### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00452-CR
Arno ld Le e Gentr

y, Appell ant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. 51,612, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
A j ur y con v i cte d a pp el l an t A rnol d L ee Gen try of atte m pte d agg ra v ate d s ex ual as sa ul t. SeeTex. Pen. Code An

n. § 15.01 (West 1994) (crim in al attempt), § 22. 02 1 (West Supp. 2002) (aggravated

sex ual as sa ul t). A pp el l an t el ec ted to h av e th e c our t as se ss pu n i sh men t, and t he dis

trict courtsent ence d him to t went y years’ c onfinement in the Texas D epartment of Cri mi nal Justice : Institutional

Div is ion. Gen

try appeals, contendi

ng the di strict court erred(1 ) in re fusing t o su bmit a jury char ge o n t he lesse r includ ed o ffense o f assau lt w ith bo dily i njury, a nd ( 2) in over ru ling hi s objec t ions t o s t at ement s by the Stat e that Gentry argues were an attempt t o shift t he b ur de n o f pr o o f. W e wi l l af f i rm th e j udgm

en t. The compl

ai nan t t estif ie d th at on Oc tob er 11 , 20 00 , s h e w en

t to a nei ghborhood bar at about 8:00 p.m. Gen

try, whom s

he h ad known f

or about four y

ears, approached her an

d off ered to buy her a beer. The com

pla in ant accepted, and she and Gen try sat and tal

ked to gether until

after 11:00 p.m . The c omp lainant s aid she dr ank a bou t t wo qua rt s o f beer dur ing t he co ur se o f the2

even in g. She le ft the bar

al one and wal

ked about two bl

ocks to ward her hom

e when someone h

it her in t he bac k o f her he ad. She sta rted stru ggl i ng an d s cre am i ng , an d her a ttac ke r, w hom she i dentif ie d as Gen try, p ull ed h er i nto an al l ey and started

pul l i ng of f her clothes. Gen

try to ld h er “to shut up a nd stopscream

in g or he’d kill

me .” Gentry pus

hed h er down and put

his knee aga inst he r t hro at . T he co mplainant then heard sirens, an d pol i ce of fi cers pulle d Gentry of

f of her. The com

pla in ant was asked: Q: Did he ev er ge t do wn o n t o p o f yo u l ike he w ou ld if he was t rying t o ha ve

in tercour se wi

th you? A: Yes , si

r. Q: Did it app ear t o yo u t hat he wa s t rying t o g et into your sexu al or gan? A: Yes , si

r. Q: Tr ying to get his male sexua l or gan in? A: Yes, he was

[sic ] to my

opini on he was try

in g to li terall y rape m e. The com plai na nt sa i d Gen try pu t h i s h an dsb etw een

h er l eg s. The S tate

ask ed, “Was he a lso w or king with h is han d downt her e?” S he answ er ed, “Yes, he wa s t rying t o p enet ra t e me do wn t her e. ” She sa id he h it her on the h

ead, kneel

ed on her throat, and threatened to kil l h er. She sai

d, “He was cau sing me s eri ous

b odi l y i n j ur y . I d i dn ’t h av e to thin k twice ab out it. He wasi

nf l i cti ng p ai n on me.” Sh e a lso sa id s he fea r ed she wo uld be hu r t wo r se . T he co mpla ina nt sa id Gent ry was st ill

in the bar wh en sh e l ef t. T emp le Police Of

fi cer Brya n t es t ified t ha t o n O ct o be r11 , 20 00 , he r ec eiv ed a c all that a woman was scream

in g. He went to the report ed l ocation and saw3

wh at a pp ea re d to be so meone laying on t he gr ou nd and an arm going up a

nd down in a s t r ikin g mo t io n. As I cr o ss ed ac r o ss t he st r ee t I co uld se e t ha t it wa s a male laying o n t o p o f a fe male an d a s I go t clo se rt o t he m, I no t ice d t ha t t he fema le was pi nn ed down to the groun

