## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

NOS. P D-0494/95-07

CURTIS LEE BASS , Appellan t

v . THE S TATE O F TEXAS
ON STA TE’ S P ETIT ION F OR DI SCRETIO NA RYRE VI EW F RO M THE F OU RT EEN TH CO UR T OF AP P EA LS

HA RRIS CO UN TY
H ERV EY , J. , de liv e r e d t he opi nio n of t he Co ur t i n whic h K ELLER , P .J., M E YE RS , W OM ACK , J OHN S ON , K EASLER , H O L C O MB , and C OCH RAN , JJ., jo ine d. P RI CE , J., concurre d . O P I N I O N A jury convicted a

ppellant of two c ounts of indece ncy with a child. The State’s case re sted primarily on the complainant’s testimony that appellant molested he r on chur ch prope rty wher e

a pp e lla nt w a s a pa sto r a nd on e xtra ne ou s- of fe ns e e vid e nc e that a

pp e lla nt m ole ste d tw o o the r g ir ls
on churc h proper

ty . The court of appea ls ove rturned appellant’ s conviction dec iding that the tr ial

court a bused i ts discretion in admitting the extraneous-off ense e vidence that appellant molested the two other g irls on churc h proper ty

. See Ba ss v . S

tat e , 222 S.W .3d 57 1 , 575-78, 580Ba ss--2

(Tex.App.–Houston [14 Dist.] 2007). We will rever se. th
I mmediately

afte r the State made its opening state ment, the def ense ma d e i ts opening

statement and claimed that the complainant’s alleg ations that appellant molested her wer e “ p u re fa nta sy ” a nd “ pure fa

br ic a tio n. ” Th e de fe ns e fu rt he r cl a ime d d

ur ingits op e nin g state me nt t hat th e se alleg ations were “contr ary to [ appellant’ s] charac ter, not worthy of belief .” [DE F EN SE]: Y ou

a re g oin g to le a rn qu ite a bit a bo ut Cur tis B a ss. Yo u a

re g oin g to he a r f ro m pe op le tha

t w or k w ith hi m, pe op le wh o h a ve sp e nt c ountl e ss h ours wi th him a n d w h a t h e d o e s
. Y o u a r e g o i n g t o f i n d o u t f r o m f o l k s t h a t a c tu a lly

ma n h is office in his 11, 12, 13 y ear s in that church. What y ou see, you don’t see the wande ring ey es. Ever y body knows what I

am talking about. When somebody tries t o walk by , y ou kind of following them. You don’t see the out-of-ha

nd comments. You don’t see the char acte r flaws. As a pastor and minister, he is the re al dea l and the g enuine article . And that the thing s that [t he complainant] said are so contrar y to his chara cter , not worthy of belief

. The de fense also claimed dur ing its opening statement that, to “prop up” the complainant’ s “scattered, c rumbling a ccusation,” the State might “se ek to pre sent some other a lleg ations,” which
the ju r y c o u ld c o n s id e r o n ly f

o r a “ n a r r o w p u r p o s e , ” if it b e li e v e d th e s e a ll e g a ti o n s “ b e y o n d a

rea sonable doubt.” [DEFENSE]: And I g uess to pr op up this scattere d, crumbling acc usation, [t he State] make ( sic) see k to presen t–Idon’t know–he ma y seek to pre sent some other a lle g a tio ns . Y ou

wi ll f ind ou t some of tho se a re e ve ry bit a s bizarr e a s this . You wi ll find out that n o n e o f those have been f ormalized into a criminal ac cusation of a ny kind. * * * And following the law the J udg e tells y ou, y ou can hear any ty pe of othe r matters, but y ou ’r e re qu ir e d to ke e p f oc us e d o n th e [co mpl a ina nt’ s] a ccus ati on
. Yo u h a ve to believe othe r matter, f

irst of f, bey ond a re asonable doubt and for a narr ow purpose. Th e c omp la ina

nt (S .D .) te sti fi e d a t a

pp e lla nt’ s July 20 05 tr ia l that a

pp e lla nt mol e ste d he r i n his church of

fice in Febr

uary 1994 and in the church par king lot in J une 1994 whe n the complainantBa ss-3

1 Th e e vid e nc e of

a pp e lla nt’ s se xua l r e la tio ns hip wi th t he c omp l a i n a

n t ’ s c ou sin

wa s mo re fu lly de ve lop e d at th e punis hme nt p ha se of a pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l.

