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

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 08 9- CR
K E R R Y B OL L M AN AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 1 6TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A j ury c onvi ct ed A ppe l l antKer r y Bol l m an ofas sa ul ton a publ i c ser van t and assessed hi s puni shm entatt en year s’ confi nem enti n t he I nst i t ut i onal Di vi s i on o ft he Te xa s Dep a rt m e nto fCr i m i na l J us t i c e a nd a f i neo f$10, 000. Th e t r i al court sent enced hi m accor di ngl y. I n t w o poi nt s, A ppel l ant ar gues t hat t h e e v i d e n c e a tt r ia l w a s in s u f f ic ie n tt o s u p p o rtt h e ju r y ’s re je c t io n o fh is2

i nv o l u n t a r y i n t o x i c a t i o n d e f e n s e a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt r e v e r s i b l y e r r e d by f ai l i ng t o i nst r uctt he j ur y i n t he pun i shm entch a rge t hati tcoul d not consi der una dj udi ca t ed ext r ane ousof f ens esunl es s t heyw er e pr ove n be yond a rea so n a b l e d o u b t. B e c a u se w e h o l d th a t t h e ev i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o s u p p o rt th e j u r y ’s v e r d ic ta n d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t re v e rs i b l ye rr, w e a ffi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. F a c ts O n t he m or ni ng ofA ugu st 2 5 , 2007 , A ppe l l antw asan i nm at e o ft he D ent on Count y Ja i l . He sl i ppe d, f el l , an d i nj ur ed hi s l eftw r i stan d t he r i bson t he l ef tsi de ofhi s bod y. A guar d ar r i ved t o assi stA ppel l ant , and A ppel l antw as g i v e n a n i n j e c ti o n o f T o ra d o l , a n o n -n a rc o ti c , n o n s te ro i d a l a n ti -i n fl a m m a to ry dr ug f orm uscul oskel et al pai n. S hort l y af t erthe i nj ect i on w as adm i ni st er ed, at a b o u t1 1 :3 0 a .m ., A p p e lla n tw a s t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m t h e ja il t o t h e h o s p it a l. A p p e l l a n t t e sti fi e d tha t after h e a rr i v e d a t th e h o sp i tal , th e m e d i c a l sta ff gave hi m som e ki nd of pi l l forh i s pai n. H e di d not r ecal l w het herhe w as gi ven o n e p ill o rm o r e t h a n o n e p ill. O f f i c e r K er ner , t he D ent on C oun t y det ent i on off i cerw ho t r ansport ed A ppe l l ant t o t he em er gen cy r oom t hat day , t es t i f i ed t hathew asw i t h Appel l ant unt i l s hi f tch ang e a t3: 00 p. m . O f f i ce rKer ners ai d t hathean d Appel l ant engag ed i n sm al l t al k w hi l e hospi t al st af ft r eated A ppel l antand t hatsever al3

t i m esdur i ng t he con ver sa t i ons , A ppe l l antas ke d hi m w hatt i m e hi s sh i f tch ang e w o u ld b e . O f f ic e r K e r n e rt e s t if ie d t h a tA p p e lla n ta s k e d h im f iv e o rs ixt im e s if O f f i cerW el sh w oul d r el i eve O f fi c e rK er ner . ( O f f i cerK er neri s m uch l ar ger p h y s ic a llyt h a n O f f ic e rW e ls h .) O f f ic e rK e r n e ra ls o t e s t if ie d t h a th e w a s u n a b le t o t el l A ppel l ant w ho w oul d r epl ace hi m atshi f tchange. D ur i ng t he t i m e t hat A ppe l l antw asw i t h O f f i ce rKer ner , A ppe l l antdi d notac tcr az y ors i l l y. O f f i cerW el sh di d, i ndeed , r epl ace O f f i cerK er nerat shi f t chang e. O f f i cer W e l s h a rri v e d a t a p p ro x i m a te l y2 :4 5 p .m . to re l i e v e O ffice r K e rn e r a t 3 :0 0 p .m . O f f i cerW el sh t est i f i ed t hathe and A ppel l ant h ad a conver sat i on and t hat A ppel l antw as act i ng i n “[ n] or m al , ever yday- per son dem eanor . ” O f f i cerW el sh and A ppel l antw ai t ed abou ta n h o urf orA ppel l antt o be di schar ged. Because A p p e lla n t w a s in p a in w h e n h e w a s d is c h a r g e d , O f f ic e r W e ls h p h y s ic a lly as si st ed hi m i nt o t he van i n a w hee l cha i r . As O f f i ce rW el sh w ass ec ur i ng A ppel l ant ’ s seat bel tacr oss hi s chest , A ppel l ant m anaged t o gr ab O f f i cerW el sh i n a chokeho l d. T h e m e n began t o st r ugg l e, and t hey j um ped ou toft he van and ont o t he gr ound. O f f i ce rW el sh w asi n pa i n a s t heyr ol l ed on t he gr ound. O f f i cerW el sh t est i f i ed t hath e w as nearl y unco nsci ous w hen a ci vi l i an ar r i ved a n d b e g a n t r y in g t o p u ll A p p e lla n to f f o f O f f ic e r W e ls h . O f f ic e r W e ls h w a s a b le t o getl oose and pl ace A ppel l anti n a l eg l ock. O f f i cerW el sh t est i f i ed t hat4

