1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TOF TE XAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 09- 113- CR P AUL CO Y AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 211TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUC TI ON A j ury foun d A p p e l l antPaul C oy gu i l ty of del i very of

a cont rol l ed su bs t anc e a nd a sse sse d hi s puni sh m entatfi fty ye ars’ i m pr i so nm entan d a $10 , 000 fi ne. The t r i al co urts ent enc ed hi m ac cordi ngl y. I n tw o poi nts, Coy a rg u e s t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtv io la t e d h is rig h tt o d u e p ro c e s s b y d e n y in g h is2

req u e st to ad m o n i sh a w i tn e ss for the S tate o n h e r p ri v i l e g e ag a i n st se l fi ncr i m i nat i on and t hatt he t r i al courterred by a d m i tti n g ext raneou s of fense e v i d e n c e d u ri n g th e p u n i s h m e n t s ta g e o f h i s tri a l . W e w i l l a ffirm .

II . F AC TUA L AN D P ROCEDUR AL B AC KG ROUND R achel R i chardson w as ar rest ed for p ossess i on of

m ar ij uana and agreed t o as si st The C ol ony Pol i ce D epa rt m ent i n a “s t i ng” ope rat i on i n e xch ang e f or

“ h e l p ” w i th th e c h a rg e s a g a i n s th e r. R i c h a rd s o n ’sro o m m a te , P a i g e L o ri m e r, al so agree d t o w ork w i t h t he pol i ce . Lo r i m er an d Ri cha rds on a rrang ed a d rug de a l t o pu rc ha s e tw e nty- fi ve O xy Con t i n pi l l s from t he i r s up pl i e r, Coy , for $150 . P o l i c e a rre s te d C o y a fte r th e s a l e to o k p l a c e . D ur i ng t he pun i shm entst age of C oy’ s t r i al , Lor i m er

t est i fi ed for

t he S t at e. W he n t he St a t e a s k e d i f “ w ou l d i t be fa i r t o s a y t ha t ” Coy ha d suppl i ed her w i t h dr ugs for

approxi m at el y tw o m onths pr i o r t o hi s arrest , defense counsel asked t hatt he j ury be excused. O ut si de t he j ury’ s presence, defense counsel s ta te d , I b e l i e v e M s. Lo ri m e r m a y n e e d to b e a d m o n i sh e d a s to h e r ri g h t t o rem a i n si l e n t s in c e i t ap p e a rs tha t [ th e S tate ] m a y b e g o i n g i n to of fens est hatt he pol i ce w ere n oti nvol ved i n w here s he doe s not h a v e t h e p o li c e p ro t e c t io n a sa c o n fid e n t ia l in fo rm a n ta n d is subj ect i ng hersel f

t o possi bl e cri m i nal prosecut i on for t hose cases. T h e S ta te re s p o n d e d ,2 ... D e fe n s e c o u n s e l a ls o o bje c t e d t h a tt h e t e s t im o n y w a s in a d m is s ib le

ext rane ousof

fens e e vi de nc e becau se i tco ul d notbe es t abl i sh ed bey ond a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. 3 I d o n ’tb e l i e v e sh e [ L o ri m e r] ca n b e p ros e c u ted for p o ss e ss i o n o f a control l ed subst ance w i t hou thavi ng ob t ai ned t he control l ed su bs t anc e. W e h ave no l ab repo rt s. W e h ave no— no type of evi den ce t o proce ed. I don’ tbe l i eve t here’ s goi ng t o be an y e v i d e n c e e l i c i te d th a t s h e h a d d e l i v e re d , o r a n y th i n g l i k e th a t, a c o n t ro lle d s u b s t a n c e , s o I d o n ’tk n o w w h a tp a rt ic u la r o f fe n s e c o u ld be cha rged , unl es s you kno w s om et hi ng I don’ tt hatyou ’ re t al ki ng a b o u t. Th e S tate al so sai d t hati tw as notof fer i ng Lor i m er

any i m m uni ty for

her t es t i m ony. The t r i al co urtas ke d w het her she w asrepres ent ed by an a t t orney , t o w hi ch sh e respon ded t hats he w asnot . The t r i al co urtt hen as ke d i f s he und erst ood w hatt he S t at e an d t he defense co unsel w ere t al ki ng abo ut“as far a s o p e n i n g y o u rse l f up to s o m e s o rt o f cri m i n a l p ros e c u ti o n i n the futu re,” to w hi ch Lori m er

res ponde d, “ Ki nd of. ” T he t r i al courtdeni ed C oy’ s requ es tfor a n ad m o n i sh m e n t. 2 O ver defense counsel ’ s obj ect i on, Lo r i m er t est i fi ed t hat C o y h a d s u p p l i e d h e r wi t h d ru g s “ [ m] a y b e e v e r y o t h e r we e k ” fo r

t h e two m o n th sl e a d i n g u p to h i s a rre s t. II I. D UE P ROC E SS I n hi s fi rstpoi nt , C oy argue s t hatt he t r i al courtvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due proce ssby den yi ng hi s requ es tt o a dm oni sh Lo r i m er on h er Fi ft h Am end m ent pr i vi l ege ag ai ns ts el f- i ncri m i nat i on.4

