AFFIRM;andOpinionFiledMarch28,2014.InTheCourtofApprals6tft1DistrictofcxasatDallasNo.05.12.01179-CRDERICKDEWAYNEEVANS,AppellantV.THESTATEOFTEXAS,AppelleeOnAppealfromthe363rdjudicialDistrictCourtDallasCounty,TexasTrialCourtCauseNo.F1001193WOPINIONBeforeJusticesBridges,Fillmore,andLewisOpinionbyJusticeLewisOntheCourt’sownmotion,wewithdrawouropinionissuedJanuary31,2014andvacateourjudgmentofthatdate.ThefollowingisnowtheopinionoftheCourt.AjuryfoundappellantDerickDewayneEvansguiltyofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity,basedonanunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion,andassessedappellant’spunishmentatconfinementfortwoyears.Subsequently,thatsentencewassuspended;appellantwasplacedoncommunitysupervisionfortwoyearsandorderedtopayafineof$10,000.Appellantraisesnineissuesonappeal.Weaffirmthetrialcourt’sjudgment.BackgroundAppellantwaschargedbyindictmentwiththeoffenseofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivitybasedonaraffledrawingheorganizedtobenefithispoliticalcampaign.AppellantpleadednotguiltyandproceededtotrialbeforeajuryinNovember2011.Afterthe2011trialendedwithahungjury,asecondtrialbeforeajurywasheldinJune2012.Thesecondtrialendedwithajuryfindingappellantguiltyascharged.Appellanttiledtwomotionsfornewtrial,bothofwhichwereoverruledbythetrialjudge.AppellantalsosoughtawritofmandamusfromthisCourtregardinghissuspensionfromofficewhichwedenied.’Nowappellantappealsthetrialcourt’sjudgment.SufficiencyoftheEvidenceInhisfirstissue,appellantarguestheevidencewaslegallyinsufficienttosupporthisconvictionforengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity.HearguestheStatefailedtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatappellant,knowinglyforgain,committedtheoffenseofgamblingpromotionorthattherewasagroupthatintendedtoworktogetherinacontinuingcourseofcriminalactivities.AppellantcontendstheStatefailedtoprovehe(1)“distributedprizesbychancetopersonswhopaidconsiderationforachancetowinanythingofvalue”and(2)“wasapartofacombinationofthreeormorepeoplewhosepurposewastopromoteanillegallottery.”Wehavereviewedtheevidenceandconcludethatitissufficienttosupportappellant’sconviction.TheStatechargedappellantwithengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity,basedontheunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion.Inpertinentpart,theindictmentchargedasfollows:EVANS,DERICKDEWAYNE**didthenandtherecommittheoffenseofgamblingpromotioninviolationofsection47.03oftheTexasPenalCode,to-wit:theDefendantdidthenandthere,forgain,knowinglyset-upandpromotealottery,towit:araffledrawingheldonoraboutDecember20,2008;SeehireDeriekDewaynefinns.4015.W.3d92!(Tex.App—Dallas2013.orig.proceeding).—7—andsaidDefendantdidthenandtherecommitsaidoffensewiththeintenttoestablish,maintain,andparticipateinacombination,andintheprofitsofacombination,whocollaboratedincarryingonsaidcriminalactivity.Whenreviewingthelegalsufficiencyoftheevidence,weapplywell-establishedstandards.SeeJacksonv.Virginia.443U.s.307,318—19(1979);Wisei’.State.364S.W.3d900,903(Tex.Crim.App.2012).Weviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothejury’sverdictanddeterminewhetheranyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheelementsoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.Jackson,43U.s.at319;Wise,364S.W.3dat903.Thetrieroffactisresponsibleforresolvingconflictsinthetestimony,weighingtheevidence,anddrawingreasonableinferencesfrombasicfactstoultimatefacts.Jackson,443U.S.at319.Apersoncommitstheoffenseofgamblingpromotion“ifheintentionallyorknowingly..forgain,setsuporpromotesanylotteryorsellsorofferstosellorknowinglypossessesfortransfer,ortransfersanycard,stub,ticket,check,orotherdevicedesignedtoserveasevidenceofparticipationinanylottery.”TEx.PENALCODEANN.§47.03(a)(5)(West2011).Apersoncommitstheoffenseofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity“if,withtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombinationorintheprofitsofacombinationorasamemberofacriminalstreetgang,thepersoncommitsorconspirestocommit...anygamblingoffensepunishableasaClassAmisdemeanor.”Id.§71.02(a)(2)(WestSupp.2013).“Combination”meansthreeormorepersonswhocollaborateincarryingoncriminalactivities.Id.§71.01(a)(West2011).“Conspirestocommit”meansthatapersonagreeswithoneormorepersonsthattheyoroneormoreofthemengageinconductthatwouldconstitutetheoffenseandthatpersonandoneormoreofthemperformanovertactinpursuanceoftheagreement.Id.§71.01(b)(West2011).Anagreementconstitutingconspiringtocommitmaybeinferredfromtheactsoftheparties.Id.