A ppe l l antw asnotac t i ng c r az y at t he t i m e he beg an t o put A ppe l l anti nt o t he van an d t hatA ppe l l antha d a ct ual l y a sk ed f orO f f i ce rW el sh ’ s hel p. T w o h o sp i tal se c u ri ty g u a rds a rr i v e d a n d h e l p e d O ffi c e r W e l sh h a n d c u ff A ppe l l ant . Af t erA ppe l l antw asha ndc uf f ed, O f f i ce rW el sh ca l l ed f orba ck up, and Co r por al Pena ar r i ved appr oxi m at el y f i ve m i nutes l at er . W hi l e O f f i cerW el sh
w a i ted for a p a tr o l o ffi c e r, A p p e l l a n t sa t si l e n tl yi n the p a rki n g l o t. H os pi t al s ec ur i t y gu ar dsD avi d Bow e a nd Don Sm i t h c am e t o t he ai d of O ffi c e r W e l sh . B o w e tes ti fi e d tha t he h a d b e e n m o n i to ri n g the se c u ri ty cam e r a s w he n hes a w App e l l a ntb e i ng p us he d i n t hew he e l c ha i rb y O f f i cer W el sh . W hen hene xts aw the m , A ppe l l antan d O f f i ce rW el sh w er e o n t he gr ound w r es t l i ng. Bow e a nd Sm i t h r an t o O f f i ce rW el sh ’ s ai d. Af t erA ppe l l ant
w as handcuff ed, he w as com pl i ant and not act i ng i n an unu sual m anner . A f t er B o w e le ft th e sc e n e , h e rev i e w e d the tap e o f t h e i n c i d e n t. H e tes ti fi e d tha t,
w hi l e w at chi ng t he t ape, he saw A ppel l ant l ook back ov erhi s l ef tshoul deras he w asbe i ng w hee l ed t o t he van . S m i t h t est i f i ed t hatheha ndc uf f ed A ppe l l antaft erhear r i ved on t he sc ene . H e a l so t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antco m pl i ed w i t h hi s r equ es t s w hi l e b ei ng h a n d c u ffe d . In S m i th 's o p i n i o n , A p p e l l a n t’s d e m e a n o r w a s “ q u i e t a n d c a l m ,” and hew as not ac t i ng i n an unus ual m ann er . A l bert Fr ee l and , t he ci vi l i an w ho5

had f i r stas si sted O f f i ce rW el sh , t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antcu r se d a thi m an d s ta te d , “T h i s a i n ’t a n yo f y o u r b u s i n e s s .” C o r p o r a l P e n a o f t h e De n t o n Co u n t y Sh e r i f f ’ s Of f i c e , t h e o f f i c erw ho t r ans port ed A ppe l l antba ckt o t he j ai l , t es t i f i ed t hathedi d notnot i cean yt hi ng th a t i n d i c a te d A p p e l l a n t n e e d e d m e n ta l h e a l th tre a tm e n t. H e te s ti fi e d th a t th e re w asno c onve r sa t i on be t w ee n Appel l antan d hi m se l fand t hatA ppe l l antdi d not exh i bi tan y un us ualbe hav i or , al t hough hedi d t es t i f y t hat A ppe l l antw oul d not
r es pond t o hi m an d a ppe ar ed t o ha ve sh utdow n. A ppel l antcal l ed as def ense w i t nesses hi s m ot herand hi s t w o nei ghb or s. A ppe l l antal so t es t i f i ed on hi s ow n behal f . H e st at ed t hathe r em em ber ed t he event s i n t he hospi t al and r em em ber ed st art i ng t ow a rd th e v a n. H e t est i f i ed t hathe c o u l d n otr ecal l i fhe had been gi ven m or e t han on e pi l l . H e deni ed
r e c a l l i n g a n yc o n v e r s a t i o n s wi t h Of f i c e rK e r n e ro r a t t a c k i n g Of f i c e r W e l s h . He d i d rec a l l h i tti n g the g rou n d , b u t he d i d n o t r e m e m b e r Free l a n d ’s p u l l i n g h i m o ff ofO f f i cerW el sh orhavi ng anyconver sat i on w i t h Fr eel and. A ppel l antt est i f i ed t h a t h e d id n o t in t e n t io n a lly o rp u r p o s e lya t t a c kO f f ic e rW e ls h a n d t h a th e o n ly vaguel y r ecal l ed r i di ng back t o t he j ai l w i t h C or por al Pena. A ppel l antr el at ed an i nci dent i n D ent on C oun t y Jai l t hatoccur r ed on M ay 29, 2007 , al m os tt hr eem ont hsbe f or e t he i nci den tw i t h w hi ch he w asch ar ged . W h e n h e h a d o r i g i n a l l yb o o k e d i n t o j a i l o n M a y2 5 , h e e x p e r i e n c e d p a i n . He6

