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

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07- 382- CR
J OS E P H L OUI S S VI T AK AP P E L L ANT
V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 3 OF T ARRA NT CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- Jos eph Lo ui s Svi t akap pea l s f r om hi s co nvi ct i on f ort w o c ount s of i nde ce ncyw i t h a ch i l d. I n onepoi nt , he ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co u rt e rre d by
exc l udi ng e vi den ce t hathe co nt end s sh ow s ani m os i t y be t w ee n hi m an d t he
c o m p l a i n a n t’s fa m i l y . W e a ffir m .2 Back gr ound Beca us e Appel l antdoe s notco nt es t t he l ega l or f ac t ual su f f i ci enc y oft he
e v id e n c e , w e w ill r e l a t e o n lya s m u c h o ft h e re c o r d a s n e c e s s a r yt o p u th is
c o m p l a i n t i n to co n tex t. A g r a n d ju r yin d ic t e d A p p e lla n to n s ixc o u n t s o f in d e c e n c yw it h a c h ild by c ont ac tan d t hr ee co unt s ofag gr ava t ed se xua l as sa ul tofa chi l d. The
com pl ai nan t , “ Luc y” ( a p se udony m ) , w ho w as f i f t ee n yea r s ol d att he t i m e o f tr i a l , tes ti fi e d tha t A p p e l l a n t a n d h i s w i fe, C y n d i , l i v e d ac ros s th e stree t an d tw o hou ses dow n f r om t he hom e w her e Lucy l i ved w i t h herm ot her , Br andy, her t w o s i st er s, an d h erbr ot her . She sa i d t haton v ar i ousoc ca si ons , A ppe l l ant t ouch ed herbr east s out si de and i nsi de her cl ot hi ng, ki ssed her br east s, t ouch ed h e rf e m a le s e x u a l o r g a n o u t s id e a n d in s id e h e rc lo t h in g , p e n e t r a t e d h e rf e m a le
s e x u a l o r g a n wi t h h i s f i n g e ra n d h i s t o n g u e , a n d p u th i s p e n i s i n h e rmo u t h . On
cr oss- exam i nat i on, she t est i f i ed t hatbet w een 2 00 2 an d 2 00 4, herf am i l y had
a n u m b e ro fc o n t a c t s w i t h “ t h e a u t h o r it ie s ” a n d t h a ts h e a n d h e rf a m ily2 ... Th e Stat e, i n both i t s st at em entoff act s and i t s ar gum ent , assert s t hat

L u c yg a v e m u c h m o r e e x t e n s iv e t e s t im o n y a b o u t h e r f a m ily ’s r u n -in s w it h C h ild Pr ot ec t i ve Ser vi ce s ( “CPS”) an d t he pol i ce , i ncl udi ng t es t i m ony t hatCPS an d t he pol i ce w entt o t hei rhous e f r equ ent l y i n 2002 t hr ough 200 4. ButLu cy gav e t he t es t i m ony ci t ed by t he St at e on v oi rdi r e o ut si de t he pr es enc e o ft he j ur y, t he t r i al cou rt su st ai ned t he St at e’ s obj ec t i onst o t he t es t i m ony, an d— w hen t he j u ry retu rne d to th e co u rt roo m — L u c y ’s tes ti m o n yo n the top i c w a s l i m i ted to h e r s ta te m e n t a b o u t c o n ta c t w i th th e “ a u th o ri ti e s .” 3 bel i eved t hatA ppel l an t a n d C yndi had caused som e oft hose contact s. 2 S h e sai d t hatbel i efcaused som e har d f eel i ngs bet w een t he t w o f am i l i es. She al so adm i t t ed t hats he t ol d Cyndi t hat “ n o thi ng ha ppe ned ” bet w ee n he ran d A p p e l l a n t. L u c y ’s o l d e rs is t e r , “ K a r e n ” (a p s e u d o n y m ), w h o w a s s ix t e e n y e a r s o ld att he t i m e oft r i al , t est i f i ed t hatshe w as pr esenton sever al oc casi ons w hen A ppe l l antas ke d L ucy t o exp os e her br ea st s t o hi m , on o ne occ as i on w hen he t o u c h e d L u c y ’s b r e a s t , a n d o n o n e o c c a s io n w h e n h e p e n e t r a t e d L u c y ’s f e m a le
s e x u a l o r g a n w it h h is f in g e r . S h e s a id t h a tA p p e lla n tt o ld h e r a n d L u c y t h a tif t hey evercal l ed t he pol i ce, he w oul d r eportt hem t o C PS and t el l t he pol i ce t hat t hei rm ot herw as deal i ng dr ugs out oft he f am i l y hom e. C yndian d Appel l antt es t i f i ed f ort he def ens e. O u ts i de t he pr es enc e o f t hej ury, Cyn dit e s t i f i e d t ha ts he ha d r e po rt e d L uc y’ s f a m i l y t o CPS i n 2003 aft ers he sa w Br and y punc hi ng Luc y i n t he st om ac h. O n a not heroc ca si on, s he
c a lle d t h e p o lic e b e c a u s e “ t h e g ir ls w e r e r u n n in g t h e s t r e e t s ” a tt w o o ’c lo c kin4

