n an d refl ect i o n .” Id

. , 9 7 S.W .3 d at 5 9 6.
Th i s i s b ecau s e, fo r an ex ci t ed u t t eran ce, t he “ ev en t s p eak s t h ro u g h t h e i n d i v i d u al ”

rat h er th an t h e i nd i v i d ual rel at es t h e ev en t

. Id ., at 5 9 5

. W het h er t i m e h as p as s ed
b et ween t h e ev en t an d i t s rel at io n , as wel l as wh et h er th e d ecl aran t i s res p on d i n g to

q u es ti o n s are rel ev an t co n s i d erat i o n s b u t t h e “ k ey ” i n qu i ry i s " wh et h er t h e d ecl aran t

was s t il l do mi n a t e d b y t h e em o t i o n s, ex ci tem en t , fear, o r pai n o f th e ev en t ." Id ., at

5 9 6 (em p h as i s ad ded ).

In Ap o l i na r v. S t a t e , 1 55 S.W .2 d 1 8 4 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 2 0 05 ), t h e Co u rt ag ai n

8ad d res s ed an ex ci t ed u t t eran ce, t h i s t i m e i n th e co n t en t o f wh et h er a s t at em en t m ad e

b y a co m p l ai n an t s o on aft er awak in g fro m s u rg e ry fo r h is i n ju ri es q u al i fi ed as an

ex ci t ed ut t eran ce. Id ., 1 5 5 S.W .3 d 18 4

. Th e Co u rt h e l d t he s t at em en t ad m i s s i b l e,

o b s erv i n g t h at t h e co m

p lai n an t h ad l ack ed a “ m ean i ng fu l o p p o rt u ni t y t o refl ect
b et ween th e t i m e wh en h e was at t ack ed an d wh en h e g av e t h e s t at em en t .” Id ., at 1 9 0.
Si g n ifi can tl y , t h e C o u rt rep eat ed l y s t res s ed t h at t h e co m p l ai n an t h ad b een

“ u n co n sci o u s , h eav i l y m ed i cat ed , o r i n co h eren t ” t hro u g h ou t t h e t i m e p eri o d b et ween

t h e ro bb ery an d hi s s t at em en t , ren d eri n g co ns ci o us refl ect i o n o f ev en t s u n l i k el y
. Id .,
at 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 0

. M o re recen t l y , i n McCa rt y v. S t a te , 2 5 7 S.W .3 d 2 3 8 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 2 0 0 8 ), t h e
Co u rt ad d res s ed t he ex t en t t o wh i ch t h e pas s ag e o f t i m e v i t i at ed ag ai n s t a fi n d i n g t h at

a 5

- ye a r o l d ’s o u t cry o f ab u se was an ex ci t ed ut t eran ce. 2 W h i l e u p h ol d i n g t h e

a d m i s s i o n o f t h e ch i l d co m p lai n an t ’ s s u d d en o ut cry i n res p on s e t o a t ri g g e r i n g
b eh av i o r rem i ni s cen t o f t h e o ri g i nal ab u s e, t h e Co u rt qu al i f i ed t h at t h e p art i cu l ar
ci rcu m s t an ces ev i d en ced t h e ch i l d h ad n o t b e e n ab l e t o co n sci o u sl y refl ect o n h er

s t at em en t

. Id ., at 2 3 9 n .3 , an d 2 4 1 & n .6

. Ap o l i n a r an d McCa r t

y rep res en t l o g i cal l y reco n ci l ab l e o u tl i ers to t h e g en eral

2 T he g ener al r ul e i s t hat when t he “t i m e i nt er v al bet ween t he ev ent and t he st at em ent i s l ong enoug h t o per m i t r ef

l ect i v e t houg ht , t he st at em ent wi l l be excl uded i n t he absence of som e pr oof

t hat t he decl ar ant di d not i n f

act eng ag e i n a r ef

l ect i v e t houg ht pr ocess.” M cCor m i ck , § 272, at 370.
9ru l e u n d er Zu l i a n i : a s t at em en t m u s t b e m ad e wh i l e t h e s p eak er i s d om i n at ed b y t h e

ev en t s h e r el at es , s p eak in g un d er ci rcu m s t an ces i n w h i ch s h e h ad n o t h ad an

o p p o rt u ni t y t o co n s ci o u s l y refl e c t u po n h er s t at em en t p ri o r to s p eak i ng

. Each cas e
i s p rem i s ed u p o n t h e s p eak er’ s i n ab i l i t y t o h av e m ea n i n g f u l l y refl ect ed up o n t h e

ev en ts rel at ed

. In Ap o l i nar, th e s p eak er h ad b een a s em i -co m at o se, h eav i l y m ed i cat ed

i n d i v i d u al ; i n McCa r t

y , a ch i l d o f t en der y ears

. W h i l e Zu l i a n i i n co rp o rat ed t h e s p eak er’ s em o t i o n al s t at e i n t o th e an al y s i s , t h i s
Co u rt s ub s eq u en t l y cl ari fi ed t h at i t is n ot t he fact th at t he sp eak er i s em o t i on al at t h e

t i m e o f h er s t at em en t , b ut wh et h er s h e i s in cap ab l e o f co n s ci o u s refl ect i o n

. Th e

s p eak er’ s em o t i o n al co n d i t i o n i n i t s own ri g h t i s no t a s u b s t i tu t e fo r t h e req u i red

an al y s i s o f w h et h er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces d em o n st rat e t h e p res en ce o r ab s en ce o f

co n sci o u s refl ect i o n

. See M a r t i n ez v. S t at e , 1 7 8 S.W .3 d 8 0 6 , 8 1 4 - 8 1 5 (Tex

. Cr. Ap p

. 20 0 5 ). S

ee al s o , S a n d o va l v. S t a t e , 4 09 S.W .3 d 2 5 9 , 2 8 5 - 2 8 6 (Tex .Ap p