d, m ale was l ay i ng on top of her. Br yan sa i d th e w om an ’s pa n ts and pant ies were do wn aro und her ankles, and t he man’s pan ts were downbelow his genit al are a. Bryan s aid t he man, who m he ident ifi ed a s Ge nt ry, w as lying

on top of t he wo man in

a manner co nsist ent wit h so meone tryi ng to have i

ntercourse with som

eone, and was moving his back and p elvis are a up and d ow n; the woman was scre am

i n g. B ry an yel l ed at G en try to stopand then

hel d Gentry at gunpoi

nt whi le he requested assi

stance f rom another

off ic er. Bryan

said: [T he co mplainant] was scr eaming and yelling. H e wa s – s he told m e h e w as goi n g to kill me [sic] . H e wa s t rying t o k ill me. S he wa s – s he was hysterical. It was – it was ha rd to , to comm

unicate w ith her a who le l ot at t hat time other t han what she j ust kept repeating. He told m e he was going to kil

l m e. He was tryi

ng to kil l m e. Brya n sa id it ap pe ar ed t ha t t he co mpla ina nt ha d b ee n hit hard enough to be knocked ou t o f h er shoes. Brya n testifi ed that Gen

try us ed th e c om pl ai n an t’s pa n ts to re strai

n h er b y h ol di n g th em dow n wi th his l egswhi l e “ she was

crawl i ng w i th her f eet b ack a nd f orth try i ng to m ove.” Bryan s aid o ne o f the complai nant’s ey es was alm

ost swol l en sh ut, and there were scratch m arks and redn

ess on her face and throat area.

T emp le Police Of

fi cer Fudge responded to Bryan ’s cal l f or backup. He testifi

ed that when he arri ved, he sa w B ryan p o int ing his gun a t Gent ry. G ent ry was lyi ng o n t op of a wo man who was naked fro m the waist do wn and crying and hy ster ical , yell

ing, “[H]e’s t ryin

g t o kill me, he’s t ryingto kil

l me.” Fudge sai

d Gentry’ s pants were un done and h

is peni s was sh

owing. F udge sa id t he woman’s ey

e was swolle

n, she had som e grass stai

ns on h er, and she

was ver y upse t . H e sa id t he4

crim e scene in dic ated there had b een a struggle, li ke someb ody ha

d been ei ther dragged or pushed. Fudgesa i d he n oti ce d a stron g odor of alco holic beve ra ge o n bot h Gent ry and t he compl ai nan t. He bel ie ved b ot h Gen

try and the com

pla in ant were probabl

y h igh ly in to xicated. Mildred Bar nwell, t he o wner of t he bar wher e t he co mplainant a nd Gentry m et earlier in t he eve ning, t est ifi

ed o n Gent ry’s beha lf. She testif ie d that she had kn

own Gentry f

or about t went y-fiveyears

and the com pl ai na nt f or about a y

ear. She s aw G ent ry and t he co mplainant d rinking beer t og et her . B ar nwell said t he co mplainant d id no t pay fo r a ny of t he be er she dran k and asked Ba rnw ell for m

oney and f ree be er; Barn

wel l did not gi

ve the c omp l ai

na nt an y m oney or fre e b eer. Ba rnw ell said t he compl

ai nan t askedGen

try to da nc e wi th her. They

dan ced a sl ow dan ce together, and Ba rnw ell s aid i

t looked to her l i ke th ere w ere “di spl

ays of af f ection.”She said they

were “close danc ingan

d [ th e c om

pl ai n an t] was j ust rubbi

ng up agai

nst [Gentry]” an

d Gentry was re sp on di

n g to her mo ve men t s. Ba rnw ell said G ent ry left be for e t he co mplainant a nd t he co mplainant left right be hind him. In

hi s fi rst issue on appeal, Gentry contends t he dis t r ict co ur t co mmit t ed r ev er sible err orby r efu sing t o su bmit a ju ry cha r ge t ha t wo uld ha ve au t ho r ize d t he jur y t o co nvic t him of t he l es se r i n cl ud ed of f ense of as sa ul t. A per so n co mmi

t s cr imi nal at t empt if, “with s pec ifi c inte nt t o co mmit an o ffense, he does an act

am oun ti ng to more th

an mere pre pa rati on tha t ten dsbu t f ai l s to e f f ec t the com m i ss i on of the off ense i ntended.” Tex. Pen . Code Ann . § 15.01(a). “If a person attempts an of fen se that may be agg ra vat ed, his co nduc t co nst itu t es a n at t empt t o c ommit t he aggravated off ense i f an el em ent that aggravates the off

ense ac compan

ie s the attempt.” Id. § 15.01( b). A perso n co mm its aggrav ated5

sexual assa ult if witho ut t he victim ’s consen t he (1) i nte nti ona l l y or kn owi ngl y ca us esthe pe ne trati on of the vi ctim ’s f em al e sexual or gan by any

means o r c aus es t he vict im’s sexua l or gan t o c ont act t he sexual organ of another person, i ncl udin g the actor, and (2) causes s erious b odi l y i n j ur y to t he vic t im, by wo rd s o r a ct s plac es t he vict im i n fear t hat dea t h, se rio us bo dily i njury, o r k idna

pping will be imminen t ly

infl icte d o n any per so n, or uses or exhi bi ts a deadly

weapon i n the course of the cri

mi nal off ense. Id. § 22 .0 21( a) . A p er so n c omm its ass au lt if he int en t io na lly, k no win gly, o rr ec kle ss ly causesbo dily inju ry t o an o t he r , t hr ea t en s a no t he rwit h im m i n en t b odil y i nj ury, or causes ph

ys ic al contact with another when he kn o ws o rsho uld r ea so na bly bel ie ve the other wil

l regard the contact as of f en si ve . Id. § 22.01 (a) (W

est Sup p. 2002 ). A trial court must in

clude a charge on a less er incl uded offense

i f ( 1) t he o ffen se is in cl uded wi thi n the proof

ne ces sary t o e st ablish the char ged offense , a nd ( 2) t he r ec o r d c o nt ain s s o me ev id en ce t ha t if t he de fe nd an t is g ui lt y, he i s onl y gui lty of the lesser off

ense. Arevalo v

. State , 970 S.W.2d 547, 548 (Tex. Crim . App. 1998) (en ban c) (quot in g Royster v. State , 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 198 1) ). The evidenc e must be suf fi ci ent for a rational

jury t o find t he de fendant gui l ty onl y of the se cond

off en se, n ot of the greater off

en se. Id. (quot in

g Rousseau v. State , 8 5 5 S.W.2d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en ban c)). In ot her

words , a trial cou rt s h oul d sub m i t a j ury ch ar ge o n a les se rinc lud ed o ffen se “o nly wh en t ha t o ffen se co nst it u tes a val id, rationa

l alte rna t iveto the charged off ense.” Arevalov. State , 943 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex. Crim . App. 1997) (en ba nc ). Assuming t hat aggravated assaul t is a l esser i ncl uded off ense of aggravated sexua

l as sa ul t, w e d o not bel

ie ve the ev ide nce i n thi s case requi

red such an

in struction. The evi

dence6

in dic ated th at G en

try h ad h i s p an ts p ul l ed dow n b el ow h i s g en i ta l s and was lyi

ng o n t op of t he scr eaming co mpla ina nt . He ha d fo r cib ly removed t he complain

ant’s pants and un

derwear, and was “mo ving his b ac k a nd pe lvis ar ea up an d down ” a s i f h e w as try i n g to “h av e i nterc ourse wi

th” h er. The compl

ai nan t beli eved Gen try was tryi

ng to rape her

and was i n f ear for her

saf ety. Both police off i cers testifi ed that the compl ai

nan t was hysterical

and scream

in g that Gent ry was t ryingto kil l her. The onl y evi den ce pu t forth by Gen try was Barnwel

l’ s testim ony tha t she saw the com

pla in ant dance su gg es t ive ly

with Ge ntry and le a ve t he bar right behind Ge nt ry. T hat evidenc e wa s an a ppa re nt attempt to s how t ha t the se xua l i ntera cti on wa s con sensua

l . No evi den

ce s ugge sts that i f

Gen try i n ten de d to d o an y th i n g to th e c om pl ai n an t, i t wa s on l y to ca us e o rt hr ea t en bo dily i njury to he r or to caus e of

f en si ve phy sical contact wi

th her. See Tex. Pen. Code An n. § 2 2.0 1(a ); Ar evalo , 970 S. W. 2d at 54 8. We o ve rrule Ge nt ry’s firs t iss ue o n a pp ea l.