t he m or ni ng. A nothert i m e, she w r ot e a l et t ert o C PS because K ar en t ol d her and A ppel l ant t hat Brandy’ s boyfr i end w as m ol est i ng Lucyand because K ar en a n d L u c y ’s c o u s in t o l d h e r t h a tB r a n d yw a s u s in g d r u g s . C y n d i s a id t h a tin 2 0 0 4 , s o m e o n e re p o rt e d t o t h e p o lic e t h a t L u c y ’s lit t le b r o t h e r w a s rid in g h is t r i cyc l e i n a bus y i nt er se c t i on. The pol i ce f ound t he boy athom e a l one , an d t hey t ol d C yndi t hat t hey w er e r eport i ng B r andy to CP S because herhom e w as f i l t hy. She sai d t hat on ano t heroccasi on, K ar en and Lucy ’ s gr andm ot hercal l ed C yndian d a sk ed h e r t o pi ckup Kar en f r om s cho ol be ca us e Br and y w asnot
ans w er i n g h e r p h o ne. She t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l ants aw Br and y’ s ca ri n t he dr i vew ay ofBr and y’ s hous e and t hats he and A ppe l l antw al ke d ov ert o c onf r ont Brandy. C yndi sai d t hatA ppel l antt ol d B r andy, “W e’ r e t i r ed ofbei ng yo urf r ee t axi servi ce, your f r ee baby- si t t er and yo urf r ee gr ocer y st or e. Y ou need t o pi ck up yo urow n ki ds and m aybe i fyou l ay of ft he cr ack, . . . m aybe you coul d hear th e p h o n e ri n g .” C y n d i s a i d B ra n d yre p l i e d , “F u c ky o u ,” a n d s l a m m e d th e d o o r. C yndi t est i f i ed t hataf t erLucy m ade al l egat i ons agai nstA ppel l ant , she t ol d Lucy and K ar en to st op com i ng t o herhouse, butt he gi r l s cont i nued t o com e over anyw ay. She sai d t haton one such occasi on— t en days af t erLucy m ade her
o u tc ry s ta te m e n t— s h e a n d A p p e l l a n t h a d j u s t re tu rn e d fro m h e rb ro th e r’s f uner al i n A ust i n w hen K ar en r an up t o t hem and asked w her e t hey had been5