t est i f i ed t hathe w as gi ven pai n m edi cat i on af t erh avi ng t ur ned i tdow n sever al t i m es . O n ot heroc ca si ons , how eve r , heac ce pt ed t he pai n m edi ca t i on. A ppe l l antca l l ed M i cha el Cl ar k, a se r gea ntas si gne d t o boo ki ng f ort he sh er i f f ’ s of f i ce , asa w i t nes s. C l ar k t es t i f i ed t haton M ay 29, 2 007 , A ppe l l ant
w asi n hi s ce l l na ke d a nd s cr at chi ng hi m se l fbe ca us e h e b el i eve d heha d bug s cr aw l i ng on hi m . Appel l antt hen gr abb ed hi s ow n a r m an d pul l ed i tr ea l l y ha r d. C l ar k, w i t h t he as si st anc e o ft w o ot hero f f i ce r s, s ubdue d Appel l antan d hand cuf f ed hi m . A ppel l antscr eam ed t hat t hey w er e st abbi ng hi m w i t h needl es, a n d h e re s i s te d th e h a n d c u ffs , so C l a rkh a d h i m p l a c e d i n a r e s tra i n t c h a i r. A ppe l l antde ni ed t hathew asunde rt he i nf l uen ceofdr ugsoral coh ol . Ats om e p o i n t, C l a rko rd e re d t w o o ffice rs t o re l e a s e A p p e l l a n t fro m t h e re s tra i n t c h a i r. O f f i ce rCl ar k w enti nt o t he ce l l and or der ed A ppe l l antt o knee l so t hathean d t he ot hertw o of f i cer s cou l d saf el y exi tt he cel l . A ppel l antr ef used, j er ked aw ay fro m o n e o ffice r, g o t l o o s e fro m th e o th e r o ffice r, a n d b e g a n s c re a m i n g . C l a rk pul l ed outhi s t as eran d or der ed A ppe l l antt o t he g r ou nd. Appel l antr ef us ed, s c re a m e d a t C l a rkto ta s e h i m , a n d t h e n b e g a n a d v a n c i n g t o w a rd C l a rk . C l a rk shotA ppel l antw i t h t he t aser , and A ppel l antf el l to t he gr oun d. A ppel l anthad t o bepl ac ed i n t he r es t r ai ntch ai rag ai n. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot her , C l audi a Bo l l m an, and M adal yn and Lar r y Eden s, A ppel l ant ’ s nei ghb or s, al so t est i f i ed on A ppel l ant ’ s behal f . M r s. Bo l l m an7

t es t i f i ed t hats he had s ee n Appel l antbe com e aggr es si ve orac t“ abs ol ut el y s i l l y, s t u p id , c r y i n g , o n e o rt h e o t h e r ” w h e n h e h a d a d v e r s e re a c t io n s t o p a in
m e d ic a t i o n s . M r . a n d M r s . E d e n s t e s t if ie d t h a tw h e n A p p e lla n tisg iv e n p a in ki l l er s or anest het i cs, he can becom e ver y vi ol ent or ar gum ent at i ve, al m ost par ano i d. M i cha el Tr i bbl e, a par am edi c w or ki ng a tt he hea l t h f ac i l i t y oft he D ent on Cou nt y Ja i l , t e s t i f i e d t ha tApp e l l a nt ’ s m e di c a l r e c or dss ho w e d t ha to n M a y 26, 20 07 , A ppel l antw as pr escr i bed on e ort w o D ar vocetpi l l s every si x hou r s as nee de d. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t ha tt heDarvo c e tw ou l d no th a veb e e n di s pe ns ed
w i t houtA ppe l l ant ’ s r equ es t . H e al so t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antw aspr es cr i bed a r egi m en ofA t i van f ort r ea t m entofal coh ol w i t hdr aw al an d a n i nj ec t i on of Th i am i n on t he sam e dat e. O n M ay 29, 2007 , A ppe l l ant had bee n pl ac ed i n a s af et y c el l be ca us e h e had be com e u nr ul y, ye l l i ng a nd ba ngi ng on t he w al l . A ppe l l ant w oul d nots t op t hi s beh avi orw hen ap pr oac hed by of f i ce r s. Tr i bbl e t es t i f i ed t ha tthe r ec or ds a l so i n d i c a ted tha t ea rl i e r t h a t m o rning , A p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n m o v e d to a s a fety ce l l f orha l l uci nat i onsan d pl ac ed i n a r es t r ai ntch ai raft erha vi ng be en t as ed.2 ... A ppe l l antdoe s notex pl i ci t l y s pec i f y t hathech al l eng esonl y t he

f actual s u f fi c i e n c yo f e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e j u ry ’srej e c ti o n o f i n v o l u n ta ry i nt oxi ca t i on, buthi s ar gum entan d a ut hor i t i es , i ncl udi ng hi s sta t em entoft he s t a n d a r d o fre v ie w , m a k e t h a tf a c tc le a r . W e t h e r e f o r e lik e w is e a d d r e s s o n ly f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y.