I n his se co nd iss ue o n a pp ea l, Gen try co nt ends t he dist rict co ur t er re d in o ver ru ling his obj ection to statem

en ts m ade b y the prosecu

tor duri ng v oir d i re an d cl osi ng a rgum en ts that Ge ntry ar gu es we r e a n a t t emp t t o sh ift t he bu r de n o f p r o o f fr o m t he S t at e t o Ge nt ry.

Con trol of v oi r di rei s l ef t to t he t rial co ur t ’s so und di scre tion . Atkins v. St

ate , 951 S.W.2d 787 , 79 0 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 97) (en banc) ; Shipley v . State , 790 S. W.2d604 , 6 08 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1990) (en b anc). A tri al courtdo es no t ab us e it s d isc r et io n by a llo win g a pa r t y t o ex pla in t he l aw. See Atkins , 951 S.W.2d at 789; Cuevas v. State , 742 S.W.2d 331, 336 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)(en ba nc ). Pr oper jury ar gument is li mited t o ( 1) summarizing t he evide nce, (2 ) d ra wing
r ea so na ble ded uct ions fro m the e vidence , ( 3) answ er ing ar gument s made by defen se counsel, and (4)7

making ple as f

orl aw en f orcem en t. Dinkins

v. State , 894 S.W.2d 330, 357 (Tex. Crim . App. 1995) (en banc); Harnet

t v. State , 38 S.W.3d 650, 659 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. r ef

’d ) . E ve n if

a pro secut or ’s ar gu men t ex ce ed s t ho se bo un ds , it is not re ver sible err or unless, when view ed in co nt ext of the enti re record, the argument is extreme or mani festly im pro per, violates ama

ndatory statute, orinjects new fac t s har mful to t he def endan t. Todd v. State , 598 S.W.2d 286, 297 (Tex. Crim. App. 198 0); Harnet

t , 38 S.W .3d at 65 9. A de fen da nt is p r es ume d in noc en t an d h as no o blig at io n t o pr o du ce pr o o f o f his in nocence, but he may subp oe na wi tnes ses to testif y on h i s b ehalf . See Tex. Pen. Code An

n. § 2.01 (West 1994) (presumption of i nnocen ce); Tex. Code Cri

m. Proc. Ann . arts. 24. 03, 38.03 (West Supp. 2002) (p re sumpt ion and subp oe na po wer ). A defend ant ’s failure t o t est ify may not be used

agains t him. See Tex. Co de Cr im . P ro c. Ann. art . 38 .08 (West 197 9); Livingst on v. State , 739 S.W.2d 311, 337 (Tex . Cri

m . Ap p. 1987 ); Scott v. Sta te , 867 S.W.2d148, 15 2 (Tex . App.—A usti n 19 93, n o pet.). Howev er, the Stat e m

ay comm ent on a def

endan t’s fai lure to subpoena an

availa bl e wi tn es s or

to produce av ail ab l e f

av orabl e ev i den ce. See Albiar

v. State , 739 S.W.2d 360, 362-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 198 7) ( en banc); Scott , 867 S.W.2d at 152-53.