2 During a hea

ring on the admissibili ty of the extraneous-off ense evidenc e, the State c laimed that th is ev ide nc e wa s adm iss ibl e fo r “the lim ite d pur po se to sho w–

y ou kn ow , to re bu t th e c la ims that the d e f

e n s e h a s ma d e r e g a r d in g [t h e c o mp la in a n t] , h e r c r e d ib il it y , a ll th e o th e r th e o r ies the defe nse has put out.” The trial court overruled the only objection made by

the def ense at this hearing that th e a dmi ssi on

of the e xtra

ne ou s- of fe ns e e vid ence wo uld

vio la te va

ri ou s f e de ra l and

state constitutional provisions, even though w e do n ote that appe llant had pre viously filed a w ritten motion for an evide ntiary hear ing to de termine t h e admissibility of extraneous off

enses a nd misconduct under, a

mong othe r thing s, T EX . R. E V ID . 404(b).

3 The c ourt of appe als’ opinion states that the R.C. ext rane ous offe nse o ccur red in Apr il of 2002. Se e Ba ss , 222 S.W .3d at 575. The r ecor d, howeve r, re flec ts that it occurre d in April of 2000. was 16 y ear s old. The complainant testified that she decide d to make a police re port in Aug ust 2004,

a ft e r l e a rn ingthat app e lla

nt ha d a sexua l r e la tio ns hip wi th t he c omp la ina

nt’ s th e n 2 2- y e a r- old

c ou sin (L .O.) in J anuar

y 2004. The de fense attacke d the complainant’ s cre dibilit y on cross-e x amination 1 to suppor t the claim made in its opening statement that her alleg ations ag ainst appellant we re “ pure fanta sy ” and “ pure fabric ation.” For example, the complainant testified on cross-e x amination that various people to whom she made ou t cries in the fall of 1994 did not believe he r, including her mother, other f

amily members a

nd three educato rs wh er e s he attende d school, and that he r 1994
all e g a ti o n s th a t a

p p e ll a n t mo le s te d h e r w e r e n e v e r “ f o r ma li ze d in to a c r im in a l a c c u s a ti o n o f any kind.”
Af

te r t he c omp la ina

nt te sti fi e d, the tr ia l court pe rm itt e d the Sta te to p re se nt t he e xtra ne ou soffe nse evide n ce d

u ri n g i t s ca s e- i n -c h i ef

. T h i s ev i d en ce s h o we d

t h at ap p el l an tm o l es t eda f i v e- y ear 2 old gir l in his church off

ice in 1995 or 1996 ( the J

. P. ex trane ous offe nse) a nd that he molested a

n eleve n-y ear -old g irl in his church off ice in Apr il 2000 (the R.C. extraneous of fense ). This evidence

3Ba ss-4

4 The ju r y c h a r g e a ls o c o n ta in e d

th e s e li mi ti n g in s tr

u c ti o n s
. T h e r e c o r d

r e f le c ts th a t t

he defe nse did not make a

ny specific objection t hat i t may have had t o these li miting instructions except to ge nera lly

state th at i t d i d n o t “have a lot of ag ree ment with” them during the hea ring on the admissibili ty

of the e x trane ous-offe nse evide nce. [DEFENSE]: But in connection with these lim iting matters and ce rtainly not waving (s ic ) o ur ob je c tio n to the same , th e defe ns e is re qu e sti nga lim iti ngins tr

uc tio n in connec tion with thos e [ex trane ous] m atters, limiting instruction being for the nar row purpose a nd if t h e l aw require s the State proff ere d the Court what their pur pose of offe ring those matters a

re. And, sec ondly , Your Honor , the Court instruct the jury that y o u ca n o n l y

consider those matters if they believe the same bey ond a rea sonable doubt. I ’m ask i n g the also showed that, e ven thoug h outcries we re ma de soon af ter these extraneo us offe nses wer e committed, appellant wa s never formally char g ed with any

thing ( even thoug h the police we re
contac ted in connec tion with the R.C. extraneous offense) until the cha rg es in this case w ere filed
in J anuar y 2005.
I mmediately

a f te r th e e xtr a n eous-of fense evidenc e wa s prese nted, the trial c ourt g ave the jury
lim i t i n g i n s t r

u c t i o n s o n h o w i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r t h i s e v i d e n c e
. A f t e r t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e J.P.

