H a y d e n v . S ta te , N o. 01- 06- 00326- C R , 2007 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3703, at*7 ( T ex. 1 A p p .— H o u s to n [ 1 s t D is t.] M a y1 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0860- 07
D ER ESK EY LA SH A W N H A Y D EN , A ppe l l ant
v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FI RST CO URT O F AP PEALS

HARRI S COUNT Y K EASLE R , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., M E YE RS , W OMACK , J OHNS ON , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . P RI CE , J ., c onc ur r e d. O P I N I O N D ur i ng the punish m en t ph ase o f D ere sk eyL ash aw n H ay d en ’s tri al, the j udge exc l uded evi dence t hatt he vi ct i m w as a r egi s t er ed s ex off ender
. T he courtof appe al s hel d thatt he j udge di d notabus e herdi s cr et i on beca us e the evi dence encour aged j ur or s t o m eas ur e the
v ict im ’s w o rth co m p are d to o ther m em b ers o f so ciety
. W e a ff irm the c o u rto f a p p ea ls’ s 1H A Y D E N —2

j udgm entand al s o hol d t hatt he evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e r ebut t al evi dence
. Backg r ound A comm uni t yof ho m eless peopl e l i ved undera fr eew ayoverpas s cal l ed Pi er ce E l evat ed, a sec ti on of I nt er s t at e 45 thatpas s es thr ough dow nt ow n H ous t on. E ar l yi n the
m orni ng on M ay27 , 20 05 , H ay den , a ho m el ess w om an, con front e d J oh n Ki m ball , a ho m el ess
m a n , u n d e r th e P ier c e E lev a ted , w h e re th e yb o th w e re sta y in g . H a y d e n c laim e d th a t K im b a ll
ow ed herm oney , and w hen he w al ked aw ayw i t houtpay i ng, H ay den s t abbed hi m i n the bac k
w i t h a kni fe. K i m bal l fel l dow n; w hen he t r i ed t o getup, H ay den s t abbed hi m a s econd t i m e. H a y d e n w a s a rr e s te d a n d tr ie d f o r m u rd e r. D ur i ng t he gui l tphas e of tr i al , thr ee homel es s m en, w ho w er e al l s t ay i ng undert he Pi er ce E l evat ed on M ay27t h and w i t nes s ed the murde r , t es t i fi ed. W i l l i am M or gan w as the fi r s t . B efor e as ki ng M or gan t o des cr i bed w hathe w i t nes s ed, the St at e as ked hi m i f he kne w H ay den. H e r es ponded thathe di d not“know [H ay den] per s onal l y ” and “j us ts aw hera fe w t i me s . ” He t h e n s a i d t h a t h e a wo k e t o Ha y d e n a r g u i n g wi t h a ma n o n M a y 2 7 t h
. He i dent i fi ed the m an as K i m bal l and s ai d t hathe “di dn’ tr eal l yknow hi m per s onal l y . ” The Pr os ecut ort hen as ked: “W hatdi d y ou know about[K i m bal l ] ? D i d y ou know w her e he w as from ? ” M organ respon ded : “I know t hat he be [si c] dow n ther e. W hen t heycom e feed us, t hati s w h ere h e cam ped outat , and he w as a pr ett yni ce guy . H e di dn’ tgi ve anybodyany p ro b le m s .” A n th o n yA rm stro n g tes tifie d n e x t. H e a lso sa id th a t h e a w o k e to H a y d e n a rg u in g w ithH A Y D E N —3

