NO. 07-06 -048 3-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A DE CE MB ER22, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ T IMOT HY

UDD LEY, APPE LLA NT v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 6-41 184 4; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL , PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Timothy

Uddl ey appeal s from hi s j ur

y co nv icti on of the offense of murder and t he resul ti ng se ntenc e of li fe impr is onment i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Texas Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Justice. T hrou gh th ree issues, app ellantconte nds th e trial court er re d b y n ot c harg ing the jur y on t he i ss ues of sel f-defense or defense of prope rty

and e r re d b y

e x c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e re l a t i n g t o t h e v i ct i m’ s h i s t o r y o f v i o l e n c e a n d t he c i rc um s ta nc es o f t he rel at i on s hi p be twee n ap pe l l an t an d th e v i cti m. W e affi r m.2 Backg ro und By a Feb ru a ry 2006 i ndi ctment , app ell ant was charg ed w it h k now ing ly and int enti onal ly

ca usi ng t h e deat h of Andrea M endoz a by st abbi ng her

w it h a k nife. The ind ic tme n ta l s o i n c l u d e d a n e n h a n c e me n tp a ra g ra p h s e tt i n g fo rt h a p p e l l a n t ’ s p re v i o us felony co nv icti on for attempt ed murder w it h a d eadl y

w eapon. Appel lan t and Andrea M endoz a w ere mar ri ed i n F ebr uar y 2005 and had an i nfant child togeth er. Th e cou ple m oved into an apa rtme nt bu t, b e c a use o f marita l dif

f iculties, Mend oza moved ou t in July 200 5, ta king her clothes an d the bab y . Abou t a week late r, dur ing the ear ly

mor nin g hours, appel lan t s tabbed Me ndoz a w it h a k nife, k il li ng her

. The sta bbi ng oc cur re d i n the apar tment’ s l iv ing ro om. Appel lan t was charg ed w it h murder and cont ra ry to his not- g uil ty

pl ea, t he j ur

y found hi m g uil ty

as ch arg ed in the indi ctment . After a l s o fi n d i n g a p p e l l a n th a d c o mm i tt e d o n e p r i o r fe l o n y , t h e j u r

y a s s e s s e d p u n i s h me n ta tl i fe impr is onment a nd a $10,000 fine. This appeal foll ow ed. Ana lysis Vi a three is sues , appell ant conte nds the tr ial courter re d i n refusing to ins tr uctthe jury on self-defense and defense of prop erty and erred i n excluding ev iden ce of Mendo z a’s history of violence , espe cially

a gainst app ellant , and t he circumsta nces of t he relat ionsh ip betw een app ellantand Mendo z a. For the rea sons th at follow w e f ind no error.Or “ suppo rt ed,” i n the l ang uag e of secti on 2. 03( c)of the Texas Penal C ode. T e x. 1 Penal C ode An n. § 2.0 3 (c) ( Ve rn on 2003 ); Shaw v . St ate , 243 S.W .3d 6 47, 6 57 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)

. 3 Iss ues One a nd T

wo–Entitlem ent to Instr uct ion s on Sel

f- Def ense and D efens e of Pr oper ty Sta nda rd The tr ial co urt mus t g iv e the j ur y “ a writ ten c harg e di sti nct ly se tti ng forth the law appl ic abl e to the c a se ; n o t e xpre ss ing any opi nio n as to the weig ht of the ev ide nce, not su m m in g u p th e te st im o n y, d isc u ss in g th e fa ct s or u sin g a n y a rgu m e n t in h i s c h a rge c al c ul at ed t o arou s e th e s y mp at hy o r e x cite th e pa s s i on s o f t he j ur y .” Te x . C od e. C r i m. Proc. Ann. ar

t 36. 14 ( Ver non 200 7)