—3—GamblingPromotionWebeginwithappellant’sassertionthattheevidencewasinsufficienttoprovehedistributedprizesbychancetopersonswhopaidconsiderationforachancetowinanythingofvalue.Therecordrevealsappellant’sCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJulyI,2007throughDecember31,2007listspoliticalcontributionsfromthesaleof“raffletickets”andpoliticalexpendituresfor“raffleprizes.”Multiplewitnessestestifiedthatwhileemployedunderappellantin2008,theywerecalledoutofamorningbriefingmeetingingroups;eachwasgiven50raffleticketsandtoldtosellthem.LieutenantTraceyGulleyandSergeantKelvinHolderweredistributingticketsintheprecinctparkinglot,onereadingaloudtheticketnumbersanddistributingticketswhiletheotherwrotedowneachofficer’snamealongwiththeticketnumberstheyweregiven.Theticketscontainedthefollowinglanguage:“KeepCaring&CommittedLawEnforcementLeadershipWorkingforOurCommunity”SupportConstableDerickEvans1stPrizeAnXBOX360(60G)ProSystem2ndPrizeASonyPSP3rdPrizeA(2G)MP3PlayerDrawingtobeheldSaturday,December20,2008(Neednotbepresenttowin)PaidforbyDerickEvansCampaignFund,JoeE.BagbyTreasurerS5.0ODonation.ThankYouforYourSupport.Witnessestestifiedthatduringdetailonemorning,appellantreferencedthesellingoftheraffleticketsandexclaimed,“asmuchashehaddoneforthem,theyshouldheabletodosomethingforhiminreturn.”Severalofficerstestifiedtheysoldalltheticketstheycouldandthenboughttheremainderthemselves.TheofficersreportedtheyturnedintheirticketproceedstoGulleyinherprecinctofficeandshecheckedofftheirnamesfromthedistributionlist.Consistentwiththeofficers’testimony,appellant’sCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJulyI,2007throughDecember31,2007listsseveralofficers’namesascontributorsshowingtheycontributed$250towardappellant’scampaign.OnDecember20,2008,theprecinctheldaChristmaspartyat-4-whichtimeappellantdrewthreeraffleticketstubsoutofabagandawardedthethreeprizeslistedonhisCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJulyI,2007throughDecember31,2007as“raffleprizes”Thetestimonyconsistentlyrevealsticketswereonlygiventopeoplewhopaid$5.00foraticket.Also,thetestimonyconsistentlyrevealsthedrawingsfortheprizeswerepurelybychanceandtheonlyticketstubsinthebagatthetimeofthedrawingswerestubsfromtheraffleticketssold.Nevertheless,appellantargueshispurposeofsellingtheticketswastoraisefundsforhiscampaign,nottopromoteagamblingbusiness.TheStarerespondsthatappellant,inessence,isrequiringproofofmotive,whichthoughitmaybe“alwaysrelevant,itisneveressential.”SeeLoudresi’.State,614S.W.2d407,411(Tex.Crim.App.1980).WequestionwhethertheStatehadtoproveappellant’spurposeormotivebehindsellingtheticketswasanythingotherthan“forgain”asrequiredbythestatute.SeeTEX.PENALCoDEANN.§47.03(a)(5).ButeveniftheStatewasrequiredtoshowpurposeormotive,therewassufficientevidence.First,theticketsthemselvesprominentlyidentifiedprizestobeawardedbydrawingasanincentiveforpurchasingaticket.Further,NorvisHarmontestifiedthatappellantjustifiedthehighpriceoftheticketbasedonthevalueoftheprizestobewon.Moreover,severalofficerstestifiedthatpeoplewhopurchasedtheticketswerepurchasingthechancetowinaprize.AppellantreportedtheproceedsfromthesaleoftheticketsonhisCampaignFinanceReportanddepositedtheproceedsintohiscampaigncheckingaccountwhichsatisfiesthe“forgain”requirementinthestatute.SeeId.Fromthesefacts,ajurycouldreasonablyinferthemainpurposeofsellingtheraffleticketswastoinducepeopletopayforachancetowinaprize.Appellantalsoarguesthepublic’smotivewhenpurchasingtheticketswastosupportappellant’scampaignandnotachancetowinaprize.AppellantcomplainstheStatefailedtoproducetestimonyFromasinglepersonthatthereasonforpurchasingadonationticketwasfor—5—thechancetowinaprize.TheStaterespondsthatwitnessesfortheappellanttestifiedtheysoldticketstopeoplewhowerepayingmoneyfortheopportunitytowinaprize.Andagain,theticketsthemselvespromotedthechancetowinanMP3player.PSPsystem,orX-Box360.Whilethisevidencewasnotdirectlyfromamemberofthepublicwhopurchasedaticket,circumstantialevidenceisasprobativeasdirectevidenceandcanalonebesufficienttoestablishguilt.Merritti’.State,368S.W.3d516.525(Te.Crim.App.2012).Fromthesefacts,ajurycouldreasonablyinferthemainpurposeofpurchasingtheraffleticketswastopaymoneyforachancetowinaprize.Appellant’scontentionthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconvictioniswithoutmerit.Thesufficiencyoftheevidencemustbereviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothedeterminationmadebythefinderoffact.ia*son,443U.S.at319;Wise,364S.W.3dat903:seealsoSmithv.State,658S.W.2d172,173(Tex.Crim.App.1983).Theevidenceinthiscasewaslegallysufficientforthejurytoinferthatappellantintentionallyorknowinglyforgain,setuporpromotedalottery;thatthepurposeandfunctionofthelotterywastoinducepeopletoexchangemoneyforachancetoentertheraffleandwinoneofthreeprizeslistedontheraffletickets:andthatthepurposeofexchangingmoneyfortheticketwastoentertheraffle.SeeTEx.PENALCODEANN.§47.03(a)(5).Onani:edCmunmalActiiitvWenextaddresswhethertheStatefailedtoproveappellantwasapartofacombinationofthreeormorepeoplewhosepurposewastopromoteanillegallottery.Therecordalsosupportsthejury’sfindingthatappellantpossessedtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombinationorintheprofitsofacombinationinconnectionwiththegamblingoffenseforwhichhewasconvicted.SeeTEx.PENALCODEANN.