. -
Au s ti n 20 1 3 ); Hu g h es v. St a t e , 1 2 8 S.W

. 3 d 2 4 7, 25 2 - 2 55 (Tex .Ap p.-Ty l er 2 0 0 3 );
Gl o ver v. S t a t e , 1 0 2 S.W .3 d 7 5 4 , 7 6 3 - 7 66 (Tex .Ap p

. – Tex ark an a 2 0 0 2 ); Ga y v.
S t a t e , 9 8 1 S.W .2 d 8 6 4, 8 6 7 ( T e x
. A p p

. – Ho us [1 s t Di s t .] 1 99 8 ); Mo sl ey v. S t a t e , 9 6 0 S .W .2 d 2 0 0 , 2 04 (Tex .Ap p

. – Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 1 9 9 7); a n d , Ver a v. S ta t e , 7 0 9

S.W .2 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 4 (Tex .Ap p .-San An t o n io 1 9 86 ).

i i

. Th e T h i rd Co u rt o f Ap peal s ’ s u b s t i t u t i o n o f B eat t y ’ s em o t i o n al

10s t at e fo r an i n q u i ry i n t o h er o p p ort u n it y fo r refl ect i o n co n fl ict s wi t h p u b li s h ed au t h ori t y

fro m t h e El ev en t h Co urt o f Ap p eal s

. Th e T h i rd Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s ’ an al y s is av o i d ed t he i nq u i ry i n t o wh et h er

t h e ci rcu m s t an ces p reced i n g Beat t y ’s m u lt ip l e an d p ro l o n g ed st at em en t s
d e m o n s t rat ed an ad eq uat e o p p o rt u n i t y fo r refl ect i o n , an d fo cu sed in s t ead u p o n h er

em ot i o n al d em ean o r. In es s en ce, t h e Co u rt su b s t i t u t e d h e r e m o t i o nal s t at e fo r t h e
d eep e r a n al y si s , n eces s ari l y a m u l t i -fact o red co n t ex t u al o n e, of wh et h er t h e
ci rcu m s t an ces l ead in g u p t o t h e s t at em en t p erm i t ted , o r p recl u d ed refl ect i o n

. Ro ber ts o n , 0 3 -1 3 -0 0 38 1-CR, s l i p o p . at 3 - 6

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s ’ s co n s i s t en t l y an d erro n eo u s l y s h i ft ed i t s in q ui ry fro m

t o t h e k ey i n q ui ry fo r an ex ci t ed u t t eran ce t o t h e s i m p l e i n q u i ry i n Beat t y ’ s em o t i o n al
d em ea n o r v el n o n
. In d oi ng s o , t h e Co u rt d i d n o t ev al uat e t he ci rcu m s t an ces , b ut

s i m p l y i g n o red t h em

. Fo r i ns t an ce, Beat t y was em o t i o nal d uri n g h er reci t at i o n to
Offi cer Ro s e, al b ei t o n ly i n t erm i t t en tl y s o , “ cry in g ” at t i m es , an d t h en cal m i n g d o wn

t o co nt i n ue. [Vo l .3 R.R.: 2 9 - 3 0 ]

. It was s i m i l arl y ap paren t t hat b y t h e t i m e Beat t y
rel at ed ev en t s t o Ro s e, sh e h ad rem o v ed h ers el f to a “ s afe” l o cat i o n , wh ere Pet i t i o n er

was n o t p res en t , an d h ad s p en t so m e t i m e b ei n g b een co n s ol ed b y her fri en d. [Vo l

. 3

R.R.: 2 7 - 2 8 ]

. T h es e ci rcu m s t an ces at l as t rai sed t he q ues t i o n of h er op p o rt u n i t y fo r
refl ect i o n , an d q u es t io n w h ich t h e Co urt o f Ap p eal s fai l ed t o ad dres s

. Th e Co urt ’ s

11s u m

m ary co ncl us i o n t hat t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n fel l wi t h in t he zo n e o f d i s cret i o n

m erel y ex p res s ed a t au t o l o gy , rat h er t h an an an al y s i s o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ev al u at i o n

o f t h e t o t al i t y

o f t h e ci rcu m s tan ces b efo re i t. S ee , Ro b er t

so n , s l i p o p at 3 - 4

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s s i m i l arl y fai l ed t o ad d res s wh et h er t h e reco rd refl ect ed

Beat t y ’ s o p p o rt u n i t y fo r refl ect i o n b y t h e t im e rep eat ed h er al leg at i on s t o St ep h an i e
Bu rg es s , aro u n d an h o u r aft er s h e h ad s t art ed s peak i n g wi t h Offi cer Ro s e. [Vo l

. 3

R.R.: 7 8 - 7 9 ]

. An d as wi t h Ro s e, Beat t y ’ s em o t i o n al d em ean o r al t ern at ed t h ro u g h o ut
h er d i s cu s s i o n wi t h Bu rg es s

. [Vo l

. 3 R.R.: 7 9 - 80 ]

. Th e Co u rt o f A p p eal s h el d t h e

s t at em en t w as ad m i s s i b l e, b ut co n cl u d ed t h e co u rt h ad n o t ab u s e d i t s ’ d i s cret i o n
b ecau s e i t i s s u ed a l i m i t i n g i n st ru ct i o n t o t h e t es ti m o n y t o th e i s s u e of Pet i t i o n er’ s
i n t en t an d t o reb u t a d efen s i v e t h eo ry