. W hen ev ide nce from any so urce ra is es the i ss ue of a l ess er i ncl uded offense or a defensi v e the or y , i t mus t be inc lud ed i n the ch arg e. Gi bson v. State, 72 6 S. W .2 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 2 ( T e x.Cri m .A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). T h e c o u rti s n o t re qui re d to ch a rge the j ur y on a n i ss ue notrais ed byt h e ev ide nce. Muniz v. Sta te, 851 S.W .2d 2 38, 2 54 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) ; Car ri ll o v . St ate, 591 S.W .2d 8 76, 8 90 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979)

. A defense is rais ed i f there i s e v ide nce in the record maki ng a pr ima facie cas e for 1 the d efense. A pr ima facie cas e i s t hat “ mini mum q uantum o f ev ide nce neces sar y to supp ort a ration al inferen ce tha t [an ] allegation of fact is true.” Shaw v

. St ate, 243 S.W .3d 6 4 7 , 6 5 7 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), quo ti n g Tom pki ns v. State , 774 S.W .2d 1 95, 2 02 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 1 98 7)

. Th erefo re, a d efense i s rai s ed b y t he e v i de nc e i f t he re i s s om e e vid e n c e , f ro m a n y so u rc e , o n e a c h e le m e n to f t h e d e fe n s e t h a t , if

b e li e ve d b y t h e ju ry, woul d s uppor

t a ra ti onal inference that the e lementi s t ru e. Id. In d ete rmining w het her a defense i s t hus suppo rt ed, a cour t must re ly on it s ow n jud g ment, formed in the li g ht of itsAn er ro r w hic h has been proper ly preser v ed, as here, w il l cal l for rev ersal as l ong 2 as the e rror

i s n ot ha rml ess . A l

m a n za v . S ta te, 6 8 6 S .W .2d 1 57, 1 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1985)

. “ Rea sona b le b e lief” is defined as bel ief tha t woul d be hel d by an o rd ina ry

and 3 pr udent man i n the same ci rc umstan ces as the act or . Tex . Penal Co de Ann. § 1.07( a) (4 2) (Verno n 20 06). “ Dea dly forc e” i s d efined as forc e tha t i s i ntended or kn ow n by

the act or

to caus e, 4 o r i n t h e m a n n e r o f

i t s u s e o r in t e n d e d u s e is ca p a b le o f ca u s in g, se ri o u s o r b o d il y in ju ry. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 9.01( 3) ( Ver non 200 7)

. 4 ow n c ommon sen se and ex per ien ce, as to the l imi ts of rat ion al inference from the facts prov en. Id. I f a defense i s s uppor ted b y the ev ide nce, then the d efendant i s e nti tl ed to an ins tr uct ion on t h a t defense, ev en i f the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the defense i s weak or cont ra dicted, and ev en if the tr ial co urt i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he ev ide nce is not credi ble

. Sh aw, 243 S.W .3d a t 6 5 7

. But, the ev ide nce must be s uch that itw il l suppo rta rati onal jur y findi ng as to each ele ment of the defense. Id. W hether a defense is supp orted bythe ev ide nce is a suff ic ien cy ques ti on rev iewabl e on appeal as a q uest ion of law

. Id. at 65 8. Self-Defe nse In hi s first is sue, appell ant conte nds the ev ide nce at t ri al suppo rt ed hi s req uest ed ins tr uct ion on s elf- defense and the tr ial co urt’ s fai lure to submi t proper defensi v e c harg es w as har mf ul er ro r. W e di sag re e. 2 The us e of force ag a ins t ano ther for s elf- defense i s j ust ified “ w hen and to the degree the a ctor reaso nab ly b elieves t he force is imm edia tely nece ssaryto prote ct himse lf

3 ag ain st the o ther ’s us e o r a tt e m pted use of unlaw ful forc e.” Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 9.3 1(a) (Vernon 200 7). Th e use of dea dly force requires a sho w ing that the use of dea dly 4A perso n w ho h as a rig ht to be prese nt atthe l o c a t io n w here the de adly fo rce is 5 used, w ho has not prov oked the p erson ag ain st w hom the deadl y forc e i s u sed, and w ho is not eng ag ed i n c ri minal acti v ity at the t ime the d eadl y forc e i s u sed is not re q uired to re treat b efore us ing deadl y forc e. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 9.32( c)( Ver non 200 7)

.