§71.02.Specifically,appellanttestifiedhehassoldraffleticketstofundhiselectioncampaignssince200!.Headmittedhe—6—obtainedtheticketshimselfandlefttheminhisvehicle.HetestifiedhetoldtheChiefDeputytheticketswereinhisvehicleanditwasunlocked,thefollowingdaytheticketswerenolongerinhisvehicle,andhedidnotknowhowortowhomtheyweredistributed.OfficerstestifiedGulleyandHolderdistributedtheticketsandmadealistofwhichofficersreceivedandsoldthetickets.OfficerCooleytestifiedhelatersawappellanttakethesamelistoutofhisdeskdrawertoverifyCooleyhadsoldhisappropriatedticketswhenapprovingarequestforworkinganoff-dutyjob.Gulleygatheredtheticketproceedsandstubsfromtheofficers.AppellantadmittedhewasgiventheticketsalesproceedsbyGulleyandappellantdepositedthoseproceedsintohisbankaccounttobenefithiscampaign.Appellantadmits,andtheofficerstestified,variouspeopledistributedand/orsoldraffleticketswiththepurposeofraisingfundsforappellant’spoliticalcampaign.Andfinally,afterreceivingtheproceedsandticketstubs,appellantconductedaraffle,drewtheticketstubsfromabag,andawardedprizestothedrawnticketholders.Wehavereviewedtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothedeterminationmadebythefinderoffact.SeeJackson,443U.S.at319;Wise,364S.W.3dat903;seealsoSmith,658S.W.2dat173.Theevidenceinthiscasewaslegallysufficientforthejurytoinferappellantpossessedtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombinationorintheprofitsofacombination;appellantpurchasedtheraffleticketsandprizeswiththeintentthatotherofficerswoulddistributeandselltheraffletickets;theofficers’purposeindistributingandsellingtheticketswastofacilitatearafflegeneratingproceedstobenefitappellant’spoliticalcampaign;andappellantreceivedanddepositedtheproceedsfromtheofficersticketsalesasreportedonhisCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJulyI,2007throughDecember31,2007.Thisevidencesupportsthejury’sfindingappellantpossessedtheintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipatewithotherofficersinthefurtheranceofthegamblingoffenseforwhichhewasconvicted.See—7—TEx.PENALCODEANN.§71.02;seealsoNguyenv.State,IS.W.3d694,697(Tex.Crim.App.1999).Appellant’sFirstissueisoverruled.ExclusionofEvidenceInhissecondthroughfifthissues,appellantarguesthetrialcourterredbyexcludingevidence.Hespecificallycomplainsthetrialcourterredbyexcludingevidence:relevanttowhetherappellantknowinglyparticipatedinthepromotionofanillegallottery,relevanttothedefenseofmistakeoffact,relevanttothedefenseofmistakeoflaw,andofbiasormotiveofseveraloftheState’switnesses.Wereviewatrialcourt’sdecisiontoadmitevidenceunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard.Davisv.State,329S.W.3d798,803(Tex.Crim.App.2010).Thetrialcourtabusesitsdiscretiononlywhenthedecisionlies“outsidethezoneofreasonabledisagreement.”Id.A.Evidenceofknowingparticipationintheproniotionofauillegallotte,,’Appellant’ssecondissuecontendsthetrialcourterredbyexcludingrelevantevidenceofotherconstablesusingthesamefundraisingtechniquesasappellant.Hecomplainshisraffle,likerafflesheldbyotherconstables,wasan“entirelylegitimateactivity.”AppellantarguesitwasrelevantforthejurytoknowthathelearnedthisfundraisingtechniquewhenhewasadeputyconsLableandotherconstablesusedthissametechniquetoraisecampaignfunds.Wehavealreadyestablishedtheevidencewassufficienttosupportthejury’sverdictthatappellantwasguiltyofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivitybasedonanunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion.Whetherornototherconstables’actionssatisfiedtheelementsofpromotionofanillegallotteryisirrelevanttowhetherornotappellant’sactionssatisfiedthoseelements.SeeHk*n,anv.State141S.W.973,974(Tex.Crim.App.1911).Therefore,weconcludeitwasnot—8—anabuseofdiscretionforthetrialcourttodetermine“where”appellantlearnedthisfundraisingtechniqueandwhoelsemightbeusingthesametechniquewasirrelevant.Appellant’ssecondissueisoverruled.B.EvidencerelevanttomistakeoffactandmistakeoflawAppellant’sthirdandfourthissuescontendthetrialcourterredbyexcludingevidencethatotherconstablesusedthesamelundraisingtechniquesasappellantbecauseitwasrelevanttothedefensesofmistakeoffactandmistakeoflaw;andbyexcludingevidenceofaTexasEthicsCommissionorder,hewasdeprivedoftheopportunitytoraisethemistakeoflawdefense.Specifically,appellantwantedtointroduceaTexasEthicsCommissionorderinwhichtheCommissionrecognizedappellant’sopponentviolatedthelawbynotreportingallcontributionsfromafundraisingraffle.AppellantcontendstherafflewassanctionedbytheCommissionbecausetheorderfailedtostatetherafflewasillegal.Itisadefensetoprosecutionthattheactorthroughmistakeformedareasonablebeliefaboutamatteroffactifhismistakenbeliefnegatedthekindofculpabilityrequiredforcommissionoftheoffense.TEX.PENALCODEANN.§8.02(West2011).Itisalsoanaffirmativedefensetoprosecutionthattheactorreasonablybelievedtheconductchargeddidnotconstituteacrimeandheactedinreasonablerelianceuponanofficialstatementofthelawcontainedinawrittenorderorgrantofpermissionbyanadministrativeagencychargedbylawwithresponsibilityforinterpretingthelawinquestion.Id.at§8.03(West2011).Appellantarguestheexcludedevidencewouldallowthejurytodecidewhetherappellantpossessedtherequiredmentalstatefortheoffense,“i.e.,whetherConstableEvansknowingly,forgain,promotedanillegallottery.”However,appellantwaschargedbyanindictmentfollowingthelanguageofthestatuteandtheStatewasrequiredtoproveappellant,forgain,knowinglyset-upandpromotedtheraffle;therewasnorequirementtoproveappellantknewhis—9—actionswereillegal.Thefactsrelevanttoappellant’sconvictionare:heobtainedtheraffletickets,hepurchasedprizestobeawarded,heknewtheraffleticketsweresoldforgain,hetookthemoneyfromtheticketsalesanddepositeditinhiscampaignbankaccountadrawingwasheldwherehepickedaticketstubbychance,andtheownerofthewinningticketstubwasentitledtoaprize.Theexcludedfactsaboutwhichappellantcomplainsarefactsaboutwhatotherconstablesallegedlyhavedone,notfactsaboutappellant’sactions.