. Ro b er t s o n , s l i p o p a t 6

. Yet t h e Co urt ’ s
rel i an ce o n t h e l i m i t in g i ns t ru ct i o n s i m p l y d u ck ed t h e q u es t i o n b efo re t h at co u rt

– wh et h er, i n l i g h t o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces , i n cl u d i n g t he p as sag e o f t i m e an d t h e fact o f

rep et i t i o n , Beat ty ’ s s t at em en t was ad m i s s i b l e fo r a n y p u rp o s e as a h ears ay ex cep t i o n.
Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s al s o fai l ed t o a d d r es s wh et h er th e t o t al i t y o f t h e
ci rcu m s t an ces at t en d an t t o Beat t y ’ s s t at em en t s Offi cer Cas t i l l o i n t h e aft ern o o n
f o l l o w i n g t h e i n ci d en t, an d aft er h er p rev i ou s acco un t in g t o Ro s e an d Bu rg es s , refl ect ed an op p o rt u n it y fo r refl ect i o n

. Rat h er, th e C o u rt m erel y co n cl u d ed t h at
d es p it e t h e l o ng i n t eri m , t he fact s b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt w ere no t s o in co rrect as t o fal l

12o u t s i d e th e zo n e o f reas o n ab len es s

. Ro b er t s o n , s l i p o p

. a t 5

. Yet ev en un d er t h e
rel at i v el y l en i en t ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n s t an d ard , t h e i n q u i ry i nt o wh et her a s t at em en t
i s an ex ci t e d u t t eran ce req u i res t h e co u rt co n d uct a fact -s p eci fi c i n q u iry i n t o t h e

ev i d e n c e b e f

o re t h e t ri al co urt an d wh et her t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ev al u at i o n was

u n reas o nab l e i n l i g ht o f t h at ev i d en ce. Th u s , wh i l e reco g n i zi n g t h e i s s ue, t h e Co u rt

o f Ap peal s s i m

p l y p u n t ed

. Fi n a l l y, t h e Co urt o f Ap p eal s fai l ed t o ad d res s Beat ty ’ s o p p o rt u n i t y fo r
refl ect i o n b efo re rel at i ng ev e n t s t o Fl oren ce Bri s en o , l eav i n g u n ad d res s ed t h e
ci rcu m s t an ces wh i ch at leas t rai s ed t h e po s s i b i l i t y o f co n s ci o u s refl ect i o n d es p i t e h er

em ot i o n al co n d i ti on

. Th es e ci rcu m s t an ces were n o t i n s ig n i fi can t : Bri s en o t es t i fi ed

t h at Beat t y h ad t el ep h o n ed h er

– a d el i b erat iv e act

– an d h er vo i ce was “ a l i tt l e s h ak y ”
b u t di d n o t refl ect an y t hi n g m o re t h an an arg u m en t had o ccu rred

. [Vo l .3 R.R.: 1 5 7

-
1 5 8 ]

. En o ug h t i m e h ad p as s ed b efo re Beat t y ;’ s arri val th at Bri sen o b el i ev ed h er
fri en d h ad ch an g ed h er p l an s t o co m e o v er. [Vo l .3 R.R.: 1 58 ]

. In h o l d in g Beat t y ’ s

s t at em en t s m et Ru l e 8 03 (2 ), th e Co urt o f Ap p eal s fo cu s ed u p o n Beat t y ’ s em o t i o n al
d em ean o r an d p h y s i cal ap p earan ce, b u t es ch ewed an al y s is o f w het h er t h e fact s b efo re

t h e t ri al co u rt refl ect ed t h e o p p o rt u n i t y fo r refl ect io n

. Ro b er t s o n , s l i p o p

. at 4.
Th e Co urt o f Ap p ea l s ’ em p h as i s u p on Beat t y ’ s em o ti on al d em ean o r t o t h e

ex cl u s i o n o f an en q u i ry i nt o her o p p o rt un i t y fo r refl ect i o n cl as h es wi t h t h e an al y s i s

13fo r ex ci t ed u t t eran ces in Zu l i a n i an d s u b seq u en t cas es

. T hi s co n fl i ct i s ex em p l i fi ed
b y th e El ev en t h Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap peal s rec e n t d eci s io n i n Ti en d a v. S ta t e ,

_

_ _ S.W .3 d _

_ _ , 1 1 -1 1 -0 0 2 8 3 -CR (Tex .Ap p

. - Eas tl an d 5 -1 4-2 0 1 5 ), wh i ch em p h as i zes

t h i s p o i n t

. In Ti en d a , t h e Eas t l an d Co u rt o f Ap peal s ad d res sed s t at em en t s m a d e b y a

t een ag ed co m

p lai nan t t o a p ol i ce o ffi cer i n t h e co u rs e o f a n i n v es t i g at i o n i n t o an
i n d ecen cy wi t h a ch i l d wh i ch h ad o ccu rred m o n t h s earl i er. Th e det ect i ve ex p l ai n ed

at t ri al t h at t h e co m

p l ai n an t “ b ecam e em o t i o n al at t i m es d uri n g t h e i nt erv i ew an d h e
h ad t o s t o p t h e i n t erv i ew a co u p l e of t i m es b ecau s e [t h e co m p l ai n an t ] b eg an t o cry .”
Id ., at