K i m bal l on M ay 27t h. H e i dent i fi ed H ay den i n t he cour t r oom and s ai d thathe “kne w herfor
a b o u t six o r se v e n m o n th s, so m e th in g lik e th a t.” B u t h e d id n o t k n o w K im b a ll v e ryw e ll beca us e he w as a new arr i val t o t he comm uni t yand w as a “qui etm an. ” Fi nal l y , L earnar di R i char ds on t es t i fi ed. H e al s o hear d a w om an ar gui ng w i t h a man on M ay27t h. H e had s een both p eo p le b efor e thatni ght
. H e “di dn’ tknow [K i m bal l ] ” by name, buthe di d know H ay den. A l l thr ee m en t es t i fi ed thattheyhear d H ay den demand
m o n e yf ro m K im b a ll a n d th e n s a w h e r g ra b o r s ta b h im
. K i m bal l ’ s daught er , M i chel l e M ar s hal l , al s o t es t i fi ed. She expl ai ned that , w hi l e her fatheratone t i m e r ai s ed a f ami l y , s erved i n t he s t at e guar d, and w or ked i n a pac kagi ng pl ant i n M i nn esot a, he h ad a p robl em w i t h alcoho l t hat becam e progressi vely w orse o ver the y ears . H e bec ame hom el es s beca us e he w ant ed t o us e hi s m oneyfordi s cr et i onaryexpens es , i ns t ead
o f h o u sin g e x p e n se s, a n d h e m o v e d to H o u sto n a b o u t a m o n th b e f o re h is d e a th to a v o id
s p e n d in g th e w in te rs in M in n e s o ta . A ft ert he St at e r es t ed , H ay den off er ed evi dence , out s i de the j ury ’ s pr es ence , that K im b a ll w a s a re g iste re d se x o f f e n d e r in M in n e so ta. S h e w a n ted to c a ll O f f ice r M a rtin e z to t es t i fy about K i m bal l ’ s s t atus “as par t of hi s i nves t i gat i on” and t o r ebut “the t heoryt hatthe stat e is try ing to s h o w th at th is w as a rea ll yg o o d m an . ” H ay d en p o inted to M o rga n ’s t es t i m onyt hatK i m bal l w as a “pr et t y ni ce guy ” and M ar s hal l ’ s t es t i m ony gener al l y . T he tr i al jud g e e x clud ed the e v iden ce , an d the ju ryco n v ict ed H ay d en o f m u rde r. D uring t he p un i shm ent phase, H ay den reoffered t he ev i den ce t hat K i m ball w as aH A Y D E N —4

I d. a t * 1
. 2 I d. at*5. 3 I d. at*7. 4 r egi s t er ed s ex off

ender
. T hi s t i m e, couns el a rgu ed that “[t ] he pr es um pt i on s t i l l i s thatt he compl ai nantw as a ni ce pe r s on, and w e w i l l [s i c] l i ke t o s how thathe w as n’ ts uch a ni ce p e rso n , an d w e w a n t to o f f e r th a t f o r th e ju ry ’s c o n sid e ra tio n .” T h e trial ju d g e d e c lin e d a g a in to a d m it th e e v id e n c e . T h e ju ryse n ten c e d H a y d e n to tw e n tyy e a rs’ c o n f in e m e n t. O n appea l , H ay d en co n tend ed, i n hers ol e poi ntof err or , thatthe tr i al j udge i m pr oper l yexcl uded e v i d e n c e t hatK i m bal l w as a s ex off enderdur i ng t he puni s hm entphas e. 2 H ay d en arg u ed that the e v iden ce w as a d m issi b le t o reb u t the fa lse im p ression o f K im b all ’s char act er cr eat ed by t he S t at e duri ng t he gui l t phas e. T he Fi r s tC our tof A ppeal s i n H ous t on 3 hel d t hatt he evi dence w as “nega t i ve vi ct i m i m pact evi dence , ” w hi ch w as i nadmi s s i bl e eve n t o r ebutanyfal s e i m pr es s i ons cr eat ed bythe St at e’ s evi dence
. 4 W e g ran ted H ay d en ’s pe ti ti o n fo r discre ti o n aryrev iew to d ec ide w h ethe r “the C o u rt of A pp eal s e r r [e d] i n up ho l di ng t he e xc l us i on of e vi de nc e t o s ho w t ha t t he vi c t i m w as a
c o n v icte d se x o f

f e n d e r.” W e a f

f irm th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls’s ju d g m e n t th a t th e trial j u d g e d id notabus e herdi s cr et i on beca us e the evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e vi ct i m char act erevi dence
. W e al s o hol d t hatt he evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e r ebut t al evi dence
. L aw In a no n-capi t al fel on y t ri al , evidence i s adm i ssi ble du ri ng t he pun i shm ent ph ase ifH A Y D E N —5

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 3 7
. 0 7 § 3 (a)(1) (V ern o n 2 0 0 6 ). 5 Mu rp hy v . S ta te , 7 7 7 S
. W
. 2 d 4 4 , 6 3 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) (plura li tyo p inion ). 6 S im s v . S ta te , 2 7 3 S
. W
. 3 d 2 9 1 , 2 9 5 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 7 R o g e rs v . S ta te , 991 S. W
. 2d 263, 265 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1999) ( ci t at i ons 8 o m itted).I

d. 9 I d. 10 Sa la za r v . S ta te , 9 0 S .W .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). 11 “the co u rtd ee m s [it] relev an t t o s e n te n c in g .” T h e L eg isl ature d id n o t def ine th e term 5

“ re lev a n t” in th e C o d e o f C r im in a l P ro c e d u re , an d b e y o n d th e f e w item s e n u m e ra ted in A rticle 3 7 .0 7 , it h a s n o t g iv e n a n y g u id a n c e a s to w h a t ev id e n c e is re lev a n t to p u n ish m e n t. 6 B o rro w in g f

ro m th e d e f

in iti o n o f “ re lev a n t” in T e x a s R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 1 is o f

little a v a il beca us e the fa ct fi nder ’ s r ol e dur i ng the gui l tphas e i s di ffe r entfr om i t s r ol e dur i ng t he puni s hm entphas e. U nl i ke t he gui l t phas e, w her e t he fa ct fi nderm us tdeci de di s cr et e fa ctual 7 iss u e s, d e c id in g w h a t p u n ish m e n t to im p o se is a “ n o rm a tiv e p ro c e ss , n o t in trin sic a lly fac tbound. ” T hus , w hati s “r el evant ” t o as s es s i ng puni s hm enti s “a f unct i on of pol i cyr ather 8 th a n re lev a n c y .” E v id e n c e is re lev a n t if it h e lp s th e f a c tf in d e r d e c id e w h a t se n ten c e is 9 appr opr i at e fora part i cul ardefe ndantgi ven the fa ct s of the ca s e. 10 V ictim c h a ra c ter a n d v ictim im p a c t e v id e n c e , b o th g o o d a n d b a d , are a d m iss ib le dur i ng t he puni s hm entphas e i f the fa ct fi nderm ayr at i onal l yat t r i but e the evi dence t o the
a c c u s e d ’ s “ p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t ya n d mo r a l c u l p a b i l i t y . ” Bu te v i d e n c e t h a td r a ws 11H A Y D E N —6

Mo sle y v . S ta te , 9 8 3 S
. W
. 2 d 2 4 9 , 2 6 2 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). 12 See i d. a t 2 6 5 ; G o

ff v. S ta te , 9 3 1 S
. W
. 2 d 5 3 7 , 5 5 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); C lark 13 v . S ta te , 8 8 1 S
. W
. 2 d 6 8 2 , 6 9 9 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ); R ich a rd s v . S ta te , 932 S. W
. 2d 2 1 3 , 2 1 6 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 1 9 9 6 , p e t. r e f ’d ).

C l ark , 881 S. W
. 2d at699. 14 G o ff , 9 3 1 S .W .2 d a t 5 5 6
. 15 I d. 16 c o m p a riso n s b e tw e e n th e v ictim a n d o th e r m e m b e rs o f so c iety b a se d o n th e v ictim ’s w o rth
orm or al i t ys houl d us ual l ybe exc l uded underR ul e 403. T hi s i s true r egar dl es s of w hether 12 t he evi dence s ugges t s t hat t he vi ct i m w as of gr eat erorl es s erw or t h t han otherm ember s of
so c iety
. F o r e x a m p le, a lth o u g h w e d id n o t d e c id e w h e th e r th e u n d isc lo se d e v id e n c e in

13 C l ark v. Stat e w as admi s s i bl e, w e s t at ed i n di ct a that“w e di s agr ee w i t h s uch s o- cal l ed ‘ l ogi c’ in su g g e stin g th a t th e d e c e d e n t’s b e h a v io r i n d ica ted th a t sh e w a s n o t a p a rticu lar lyv a lu a b le
m ember of the comm uni t yand thatherl i fe mi ghthave ha d m or e val ue had s he bee n of a di ffe r entchar act er . ” I n G o ff v. S ta te , w e r ecogni zed a gai n t hata vi ct i m ’ s comp ara t i ve 14
w or t h as a human bei ng w as notadmi s s i bl e dur i ng t he p u n ishm entphas e. W e hel d t hat 15 evi dence of the vi ct i m ’ s hom os exual i t yw as i nadmi s s i bl e t o s how thatthe def endantdi d not des erve the dea t h penal t ybeca us e he ki l l ed a l es s val uabl e mem berof s oci ety . T he 16 defe ndantdi d notknow t hatt he vi ct i m w as a homosexua l , and the evi dence w as notr el evant to m it igating the d ef

en d an t’ s sen tenc e b e c au se ith ad n o b ea ri n g o n the d ef en d an t’ sH A Y D E N —7

I d. a t 5 5 5 -5 6
. 17 Mos l ey , 983 S. W
. 2d at262. 18 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 3 7 .0 7 § 3 (a )(1 ); Fo rdv . S ta te , 919 19 S
. W
. 2 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 5 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ).