“Thatothershadalsoviolatedthelawwouldbenoexcuseorjustification.”Hk*nzan,141SW.at974.Appellantonlyclaimshedidnotknowtheactshewascommittingwereanoffense;hecommittedtheveryactsheintendedtocommit.“Nomistakeoflawexcusesanyone.”Id.AppellanturgesthisCourttofindtheTexasEthicsCommissionhasresponsibilityforinterpretingthepenalcode—thelawunderwhichappellantwascharged.AppellantprovidedthisCourtwiththestatuteenablingtheTexasEthicsCommissiontoadministerandenforcecampaignfinancelaws.SeeTEx.Gov’TCODEANN.§571.061(West2012).However,appellantrailedtoprovidethisCourtwithanycaselaworstatuteenablingtheTexasEthicsCommissiontointerprettheTexasPenalCode,andwefindnosuchgrantofauthority.Appellant’sthirdandfourthissuesareoverruled.C.Ei’ide,zceofbiasOFmoneofwitnessesAppellanCsfifthissuecontendsthetrialcourterredbyexcludingevidenceattackingthecredibilityoftheState’switnesses,RonaldLinchicurn,NorvisHarmon,andAndrewHarris.Specifically,appellantclaimseachofthesethreewitnessesbelievedhehadbeentreatedunfairlybyappellantandwere,therefore,biasedandhadmotivetoputappellantintheworstpossiblelightwiththejury.Atrialcourt’sdecisiontoexcludeevidencewillbeupheldifitiswithinthezoneofreasonabledisagreement.Davis,329S.W.3dat803.Errormaynotbepredicateduponaruling—10—thatexcludesevidenceunlessasubstantialrightofthepartyisaffected.TEx.R.EvID.103(a).Apartyshouldbeallowedtoshowallfactstendingtodemonstratebias,interest,prejudice,oranyothermotive,mentalstate,orstatusofthewitnessthat,fairlyconsideredandconstrued,mightevenremotelytendtoaffectthewitness’scredibility.Hinojosav.State,788S.W.2d594,600(Tex.App—CorpusChristi1990,pet.ref’d).However,thescopeofappropriatecrossexaminationisnotunlimited.Carrollv.State,916S.W.2d494,498(Tex.Crim.App.1996).Cross-examinationmayhelimitedtopreventharassment,prejudice,confusionoftheissues,harmtothewitness,andrepetitiveormarginallyrelevantinterrogation.Delawarev.VanArsdall,475U.S.673,679(1986);Carroll,916S.W.2dat498.Here,appellantcomplainsthetrialcourtexcludedhistoricalevidenceofjob-relatedproblemsforRonaldLinthicum,NorvisHarmon,andAndrewHarris.Appellantwastryingtoshowtheirbiasandmotivefortestifyingagainsthim.ThejuryheardLinthicumtestifyhehadworkedfortheConstable’sofficefornineteenyearsandwasterminatedwhileworkingforappellant.Linthicumwasintheprocessofbeingterminatedwhenhefiledacomplaintagainstappellantthatreportedfeelingcoercedtoselltheraffletickets.Linthicumtestifiedhehadreceivedanadministrativewarningandheknewhisjobwasinjeopardywhenhemadethecomplaintofcoercionagainstappellant.Linthicum’sreportalsocomplainedhewastreatedunfairlywhenhewasdeniedtheopportunitytoworkpart-timejobswhileotherconstableswereallowedthesameopportunitieshewasdenied.ThejuryheardAndrewHarristestifyhehadbeendisciplinedbyappellantandwasnotallowedtoworkoff-dutyjobsasaresult.Harristestifiedhehadameetingwithappellantandrequestedhisdisciplineberescinded;appellantrefusedtorescindthedisciplineandHarriswasupset.Harrisfurthertestifiedhewasinvolvedwithagroupofothersthatfiledacivilsuitagainstappellantwhichwaspendingatthetimeoftrial.ThecivilsuitallegedHarrishadbeenforcedto—Ii—selltothepublicorpersonallypurchaseraffleticketsforappellant’scampaign.HarrisfiledaformalcomplaintwiththeDallasCountyDistrictAttorneyregardingtheforcedsellingofraffleticketsforappellant’selectioncampaignaswellasotherissuesHarriswasexperiencing.HarristestifiedhiscomplainttothedistrictattorneywasmadeoneweekbeJàrehewasterminatedandappellantcontendsthecomplaintwasfaxedtothedistrictattorney’sofficethedayafterHarriswasterminated.ThejuryalsoheardNorvisHarmontestifyheworkedintheConstable’sofficeuntilhewasterminatedin2011.Harmontestifiedhewasaskedbyappellanttosellraffletickets.Oncrossexamination,HarmonadmittedhisaffidavitreportingthesellingofraffleticketsdidnotincludeareportofhismeetingwithappellantdirectlyaskingHarmontosellthetickets.HarmontestitiedappellantdeniedHarmonsrequesttoworkoff-dutyjobswhichmadehimunhappy.TheStateintroducedseveraloff-dutyrequestsmadebyHarmonwhichappellanthadapproved.Harmontestifiedhewasalsoinvolvedwiththecivilsuitagainstappellantandconsideredhimselfawhistleblowerforreportingappellanttotheauthorities.ThejurywasawarethatLinthicum.Harmon,andHarrisallhadpossiblemotivestomakefalseaccusationsagainstappellant.Thejuryhadampleopportunitytojudgethecredibilityandweighthetestimonyofeachwitness.Therecordalsocontainsdocumentaryevidenceshowingpossiblebasesfornegativefeelingsofthesethreewitnessestowardtheappellant.Further,theStatebroughtforthfourotherofficerswhoalltestifiedtothesamefactsasthethreeofficersaboutwhomappellantcomplains;theywereallgiven,andfeltcoercedtosell,raffleticketsinsupportofappellant’scampaign.Wedonotconcludeitwasanabuseofdiscretionforthetrialcourttoexcludeevidencetendingtobeneedlesscumulativeevidence,riskingconfusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury.SeeTEx.R.EvID.403.Appellant’sfifthissueisoverruled.