_ _ _ , s l i p o p

. at 1 1

. Ci ti n g McCa r t y v. S t a t e , t h e t ri al co u rt ad m i t t ed a p o rt i o n

o f t h e au d i o reco rd in g o f t he co m p l ai n an t’ s s t at em en t u n d er t h e ex ci ted u t t eran ce

ex cep t i o n

. Ti en d

a , _

_ _ S.W .3 d at _

_ _, s li p o p

. at 1 1

. Th e El ev en t h Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s co n cl ud ed th at d es p i t e t h e

co m p l ai n an t ’ s em ot i o n al co nd i t i o n , i t h ad b een erro r t o ad m i t h er s t at em en t b ecau s e

t h e fact o f her em ot i o n al st at e w h en reco un t i n g ev en t s was n o t s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt
ad m i s s i o n a s a n “ ex ci ted ” ut teran ce. Rat h er, t h e fo cu s m u st b e u p o n t h e s p eak er’ s

cap aci t y fo r refl ect i o n ab o u t t h e i n ci d en t p ri o r t o m ak i n g t he s t at em en t :
Th ere i s n o qu es t i o n t h at [t h e co m p li an an t ] was d o m i n at ed b y em o t i o n s d u ri ng th e s eco n d s e c t i o n o f t h e in t erv i ew. Ho wever , emo t i o n a l d o mi n a t i o n al on e i s n o t s u

f f i ci en t t o co n s ti t u t e a n exci t ed u t t er a n ce
. . .

14. [T] h e Co u rt o f Cri m i n al Ap p eal s w r o t e : " St at ed di fferen t l y , a

rev i ewi ng co urt m

u s t d et erm i n e wh et h er t he s t at em en t was m ad e 'u nd er s u c h c i rcu m s t an ces as wo ul d reas on ab l y s h o w t h at i t res u l t ed fro m i m p u l s e rat h er t h an reas o n an d refl ect i o n .'"

. . . . Th e co u rt s u bs eq u en t l y n o t ed i n Ap o li n ar t hat t h e ex ci t ed u t t eran ce ex cep t i o n i s " b as ed o n t he
as s u m p t i o n t h at t h e decl aran t i s n o t , at t h e t i m e o f th e st at em en t , cap ab l e o f t h e ki n d o f refl ect i o n t hat wo u l d en ab l e hi m t o fab ri cat e i nfo rm at i on ." Ap o li n ar, 1 5 5 S.W .3 d at 1 8 6 (ci ti n g Zu l ian i , 9 7 S.W .3 d at 5 9 5 ).

. . . . W h i l e [t he co m

p l ai n an t ’ s ] res po n s es were o b v i o u sl y e m o t i o n a l , t h ey wer e n ot s

po n t a n eo u s en o u gh to a vo i d t he p o s s i b i l it y o f f a b r i ca t i o n a s r eq u i red b

y McCa r t y
. Ti en d a , _

_ _ S.W .3 d at
_

_ _ , Sl i p o p . at 1 6 - 1 7 (i n t ern al ci t es o m i t ted ).

Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s fai l ed t o ap pl y t h e p ro p er in qu i ry cal l ed fo r b y t h i s
Co u rt ’ s p reced en t

. Tru e, i n ad d res si n g a s i ng l e cl ai m t h e Co u rt ack n o wl ed g ed t h e

p as s ag e o f t i m e bet ween t h e ev en t an d Beat t y ’ s acco u n t t o Offi cer Ro s e, Ro b er t s o n,

s l ip o p

. at 3 - 4 , b u t it s an al y s i s s t o p p ed t here, no t ad d res s in g t he d eep er q u es t i o n

. Th ro u g h o u t th e ex ci ted u t t eran ce cl ai m s , t h e Co u rt s i m pl y av oi d ed an y i n qu i ry i n to

t h e op p o rt u n i t y fo r refl ect io n , su b s t i t u t i n g Beat t y ’ s em o t i o nal d em ean o r i n i t s el f fo r

t h e d eep er an al y s i s o f “ wh et h er t h e s t at em en t was m ad e u n der s u ch ci rcu m s t an ces as

wo u l d reas o n ab l y s h o w t h at i t r e s u l t e d f r o m imp u ls e r a t h er t h a n r ea s o n a n d

r ef l ect i o n .” Ti en d

a , _

_ _ S.W .3 d at _

_ _, s li p o p . at 1 7 (q u o t i ng Zu li a n i , 9 7 S.W .3 d

at 5 9 6 ). Th e i n q u i ry i n t o t h e o pp o rt u n i t y fo r refl ect i o n m ark s t h e cri t i cal d i st i n ct i o n
i n t h e ad m i s s i o n o f an ex c i t e d u t t eran ce, d i st i ng u i s h i ng bet ween th e “ ev en t

15s p eak [i n g ] t h ro u g h t h e i n d iv i d u al , ” Zu li a n i , 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d a t 5 9 5, o r wh et h er t h e

s p eak er m erel y “ n arrat [es ]

. . . a p ai n fu l ev en t

. ” Ti en d a ,

__ _ S.W .3 d at

_

_ _ , s l i p o p.

at 1 4

. W h et h er Beat t y was em ot i o n al eac h t i m e s h e rel at ed t h e as sau l t was n ot
d i s p o s i t i ve. S

ee Ma rt i n ez , 1 7 8 S.W .3 d at 8 1 4 - 8 1 5 ; an d , Ti en d a , _

_ _ S.W .3 d at

_ _ _ , S l i p o p

. at 1 6 - 1 7

. In co n tras t , wh et her a l l t h e ci rcu m s t an ces su rro u n d i n g
Beat t y ’ s h er s ev eral s t at em en t s, i n cl u d i n g her em o ti o n al co n d i ti o n , p recl u d ed h er
fro m refl ect i ng on ev en t s b efo re s h e rel at ed t h em t o t he o t h ers was t h e p ro per i n q u i ry