“ a l l d re s s e d u p .” A p p e l l a n t to l d h e r to g o h o m e . K a re n a s k e d fo r a D r. P e p p e r, and A ppe l l antag ai n t ol d he rt o go hom e; Kar en sa i d, “ bi t ch, ” and w al ke d a w ay. T h e t r ia l c o u rtru le d t h a tC y n d i c o u ld t e s t if ya b o u tt h e la t t e rin c id e n tin det ai l and coul d t est i f y t hatBr andy had sl am m ed t he doo r i n A ppel l ant ’ s f ace, but i tsust ai ned t he S t at e’ s obj ect i ons t o C yndi ’ s t est i m ony ab out t he ot her i n c i d e n ts . B e fo re th e j u ry , C y n d i te s ti fi e d i n a c c o rd a n c e w i th th e tri a l c o u rt’s
r ul i ngs. A ppel l antl i kew i se t est i f i ed t hathe had an ar gum ent w i t h Brandy and t hat Brandy sl am m ed t he doo r i n hi s f ace, t hatt her e w er e ot herar gum ent s bet w een th e fa m i l i e s , a n d th a t K a re n c a l l e d h i m “ b i tc h ” w h e n h e re fu s e d to g i v e h e r a D r . Pep per . He den i ed anyi nap pr opr i at e b eha vi ort ow ar d L ucyorKar en. T h e j u ry fo u n d A p p e l l a n t gu i l ty o n tw o c o u n ts o f i n d e c e n c yb yco n tac t, and t he t r i al courtdecl ar ed a m i st r i al on t he ot her coun t s. Th e j ur y asses sed p u n i sh m e n t at tw e n ty y e a rs’ co n fi n e m e n t a n d a $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 fi n e o n ea c h co u n t, and t he t r i al co urts ent enc ed A ppe l l antac cor di ngl y, w i t h t he t er m s of
con f i nem entt o r un c onc ur r ent l y. D i sc us si on I n hi s so l e p oi nt , A ppe l l ant ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by e xcl udi ng
m os tofCyndi ’ s and L u c y ’s te s t i m ony abo utt he nat ur e a nd c aus e o ft he ani m osi t y bet w een A ppel l antand Lucy’ s f am i l y. H e cont ends t hatth e key6

i ss ue att r i al w asLu c y ’s a n d Kar en’ s cr edi bi l i t y a nd t hatt he exc l us i on oft he evi dence i n quest i on— w hi ch he suggest s show s a “r eason f or a dr ugg i e m ot her t o getherki ds t o l i e”— pr ecl uded hi m f r om pr esent i ng hi s onl y def ense. W e r evi ew a t r i al co urt ’ s evi den t i ary r ul i ngs unde r an abu seofdi sc r et i on s ta n d a rd . S ee Montgom ery v. State, 810 S . W . 2d 372, 391 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 19 91 ) ( op. on r eh’ g) . A t r i al court abuses i t s di scr et i on w hen i t s deci si on l i es out si de t he z one of r ea so nab l e di sa gr ee m e n t. Wa ltersv. S ta te , 247 S. W . 3d 204 , 217 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2007 ) . Ev en i fer r one ous , t he t r i al co urt ’ s exc l us i on ofev i de n c e o ff er ed by t he ac cus ed gen er al l y do esnotr i set o t he l eve l of
c o n sti tu ti o n a l erro r un l e ss the o ffered ev id e n c e “fo rm s th e v i tal co re o f a def endan t ’ s t heor y ofdef ense and ef f ect i vel y pr event s hi m f r om pr esent i ng t hat def ense. ” Id . at2 1 9 ( ci t i ng W i le yv. S tate , 74 S. W . 3d 399, 406– 07 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 )); Po ti er v. S tate , 6 8 S .W .3 d 657 , 665 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ) (e n b a n c ). A def endan thas a f und am ent al r i ght t o pr esentevi dence of a def ense as l ong as t he evi dence i s r el evantand i s not e xcl uded by an est abl i shed
e v i d e n ti a ryru l e . Mi

l ler v. S tate , 36 S. W . 3d 503, 507 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 2001 ) ( ci t i ng Cham ber

s v. Mi ssi ssi ppi, 410 U. S. 284, 302, 93 S . Ct . 1038 , 10493 ... Bo t h part i es’ br i ef s confl at e t he er r or anal ysi s w i t h t he har m anal ysi s.