—12—ImproperArgumciiiInhissixthissue,appellantarguesthetrialcourterredinrefusingtoinstructthejurytodisregardastatementmadebytheStateduringclosingargument.Duringtheguilt/innocencephaseofthetrial,theStateargued:SomethingelsethatIthinkisveryinterestingabouthischaracter.Everythinghedid,almostwithexceptionofafewchecksthattheyputintoevidence,everythingisincash.Andthenwehavealltheseexpenses.Theydon’taddup.Whydotheydoitincash?There’sgottobeareason,andthereasonis,sotheycansiphonsomeofitoff.Appellant’scounselobjectedthattheState’sargumentwasamisstatementoftheevidenceandnotareasonabledeductionfromtheevidence.Thetrialcourtoverruledtheobjection.Appellantclaimsthisargumentwasnotareasonabledeductionfromtheevidenceandwassoextremeandmanifestlyimproperastojustifyreversalofappellant’sconviction.TheStaterespondstheargumentwaspermissiblebecauseitwasareasonabledeductionandinferencefromtheevidence.“Itiswellsettledthattheprosecutormayarguehisopinionsconcerningissuesinthecasesolongastheopinionsarebasedontheevidenceintherecordanddonotconstituteunsworntestimony.”Al/ridge,762S.W.2dat156(citingNgoeVanLev.State,733S.W.2d280,286—87(Tex.App.—Houston(14thDist.)1987)).Seea/soMcKayi.State,707S.W.2d23,37(Tex.Crim.App.1986),cert.deizied,479U.S.871(1986).Wereviewatrialcourt’srulingonanobjectiontoajuryargumentforanabuseofdiscretionSeeMontgonzezyv.State,198S.W.3d67,95(Tex.App.—FortWorth2006,pet.rerd).Permissiblejuryargumentgenerallyfallsintooneoffourareas:(I)summationoftheevidence,(2)reasonabledeductionsdrawnfromtheevidence,(3)responsestoargumentofopposingcounsel,and(4)pleasforlawenforcement.Browni’.State270S.W.3d564,570(Tex.Crim.App.2008).TheStatemaydrawreasonableinferencesfromtheevidenceandisaffordedwidelatitudeinitsjuryargumentsolongastheargumentissupportedbytheevidence,—13—legitimate,fair,andofferedingoodfaith.Id.at572.“Errorexistswhenfactsnotsupportedbytherecordareinterjected;however,sucherrorisnotreversibleunless,inlightoftherecordasawhole,theargumentisextremeormanifestlyimproper,violativeofamandatorystatuteorinjectsnewfacts,harmfultotheaccused,intothetrial.”A/Iridgei’.State.762S.W.2d146,155(Tex.Crim.App.1988).Here,theStateintroducedtestimonybyseveralwitnessessupportingthepropositionthatallraffleticketproceedswereexpectedtobereturnedincash.Duringhisowntestimony,appellantreportedthathekeptsomecashtousewhenheneededtopurchasesomething,orforpayinga“DJ.”orthecatererforaChristmasparty.TheonlydocumentationoftheFundscollectedfromtheraffleticketsaleswasthelistprovidedtoappellantbyGulleyandappeliant’sCampaignFinanceReport.2Further,appellanttestifiedhewasgiventhecampaignmoneybyGulley.Gulleyhadreceivedthemoneyfromtheotherofficerswhohadsoldrametickets.Finntestifiedhewastold“nottobringbackanyofthetickets,...justcash.”Officerstestifiedtheyreceivedandturned-incashraffleticketproceeds.Appellanttestifiedhetookthemoneytothebankanddepositeditintohisbankaccount.Therecordcontainsappellant’sCampaignFinanceReportfortheperiodJulyI.2007throughDecember31.2007whichshowscontributionsreceivedaswellasexpendituresmadeforaraffle.Appellanttestifiedhepaidsomecampaignexpenseswithcash.Wecannotconcludethetrialcourterredinoverrulingappellant’sobjectiontotheState’sclosingargumentbecausetheStatemayargueallreasonableinferencesfromthefactsinevidence,andanyerrorfromarguing[‘actsoutsideoftherecordisnotreversibleunless.inlightoftherecordasawhole,theargumentisextremeormanifestlyimproper.SeeBrown,2Appelaniesiitiedhecitployedaboutseventypeople.HisCanipignFiminceReporlIisic.)ContnhulionsrninSiSly.sisen’iiies.indIhreethoseen’CswerenamedonIhefinnas’RaffleTickel.’’TheeinIdholionsIsledwerefroin$5to$250.eoespondingInhelesiiphonyIhatthisHoneyCaineroutliesaleof(lieraffletickets.AlthouuhitappearsthatIltosIolIheeontnhutorswerehiseniployees.nooeeupalttiflorniployers,çreIsic.),hiiiher,herewasnodesignationIhatIheseapittiunIsIiadbeenIiundlet)logelhertoincludeeonIributtinsantIsaleshyIieiiipluyees,-14-270S.W.3dat572.Underthesecircumstances,weconcludetheprosecutor’sargumentinthiscasewasareasonableinferenceinlightofalltheevidencepresented.SeeWesbrooki’.State,29S.W.3d103,115(Tex.Crim.App.2000).Evenifwehadconcludedthecomplained-ofprosecutor’sjuryargumentdidnotfallwithinapermissiblecategory,ourinquirywouldnotendthere.Inevaluatingtheseverityofthemisconduct,wemustassess“whether[thejjuryargumentisextremeormanifestlyimproper[byjlook[ingjattheentirerecordoffinalargumentstodetermineiftherewasawillfulandcalculatedeffortonthepartoftheStatetodepriveappellantofafairandimpartialtrial.”Brow,,,270S.W.3dat573&n.3.SeealsoCanticv.State,939S.W.2d627,633(Tex.Crim.App.1997)(juryargumentmustbeextremeormanifestlyimproper,orinjectnewandharmfulfactsintoevidencetoconstitutereversibleerror).Here,thecomplained-ofcommentwasbriefandwasnotrepeated.Afterthetrialcourtoverruledtheobjection,theprosecutormovedontodiscussthedefinitionofalottery.ThisrecorddoesnotestablishawillfulandcalculatedeffortonthepartoftheStatetodepriveappellantofafairandimpartialtrial.Further,consideringtheevidenceandthenatureoftheoffense,weareunabletoattributethejury’sverdicttotheprosecutor’sremark.Asdiscussedregardingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,therecordisrepletewithevidenceofeachelementoftheoffense,andthecomplained-ofjuryargumentwaswithregardtowhathappenedtotheproceedsaftertheywerereceivedbyappellant.Whetherornottheproceedsoftheralliewereincash,aswellaswhathappenedtotheproceedsaftertheywerereceivedbyappellant,arenotelementsoftheoffensewithwhichappellantwascharged.Inlightoftherecordasawhole,wecannotconcludethecomplained-ofargumentwasextremeormanifestlyimproper.northatitalTectedappellant’ssubstantialrights.SeeTEx.R.App.P.44.2(h).Thus,weconcludethaterror,ifany,isnotreversible.Appellant’ssixthissueisoverruled.—IS—MotiontoQuashInhisseventhissue,appellantarguesthetrialcourterredbydenyingamotiontoquashtheindictmentbecausetheindictmentfailedtoproperlyallegeanecessaryculpablementalstate.Specifically,appellantarguestheindictmentfailstotrackthegamblingpromotionstatutebyplacingtherequiredculpablementalstateof“knowingly”after“forgain”ratherthanbefiire“forgain.”TheStaterespondsthatanyerrorintheindictmentiswaivedandevenifitwerepreserved,theindictmentproperlystatedtheculpablementalstate.TheStatefirstrespondsappellanthaswaivedthiscomplaintbecausehefailedtoargueitatthepre-trialhearingdevotedtothemotiontoquash.Thereporter’srecordrevealsthatappellant’scounseldidnotspecificallyargueabouttheplacementofthewordknowinglyintheindictmentatthehearingofthemotiontoquash.However,appellant’scounseldidstate,“YourHonor,fortherecord,wewouldliketore-urgeourMotiontoQuashthatwasheardbefore,asitrelatestotheindictment.”Andtheclerk’srecordrevealstheAmendedMotiontoQuashandExceptiontoSubstanceoftheIndictmentcontainstheexactargumentappellantbringsbeforeusonappeal.Consequently,weconcludeappellanthaspreservedhisargumentforthisappeal.SeeTEx.R.App.P.33.l(a)(l):Milleri’.State.333S.W.3d352.355—56(Tex.App—FortWorth,2010,pet.rerd).Wereviewdenovoatrialcourt’sdenialofamotiontoquashanindictment.Lawrencev.State,240S.W.3d912,915(Te.Crim.App.2007).IndictmentsmaysufferfromadefectofsubstanceoradefectofForm.Adefectofsubstanceoccurswhentheindictmentdoesnotappeartochargeanoffense,whenitappearsontheraceoftheindictmentthatitis“barredbyalapseoftimeorthattheoflènsewascommittedafterthefindingoftheindictment,”when“itcontainsmatterwhichisalegaldefenseorbartotheprosecution,”oriftheindictmentshowsonitsfacethatthetrialcourtlacksjurisdiction.TEX.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN.art.27.08(West2006).To—16—determinewhetherthedefendanthadadequatenoticetopreparehisdefense,wemustfirstdeterminewhetherthecharginginstrumentfailedtoprovidesomerequisiteitemof“notice.”Olurebit’.State,870S.W.2d58,61(Tex.Crim.App.1994).Acharginginstrumentwhichtracksthelanguageofacriminalstatutepossessessufficientspecificitytoprovideanaccusedwithnoticeofachargedoffense.Stater.Ednwnd,933S.W.2d120,128(Tex.Crim.App.1996).Anindictmentshouldcontaineverythingwhichisnecessarytobeproved.TEX.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN.art.21.03(West2009).Amotiontoquashshouldonlybegrantedwhenthelanguagedescribingtheaccused’sconductissovagueorindefinitethatitfailstogivetheaccusedadequatenoticeoftheactsheallegedlycommitted.DcVaughnt’.State.749S.W.2d62,67(Tex.Crim.App.1988).Whenamotiontoquashacharginginstrumentisoverruled,adefendantsuffersnoharmunlesshedidnot,infact,receivenoticeoftheState’stheoryagainstwhichliewouldhavetodefend.Statei’.Moff154S.W.3d599.601,603(Tex.Crim.App.2004);seea/sc)TEX.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN.afl.21.19(West2009).Appellantcomplainsthetrialcourterredbyfailingtogranthismotiontoquashbecausetheindictmentfailedtochargethatappellantdid“knowingly.forgain,promotealottery”byplacingtherequiredculpablementalstateof“knowingly”after“forgain”ratherthanbefore“forgain.”Wedisagree.Theindictmentwassufficientlyspecificbystatingtheconductforwhichhewasbeingchargedas“theDefendantdidthenandthere,forgain,knowinglyset-upandpromotealottery,towit:araffledrawingheldonoraboutDecember20,2008.”Itisclearfromtheindictmentthatthe“knowingly”mentalstaterequiredbytheapplicablestatute,thatwasanecessaryelement,wasincludedinthecharge.See0/herv.State,692S.W.2d712,714(Tex.Crim.App.1985)(“[W]herethereisnotamaterialdifferencebetweenthelanguageofthestatuteandthelanguageoftheindictment,anindictmentwhichallegesalloftherequisiteelementsoftheparticularoffenseinquestionwillnotbefoundtobedeficientsimplybecauseit—17—failstopreciselytrackthelanguageofthestatute.”).Weconcludetherewasnomaterialvariancebetweentheindictmentandthestatute.Furthermore,evenifthereweresomeerrorintheindictment,appellantwouldsufferharmonlyifhedidnot,infact,receivenoticeoftheState’stheoryagainstwhichhewouldhavetodefend.Sinithi’.State,297S.W.3d260,267(Tex.Crim.App.2009);see(1130TEx.CODECRIM.PRoc.ANN.art.21.19(Anindictmentshallnotbeheldinsufficient,norshallthetrial,judgmentorotherproceedingsthereonbeaffected,byreasonofanydefectofformwhichdoesnotprejudicethesubstantialrightsofthedefendant.).Appellant’ssubstantialrightswerenotharmedbecausetherecordinthiscaseclearlyshowsappellanthadactualnoticeofthechargeonwhichtheStatewasbasingitsallegations:engaginginorganizedcriminalactivity,basedonanunderlyingoffenseofgamblingpromotion.Theindictmentgaveappellantadequatenoticeoftheactsheallegedlycommittedsothathecouldpreparehisdefense.SeeSmith,297S.W.3dat267.Appellant’sseventhissueisoverruled.JuryChargeErrorInhiseighthissue,appellantarguesthetrialcourterredbysubmittinganegregiouslyharmfuljurychargebecausetheapplicationparagraphofthechargedidnotrequirethejurytofindanecessaryculpablementalstate.TheStaterespondsthatthejurychargeproperlystatedtheculpablementalstate.Whenreviewingthejurycharge,wemustfirstdeterminewhethererrorexists.Almanzav.State,686S.W.2d157,172(Tex.Crim.App.1984).Ifwefinderror,wemustthendeterminewhethertheerrorcausedsufficientharmtorequirereversal.Hutchv.State,922S.W.2d166,171(Tex.Crim.App.1996);Ahuanza,686S.W.2dat171.Whenatimelyobjectionismadeattrial,reversalisrequirediftheaccusedcanclaim“someharm.”Ahnanza,686S.W.2dat171.Ifnoproperobjectionwasmadeattrial,theaccusedmustclaimtheerrorwasfundamental,andhe—I8—willobtainareversalonlyiftheerrorissoegregiousandcreatedsuchharmthathe“hasnothadafairandimpartialtrial.”Id.Becauseappellantfailedtoobjecttothecharge,hemustdemonstratehesufferedactualegregiousharm;thatis,theerrormustbesoharmfulthatitaffectedtheverybasisofthecase,deprivedhimofavaluableright,orvitallyaffectedadefensivetheory.SeeWarnerv.State,245S.W.3d458,461-62(Tex.Crim.App.2008).Apersonistobetriedonlyonthecrimesallegedintheindictment.Castillov.State,7S.W.3d253,258(Tex.App.—Austin1999,pet.reEd).Thechargeofwhichappellantcomplainsbeginsbytrackingthelanguageofthestatuteandinstructed:ApersoncommitsaClassAmisdemeanoroffenseofgamblingpromotionifheknowingly,forgain,setsuporpromotesanylottery.(emphasisadded).Theapplicationparagraphofthechargealsoinstructed:Now,ifyoufindfromtheevidencebeyondareasonabledoubtthatonoraboutthe1stdayofDecember,A.D.,2008,inDallasCounty,Texas,thedefendant,DerickDewayneEvans,didunlawfullythenandtherecommittheoffenseofgamblingpromotioninviolationofsection47.03oftheTexasPenalCode,to-wit:theDefendantdidthenandthere,jargain,knowinglysetuporpromotealottery,to-wit:araffledrawingheldonoraboutDecember20,2008,andsaidDefendantdidthenandtherecommitsaidoffensewiththeintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombination,andintheprofitsofacombinationwhocollaboratedincarryingonsaidcriminalactivity,thenyouwillfindthedefendantguiltyofEngaginginOrganizedCriminalActivity,aschargedintheindictment.(emphasisadded).Appellantcomplainsthejurywaserroneouslytoldappellant“wasguiltyifheknowinglyorganizedtheraffle”andshouldhavebeentoldappellant“wasguiltyifheknowingly,forgain,organizedtheraffle.”Appellantarguesthejurywasnotrequiredtofindallthenecessaryelementsoftheoffenseofgamblingpromotionbecausethewords“forgain”wereplacedbefore“knowingly”intheindictmentandintheapplicationparagraphofthejurycharge.Wedisagree.Wedonotviewthechallengedlanguageinisolation,butratherincontextoftheentiretyofthecourt’scharge.Thelanguage“forgain”wasnotomittedfromeithertheindictmentorthejurycharge.SeeOliveri’.State,692S.W.2d712,714(Tex.Crim.App.1985)(“Thuswherethereis—‘9—notamaterialdifferencebetweenthelanguageofthestatuteandthelanguageoftheindictment,anindictmentwhichallegesalloftherequisiteelementsoftheparticularoffenseinquestionwillnotbefoundtobedeficientsimplybecauseitfailstopreciselytrackthelanguageofthestatute.Furthermore,inconstruingindictmentsthecontextandsubjectmatterinwhichthewordsareemployedshouldbetakenintoconsideration.”)Weconcludethereisnomaterialdifferencebetweenthestatuteandtheindictment;theapplicationparagraphinthejurychargetrackedthelanguageintheindictment.SeeId.Further,wefindnothingintherecordrevealinganycontestregardingwhetherappellantheldtheraffledrawing“forgain.”Appellanteventestifiedthe“profits”wenttotheDerickEvanscampaign.Also,thedefinitionssectionofthejurychargetrackedthelanguageofthestatute.Consequently,weconcludeappellantdidnotsufferegregiousharmfromthelanguageusedinthejurycharge.Appellant’seighthissueisoverruled.SuspensionfromOfficeAppellant’sninthissuecontendsthetrialcourterredbysuspendingappellantfromoffice.TheStaterespondsthetrialcourtproperlyexerciseditsdiscretionpursuanttothelocalgovernmentcode.Theconstitutionprovides,“Lawsshallbemadetoexcludefromofficepersonswhohavebeenconvictedofbribery,perjury.forgery,orotherhighcrimes.’Thx.CONST.art.XVI,§2.LocalGovernmentCodeChapter87governstheremovalorsuspensionofcertaingovernmentofficialsfromoffice.SeeTEX.Lou.Gov’TCODEANN.§87.001—043(West2008&Supp.2013).Followingthejury’sguiltyverdict,thetrialcourtremovedappellantfrompublicofficepursuanttosections87.031and87.032.Section87.031provides:(a)Theconvictionofacountyofficerbyapetitjuryforanyfelonyorforamisdemeanorinvolvingofficialmisconductoperatesasanimmediateremovalfromofficeofthatofficer.