3 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 8 .0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 4 ... S e eMen denh a l

l v. S tate , 77 S. W . 3d 815, 8 17– 18 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ); T

o rres v. S tate , 5 8 5 S .W .2 d 7 4 6 , 7 4 8

– 5 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 9 ). 5 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 .0 4 (d ). 6 ... 2 0 4S .W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 2 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (C o c h ra n , J ., d i s s e n ti n g ). 8

E v i d e n c eS u fficie n t to R ej e c t A p p e l l a n t’s I nvol untary I nt oxi cat i on D ef ense I n h i s fi rst po i n t, A p p e ll a n t co n tes ts th e su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to suppo rtthe j ur y’ s r ej ect i on of hi s i nvol untary i nt oxi cat i on defense. 2In s a n it yis an af f i r m ati ve de f ens e t o pr os ec ut i on. 3I nvol untary i nt oxi cat i on t hatcauses i ns ani t y i s i ncl ude d w i t hi n t he af f i r m at i ve def ens e o fi ns ani t y. 4 The de f end ant hast he burde n ofpr ovi ng a n a f f i r m at i ve def ens e b y a pr epo nde r anc e o ft he evi dence. 5 A s Judg e Cochr an exp l ai ne d i n he rt hough t f ul di ss enti n W atso n v. S tate , 6di scussi ng t he devel opm entoff act ual s u ffi ci ency r evi ew i n cr i m i nal cases, R evi ew f orl egal suf f i ci en c yu ndert he Jacks on“ bey ond a r easonabl e doub t ” st andar d i s r equi red fo rever y el em entt hat7 ... Id. a t 4 3 6

– 3 7 (c i ta ti o n s a n d fo o tn o te s o m i tte d ). 8 ... Merazv. S tate , 7 8 5 S .W .2 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). 9 suppo rt s a convi ct i on, buta suff i ci ency- of
- t he- evi dence r evi ew unde rci vi l s t and ar dsi s app r opr i at e w hen r evi ew i ng a f f i r m at i ve def enses i n w hi ch t he def endan tb ear s a bur den of “pr epon der ance oft he evi den ce . ” I n Meraz , t hi s C ourthel d t hatt he “f act ual con cl us i vi t y c l aus e”oft he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on a ppl i es w hen t he def end an tb ear s t he bur den ofpr oofby a p r epo nde r anc e o ft he evi dence. A nd t hi s C ourtf ol l ow ed Merazi n Bi gb yv. S tate , by r evi ew i ng t he su f f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet hatsupport ed t he j ury’ s r ej ec t i on oft he def endan t ’ s a ff i r m at i ve def ense ofi nsani t y i n a capi t al m ur dert r i al . I n Bi

gby , asi n Meraz , t he bur den of pr oofw ason t he de f e n d a n tt o e s t a b l i s h h i s d e f e n s e b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft he evi den ce . I n t hatcont ext , use oft he ci vi l st and ar dsad opt ed by t he Tex as S upr em e C ourt i s ent i r el y appr opr i at e. I n t hese cases, Texas court s have t he pow erand aut hori ty t o cond ucta suf f i ci ency r evi ew oft he evi den ceunde rcont r ol l i ng supr em e c ourtpr ec ede nt bec a u s e : ( 1) b o t h t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d p e r s u a s i o n i s on t he def end ant ; an d ( 2) t hatbur den i s t he ci vi l s t and ar d ofpr oof“ by a p r ep on de r an ceoft he evi den ce . ” Bot h Merazan d Bi gbya r e in l i n e w i t h t he hi st or i cal and j ur i spr uden t i al under pi nni ng of Tex as ci vi l l aw and t he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on. W e f ol l ow ed ourbr et hr en on t he Tex as S upr em e C ourti n appl yi ng t he f act ual concl usi vi t y cl ause t o t hos e “ que st i onsoff ac t ” f orw hi ch t he pr opone ntbe ar s t he b u r d e n o fp r o o fb ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft h e e v i d e n c e . A n d we sh oul d cont i nuet o f ol l ow t hatco urt ’ s dev el opm entof su f f i ci enc y- of
- t he- evi den cer evi ew w hen t he pr opone ntbe ar s t he bur den of pr oof by a pr epon der ance oft he evi dence. 7 Th er ef or e, upon r evi ew oft hi s poi nt , w e m ustconsi deral l t he evi dence
r el evantt o t he i ssue of i nsani t y and det er m i ne w het herthe ver di cti s so agai nst th e g rea t w e i g h t a n d p rep o n d e ran c e o f th e ev i d e n c e as to b e m a n i fes tl yu n j u st. 89 ... See i d. a t154. 10 ... Id. a t 1 5 4n .2 ; se eCle wi s v. S tate , 922 S . W . 2d 126, 135– 36 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ).