W e w i l l foc u s o u r atten ti o n o n the erro r an a l y sis fi rst. 7 (1 9 7 3 )) . W e w ill, t h e r e f o r e , r e v ie w t h e e x c lu d e d e v id e n c e t o d e t e r m in e ifit
w as pr oper l y excl uded underan est abl i shed r ul e ofevi dence. 3 W i t h r ega r d t o L ucy ’ s exc l ude d t es t i m ony r ega r di ng enc ount er s w i t h CPS
a n d t h e p o lic e , t h e S t a t e a s s e rt e d h e a r s a y , r e le v a n c e , a n d c o lla t e r a li m peachm entobj ect i ons. A l t hou gh t he t r i al court ’ s pr ecis e ru li n g on t hose obj ect i ons i s uncl ear , t he t r i al courtl i m i t ed Lucy’ s t est i m ony to s ayi ng t hather f am i l y ha d “ con t ac tw i t h t he aut hor i t i es ” t hatca us ed bad f ee l i ngsbe t w ee n t he fa m i l i e s , th u s i m p l i c i tl ys u s ta i n i n g th e o bj e c ti o n s a t l e a s t i n p a rt. S ee Te x. R. A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(2 ) (rec o g n i z i n g i m p l i c i t ru l i n g s ). The s pec i f i c t es t i m ony t hat A ppe l l antel i ci t ed f r om Lu cy on v oi rdi r e a nd t hatt he t r i al co urtex cl ude d f r om ad m i ss i on i nt o e vi den ce w as( 1) t hatt he “a ut hor i t i es ” sh e u l t i m at el y t es t i f i ed abo ut w er e CPS and t he pol i ce an d ( 2) t he
r ea so ns w hy CPS and t he pol i ce w e re i nvol ved w i t h t he f am i l y, na m el y, bec aus e of com pl ai nt s t hat t he chi l dr en w er e “r unni ng ar ou n d out si de
u n s u p e rv i s e d ” a n d b e c a u s e th e i r h o u s e w a s “ e x tre m e l yu n ti d y .” Evi den ce i s r el eva nti fi tha s anyt end enc y t o m ak e t he exi st enc e o fan y f ac tt hati s ofco ns equ enc e t o t he det er m i nat i on of t he ac t i on m or e p r oba bl e o r l e s s p r ob a bl e t ha n i tw ou l d bew i t ho utt hee vi de nc e . Te x. R. E vi d. 401.8

A p p e lla n ta r g u e s t h a tt h e e x c lu d e d t e s t im o n yw a s re le v a n tt o s h o w t h e b a s is oft he ani m us be tw e e n h i m and Lu cy’ s f am i l y a nd, by ext ens i on, t o s how Luc y’ s m ot i ve t o f abr i ca t e h eral l ega t i onsofab u s e . T h e tri al co urtdi d a l l ow A ppe l l antt o p ro v e u p th atan i m us by as ki ng L ucyab out“ con t ac t s”w i t h t he “a ut hor i t i es ” and how t hos e c ont ac t s l ed t o “ h a r d f ee l i ngs ” bet w ee n t he fa m i l i e s bec aus e L ucy ’ s f am i l y t hough tA ppe l l antan d Cyndiw er e r epo rt i ng t hem t o t he aut hor i t i es . The a ct ual i den t i t y oft he “a ut hor i t i es ” and t he r ea so ns und e rly ing t hei rcont actw i t h Lucy’ s f am i l y do no tm ake t he “har d f eel i ngs” bet w een t he f am i l i es and Lucy’ s m ot i ve t o l i e any m or e orl ess pr obab l e t han t he t es t i m ony t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d a l l ow hi m t o el i ci t f r om Luc y; t he i m port ant f ac tofco ns equ enc e t o t he det er m i nat i on o f t he ac t i on w ast he ani m us b e tw e e n th e fa m i l i e s a n d i ts g e n e ra l s o u rc e , n o t th e u n d e r l y i n g d e ta i l s . W e th e re fo re h o l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b yi m p l i c i tl ys u s ta i n i n g th e S ta te ’s
re l e v a n c e o bj e c ti o n to L u c y ’s e x c l u d e d te s ti m o n y . S eeTe x. R. E vi d. 401. W i t h r ega r d t o C yndi ’ s exc l ude d t es t i m ony, t he St at e a gai n obj ec t ed on t he bas i s ofr el eva ncean d he ar sa y. The t r i al cou rt exc l ude d C yndi ’ s t es t i m ony c o n c e r n in g re p o rt s s h e m a d e t o C P S w h e n s h e s a w B r a n d yp u n c h in g L u c yin t he st om ac h a nd w hen Kar en t ol d he rt hatBr and y’ s b oyf r i end w asm ol es t i ng L u c y , st a ti n g , “I s ti l l d o n ’t u n d e rs ta n d h o w i t’s re l e v a n t th a t C P S re p o rts w e re
m adei ft her e’ s notbe e n a s h o w i ng t hatan ybod y k new t hat[ C yndi ] w ast he9