Ford , 919 S. W
. 2d at115. 20 Stat e v. R oss , 3 2 S .W .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 5 -5 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 21 E
. g. , Sal az ar , 90 S. W
. 3d at335. 22 backgr ound, char act er , orci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e. 17 A l t hough w e have acknow l edged t hatt her e i s no br i ght
- l i ne s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng
w h en v ict im im p ac t an d ch ara cter ev iden ce is ad m issi b le, w e m u st r esp ec t th e L eg isl ature ’s 18
e x p re ss in ten t to lea v e su c h d e c isio n s w ith in th e trial j u d g e ’s so u n d d isc re tio n . A n d w e w ill 19
n o t d istu rb th e ru lin g o n a p p e a l u n les s it f a lls o u tsid e th e z o n e o f

re a so n a b le d isa g re e m e n t. 20 W e w i l l al s o uphol d t he rul i ng on anytheoryappl i cabl e t o t he ca s e. 21 A n a ly sis W e affi r m t he courtof appe al s ’ s det erm i nat i on thatt he tr i al j udge di d notabus e her di s cr et i on byexcl udi ng evi dence t hatK i m bal l w as a reg i s t er ed s ex off ender
. W e do, h o w e v e r, d isa p p ro v e o f th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls ch a ra c ter izin g th is e v id e n c e a s “ n e g a tiv e v ictim i m pact evi dence
. ” I n t he pas t , w e have occa s i onal l yr efe r r ed t o “vi ct i m i m pactevi dence ” as
a br oad cat egory t hat i ncl udes bot h vi ct i m char act er evi dence and vi ct i m i m pactevi dence
. 22 R e g re ttab ly, t h is im p re c isio n h a s b e c o m e e n tre n c h e d in th is s tate ’s ju risp ru d e n c e . V ictimH A Y D E N —8

Mos l ey , 983 S. W
. 2d at261. 23 I d. 24 I d. at262. 25 See H ayden , 2007 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3703, at*5. 26 “ im p a c t” e v id e n c e is ev id e n c e o f th e e f f e c t th e v ictim ’s d e a th h a s o n o th e r p e o p le. V ictim 23 “cha r act er ” evi dence i s evi dence of the vi ct i m ’ s gener al qual i t i es . A l t hough bot h types of 24
e v id e n c e a re re late d a n d g e n e ra llya d m iss ib le d u rin g th e p u n ish m e n t p h a se o f trial, 25 evi d en ce that K i m bal l w as a r egi s t er ed s ex off enderi s bett ercl as s i fi ed as char act er
e v id e n c e
— a s o p p o se d to im p a c t ev i den ce
— becau se H ay den off ered it t o sh o w th a t K im b a ll 26 had bad qu al i t i es. T he tr i al j udge di d not abus e her di s cr et i on by excl udi ng evi dence t hatK i m bal l w as
a r egi s t er ed s ex off

ender
. A s i n G o

ff , w her e t he evi dence of t he vi ct i m ’ s hom os exual i t yw as notr el evantt o t he def

endant ’s s en tence, K i m bal l ’ s s t atus as a r egi s t er ed s ex off enderw as notr el evantt o H ay den’ s puni s hm ent . K i m bal l ’ s s t atus w as not r el evant t o t he ci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e bec aus e H ay den di d notpr es entanyev iden ce s how i ng t hats he w as aw ar e of K i m bal l ’ s pas t . K i m bal l ’ s char ac ter w as al s o i r r el evantt o H ay den’ s backgr ound and ch a r a c t e r . Th e o n l y r e l e v a n c e t h i s e v i d e n c e h a d was t o mi t i g a t e Hay d e n ’ s p u n i s hm entby
s how i ng t hatK i m bal l ’ s l i fe w as of l i t t l e val ue. W e have hel d thatt hi s ki nd of compar at i ve evi dence i s unfai r l ypr ej udi ci al under R ul e 403. T her efor e, t he tr i al j udge ac t ed w i t hi n her di s cr et i on byexcl udi ng t he evi dence
.H A Y D E N —9

See e
. g. , R i char ds , 932 S. W
. 2d at215- 16. 27 S e e R e n ter ia v . S ta te , 2 0 6 S .W .3 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 7 -9 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); G riffin 28 v . S ta te , 7 8 7 S
. W
. 2 d 6 3 , 6 7 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ).