5 force is i mmed ia tel y

nec ess ar

y . Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 9.32 (V er non 200 7)

. In 5 det ermin ing w het her a de fend an th as a reaso nab le belief thataction was imm edia tely neces sar

y for h is protecti on, t he facts and ci rc umstan ce s must be j udg ed from t he viewp o int of the defendant al one. Juar ez v. Sta te, 8 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 1 1 , 514 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [ 1 D ist .] 19 94, pet. ref’d). W e v iew the evidence in the light most st fav orabl e to appel lan t t o det er mine w hether i t i s s uff ic ien t t o ra is e the i ss ue of sel f-defense. Pr eston v . St ate, 756 S.W .2d 22, 24 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 1988 , pet . ref ’d). th
As a g eneral matter , to b e ent it led to a j ust ific ati on defensi v e i nst ru cti on, a defend antmustadm it the con ductcharged in the indictm e n ta n d t hen of fer evi den ce jus ti fyi ng the condu ct. Sh aw, 243 S.W .3d a t 659 ( a d e fe n sive inst ru cti on i s a ppropr iat e onl y w hen t he defendant’ s d efensiv e ev ide nce ess enti all y admits to ev er

y el ement of the offense inc lud ing the cul pabl e mental stat e, but inter poses the jus ti ficat ion to ex cus e the other w is e c ri minal co nduct ) ; Yo ung v . St ate, 9 91 S. W .2d 835 , 838 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9); W it her s v . St ate, 994 S. W .2d 7 42, 7 45 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1999, pet. ref’d) , citi ng Reich- Baco t v

. St ate, 976 S.W .2d 6 78, 6 79 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998)( to be enti tl e d to a charge on se lf-defense , a defend antis essentially req uired to adm it comm itting the con duct g iv ing r is e to the i ndi ctment ). Ap pel lan t t est ified at tr ia l b ut mai ntai ned he did not re member the ev ents l eadi ng to Me ndoz a’s deat h. Appel lan t’ s t est imony di d notrais e the d e fe n s ive t h e o ri e s h e a d va n c e s ; t h e re fo re , o n ly t h e S t a t e ’s e vid e n c e co u ld p o s s ib ly h a ve ra is ed th e i ss ue o f

s e lf-d efense. Johns on v . St ate, 715 S.W .2d 4 02, 4 05- 06At t he ti me of her deat h, M endoz a was no l ong er l iv ing i n the apar

tment w it h 6 appel lan t and the par

ti es had remov ed her

name fro m the lea se. Bec ause thi s o ffense occ ur re d pr ior to the S eptember

1, 2007 effecti v e dat e of the 7 current sta tute , w e ap ply the statu te th en in ef fect. Howev er, w e do not f ind it nece ssary to ad dress appel lan t’ s d uty to re treat. In m a kin g his arg ument, appel lan t reli es upon Ham el v. State, 916 S.W .2d 4 91, 8 493 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)( threat b y v icti m in additi on to v icti m’s acti on of g oin g to car to get a gun ma de appe llant’s belief , tho ugh incorrect, that dead ly forc e wa s im m e diate ly neces sar

y to protect hi msel f aga ins t attempted use of deadly forc e reason abl e; ap pel lan t enti tl ed to se lf-d efense i nst ru cti on) ; VanBr ack le v. State, 179 S.W .3d 7 0 8 , 713 (Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2005, no p et.)( the e v ide nce re g ardin g the shoot ing w as v ar y ing and inc onsi ste nt an d the appel lat e cour t coul d not say there was no reason abl e pos si bil ity that 6 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1 Dist.] 1 986 , pet . ref ’d). From ou r review of the reco rd, howev er, st
w e find the Stat e’s ev ide nce did not ra is e ei ther defensi v e the or

y adv anced by

appel lan t. On ap peal , app ell ant point s to ev ide nce of the coupl e’s turbul ent rela ti onshi p, an d Me ndoz a’s v iol ence toward hi m. W it h respect t o the ci rc umstan ces of Me ndoz a’s deat h, appel lan t re lie s o n physi cal ev ide nce that a w ind ow of the a par