—20—(b)Thecourtrenderingjudgmentinsuchacaseshallincludeanorderremovingtheofficerinthejudgment.TEX.Loc.Gov’TCODEANN.§87.031(West2008).Whenappellanttiledhisnoticeofappeal,thetrialcourtheldasuspensionhearingandfounditwasinthepublicinteresttosuspendappellantfromofficepursuanttosection87.032whichprovides:Iftheofficerappealsthejudgment,theappealsupersedestheorderofremovalunlessthecourtthatrendersthejudgmentfindsthatitisinthepublicinteresttosuspendtheofficerpendingtheappeal.Ifthecourtfindsthatthepublicinlerestrequiressuspension,thecourtshallsuspendtheofficerasprovidedbythischapter.TEx.Loc.GovtCODEANN.§87.032(WestSupp.2013).AppellantarguestheproceduresofChapter87.underwhichhewasremovedfromoffice,arebroaderthantheconstitutionalprovisiononwhichtheproceduresarebasedbecauseallfeloniesarenot“highcrimes”asdescribedinarticleXVIoftheTexasConstitution.SeeTEX.CONST.art.XVI,§2;TEx.Loc.GOV’TCODEANN.§87.031—32.TheTexasSupremeCourthasaddressedarelatedissueregardingsection87.031inlightofarticleXVI.section2.SeegenerallyhireBazcuz,251S.W.3d39,43—45(Tex.2008)(discussingthelegislativehistoryofchapter87).InBazan,thecourtstated:Thisconstitutionalprovisionstatesthat:“Lawsshallbemadetoexcludefromoffice...[persons]whohavebeenorshallhereafterheconvictedofbribery,perjury,forgery,orotherhighcrimes.”TEX.CONST.art.XVI,§2.Anindividualconvictedofafelonyisthusineligibletoholdpublicofficewhethertheconvictioncomesbeforeoraftertheindividual’selectiontooffice.SeeId.;TEx.ELEC.CODE§141.001(4)(individualconvictedofafelonyineligibletoholdpublicoffice);TEx.LOCALGov’TCODE§87.031(felonyconvictionoperatesasanimmediateremovalfromoffice);Op.Tex.Att’yGen.No.H—20(1973)(“Theterm‘otherhighcrimes’includesanyoffenseofthesamedegreeorgradeasthosespecificallyenumerated,namelyfelonies.”).Bazcni,251S.W.3dat41—42.Appellantcontendsbecausehisconvictionofthefelonyoffenseofengaginginorganizedcriminalactivityisbasedontheunderlyingmisdemeanoroffenseofgamblingpromotion,a—21—lotteryconductedforthepurposeofraisingcampaignfundsisnotahighcrimeasintendedintheconstitution.Further,appellantarguesthestatuteconflictswiththeconstitutionbecausethestatuteisbroaderthantheconstitutionandthenarrowerreadingoftheconstitutionmustprevail.Wedisagree.Again,theconstitutionprovides,“Lawsshallbemadetoexcludefromofficepersonswhohavebeenconvictedofbribery,perjury,forgery,orotherhighcrimes.”TEX.CONST.art.XVI,§2.WedonotinterpretthisconstitutionalprovisionasalimitationonmoreexpansiveregulationbytheLegislature.Theconstitutionalcommentan’provides:ThissectionisaverbatimcopyofArt.7.§4oftheConstitutionof1845.Theconstitutionalconventionof1845recognizedthatTexaswasalargearea,andmanysectionsthereofwererelativelylawless.Furthermore,temptationswereenormous,andthepersonstemptedoftenhadnosocialpositiontoforfeit,hencetheconditionswerenotthemostfavorabletovirtue.Itwasadmittedthatalthoughitwasimpossibletomakemenmoralbystatute,yetitwaspossibletoarmgoodcitizenswithweaponswhichwouldimprovetheirchancesintheunceasingconflictwiththevariousformsinwhichpoliticaldishonestyappeared.Thereforethissectionwasplacedinthefirststateconstitutionandcarriedoverinallsuccessivestateconstitutions.TEX.CONST.art.XVI,§2interp.commentary(West1993).ThecommentaryprovidesthepurposeofthisconstitutionalprovisionasadirectivetotheLegislaturetoenactspecificlaws;itsaysnothingaboutlimitingthepoweroftheLegislature.Again,asthesupremecourthasstated,“Theterm‘otherhighcrimes’includesanyoffenseofthesamedegreeorgradeasthosespecificallyenumerated,namelyfelonies.”Bazan.251S.W.3dat41—42.AfterreviewingtheTexasConstitution,localgovernmentcode,andsupremecourt’sanalysis,weconcludesection87.032isnotunconstitutionalasappliedtoappellant’ssuspensionfromofficeafterhisfelonyconvictionforengaginginorganizedcriminalactivity.SeeTEX.CONST.art.XVI.§2;TEx.LOCALGOVTCODEANN.§87.031;see(([vuBacan,251S.W.3dat44l5;Lipstvmbv.Randall.985S.W.2d601,610,n.l0(Tex.App.—FortWorth,1999,pet.disrn’d)(“InanalogousTexascasesinvolvingcountyofficersconvictedofcrimes,automaticforfeitureunderstatutepending_.77—appealhasbeenupheld.”)(citationsomitted).Welchv.Sinie,880S.W.2d79,82(Tex.App.—Tyler1994,writdenied)(holdingWelchwasproperlybarredfromofficeafterbeingconvictedofafelonybecausethelegislature’spowertopunishrepeateddrivingwhileintoxicatedasafelonyisunquestioned).Appellant’sninthissueisoverruled.ConclusionHavingresolvedappellant’snineissuesagainsthim,weaffirmthetrialcourt’sjudgment./DavidLewis!DAVIDLEWISJUSTICEDoNotPublishTEX.R.App.P.47121179F.U05—23—(Court

of AppeaLs JFiftl! District

of tEexas

at Dallas JUDGMENTDERICKDEWAYNEEVANS.AppellantOnAppealfromthe363rdJudicialDistrictCourt,DallasCounty,TexasNo.05-12-01179-CRV.TrialCourtCauseNo.FlOOl193W.OpiniondeliveredbyJusticeLewisTHESTATEOFTEXAS,AppelleeJusticesBridgesandFillmoreparticipating.BasedontheCourt’sopinionofthisdate,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMEDJudgmententeredthis28thdayofMarch,2014./DavidLewis!DAVIDLEWISJUSTICE—24—