e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e wa s p re se nte d, the tr ia l c ourt ins tr uc te d th e jur

y a s f oll ow s: Members of

the jury , reg ardingthe testimony conce rning the def

endant’ s inv ol v e m e n ti n a n o t h e r

a c t , y o uc a n n o tc o n s i d e r s u c h t e s t i m o n y

f o r a n y p ur po se unless y ou first find from the te stimony prese nted bey ond a rea sonable doubt that the d e f e n d a n tc o m m i t t e d

t h e s e o t h e r

a c t s , i f a n y. Th e re fo re , if

the Sta te ha s not pr ov e n the de fe nd a nt’ s invo lve me nt in tho se oth e r a c ts, if any , bey ond a re asonable d o ubt or if y ou have a rea sonable doubt of the defe ndant’s involvement, y ou shall not consider this testimony for a ny purpose. Fur ther, if y ou find the State has proven the defe ndant’s involvement in these othe r a c ts, if a ny , y ou may on ly con si der thi s te sti mony a s it may a id you , if

it d oe s, in de te rm ini ngthe mot ive , o pp or tun ity , in te nt, pla

n a nd kn ow le dg e of the de fe nd a nt i n relation to the offe nse on trial and y ou may not consider those othe r ac ts for any other p u r p o s e
. O k a y? 4Ba ss-5

Court ins tr uc t th e jur

y no t on ly

be fo re e a c h e xtra

ne ou s matte r i s p re se nte d b ut a lso afte r to ensure they

fully brac ket that off in their j u ry co n s i deration. So, t he Court was g rac ious enoug h to actually rea d to us in chambers 30 minutes ag o what y our proposed limiting instruction was an d I want to t ell y ou, Idon’t have a lot of a g re e me nt w ithit.

5 One of appellant’ s s o n s t estified on cr oss-examination by the State that it “would be imp os sib le ” fo r “ a ll f

our o f t he se vi cti ms ” to g e t to g e the r a nd make up the ir

a lle g a tio ns a g a ins t a pp e lla nt. As part of

its case, the de fense prese nted evidenc e in the for m of opinion and reputation testimony that the complainant is not considere d to be a truthful pe rson. Appellant a lso testified and
de nie d c omm itt ingthe c ha rg e d o ffen ses in vo lvi ngthe c omp la ina nt a s w e ll a s th e J.P. a

nd R.C

. extraneous offe nses. Appellant a lso d en i ed having a sexual relationship with the complainant’s cousin (L .O.).
A p p e ll a n t a g r e e d o n c r o s s - e xa mi n a ti o n b y th e St a te th a t it d id n o t ma k e mu c h s e n s e that
these four women with nothing to g ain “poppe d out of the sky at the same time” and “ point[ ed] the
fi ng e r” a t hi m. Q. Do y ou find it coincidental that four separ ate people of four separ ate a g es on four separ ate da

y s have a ll accuse d y ou of doing the s ame thing for, in y our words, not for money , not for fa

me, may be for humiliation? What else do these f olks stand to ga in?
A. I don’t know sir. * * * Q. Okay . What moti ve do thes e gi rls have, the se y oung women have , other than t e l l i n g t h e t r

u t h , d o t h e y h a v e ? C a n yo ut h i n k o f a n y? A. Sir, y ou have a sked me that a g ood many

times. I don’t know. * * * Q. All rig ht. And out of shee r coinc idence , four of them all pointing the f

inge r at y ou a ll p op pe d o ut o f t

he sk y a t th e same tim e . D on ’t

make muc h s e ns e , d o it ?
A. No , s ir , it

do e sn ’t

. 5Ba ss-6

Q. [S TATE]: Are y ou saying that all four of these girls, all four of these vic tims got toge ther a nd made this up?
A. I think that would be impossibl e. Q. I t would be impossible?
A. B e c a us e if [R.C. ] ac c us e d fi rs t, the n th e y fo ur did n’ t g e t to g e the r. An d if

the se a ll happene d at sepa

rate times, that really

doesn’t make any sense to wait all those y ear s and then f inally come tog ether