W i tn e ss e s a re p rote c ted fro m m a n d a to ry s e lf-in c rim in a tio n u n d e r th esta te a n d fe d e ra l c o n s ti tu ti o n s . S ee U. S. Con s t . a m e nd . V; Te x. Con s t . a rt . I , § 10 ; s e e also T h o m a s v . S tate , 7 2 3 S . W . 2 d 6 9 6 , 7 0 4 (T e x . Cri m. Ap p . 1986 ) (h o l d i n g th a t s ta te a n d fe d e ra l p ri v i l e g e s a g a i n s ts e l f-i n c ri m i n a ti o n a re c o m p a ra b l e i n s c o p e ). A t r i al courthas no ob l i gat i on t o c aut i on a w i t nes s rega rdi ng t he peri l s of s e l f-i n c ri m i n a ti n g te s ti m o n y . S e e K n o tts v . S tate , 61 S. W . 3d 112 , 116 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2001 , pe t . ref’ d) . A c ourt m ay, i n t he i nt eres tof fai r nes s t o a w i t nes s, ca ut i on t he w i t nes s w hen he i s unw i t t i ngl y i ncri m i nat i ng h i m s e l f o r, d u e to u n u s u a l c i rc u m s ta n c e s , i s l i k e l y to c o m m i t p e rj u ry . Id . (ci t i ng S a fari v . S tate , 961 S. W . 2d 437, 443 (Te x. A pp . — Hous t on [ 1s tD i s t . ] 1997 , pet . ref’ d, unt i m el y fi l ed) . The b et t er prac t i ce , how eve r, i s for a t r i al co urtnot t o a dm oni sh a w i t nes s of t he i nhe rentr i sk s i n t es t i f yi ng beca us e s uch w arni ngs m ay i nfr i nge up on an accused’ s ri ght t o due process . S a fa ri , 9 6 1 S .W .2 d at 444 . I n ot her

w ords , w hatt he t r i al co urti nt end s asa hel pful ad m oni sh m ent m a y b e p e rc e i v e d b y th e p u ta ti v e w i tn e s s a s a c o e rc i v e th re a t . K n o tts , 61 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 7 ; see W ebb v. Texas , 409 U. S. 95, 98 , 9 3 S . C t . 351, 353 ( 19 72 ) (hol di ng t r i al court ’ s sua s pon t e w arni ngs t o defendan t ’ s onl y w i t ness w ere “t hrea t eni ng rem arks ” t hat“ ef fec t i vel y drove t hatw i t nes s of f t he stand ” a n d d e p ri v e d d e fe n d a n t o f d u e p ro c e s s ).5

H ere, because t he t r i al court w a s not requi red t o i nfor m Lor i m er of her p r iv ile g e a g a in s ts e lf-in c r im in a t io n , n o e rro r o c c u r re d w h e n t h e t r ia l c o u rtd id n o td o s o . S e e K n o tts , 6 1 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 6 ; S a fa ri , 9 6 1 S . W . 2 d a t443. A ddi t i onal l y— as C oy aptl y poi nt s out on appeal — onl y Lor i m er coul d asserther F i fth A m e n d m e n t ri g h t, a n d C o y c o u l d n o t re q u i re h e r to a s s e rt th a t ri g h t. S ee D u n n v . S tate , 6 9 6 S .W .2 d 5 6 1 , 5 6 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (“[A ]n a c c u s e d ’s r i ghtag ai ns ts el f- i ncri m i nat i on i s perso nal , an d canno tbe i nvok ed or w ai ved by a n y o n e o th e r th a n th e a c c u s e d .” ), cert . deni ed , 4 7 5 U .S . 1 0 8 9 (1 9 8 6 ), im p lic it o v e rru l i n g o n o th e r gro u n d s re c o g n i ze d b y G o o d w i n v . S tate , 799 S. W . 2d 719 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). W e c a n n o t s e e h o w th e tri a l c o u rt’sre fu s a l to w a rn Lor i m er of t he dang ers of

sel f- i ncr i m i nat i on vi ol at ed C oy’ s due process ri ghts . W e o v e rru l e C o y ’s fi rst po i n t. I V. E XTR AN E OUS O FFENSE E VIDENCE I n hi s se con d poi nt , Co y argue s t hatt he t r i al co urterred by a l l ow i ng Lori m er t o t es t i f