11 ... S e eBi

gb yv. S tate , 8 9 2 S .W .2 d 8 6 4 , 8 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ), cert. denied, 5 1 5 U .S . 1 1 6 2 (1 9 9 5 ). 10 I n our r evi ew , w e m ay not us ur p t he f unc t i on of t he t r i eroff ac tby su bs t i t ut i ng o u r j u d g m e n t i n the p l a c e o f i ts v e rdict. 9 W e m ay sust ai n t hi s poi nto n l yi f, a fte r d e ta i l i n g th e re l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a n d s ta ti n g i n w h a t re g a rd th e c o n tra ry e v id e n c e g r e a t lyo u t w e ig h s t h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e v e r d ic t , w e a ls o c le a r ly st at e w hy t he ver di cti s so ag ai ns tt he gr ea tw ei gh to ft he evi den ceast o be
m ani f est l y unj ust , w hy i tsho cks t he consci ence, o rw hy i tcl ear l y dem onst r at es bi as. 10 A p p e lla n td id n o tre c a ll h is c o n v e r s a t io n w it h O f f ic e rK e r n e ro rt h e a s s a u lt on O f f i cer W el sh. H e, hi s m ot her , and hi s nei ghb or s t est i f i ed onl y t hathe had a b ad r ea ct i on t o pa i n m edi ca t i on. Now her e d oesA ppe l l antdi r ec tu s t o a ny evi den cet hat , as a r es ul t of i nt oxi ca t i on ca us ed by t ak i ng pai n m edi ca t i on, he di d notkn ow t hathi s con duc tw asw r ong. T o the ex ten t t h a t A p p e l l a n t’ s i n sa n i ty d e fen se i s i m p l i c i t in t h e fac ts r ecoun t ed, aft erexam i ni ng t he ent i r e recor d, w e can not say t he j udg m enti s so a g a in s tt h e g r e a tw e ig h ta n d p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft h e e v id e n c e a s t o b e m a n if e s t ly
u n j u st. 11 Th er e w as evi dence t hatA ppel l antpl anned t he assaul ti n hi s r epeat ed12 ... Id. a t878. 13 ... S e eTo rres v. S tate , 976 S . W . 2d 345, 347 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pus C h ri s ti 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t.). 11 quest i oni ng of O ff i cerK er nerr egar di ng t he t i m e ofshi f tchange and w het her O f f i cerW el sh, t he sm al l erd eputy, w oul d be r epl aci ng hi m . Ther e w as evi dence th a t A p p e l l a n t g l a n c e d o v e r h i s s h o u l d e r b e fo re a tta c k i n g O ffice r W e l s h . T h e re w as evi dence t hatA ppel l antdi scou rag e d F r eel and f r om com i ng t o O f f i cer W el sh’ s ai d. Th e onl y evi dence of i nsani t y w as t hat i n t he pastA ppel l anthad had a bad r ea ct i on t o pai n m edi ca t i on t hatcaus ed hi m t o be si l l y orunpl ea sa nt and hi s ow n t est i m ony r egar di ng m em or y l oss. N o experttes t i f i ed ei t hero n behal fo fA ppel l antoron behal foft he S t at e. The on l ye v i d e n c e w a s l a yw i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y . Ast h e St a t e a r g u e s , q u o t i ng Bi gby , “ U l t i m at el y t he i ss ue ofi ns ani t y a tt he t i m e o ft he of f ens e e xcu si ng cr i m i nalr es pons i bi l i t y l i esi n t he pr ovi nceoft he j ury, notonl y a s t o t he cr edi bi l i t y oft he w i t nes se s and t he w ei ght of t he evi den ce , but al so ast o t he l i m i ts o f th e d e fe n s e i ts e l f.” 12 A s the Stat e poi nt s out , t he t r i eroff actm ay con si derev i den ces uch ast he def end ant ’ s dem ea nor bot h bef or e a nd a f t ert he c o m m i ss i o n o f t h e o ffen se , a s w e l l as an yatte m p ts to ev a d e p o l i c e o r t o conceal i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence. 13 The t r i er of f ac t m ay con si derex pr es si onsof14 ... Id. a t347– 48. 12

r e g r e to r fe a r o f th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s a c ti o n s , o th e r p o s s i b le
m o ti v e s fo r th e o ffe n s e , a n d o th e r e x p l a n a ti o n s fo r a d e fe n d a n t’s b e h a v i o r. 14 T h e j u ry c o u l d h a v e fou n d the ev i d e n c e d e fea ti n g A p p e l l a n t’ s i n sa n i ty d e fe n s e m o re c re d i b l e a n d o f g re a te r w e i g h t th a n th e e v i d e n c e o f A p p e l l a n t’s “bad r eact i on” t o pai n m edi cat i on. W e note t hatt he j ur y hear d evi dence t hat di r ect l y af t erthe at t ack, A ppel l antw as t aken back t o t he j ai l , n otto a m ent al h e a lt h u n it . T h e ju r ya ls o h e a r d e v id e n c e t h a tin t h e s u m m e ro f2 0 0 7 , w h ile A ppel l antw as speaki ng ov ert he j ai l t el epho ne, he t ol d f r i ends and f am i l y t hat h e w o u l d n o t b e i n j a i l fo r v e ryl o n g a n d th a t th e “ s y s te m h a s l o o p h o l e s .” A s f ort he evi dence of t he M ay 20 07 e p i so de i n w hi ch A ppel l antw as f ound nak ed i n hi s ce l l an d s cr ea m i ng a boutbugscr aw l i ng on hi m an d c l ai m i ng t he of f i ce r s w er e st abb i ng hi m w i t h nee dl es , t he j ury c oul d ha ve bel i eve d, an d t he r ec or d su pport s, t hat t he epi so de occ ur r ed bec aus e Appel l antw ass uf f er i ng f r om al coho l w i t hdr aw al . A ddi t i onal l y, A ppel l antof f er ed evi dence t hathe w as w el l aw ar e o fhi s “b ad r ea cti on”t o pa i n m edi ca t i on a nd t hathi s m ot heran d nei ghb or s w er e al so aw ar e ofhi s r esponse t o pai n m edi cat i on. H e ar gues t hat hi s i nt oxi ca t i on w asi nvol unt ary, ye tD ef end ant ’ s Exhi bi tT hr eer ef l ec t s t haton A ugus t4, 200 7, a f ew w ee ksbe f or e t he i nci den tw i t h w hi ch he w asch ar ged ,15 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 8 .0 4 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 16 ... S e ei

d. § 8 .0 4 (b ); T

u cker v. S tate , 7 7 1 S . W . 2 d 5 2 3 , 5 3 3 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 8 8 ), cert. denied, 4 9 2 U .S . 9 1 2 (1 9 8 9 ).