tment w as broken in and on th e tes ti mony

of Me ndoz a’s brother , w ho al so w as li v ing i n the apar tment at t he ti me. The brother

tes ti fied he saw

appel lan t i n the apar

tment’ s l iv in g room sh ortl y before the sta bbi ng . He sai d nothi ng about seei ng Me ndoz a. Appel lan t cont ends thi s t est imony l eads to a re asona ble inferenc e Mendoz a brok e throug h the w ind ow to g et into hi s a par

tment. 6 Thus, app e llant arg ues, ev ide nce re flect s a ppel lan t was in his habi tati on, g iv ing hi m the ri g ht t o us e deadl y

force under

Secti ons 9.32( a) (1 ) and 9.42( 1) , and he did not hav e a d uty to retreat u nder Sect ion 9.32( a) (2 ) re g ardle ss w hether he e v er dete rmi ned t he i denti ty of the i ntr uder

. W hil e appel lan t ac know led g es in his br ief that Me ndoz a w as li kel y unar med, 7 he a rg ues h e pe rceiv ed d anger and point s to his allegation thatMendo z a ha d previously threa ten ed to break into the apartm ent and kill him

. He points also to the violent na ture 8the j ur

y woul d hav e found tha t appell ant acted in s elf- defense; appel lan t was thus har med by failu re to submi t s elf- defense i nst ru cti on) ; and Espi noza v . St ate, 951 S.W .2d 1 00, 1 01 (Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1997, pet. ref’d) ( if i nv est ig ati on rev eal s t hat the v icti m w as unar med, t he defendant’ s c lai m of se lf-d efense mus t restenti re ly upon a per

ceived dang er ) (e mphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. W e find thes e c ases di sti ng uis habl e. 7 of the appa re nt break- in, M endoz a’s brother ’s tes ti mony that he th oug ht i t was a break- in, the facti t oc cur re d at about 3:00 a.m. i n a h ig h c ri me area, a nd th at t here was mini mal li g hti ng co ming from ano ther room. Last ly , appell ant point s to hi s t est imony thathe was v er y i ntox ic ated that nig ht an d a rgues he c oul d hav e been operati ng under an i mpaired perce ption of

ev ent s. The ju sti ficat ion of sel f defense is av ail abl e to a defendant w ho “ re asona bly bel iev es the force is immedi atel y neces sar y to protect the act or ag ain st the other ’s use or att empted use of unlaw

ful forc e.” Tex . Penal Co de Ann. § 9.31( a) ( Ver non 200 7)

. The act or ’s bel ief that the force w as immedi atel y nec ess ar

y “ is presumed to be reason abl e i f the actor : ( 1) knew or had re ason to be li ev e tha t t h e p e rs on ag ain st w hom the force w as used: ( A) unl awfully

and w it h forc e ent ered, o r w as attempt ing to enter unlawfully

and w it h forc e, t he act or ’s oc cupi ed habi tati on, v ehi cl e, or pl ace of busi ness or

empl oy ment. Tex . Pe nal C ode Ann . § 9.3 1(a)(1)(A) ( Verno n 20 07). A pe rson is justif ied in using dea dly force against another i f the actor woul d be jus ti fied in usi ng force ag ain st the other under Secti on 9. 31 and w hen and to the degree the actor reaso nab ly believes the dea dly force i s imm edia tely nece ssary to protect the acto r against th e oth er’s use or atte mp ted use of unlawfu l dead ly force. Tex . Pen a l Co d e Ann. § 9. 32( a) (1 ), ( 2) (A ) (V er non 200 7) ; Ju a r e z, 886 S.W .2d a t 514.At tr ial , t he medic al ex aminer ack now led g ed that any one of t hese four i nit ial st ab 9 wounds co uld hav e been fatal. T h e m e dic al ex aminer tes ti fied attr ial thatthe neck wound an d the wound on 10 Mend oz a’ s b ac kw ere fat al