sour ce oft he C PS r eport . ” W e agr ee w i t h t he t r i al court and hol d t hatt he t r i al
cou rtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on by su st ai ni ng t he St at e’ s r el eva nceobj ec t i ons t o Cyn di ’ s t e s t i m on y a bo utr e po rt s s hem a det o CPS. T h e t r i al co urtal so l i m i t ed C yndi ’ s t es t i m ony con ce r ni ng t he i nci den t
w hen Cyndi an d Appel l antt ol d Br and y t o pi ck up her chi l dr en f r om s cho ol an d t o st op sm oki ng cr ack. The cou rtal l ow ed C yndi t o t est i f y abou tt o w hat B ra n d y d i d

— s l a m m e d th e d o o r i n th e i r fa c e s — b u t e x c l u d e d a s h e a rs a yC y n d i ’s t es t i m ony w i t h r ega r d t o w hats he, A ppe l l ant , an d Br and y s ai d. H ea r sa y i s an out - of
- cou rts t at em entof f er ed i n e vi den c e t o pr ovet he t r ut h oft he m at t erassert ed. Tex. R. Evi d. 80 1( d) . “M at t erassert ed” i ncl udes any m at t erexpl i ci t l y assert ed i ft he pr obati ve val ue oft he st at em entas of f er ed fl o w s fro m th e d e c l a ra n t’s b e l i e f a s to th e m a tte r. T e x . R . E v i d . 8 0 1 (c ). T h e re a re th ree d i sc rete p a rt s to C y n d i ’s tes ti m o n yreg a rding this ev e n t. Fi r sti s hert est i m ony thatLucy and K ar en’ s gr andm ot her cal l ed her and asked hert o pi ckup t he chi l dr en a t s c h ool be ca us e s he cou l d notr ea ch Br and y by phone . Sec ond i s her t es t i m ony abo utw hatA ppe l l ants ai d t o Br and y— t hathe
w a s t ir e d o f s e r v in g a s h e r f r e e t a x i a n d t h a t s h e m ig h t h e a r t h e p h o n e rin g if sh e s t oppe d s m oki ng c r ac k. T h i rd i s w hatBr and y s ai d t o Appel l antan d C y n d i