. Th e Th i rd Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s ex ci t ed ut t eran ce an al y s i s m i s ap p l i ed t h i s
Co u rt ’ s ex ci t ed ut t eran ce p reced en t as wel l as co n fl ict s wi t h l o n g s t an d i n g co m m o n
l aw. Fu rt h er, Co u rt ’ s m is p l aced rel i an ce u p o n a s p eak er’ s em ot i o nal d em ean o r t o t h e

ex cl u s i o n o f t h e t o t al i t y o f t h e ci rcu m s tan ces wei g h i n g u po n t h e o pp o rt un i t y fo r
refl ect i o n p o si t s t he Th ird Co u rt o f Ap peal s ’ co n t i n u i n g an d s y s t em at i c

m i s ap p li cat i o n o f t h is as p ect o f t h e l aw u nl es s co rrect ed b y t h i s Co u rt

. Co ncl us i o n a nd Pra yer
W HEREFORE, PREM ISES CONSIDERED, Pet i ti o n er res p ect fu l l y req u es t s

t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt t o g ran t t h i s p et i ti o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew, p erm i t f u l l
b ri efi n g an d arg um en t o n t h is i s s u e, an d t o su b seq u e n t l y g r a n t s u ch rel i ef t o wh i ch

Pet i t io n er m ay

b e en t i t l ed

. Res p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed ,

16Law Offi ce o f Al ex an d er L. Cal h o u n 4 3 01 W . W il l i am

Can n o n Dr., St e. B-1 5 0 # 2 6 0 Au st i n, TX 7 8 7 0 4 9 Tel e: 5 12 / 7 31 -3 1 5 9 Fax : 5 1 2 / 2 3 3 -5 49 6 Em ai l : al cal h o un @ eat h l i nk .n et

BY:

_ /s / Al exa n d

er L. Ca l h o u n Al ex an der L. Cal h o u n St at e Bar No

. : 0 07 8 7 18 7

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

I hereb y cert ify t h at a co p y o f t h e a b o v e a n d fo reg o i ng Pet i t i o n fo r
Di s cret io n ary Rev i ew w as s erv ed u p o n t h e fo l l owi n g p art i es o n Oct o b er 9 , 2 0 1 5 by

Un i ted St at es M ai l : Hay s Co u n t y

Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey Hay s Co u n t y

Go v ern m en t Cen t er 7 1 2 So u t h St ag eco ach Trai l, St e. 2 5 0 7 San M arco s , TX 7 8 6 66

.

an d

St at e Pro s ecu t in g At t o rn ey P.O. Bo x 1 3 0 4 6 Cap it o l St at io n Au s ti n , Tex as 7 8 7 1 1

/ s / A lexa n d er L. Ca l h o un Al ex an d er L. Cal h ou n

17Certi fi ca te o f Co m pl i a nce

I h ereb y cert i fy t h at th e fo reg o i n g Pet i t i o n f o r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew was

creat ed i n 1 4 p o i n t t y

p e, Ti m es New Ro m an fo n t , an d co n s i s t s o f 4 16 1 wo rd s

.

/ s / Al exa n d

er L. Ca l h o u n Al ex an der L. Cal h o u n

18Ap pen d i x A

Ant ho ny Bo yd Ro b er t s o n v. St at e o f Tex a s , No . 0 3 -1 3 -0 0 3 8 1 -CR (Tex .Ap p

. –

Au s t i n , J u l y 2 3 , 2 0 1 5 )

19T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00381- CR

Anthony B oyd Robertson, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F H AY S CO UNTY, 22ND J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. CR-12 -09 72, H ONO RAB LE WI LLIAM R. H ENRY, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Anthony Boy

d Robertson was convicted of family -violence assault, repe at offe nse.
See Tex. Penal C ode § 22.01(b). I n five iss ues, h e co m p l ai n s about t he trial court’s admission of
evidenc e and alleg ed prosec utorial misconduct. The parties are familiar with the fac ts, pr ocedur al history , and applicable standards of revie w. Acc ording ly , we will not rec ite t h em h er e ex ce pt as

nece ssary to advise the parties of the Court’s decision and the basic rea sons for it. See Tex. R. App.

P. 47.4. Having revie wed the rec ord and conclude d that appellant has failed t o d em o n s t ra te any

reve rsible er

ror a s discussed her ein, we w ill affirm the trial c ourt’s judg ment of convic tion.

Hearsay

I n his first issue, appellant complains about the trial court’s ad m i s sion of hear say testimony from four witnesses: Austin Police Depa rtment (APD) Offic ers Russell Rose and

J ason Castillo; Flore nce Br iceno, the complainant’s friend; and APD Victim Services C o unselorStephanie Bur g ess. Over appellant’ s objection, the testimony of Offic er Rose, Offic er Castillo, and

Br iceno r elating what the c omplainant, appellant’ s then-g irlfriend, ha d told them was admitted by
the t rial court under the excited-utteranc e ex ception to the hearsay rule. See Tex. R. Evid. 803(2) (statement rela ting to startling event o r co n d ition made while decla rant was under stress of
excitement cause d by event or condition is not excluded by hear say rule); see also Apolinar v. State , 155 S.W .3d 184, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (exception is based on assumption that declara n t is
not, at time of statement, capa ble of ref lection that would enable her to fabr icate information). The
trial court admitted Bur g ess’s testimony over appellant’ s objection with an instruction limit ing its purpose.