17 ... S eeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § § 2 .0 4 (d ), 8 .0 1 (a ), 8 .0 4 (b ). 18 ... See i

d. § 8 .0 1 (a ). 13 A ppel l antm ade t he f ol l ow i ng r equest , “The i nt ensi t y ofm y headach es I [ si c]
v e ryb a d . I n e e d to s e e a d o c to r a n d a m i n n e e d o f p a i n m e d i c a ti o n p l e a s e .” V ol untary i nt oxi cat i on i s nota def ense t o t he com m i ssi o n o f a cr i m i nal of f ense, 15al t hou gh i tm ay be con si der ed by t he j ury i n m i t i gat i on of p u n i sh m e n t. 16Appel l ant ’ s bur den w ast o prov e by a pr epo nde r anc e o ft he e v i d e n c e tha t t h e i n to x i c a ti o n w a s i n v o l u n taryan d th a t th e into x i c a ti o n w a s to such a degr ee t hati tr ender ed hi m l egal l y i n sa ne. 17W e hol d t hatt her e w as som e evi dence t hati nt oxi cat i on w as i nvol untary, butt he evi d e n c e t hat A ppe l l antr equ es t ed pai n m edi ca t i on not l ong bef or e goi ng t o t he hos pi t al an d t hathe vol untar i l y t ook t he pai n m edi cat i on w hen i tw as of f er ed cut s agai nst t he al l ege d i nvol unt ar i nes s oft he i nt oxi ca t i on. Fi nal l y, A ppel l ant di r ect s us t o no evi dence i n t he r ecor d th a t he w as u n a w a r e o ft h e w r o n g f u ln e s s o fh isc o n d u c t , b u tt h e re c o r d d o e s c o n t a in evi den cet hathew asaw ar e o ft he w r ongf ul nes s ofhi s con duc t , t hathe p l a n n e d the co n d u c t, an d tha t i t w a s n o t a s p o n tan e o u s o u tb u rst. 1814

C ons i der i ng t he ent i r e r ec or d, a nd appl yi ng t he app r opr i at e s t and ar d of
r evi ew , w e ho l d t hatt he ver di cti s nots o a gai ns tt he gr ea tw ei ghtan d p re p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e o f i n s a n i tya s to b e m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. W e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t. A bsence ofJury I nst r uct i on H ar m l ess I n h i s se c o n d p o i n t, A p p e l l a n t arg u e s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtw a s o b l i g a ted to i ns t r uctt he j ury s ua sp ont e i n t he p uni sh m entch ar ge t hatt he j ury c oul d not con si deruna dj udi ca t ed ext r ane ousof f ens esunl es s i tbe l i eve d be yond a r easonabl e doub tt hatA ppel l ant had com m i t t ed t hem . A ppel l antpoi nt s outt hat t he S t at e pr oved t hat he had pr i or convi ct i ons f orar son, assaul t - f am i l y vi ol ence, a n d res i sti n g arres t. A d d i ti o n a l l y , th e S tate o ffe re d e v i d e n c e to p rov e tw o in c id e n t s o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u lto n a p u b lic s e r v a n ta n d o n e in c id e n to fa s s a u lt on a publ i c s ervan t . The t r i al co urtdi d noti ns t r uctt he j ury t hati tco ul d not consi dert hose of f enses w i t hou tf i r stfi ndi ng t hatthe S t at e had m eti t s bur den o f pro v in g ea c h o f t h e ex tr a n e o u s o ffen se s b e y o n d a re a so n a b l e d o u b t. A ppe l l antdi d notobj ec tt o t he cha r ge and di d notr equ es tt he i ns t r uct i on. A ppel l anthad been p r evi ou s l y c onvi ct ed ofar son, assaul t - f am i l y vi ol ence, and r esi st i ng ar r est . C onsequ ent l y, no l i m i t i ng i nst r uct i on w as r equi r ed because t hose of f enses had al r eady been subj ect ed t o j udi ci al t est i ng; t hati s, because19 ... S e eBl uitt v. S tate , 1 3 7 S .W .3 d 5 1 , 5 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 20 ... 1 2 S .W .3 d 4 7 9 , 4 8 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 15 A ppel l anthad al r eady been convi c ted o ft hose of f enses, he had al r eady been fo u n d g u i l ty o f t h o se o ffen se s b e y o n d a re a so n a b l e d o u b t. 19 W e next addr ess w het hersuch an art i cl e 37 . 07 i nst r uct i on w as r equi r ed in re g a r d t o t h e u n a d ju d ic a t e d o f f e n s e s o fa g g r a v a t e d a s s a u lto n a p u b lic se r van tan d a ss aul ton a publ i c se r van t . Appel l antdoe s notpr ovi de usan y det ai l s con ce r ni ng t he unad j udi ca t ed of f ens est hatt he St at e p r ove d. Appel l ant m er el y ci t es us t o t hi rt y- t hr ee pages i n t he r ecor d. I n t he i nt er esto fj ust i ce w e have exam i ned t hose pages. A ppel l antappear s to c o m pl ai n abou tevi dence t hathe st r ucka pol i ceof f i ce rand t hathe br and i sh ed a k ni f e i n a n a ggr es si ve m a n n e rw h e n p o lic e o f f ic e r s re s p o n d e d t o a d o m e s t ic d is t u r b a n c e c a ll. A ppe l l antr el i eson Hui za r v. S tate t o ar gue t hata cha r ge i ns t r uct i ng t he ju r yin a c c o r d a n c e w it h a rt ic le 3 7 .0 7 o ft h e c o d e o fc r im in a l p r o c e d u r e is
m and at ory eve n i fnotr equ es t ed. 20 A tt he puni sh m entst age , evi den cem ay be of f er ed ast o a ny m att ert he cou rtde em s r el eva ntt o sen t en ci ng, i ncl udi ng e v id e n c e o fa n e x t r a n e o u s c r im e o rb a d a c tt h a tiss h o w n b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le doubtby evi den cet o ha ve bee n c om m i t t ed by t he def endan to rf orw hi ch he21 ... Tex. Co de C r i m . Pr oc. A nn. art . 37. 07 § 3( a) ( 1) ( V er non Supp .