y a boutprevi ousdrug t rans ac t i onsbe tw ee n he rse l f an d Coy. Speci fi ca l l y, Coy argues t hata j ur y c oul d notha ve rat i ona l l y be l i eve t hatCoy c o m m it t e d t h o s e e x t ra n e o u s a c t s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b to r t h a th e c o u ld b e h e l d c ri m i n a l l y l i a b l e fo r th o s e a c ts . A t r i al court ’ s dec i si on t o adm i tevi den ce i s revi ew ed unde r an abu se of d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . E l l i so n v . S tate , 86 S. W . 3d 226, 227 (Te x. C r i m . A pp.6

2 0 0 2 ); M i tch e l l v . S tate , 9 3 1 S .W .2 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), c e rt . deni ed , 5 3 6 U .S . 9 1 5 (2 0 0 1 ). T h e re v i e w i n g c o u rt m a y re v e rs e th e tri a l c o u rt’s d e c i s i o n o n l y if th e ru l i n g iso u ts i d e t h e z o n e o f re a s o n a b l e d i s a g re e m e n t. F o rd v . S tate , 9 1 9 S .W .2 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); M o n tg o m e ry v . S tate , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d 3 7 2 , 3 9 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ). T h e a d m is s ib ility o f

e v id e n c e a tp u n is h m e n tisg u id e d la rg e ly b y a rt ic le 3 7 .0 7 , se c ti o n th re e o f th e T e x a s C o d e o f C ri m i n a l P ro c e d u re . H a l e y v . S tate , 1 7 3 S .W .3 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 3 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). U n d e r t h i s s e c ti o n , th e S tate m ay of fer i n e vi den ce an y m at t er t he t r i al co urtde em s rel eva ntt o s ent enc i ng. S ee T e x . C o d e C r im . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 7 .0 7 , § 3 (a )(1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). Th e Stat e m ay i nt rodu ce evi dence of an ext raneou s of fense or bad actprovi ded t he ac ti s prove n be yond a rea so na bl e doubtt o ha ve bee n c om m i t t ed by t he d e fe n d a n t o r fo r w h i c h h e c o u l d b e h e l d c ri m i n a l l y re s p o n s i b l e . I d. The t r i al co urt m us t m ak e t he t hres hol d de t erm i nat i on of ad m i ss i bi l i ty of e x tra n e o u s o ffe n s e e v i d e n c e . M it c h e ll , 9 3 1 S .W .2 d a t 9 5 4 ; s ee Jordan v. S tate , 2 7 1 S .W .3 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 5 (T e x . A p p .— A m a ri l l o 2 0 0 8 , p e t. re f’d ). “B e fo re t he j ury can consi der t hi s evi dence i n assess i ng pu ni shm ent , i tm ustbe sat i sfi ed b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t th a t th e a c ts a re a ttri b u ta b l e to t h e d e fe n d a n t.” H al ey , 173 S . W . 3d at515 (ci t i ng H u i za r v. S tate , 12 S. W . 3d 47 9, 482–83 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2000 ) ) . The cou rtof cri m i nal ap pea l s hashe l d t hatt he7

sta tu to ry b u rde n o f p roo f a p p l i e s to a d e fen d a n t’ s i n v o l v e m e n t i n th e ac t i tse l f, n o t to th e e l e m e n ts o f a c ri m e n e c e s s a ry fo r a fi n d i n g o f g u i l t. I d. I n t hi s case, Lor i m er t est i fi ed att he gui l t - i nno cence st age of C oy’ s t r i al t hat she had know n C oy for approxi m at el y t hree m onths and t hatdur i ng t hat t i m e, she saw hi m “o ften. ” A tt he pun i shm entst age of t r i al , she furt her t est i fi ed t hathe w as her d rug deal er

d ur i ng t hatti m e p er i od. W e concl ude t hat t hi s evi dence i s suffi ci entto prove beyond a reasonabl e doub tt hatt hi s bad act w a s a ttri b u ta b l e to C o y . S ee H al ey , 1 7 3 S . W . 3 d a t5 1 5 . C o n s e q u e n t l y , we hol d t hatthe t r i al co urtd i d not abuse i t s di scret i on by adm i t t i ng t hi s evi dence d u ri n g th e p u n i s h m e n t s ta g e o f C o y ’stri a l . S ee El l i so n , 86 S. W . 3d at227; M it c h e ll , 9 3 1 S .W .2 d at 9 5 3 . W e o v e rru l e C o y ’s se c o n d p o i n t. V . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d C o y ’s tw o p o i n ts, w e affi rm the tri a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e brua r y 11, 2010