To deter

mine whether a stat ement is an excited utteranc e, trial courts should
deter mine “whe ther the decla

rant was still dominated by the emotions, e x citement, fea r, or pain of
the event or condition” when the statement is made. Apolinar , 155 S.W .3d at 186 (quoting Zuliani

v. State , 97 S.W .3d 589, 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)). Fa ct o rs t h at the trial court may consider
include the leng th of time betwee n the occur renc e an d t h e s tatement, the nature of the decla rant,
whether the statement is made in response to a question, and whether the statement is self-se rving

. Id. No fac tor alone is dispositive. Lawt on v. State , 913 S.W .2d 542, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995),
overruled on othe r grounds, Mosley v . State , 983 S.W .2d 249, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Offic er Rose was the first officia l to arr ive at Br iceno’ s house upon rec eiving a call
rela ting that a woman had been assaulted but was no longe r at the assault location or in the prese nce
of the perpe trator. He testified that when he arr ived at Br iceno’ s house, “it was fairly obvious that [t he complainant] had been involved in some ty pe of disturbance ” and that she was “being consoled”

2by Br iceno and had “obvious injuries.” He indicate d t h at t h e complainant’s injuries included

bleeding knees and swelling and abra sions on the left side of her fac e and fore head and that she was holding an ice pack to her fac e and head. Offic er Rose testified that as he spoke to the complainant,
she was “g oing back and forth, emotionwis e” and cry ing intermittently and that it took betwee n a
fe w seconds to a minute throug hout the interview to “ca lm her down” enoug h so that she cou l d explain what had happene d. He further testified that the complainant appea red to still be under the

stress and excitement of what had just happene d and that she was still in pa in. After this predic ate

was laid, see Johnson v. State , 967 S.W .2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (propone nt of evidenc e
b ea rs b u rden of establishing predic ate for admission of hear say statement), Offic er Rose testified
about what the complainant told him: afte r the couple had a heate d arg ument about a text messag e, appellant g rabbe d the complainant, drag g ed her to the g round by her hair, and punched her in the
fac e and he ad. 1

I n light of Offic er Rose’s predic ate testimony about the complainant’s injuries, pain,
stress, and emotional state, as well as the rela tively short period of time betwee n the alleg ed assault
and the complainant’s statement to him (the statement occur red within two or three hours of the

The complainant provided a differ ent acc ount at trial: she g ot ang ry about a text messag e 1
re gar d ing another woman and confr onted appellant about it, tripped and hurt her knees, and then slapped and pushed appellant. She further testified that the phy sical alterc ation prog resse d when appellant pushe d and shoved he r in retur n and that they

both fell to the g round and “ scuff led” a nd that she did not rec all being punched in the fac e. She explained the discrepa ncy in her acc ounts by indicating that her previous acc ounts wer e intended to “ma[ke her]self out to be the better person.” She also signe d an Affida vit of Non-Prosec ution a few m o n t h s befor e appellant’ s trial seeking to drop the c harg es and indicating that she had been in communica tion with appellant via letters a nd that, althoug h she was not c hang ing her orig inal alleg ation, she simply did not fee l tha t his actions
war rante d a fe lony

conviction.
3assault), we cannot conclude that the trial court’s admission of the complainant’s hear say as an

excited utteranc e wa s an abuse of discretion. See Zuliani , 97 S.W .3d at 595 (trial court does not
abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay under e x ception unless dec ision is s o clea rly wrong as t o
lie outside zo n e w it

h in which rea sonable persons might disag ree ). We overr ule appellant’ s first issue
as to Off icer Rose’s testimony

. The State laid the following predic ate for admission of the complainant’s statements

to Br iceno as an excited utteranc e: Br iceno testified that she did not rec og nize the complainant (eve n though she was her “best friend” ) when she arr ived at her house due to the blood coming down her leg s, the fac t that she had been cry ing, and the swelling and “whe lping” of her fac e. Br iceno further
testified that the complainant was shaking and cry ing and that she looked “horr ible” and did not have
the “phy sical appea

ranc e” of her friend. Br iceno said that t h e co m p l ai n ant was “deva stated” and

cry ing so hard that it was difficult for Br iceno to understand her words. The complai n an t ’s

statements to Br iceno occur red even closer in time to t h e alleg ed assault than those she made to
Offic er Rose. This predic ate supports the rea so n ab l e co n clus ion that the complainant was still
domina t ed by the emotions, excitement, fea r, or pain of the alleg ed assault when she made her

statements t o Br iceno. See Apolinar , 155 S.W .3d at 186. Acc ording ly , we conclude that the t rial

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the complainant’s hear say statements to Br iceno under
the excited-uttera

nce e x ception. We over

rule a ppellant’s first issue a s to Bric eno’s testimony

. Appellant complains of the following hear say testimony of Offic er Castillo, who spoke with the complainant the afte rnoon afte r the alleg ed assault while on “civil standby ” to supervise the remova l of her belong ings from the residenc e that she share d with appellant: “the g ist

4of [what the complainant told me] was they had bee n out with friends, ar g ued and tha t [ appellant]
assaulted her” and that the complainant had not i n i t i at ed an y phy sical violence with appellant.

Be fore Offic er Castillo testified such, he indicated that the complainant seeme d to him to be “having

a hard time” from the event the prior nigh t and that she was “emotional,” “choke d up,” and still
under the str es s o f t h e ev ent. He also testified that her fac e was badly bruised, including a very
“obvious” blac k ey e. 2

The predic ate to Offic er Castillo’s testimony about the c o mp lainant’s emotional state
and visible injuries supports an excited-utteranc e ruling , while the rela tively long period of time that
ensued betwee n the alleg ed assault and the complainant’s statements weig h ag ainst the conclusion
that her statements “re sulted from impulse rathe r than rea son and ref lecti o n

. ” See Zuliani , 97 S.W .3d at 595 (excited utteranc e “re prese nts an event speaking throug h the person rathe r than the

person speaking about the event” ). Be cause of the t en s i o n betwee n these two fac tors, we cannot
conclude that the trial court’s decision was so clea rly wrong as to lie outside the zone of rea sonable disag ree ment. Id. Howeve r, even if the trial court err ed in a dmitti ng Offic er Castillo’s statements
about what the complainant told him—which amounted to nothing more th an that the appellant

“assa ulted her” and that she did not initiate the violence—those same fac ts wer e proven b y other
admissible evidenc e, rende ring the err or harmless. See Maye s v. State , 816 S.W .2d 79, 88 (Tex.