— “ F u c ky o u .”10

Th e gr andm ot her ’ s st at em enti s hear say because i tw as of f er ed atl east i n pa rt t o pr ove t he t r ut h of t he m att er as se rt ed, nam el y, t hat Br and y w oul d not
answ erth e pho ne. A ppel l ant ’ s st at em entt o B r andy i s l i kew i se hear say bec aus e i t w as of f er ed t o pr ove A ppe l l ant ’ s bel i ef t hat sh e d i d notan sw ert he p h o n e b e c a u se sh e w a s s m o k i n g cra c k . T h u s, th e tr i a l c o u rt d i d n o t ab u se i ts di sc r et i on byex cl udi ng t hos e t w o s t at em ent s ashe ar sa y. Brandy’ s st at em entt o A ppel l antand C yn d i, on t he ot herhand, w as a c r u d e e x c la m a t io n o r i n s u ltt h a td id n o t“ a s s e rt ” a n y“ m a tt e r .” T h e r e f o r e , it
w as nothear say, and t he t r i al court er r ed by excl udi ng i t as such. Bu tt he t r i al
c o u rtd id a llo w C y n d i a n d A p p e lla n t t o t e s t if y t h a tB r a n d ys la m m e d t h e d o o rin t hei r f ac es . Thus , w e ca nnot sa y t hat t he t r i al cou rt ’ s er r one ousex cl us i on of Brandy’ s expl et i ve ef f ect i vel y pr event ed A ppel l antf r om pr esent i ng hi s def ense, and t he excl usi on of t he st at em ent does not r i se t o t he l evel ofconst i t ut i onal
e rro r. S e eW

a lters , 247 S. W . 3d a t217. Beca us e t he er r ori s notco ns t i t ut i ona l , r ul e 44. 2( b) app l i es . Tex. R. A pp. P. 44 . 2( b) . U ndert hatr ul e, w e m ustdi sr egar d t he er r ori f it d id not af f ect A p p e l l a n t’s s u b s ta n ti a l ri g h ts . Id. ; se e Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S. W . 2d 249, 259 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), cert. denied, 5 2 6 U .S . 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ); Cogg esh a l

l v. S tate , 961 S. W . 2d 639, 642– 43 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 1998, pet . r ef ’ d) . A subs t ant i al r i ghti s af f ec t ed w hen t he er r orha d a s ubs t ant i al an d11

i n j u ri o u s e ffe c t o r i n fl u e n c e i n d e te rm i n i n g th e j u ry ’s v e rd i c t. K i ng v. S tate , 953 S. W . 2d 266 , 271 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1997 ) ( ci t i ng Kotteakos v. United S tates , 3 2 8 U .S . 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 , 6 6 S . C t. 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 5 3 (1 9 4 6 )); Cogg esh a ll, 961 S. W . 2d
a t6 4 3 . C o n v e r s e ly , a n e r r o rd o e s n o ta f f e c ta s u b s t a n t ia l rig h tif w e h a v e “ f a ir
a s s u ra n c e th a t th e e rro r d i d n o t i n fl u e n c e th e j u ry , o r h a d b u t a s l i g h t e ffe c t.” S o lo m o nv. S tate , 4 9 S .W .3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 5 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); John so n v. S tate , 9 6 7 S .W .2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). U nde rt he ci r cum st anc es , w e h avef ai ras su r anc e t hatt he excl us i on of B ran d y ’s u tteran c e d i d n o t i n flu e n c ethe j u ry o r ha d b u t a s l i g h t effec t. C ons i der i ng L ucy ’ s and Kar en’ s t es t i m ony aga i ns tA ppe l l antan d t hatA ppe l l ant
w as al l ow ed t o of f er t est i m ony abou t ani m osi t y bet w een t h e tw o fam i l i es ( al bei tnot t o t he ext ent or i n t he m anner he desi r ed) , i ncl udi ng t est i m ony that Br and y s l am m ed t he doori n hi s and C yndi ’ s f ac esi m m edi at el y a f t erut t er i ng t he
e x c l u d e d p rofa n i ty, the u ttera n c e it se l f i s tri v i a l , a n d w e ca n n o t se e h o w i ts adm i ss i on i nt o e vi den ce , i ft he t r i al co urtha d a dm i t t ed i t , w oul d ha ve i nf l uen ce d t he j ur y or had m or e t han a sl i ghtef f ec t . W e t her ef or e h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urt ’ s er r ori n exc l udi ng t he ut t er anc e w asha r m l es s, an d w e d i sr ega r d t he
e rro r. S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 4 .2 (b ). C onc l us i on12

W e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’s s o l e p o i n t, a n d w e a ffir m t h e t r i a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.
A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 5, 2009