. H e fur th er t es ti fi ed t ha t s om e of t he wou nd s o n M en do z a’s face w ere al so fat a l wou nds. Sp eci fical ly , M endoz a s ust ain ed a cheek wound t hat t he m e d ic a l e xa m in e r t e s t if ie d il lu s t ra t e d t h e kn ife ’s p a t h t h ro u gh t h e si n u s u n d e rn e a t h h e r e ye and i nto t he brain

. 8 To be ent it led to an i nst ru cti on on sel f-defen se under the ci rc umstan ces here, appel lan t had to show

so me ev ide nce, from any sourc e, on each element o f the defense. Sh aw, 243 S.W .3d at 657 -58. Even w ere w e to agree w ith ap pellan t tha t, judged f rom h is v iew poi nt, some e v ide nce ind ic ates he was jus ti fied i n using force as desc ri bed i n Secti on 9.3 1 o f the Pena l Cod e, we s ee no ev ide nce he reason abl y bel iev ed dead ly

forc e was immedi atel y

nec ess ar

y to protect hi msel f aga ins t M endoz a’s us e or att e m p ted use o f unl awful deadly

forc e. See T ex. Pen al Code Ann. § 9.32 (2)(A) (Verno n 20 07). Mend oza’s brother tes ti fied he heard a c ra sh, ca me dow nst airs, and saw appel lan t on top o f Mendoz a, b e a t in g h e r a n d c h o k in g h e r wit h h is h a n d s . W h e n t h e b ro t h e r re c o gn ize d itwa s Me n d o za appel lan t was chok ing , he g ra bbed ap pel lan t by the neck to pu ll hi m off of Me ndoz a, an d tr ied to “t alk some sens e” int o appel lan t. Appel lan t punch ed him in the si de of hi s h ead. Me ndoz a was on th e floor in a prone posi ti on, g aspi ng for a ir and attempt ing to craw l out of the apar

tment w hen app ell ant went i nto t he k it chen to retr ieve a k n ife. Appel lan t sta bbed M endoz a i n the bac k four ti mes. The k nife bro ke a n d appel lan t went t o the

9 kitchen a s e c ond time, retriev ed a secon d knife, an d stab bed Mendo z a ap proximate ly twen ty- th ree add i ti on al ti me s , k i l l i ng her

. As s um i ng app el l an t w as j us ti fi ed i n us i ng s om e 10 force to th e po int Mend oza was sub due d, even under appellan t’s v iew of the evidence , it would not sup port a ration al inferen ce his action s were im me diate ly n ecessa ry

t o prote ct9

him self against her use or attem pte d use of dea dly force. W e a gr e e wi t h t he trial cou rt app ellantwas no t ent itled to an instruct ion on self-defense . W e overrule appe llant’s f irst is sue. Def

ense of P

roper ty Ap pel lan t bases his arg ument reg ardin g hi s e nti tl ement t o a d efense of proper ty ins tr uct io n on t he s ame ev ide nce he arg ues in suppo rtof his first is sue. H e as ser ts the evide n ce s uppor

ts a c oncl usi on th at he w as enti tl ed to an i nst ru cti on on defense of p ro p e rt y b e c a u s e Me n d o z a w a s in t h e p ro c e s s o f t h e im m in e n tco m m is s io n o f ro b b e ry, ag g ra v ated ro bber

y , burg lar

y , t heft dur ing the nig htti me, or cr imi nal mis chi ef duri ng the nig htti me. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. §§ 9.32 (a )( 2) (B ) and 9.42( 2) (A ) (V er non 200 7)