Cr im

. A p p

. 1 991). Acc ording ly , we overr ule appellant’ s first issue as to Offic er Castillo’s testimony

.

After the objected- to hear say statement, Offic er Castillo explained that the complainant’s 2 injuries wer e “ver

y signific ant” and in the “top five” of all the family -violence injuries he had seen in his y ear s of servic e.
5APD Victim Services Counselor B urg ess testified about what the complainant told

her about appell an t ’s prior abuse, not as to what the complainant told her about the events on the night in question. Appellant objected on the basis of hear say , which the trial court overr uled (while allowing a running objection). The trial c ourt also issued a li miting i nstruction about t he purpose
of the testimony , admonishing the jury that Bur g ess’s testimony about what the complainant told her
about appellant’ s prior abuse c ould be used for two purposes only : to show appellant’s intent and

to rebut his self-de fense theory

. See Casey v. State , 215 S.W .3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007);

see also Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). By definition, then, Bur g ess’s testimony about what the complainant
told her was not hear say beca use it was offe red for a purpose other t h a n t h e truth of the matter

asser ted. Cf. Tex. R. Evid. 801(d) (hea rsay is statement, other than one made by decla rant while testify ing at trial, offe red in evidenc e to prove truth of matter asser ted). Acc ording ly , the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in admitting Bur g ess’s testimony over appellant’ s hear say objection, and

we ove rrule a

ppellant’s first issue in its entirety

.

Prosecutorial m isconduct

I n his second issue, appel l an t contends that the State committed prosec utorial
misconduct by “withholding materia l fac ts when establishing th e p re d i cate for the complainant’s
excited utteranc es” a

nd there by misleading the court when it presented B rice no’s testimony at the
conclusion of its case rathe r than in the appropr iat e ch ro nologic al sequenc e by which the complainant made her statements to the various witnesses on the evening in question. Essentially , appellant arg ues that beca use the complainant first spoke to Bri ce n o , t h e State prese nted a “fa lse picture” to the court by rese rving the fac ts surrounding those first statements until afte r the court had

6alre ady ruled on the admissibili ty of the complainant’s later- in-time hear say statements t o o t her

witnesses. The State responds that appellant failed to prese rve this issue for revie w by not objecting

at trial. See Pena v. State , 353 S.W .3d 797, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. We ag ree with the State.

Prosecutoria l misconduct is an independe nt basis for objection t h at m ust be specific ally urg ed to prese rve err or. Hajjar v. State , 176 S.W .3d 554, 566 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref

’d); see also Penry v. State , 903 S.W .2d 715, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (prope r
method of prese rving err or in case s of prosec utorial misconduct is to object on specific g rounds,

reque st instruction that jury disreg ard c onduct, and move f or mistrial). Appellant did not object a t
trial to the alleg ations of prosec utorial misconduct that he now makes on appea l. He has, there fore , failed to prese rve the err or for appellate revie w, and we acc ording ly overr ule his second issue. See
Banda v. State , 890 S.W

. 2 d 4 2 , 6 1 (T ex

. Crim. App. 1994) (fa ilure to object at trial to actions of

prosec utor that alleg edly

violated due- proce ss rig hts does not preser ve er ror f or appe al).

Opinion testim ony

I n h i s third and fourth issues, appellant complains that the trial court err ed in admitting testimony of Offic ers Rose and Castillo offe ring opinions about the truthfulness of other witnesses, which g ener ally is in ad m i s s i b l e. See Sandoval v. State , 409 S.W .3d 259, 292 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet

. ). He complains about the following question that the State asked of
Offic er Rose: “Did y ou—from [t he complainant ’ s] demea nor and ever

y thing that y ou saw about her,
did y ou have any indication that she was being , y ou know, any thing other than truthful with y ou? ”

7Offic er Rose answe red, “No.” Appellant objected afte r Offic er Rose had answe red the question, and

the trial cour

t overrule d the objection. Appellant fa iled to preser ve er ror on the issue of

Offic er Rose’ s testimony beca use
he did not object u n t i l afte r the objectionable question had been asked and answe red, and
he has demonst ra t ed no leg itimate rea son to justify the delay in objecting

. See Luna v. State , 268 S.W .3d 594, 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Sandoval , 409 S.W .3d at 306. Moreove r, even if we

wer e to assume that appellant’ s objection had been timely , we could not conclude on this rec ord that appellant was harme d. See Garcia v. State , 126 S.W .3d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (we may

not reve rse for non-constitutional err or if we have fair assura nce that err or did not have substantial
and injurious eff

ect or influence in deter

mining jury ’s verdic t); see also Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) (any

err or that does not affect substantial rig hts must be disreg arde d). There was strong evidenc e of appellant’ s g uilt (in an interview wi t h l aw enforceme nt, even appellant admitted to hitting complainan t “l ike a man”) , the complainant’s injuries wer e si g nificant (and arg uably inconsistent

w it h a p p e ll a n t’ s theory of self-de fense ), appellant thoroug hly cross- e xa mi n e d O f f ic e r Ro s e to in c lu d e

a co ncession that he was not a “human lie detec tor,” the State did not highlig ht or revisit Offic er
Rose’s testimony , and the objected- to testimony was self-e vident (had the investiga ting office rs not
believed the complainant, there would likely have been no case for the jury to decide ). We overr ule appellant’ s third issue.