2 0 0 8 ).

22 ... Hui zar, 12 S . W . 3d a t484. 23 ... Id . 24 ... S ee A l

m a nza v. S tate , 686 S. W . 2d 157, 171 ( Te x. C r i m . App . 1985 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ); see al so E l l i so nv. S tate , 8 6 S. W . 3d 226 , 2 28 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ). 16 coul d be hel d cr i m i nal l y r esponsi bl e. 21 W he n t he cou rtad m i t s evi den ceof e x t r a n e o u s m is c o n d u c tb yt h e a c c u s e d , t h e c o u rtm u s tin s t r u c tt h e ju r yt h a tit ca nnotco ns i dert hi s evi den cef oran y pu r pos e u nl es s i ti s sa t i sf i ed bey ond a rea so n a b l e d o u b t t h a t th e se p ri o r ac ts a re a ttr i b u tab l e to th e d e fen d a n t. 22 T h e f ai l ur e t o gi ve t hi s i nst r uct i on i s char ge er r or even i n t he absence ofa r equest o r ob j e c ti o n b ythe d e fen d a n t. 23 A p p e l l a nt di d n ot r eq ue st t he i ns t r uc t i on an d d i d n ot ob j ec tt o the j ury c h a r g e f o rit s f a ilu r e t o c o n t a in a n a rt ic le 3 7 .0 7 in s t r u c t io n . W e , t h e r e f o r e , h o ld t hat t he t r i al cou rt er r ed by f ai l i ng t o i ncl ude t he art i cl e 37. 07 i ns t r uct i on i n t he j ury char ge, but , undert he A l m anzaconst r uct , w e m ustdet er m i ne w het her A p p e l l a n ts u f f e re d e g re g i o u s h a rm a s a re s u l t o f th e tri a l c o u rt’se rro r. 24 Egr egi ous har m consi st s ofer r or s af f ect i ng t he ver y ba sis oft he case ort hat dep r i ve t he def end antofa val uab l e r i ght , vi t al l y a f f ec ta def ens i ve t heo r y, or25 ... Sa un ders v. S tate , 8 1 7 S .W .2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). 26 ... A l m anza , 6 8 6 S .W .2 d a t1 7 1 ; see general ly Hutch v. S tate , 922 S. W . 2d 166, 172–7 4.

27 ... A l m anza , 686 S. W . 2d a t174. 28 ... El l i son , 8 6 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 7 ; Hutch , 922 S. W . 2d a t171. 17 m ak e t he ca se f or co nv i cti on or pu ni sh m en t cl ea r l y and si gn i f i ca nt l ym o re per suasi ve. 25 In m a k i n g a n e g re g i o u s h a rm d e te rm i n a ti o n , “ th e a c tu a l d e g re e o f h a rm m ust be assayed i n l i ght of t he ent i r e j ur y char ge, t he st at e ofthe ev i d e nce, i ncl udi ng t he con t es t ed i ss uesan d w ei ght ofpr oba t i ve evi den ce , t he ar gum ent ofcounsel and any ot her r el evant i nf or m at i on r eveal ed by t he r ecor d oft he t r i al a s a w h o l e .” 26The pu r pose of t hi s r evi ew i s t o i l l um i nat e t he act ual , notj ust t heo r et i ca l , ha r m t o t he ac cus ed. 27E g reg i o u s h a rm i s a d i ffi c u l t stan d a rd to pr ove and m ustbe det er m i ned on a case- by- case basi s. 28 A ppel l antdoes notexpl ai n w hy t he a dm i ssi on of t hese of f enses w as part i cul ar l y har m f ul , exc ept t o sa y t hat t hey w er e “t he sa m e nat ur e as t he one of w hi ch t he j ury ha d a l r ea dy c onvi ct ed [ A ] ppe l l ant . ” W e h aveco ns i der ed t he
r e c o r d in it s e n t ir e t y . Itc o n t a in s e v id e n c e o fA p p e lla n t ’s p a s tc o n v ic t io n s , h is vi ol entan d m ani pul at i ve con duc ti n j ai l , and hi s com m i ss i on oft he of f ens e n ow bef or e t hi s cou rt . The evi den ceal so refl ec t s A ppe l l ant ’ s st at em entt hathe18