. Penal Cod e § 9 .42 p ro v ide s t hat a person is j ust if ie d i n u si ng deadl y forc e to defend proper ty under ce rt ain ci rc umstan ces : A perso n is justif ied i n using dea dly force ag ainst anot her to p ro t ect land or tangible, m ovable prop erty: ( 1) if h e w ould be justif ied in using force ag ain st the o ther

under Secti on 9. 41; a nd ( 2) w hen and to the d eg re e he re asona bly

bel ie ves the force is i mmediat ely nec ess ar

y : (A) to prev ent t he o t h e r’ sim m in e n tc o m m i s s i o n o f a rs o n , b u rg l a r

y , ro b b e r y , a g g ra v a t e d ro b b e ry, theft dur ing the nig htti me, or cr imi nal mis chi ef duri ng the nig htti me; or ( B) to prevent the othe r w ho is f leeing imm edia tely af ter com mitt ing burgla ry, ro bber y , ag g ra v ated ro bber

y , or theft du ri ng the ni g htti me from es capi ng w it h the p ro p e rty ; a n d ( 3 ) h e re a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h a t : ( A ) t h e l a n d o r p ro p erty cann ot be protect ed o r recovered by any oth er m ean s; or (B) the use of force oth er than dea dly fo rc e to prote ct or recover the land or prop erty would expose th e acto r or anoth er to a sub sta n t ia l risk of dea th or serious b odily inj ur y . Te x . Pen al Code Ann. § 9.42 (Vernon 200 7).10

In orde r fo r defense of

prope rty to app ly , the actor mu st beli e ve t h a td ead ly force is i mmediat ely

nec ess ar

y to protect t he proper

ty

. Jacks on v

. St ate, 753 S.W .2d 7 06, 7 10 (Te x .Ap p.– San Anto nio 19 88, pet. ref’d). Here, e v en if w e assu me Mendo z a en gaged in cr imi nal mis chi ef bysmas hin g throug h the w ind ow , by the ti me appel lan t first employed deadl y forc e, M endoz a was prone, g aspi ng for b re ath, and attempti ng to craw l aw ay . The cr imi nal acti v ity

had already

been compl eted and nothi ng i n the record s uppor ts the conc lus ion thatM endoz a was cont e mplat ing addi ti onal cr imi nal mis chi ef or any othe r criminal act iv ity . Th e evidence to w hich ap pellan t poin ts doe s not m ake a prima face ca se for defense of prope rty . See Hudsonv. Sta te, 145 S.W .3d 3 23, 325 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 2004, pet. re f’d) ( w hen t here i s n o ev ide nce of a bel ief tha t fo rce i s n eeded t o defend prop erty, a cr imina l defend antis not ent itled to a jury instruction on de fense of prope rty ); Her nandez v. Sta te, 914 S.W .2d 218, 224 (Tex .App. –El Paso 1996 , pet . ref’d) ( appel lan t not e nti tl ed to an i nst ru cti on on defense of proper ty bec ause there was no ev ide nce of im m ine nt cr imi nal m is chi ef as t he dr iv e- by sh ooti ng of appel lan t’ s h ome had already been compl eted pr ior

to uti li z ati on of deadl y

forc e)

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Iss ue T hr ee- -E xclusionof Evi

denceof Me ndoz

a’ s Char acter and Circum stan ces of Relat ionsh ip In appel lan t’ s las t is sue, he cont ends that the tr ial cour t har mf ull y

er re d by ex cl udi ng re lev ant ev ide nce re lat ing to Me ndoz a’s v iol ent t endenc ies and the c ircums tanc es of theAppe llant argues th at th e evidence the trial court excluded fell sq uare ly w ithin 11 Ar ti cl e 38. 36( a) of the Code of Cr imi nal Procedu re , s how ing ei ther thatM endoz a was the firs t ag g re ss or

or thatappel lan t had a reason abl e apprehens ion of dang er . 11 re lat ion shi p betw een M e n doz a and appel lan t. The tr ial co urt, how ev er , per mitt ed th e 11 tes ti mony

of a number

of defense w it ness es re g ardin g the re lat ion sh ip b etween t he par ti es. W e f ind the ex cl uded ev ide nce re lat ed onl y to sel f-defense an d defense of prop erty. Giv en o ur dispositio n of app ellant ’s firs tt wo issues, it follows the trial court proper ly ex cl uded t his ev ide nce. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. Hav ing ov er ru led each of appell ant’ s three iss ues, w e af firm the judg ment of the tr ial cour t. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.