I n his fourth issue, appellant complains about th e trial court’s admission over his objection of Offic er Castillo’s testimony opining that, in his “experienc e in dealing with these ty pes
of case s,” it is common for defe ndants, as they g et closer to trial, to “come up with a go o d cover

8story or a g ood new s t o ry

. . . that [t he investiga tors] have never hear d befor e as [t hey ] wer e investiga ting.” Specifica lly , appellant arg ues that Offic er Castillo was opining on the cre dibilit y of
criminal defe ndant s as a cl as s , which is improper. See Hitt v. State , 53 S.W .3d 697, 707 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d) (witness may not direc tly testify that class of persons to which particula r witness belong s is truthful).
Offic er Castillo’s testimony , as phrase d, is more proper ly char acte rized as an opinion
about criminal investiga tions based on his experience and knowledg e as an investiga tor rathe r than

a direc t opinion about the cre dibilit y of criminal defe nd an t s as a class; such lay opinions are

g ener ally admissible. See Osbourn v. State , 92 S.W .3d 531, 537 (T ex

. C ri m

. App. 2002) (obser vations that do not require signific ant expertise to interpre t and that are not based on scientific theory can be admitted as lay opinions if witness’s persona l knowledg e and experience establishes
he is capa ble of expressing opinion on subject outside rea lm of common knowledg e). Acc ording ly ,

we conclude that the trial court’s ruling on the admissibili ty of this evidenc e was within the zone of

rea sonable disagr eeme nt. See McDonald v. State , 179 S.W .3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Howeve r, even if the evidenc e wer e i n admi ssible opinion testimony , we would conclude that appellant’ s substantial rig hts wer e not aff ecte d by the admission of the testimony based on the rec ord
of appellant’ s trial as a whole. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b). We overr ule appe llant’s fourth issue.

State’s noti ce of

intent to int roduce ev idence of

extraneous offenses

I n his f ifth issue, appellant a

rg ues that the trial court err ed in a dmitti ng evidenc e of
his prior violent acts ag ainst a previous g irlfriend, Sabrina De J es u s , beca use the State failed to provide him with timely and specific notice, per his reque st, of its intent to introduce the evidenc e.

9See He r n a n d ez v. State , 176 S.W .3d 821, 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Rule 404(b) conditions
admissibili ty of other-w rong doings e vidence on State’s compliance with notice provision of same rule, and it is err or to admit such evidenc e when State has not so complied); see also Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). Whil e the State did pr ovide appellant with notice of its intent to introduce evidenc e of his prior family -violence convictions, appellant arg ues that the State was require d to inform him that it
would be introducing the underly ing details of one specific conviction throug h DeJesus. The State responds that appellant failed to object to the lack of notice and, there fore , waived thi s i s sue on

appea l. See P ena , 353 S.W .3d at 807; see also Tex. R. App. P . 33.1.

The repor ter’s rec ord indicates that the trial court, State, and appellant discussed the
admissibili ty of the DeJesus testimony in a bench confe renc e befor e she testified. On its own initiative, the State raised the issue of admissibili ty under Rule 404 from a probative and rele vancy standpoint, without mentioning notice. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) (evide nce of other crimes, wrong s,

or acts is not a dmissibl e to pr ove char acte r of person to show action in confor mity there with but is
admissible for o t h er purposes including motive and intent). Appellant made no arg ument or objection on any Rule 404 g rounds, and the only ref ere nces to notice appea

red in a sidebar arg ument
betwee n the prosec ution and defe nse counsel later in the bench confe renc e as the State was making
an off er of proof:

State: I think that we’ ve g iven sufficie nt not i ce to [defense counsel]

previously , and she c erta inly

— Def ense: I would—as to the notice, I g ot notice of the c onviction, but not any

other assaultive details or—y ou know, I g ot notice of the conviction, that’s it.

10Be y ond this ref ere nce to notice, appellant did not actua lly object on that g round, and the only objection he made prior to DeJesus’s testimony was a non-spec ific Rule 403 objection:

Court: Fr om the Def ense, just as a g ener al comment, if any ?
Def ense: No. 403 objection—I think that since self-de fense has

been raised or is g oing to, they ’re entitled to g et i nt o s ome things. I ’m not sure about—I would steer awa y —I woul d pref

er to steer awa

y from the controlling , manipulative behavior , but the c o n v ic tion is fair g ame.

See Tex. R. Evid. 403 (althoug h rele vant, evidenc e may be exc l u ded if its probative value is

s u b s t an tially outweig hed by dang er of unfair prejudice , confusion of issues, or m isleading jury or by considera

tions of undue delay

or nee dless prese ntation of cumulative e vidence ).

At the conclusion of the bench confe renc e, the trial court noted that it “has not made

a ruling on any of the objections at this point,” and DeJesus then testified without further objection by appellant or any ruling s by the trial court. Appellant did not cross-e x amine DeJesus or raise the
issues of unfair surprise and prejudice that he now a sserts on appe al. We a g ree with the State that appellant failed to pr eser

ve err or on the issue of whether the State provided sufficie nt notice about
its intent to introduce evidenc e of extraneous offe nses. See Pena , 353 S.W .3d at 797 (appe llant must
make timely , specific objection and obtain adver se ru l i n g t o prese rve issue). Acc ording ly , we

overr ule appe llant’s fifth issue.

CONCLUSION Having overr

uled all of appellant’ s issues, we af fi rm t he trial court’s judgme nt
of convic tion.

11_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice

Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Bour land

Affir med
Filed: Jul y

23, 2015
Do Not Publish

12