w oul d beoutofj ai l be ca us e o ft he l oopho l esi n t he sy st em and t he f ac tt hathe pl ann ed t he att ac k o n O f f i ce rW el sh , ch oos i ng t o a ss aul thi m r at hert han t he l a rg e r o ffice r. Th e r ecor d, excl usi ve oft he unad j udi cat ed act s ofm i scondu ctpr esent ed att he pun i shm ent phase of t he t r i al , am pl y j ust i f i es t he j ur y’ s sent ence. W hen A ppel l antchoked O f f i cerW e l sh, t her e w as evi dence t hatt he of f i cert ur ned bl ue, w asl os i ng c ons ci ous ness, an d w asaf r ai d hew asgoi ng t o di e. As t he St at e p oi nt s out , A ppe l l ant ’ s def ens i ve t heo r y w as not t hat he di d notdo i t , but t h a th e d id itb e c a u s e o fa b a d r e a c t io n t o p a in k ille r s . T h e ju r ya p p a r e n t lyd id notbe l i eveA ppe l l ant ’ s def ens i ve t heo r y. The pr os ec ut orco m par ed t he r ang e of puni sh m ent f oras sa ul tofa publ i c s ervan tw i t h t he r ang e o fpuni sh m entf or a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u lto fa p u b lic s e r v a n ta n d a r g u e d t o t h e ju r yt h a tt h e b o d ily i nj ur y t hatA ppel l anti nf l i c ted o n O f f i cerW el sh i n t hi s case w as “aboutas f ar a s y o u c a n g o b e fo re g e ttin g to s e ri o u s b o d i l yi n j u ry .” A p p l y i n g th e a p p ro p ri a te s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w , w e h o l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s er r or i n f ai l i ng t o pr ovi de t he art i cl e 37. 07 i ns t r uct i on i n t he j ury cha r ge di d not e g reg i o u sly h a rm A p p e l l a n t. W e o v e rr u l e h i s s e c o n d p o i n t.19 C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’s tw o p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d M EI ER, JJ. LI V I N G STO N , J. f i l ed a c onc ur r i ng op i ni on. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 14, 20091 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 089- CR
K E R R Y B OL L M AN AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 16TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

### CONCURRI NG M E MORAND UM OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I a g r e e t h a ta p p e lla n t ’s t w o p o in t s s h o u ld b eo v e r r u le d a n d t h a th is convi ct i on s hou l d be af f i r m ed. H ow ever , I w r i t e separ at el y because I di sagr ee w i t h t he m aj o ri ty’ s use ofa di ssent i ng op i ni on f r om t he courtofcr i m i nal a p p e a l s a s i ts p ri m a ryb a s i s fo r e x p l a i n i n g th e fa c t u a l s u fficie n c ys ta n d a rd
r el at ed t o t he j ur y’ s i m pl i ci tr ej ect i on of appel l ant ’ s af f i r m at i ve def ense.2

A s th e m a j o ri tyc o rre c tl yi n d i c a te s , i n s a n i tyb e c a u s e o f i n v o l u n ta ry i nt oxi ca t i on i s an af f i r m at i ve def ens e t hata def end antm us tpr oveby a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . M a j o ri tyo p . a t 8 ; Men den h a ll v. S tate , 77 S .W .3 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); see Tex. Pen al Code Ann. § 2. 04( d) ( V er non 20 03 ) . W e det er m i ne th e fa c tual suf f i ci ency of al l oft he evi dence
r el at ed t o t he j ur y’ s r ej ect i on ofan aff i r m at i ve def ense b y consi der i ng w het her t hatrej ect i on i s so agai nstthe greatw ei ght and pr epon der ance oft he evi dence a s t o b e m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. Bi gb yv. S tate , 8 9 2 S . W . 2 d 8 6 4 , 8 7 5 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ), cert. denied, 5 1 5 U .S . 1 1 6 2 (1 9 9 5 ). A l th o u g h th e m a j o ri ty ’s o p i n i o n c i te s th e s ta n d a rd a s s ta te d b y th e c o u rt ofcr i m i nalap pea l s i n Bi gby , by w hi ch w e a r e b ound, i tp r i nc i pa l l y r el i eson a d is s e n t in g o p in io n f r o m t h e s a m e c o u rt , b y w h ic h w e a r e n o tb o u n d , t o e x p la in t hats t and ar d. M aj or i t y op . at8–11 ( ci t i ng W a tso nv. S tate , 204 S. W . 3d 404, 4 2 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (C o c h ra n , J ., d i s s e n ti n g )); se eSi errav. S tate , 157 S .W .3 d 5 2 , 6 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 ), a ff’d, 218 S . W . 3d 85 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); se e al soState v. Hardy , 9 6 3 S . W . 2 d 5 1 6 , 5 1 9 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 19 97 ) ( i ndi cat i ng t hatev en a pl ur al i t y opi ni on f r om t he courtofcr i m i nal a p p e a l s i s n o t b i n d i n g p re c e d e n t). F o r th a t re a s o n , I re s p e c tfu l l yc o n c u r.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E DEL I VERE D: M a y 14, 2009