D a g g e tt v. S ta te , 1 8 7 S .W .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 29 S e e M a rtin ez v . S ta te , 1 7 S .W .3 d 6 7 7 , 6 8 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); W heelerv. 30 S ta te , 6 7 S
. W
. 3 d 8 7 9 , 8 8 6 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). B u t H a y d e n c o n ten d s th a t sh e w a s n o t o f f e rin g th e e v id e n c e to sh o w th a t sh e sh o u ld
r ece i ve a l i ght er s ent ence beca us e s he ki l l ed a l es s val uabl e mem berof s oci ety . R athers he
o ff ere d the e v iden ce to reb u t the S tat e’s ev iden ce that cre ated a fa lse im p ression o f K im b all ’s ch ara cter. S p ec ifi ca ll y , sh e c lai m s tha t M o rga n ’s an d M arsh all ’s t esti m o n ym isl ed the ju ry in to b e liev in g th a t K im b a ll w a s “ a n ice g u y .” S h e a c c u se s th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls o f

b lin d ly fol l ow i ng t he l ead of o ther ca s es w her e thi s al t ernat i ve “r ebut t al evi dence r at i onal e” w as
ra ise d b u t n o t a d d re ss e d
. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls d id re a c h h e r re b u ttal c laim 27 buterr ed i n a s s u mi n g thatcompar at i ve vi ct i m char act erevi dence i s al w ay s i nadmi s s i bl e eve n
w hen off er ed i n r ebut t al
. W e neve r t hel es s aff i r m t he cour t of appea l s ’ s deci s i on beca us e the t r i al j udge di d notabus e herdi s cr et i on byexcl udi ng the evi dence i n t hi s cas e. E vi dence t hati s ot herw i s e i nadmi s s i bl e may become admi s s i bl e w hen a par t yopens t he doort o s uch evi dence
. A par t yopens the doorbyl eavi ng a fa l s e i m pr es s i on w i t h t he 28 j ur yt hati nvi t es t he others i de t o r es pond. B uteven i f a pa r t yopens t he doort o r ebut ta l 29 evi dence , t he tr i al j udge s t i l l has t he di s cr et i on t o excl ude the evi dence u n d erR ul e 403. 30 C our t s gener al l ypr ohi bi ta part yfr om us ing ex tr i ns i c evi dence t o i m peac h a w i t nes s on aH A Y D E N

— 10

S e e D a g g e tt , 1 8 7 S .W .3 d a t 4 5 4 n .2 4
. 31 B a tes v . S ta te , 587 S. W
. 2d 121, 141- 42 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1979) ( opi ni on on 32 reh ’g) (interna l qu o tat ion s o m itted).

D a g g e tt , 187 S. W
. 3d at454 n. 24. 33 B at es , 5 8 7 S .W .2 d a t 1 4 2
. 34 col l at er al i s s ue. A n i s s ue i s col l at er al i f, bey ond i t s i m peac hm entval ue, a part yw oul d not 31 “be e nt i t l ed t o pr ove i tas a partof his cas e t endi ng t o es t abl i s h hi s pl ea. ” U nl es s the 32
w i t ness’ s t est i m on y c re at ed a f al se i m press i on t hat i s “di rect l yrel evan tt o the offen se char ged, ” al l ow i ng a pa rt y to del ve i nt o t he i s s ue bey ond the l i m i t s of cr os s exami nat i on

33
w ast es t i m e and con fuses t he is sues. 34 H a y d e n m a d e n o a ttem p t to c ro ss e x a m in e M o r g a n o r M a rsh a ll co n c e rn in g th e ir
s t at ement s aboutK i m bal l
. R ather , s he w ai t ed unt i l aft er both w i t nes s es fi ni s hed t es t i fy i ng and at t em pted t o im peach t heir te st i m on ythroug h O ffi cer M art i nez. K i m ball ’s st atus as a
s ex off enderw as a col l at er al i s s ue; i tw as notr el evantt o the jury ’s ass es s m entof the appr opr i at e s ent ence t o i m pos e on H ay den. A l l ow i ng H ay den t o im p ea ch M o rgan’ s and M ar s hal l ’ s t es t i m onyw i t h t he extr i ns i c evi dence w oul d w as t e t i m e and confus e t he i s s ue by focus i ng t he j ur y ’ s at tent i on on t he vi ct i m ’ s char act err atherthan the def endant ’ s per s onal
re sp o n sib ili ty a n d m o ra l cu lp a b ili ty . T h u s, it w a s w ith in th e trial ju d g e ’s d isc re tio n to
e x c lu d e th e e v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 4 0 3
. C oncl usi on W e ho l d thatt he tr i al j ud ge’s deci si on t o ex cl ud e evidence that K im b a l l w as aH A Y D E N

— 11

r egi s t er ed s ex off

ender fel l w i t hi n t he zone of r eas onabl e di s agr eement . T hi s evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e both as vi ct i m ch ar act erand r ebut t al evi dence
. A ccor di ngl y , w e af fi r m t he
c o u rt o f a p p e a ls’s ju d g m e n t.

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : A pr i l 8, 2009 PU BL I SH