Dur ingvoi

r di re, the pros ecutor

ex pl ai ne d the c onc ep t of

r ea so na ble do ub t an d t o ld t he v en i repa n el th at th ey wereen ti tl ed to use comm

on sens e to decide i f the State met i ts burden of proof bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. He t hen

sai d, “ If there are witne sses that will

hel p a defe ndan t, t hat defend ant has t he righ

t o f process i

n a cri mi nal case. The ri

ght to subpoena.” Gen

try obj ected, “The Sta te is attempting to t ransfer the burden of responsi bilit y to the def

en se.” The di stri ct court o ve rrul ed Ge nt ry’s o bje ct io n, an d t he S t at e w en t o n t o sa y:8

The de f en da n t doe sn ’t h

av e to do anythi ng

i n a cri m i na l tri al othe r th an j us t sh ow up . . . . If

I f ai l to prov e b ey

on d a re as on ab l e doub

t th at th er e w as an att em pte d aggravated

se xu al a ss au lt , o bvio us ly he w o uld be en ti tl ed to an ac qui ttal be ca us e y ou have to look to me. That ’s all he’s requ ired to do. To show up . He’s en t it led t o r ely upon t ha t pr es ump t io n t ha t he ’s no t gu ilt y and if I don’t brin

g you ev ide nce to set it aside, then that presumption applie s and y ou t urn hi m l oose. Dur ingclos ing ar gument s, G ent ry’s at t or ney po inted ou t incons iste ncies bet wee n t he compl ai nan t’s and Barn

well’ s testim

ony, an d then sai d: Wh erear e t he cl

othe s? Ma y be the y ’re a t [th e h osp i tal ]. I d on’ t kn owwhere they

are. But I would li

ke to see the c l othes. I

wis h w e c o uld ha

ve see n them . Are

there torn but t ons o ff, zip pe rbr o ke n? Ar e t he r e s ea ms t or n? If we h ave a cri me of vi olen ce, su r ely ther e’s – t here’s somethi

ng else other than some ten ni s shoesla

yi ng he re tied. I just wish

we had the clothes. In r eb ut t al, t he pr o se cu t o rsa id, “As [ Ge nt ry’s co un se l] ha s sa i d, we b rough t you th e guts of i t. You know, where are t he clot hes? The cl ot hes are where the defense left t he m. I c ou ld have br ou ght them t o yo u but t he defens e co uld have subp oe naed t hem.” Gent ry o bject ed t hat t he St at e wa s t rying to transf er the bur den of proof, an

d the di stri ct court over

ruled Ge ntry ’sobj ection. Gen try ar gue s t hat t he com

men ts w ere “ one of t he first t hings [t he jur y] hear d in t he cas e and . . . o ne of the last thi ngs they he ard,” giv ing t he jur y “t he impr es sio n t ha t [ Ge nt ry] c o uld have do ne , an d s ho uld h av e don e, an d w as re qui re d to h av e don e s om

eth i n g to prove

his i nn ocence.” We disagree. Dur ingvoir di re, the prosecuto r correct ly stated t hat Gent ry had t he r ight t o s ubpo ena witnesses, but that t he State had the burden of proof and Gen

try need n

ot put o n an

y proo f at all.9

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. An n. arts. 24.03, 38. 03. Th e p ro se cu t o r’ s vo ir d ire co mment did no t shift the b urden of proof f

rom th e State to Gen

try. See Atkins , 951 S.W.2d at 789. As f or th e p ros ecutor ’s

sta tem en t during cl osin

g argumen

t, t he prosecutor was answ er ingan

argu men t m ade b y Gen try , i n f er ri n g th at the cl ot hes might have indica t ed t hat no stru gg le occurre d. The

statem en t was proper j ury

argum en t. See Dinkins , 894 S.W.2d at 35 7 ; Harnet t , 3 8 S.W.3d at 6 59. Fu rt her, it w as not im pro per for the S tat e to comment on Ge ntry’s fai lure to produce av aila ble evi den ce a nd th ere is n o in di cation tha

t the com pl ai na nt’s clothes were unavai la ble. See Albiar , 73 9 S. W.2d at 362 -63 ; Scott , 867 S.W.2d at 152-53. The comm ent ma de dur ingclos ing ar gument s re late d t o t he co mplainant’ s clo t hing was not impro per jury ar gument . We ove rr ule Ge nt ry’s se co nd issu e o n app eal and affirm his convict ion.

__________________________________________ Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: April 11, 2002 Do No t Publis

h