. Appellant also prese nted evidence of his good c hara cter and re putation for beinga truthful person. F or example, one of the members of his church ( Moser) te stified: Q. [DE F EN SE]: I

n th e 28 y e a rs that y ou

have kn ow n Curt is B a ss, have y ou c ome to have know ledg e of his re putation for beinga truthful per son? A. [MOSER ]: Well, I k n o w i f he te lls y ou something, you can be lieve it to be the truth. Q. An d d o y ou

kn owoth e rs that kn owhim ? A. Yes, sir. Q

. D o yo ukn o w h i s r e p u t a t i o n t h r o u g h o u tt h e c o m m u n i t y f o r t r u t h a n d v e r a c i t y?
A. I t’ s

–to me it is im

p e c c a b le

. I d o n ’ t kn o w o f a n y

b o dy

– u p u n ti l th is in c id e n t, we have not e ven had a

hint of any

body saying a ny thing derog atory

about his char acte r. Duri ngits c los ing jur

y a rgume nts , the de fe ns e c la ime d, a s it did duri ngits op e nin g state me nt,
t h a t t h e S t a t e p r o p p e d u p t h e u n t r

u s t w o rt h y c o mp l a i n a n t ’ s “ b i z a r r e , s i l l y a c c u s a t i o n ” a g a ins t

a p p e l l a n t w i t h t h e e xtr a n e o u s - o f f e n s e e v i d e n c e a n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s “ t h e g e n u i n e a rt i c l e a s a minist er.” [DE F EN SE ]: Y o u

h e a r d p eople who know

[appellant] and know him well throughout this communit y s ay h e is honest. Ther e wa s only one per son that came to tell y ou about [the complainant] and her re putation. That was he r cousin, B rian B ehanna , her very own flesh and blood. Do y ou know [the complainant]? Yes, I know her

very well

. I ’ v e kn o w n h e r a ll my li f e
. Y o u ’ v e kn o w n h e r a ll y o u r li f e ? Y e s
. J ust herBa ss-7

g ener al re putation, is it g ood or bad? I t is not good.
And when that happens, if they have any body that believes [the complainant] is an honorable person wor

thy of belief , what she sa

y s is credible that [ the State] can line them up, bring them up, let y ou hear

. S o , t o prop up this biz arr e, silly acc usation, [t h e St a te ] a ls o b r o u g h t yo u[t h e J. P. in c id e n t]

. * * * But in this case we ha

ve also he ar d a l i t t l e bit about [appellant]. W hat we ha ve lear ned is this man rig ht here , he spends his life from 12:00 to 1:00 ever y day doing what? He’ s in pray er. We have hea rd that [appellant] has the respe ct of the H ouston Police Depa

rtment. We’ve he ard that [ ap p el l an t ] works side by side with his wife 24/7 in that church. H e doesn’ t have time to be out stalking g irls. You saw his two sons. Do those look like two boy s raised by some pedophile? * * * [Appellant] ain’t plastic. [Appellant] is the g enuine a rticle a s a minister.
Th e de fe ns e a lso e mph a size d d ur ingits c los ingjur

y a rgume nts that the e xtra ne ou s- of fe ns e

e vid e nc e c ou ld n ot b e us e d to “ c on vic t so me bo dy on the ba sis of so me oth e r ac c us a tio n” bu t c ou ld

on ly be us e d to a id t

he jur y “ in m a kin g a

de c isi on a nd de te rm inat io n” o n th e c ha rg e d o ff e ns e inv olv ingthe c omp la ina

nt. [DEFENSE]: [ The trial c ourt in its ins tructions] t ells y o u th a t if somebody

–y ou might have lost sig ht of in this case–last time I chec ked, [appellant] is accused of doing so me thi ngto [the c omp la ina nt], no t to [R.C. ] an d n ot t o [J.P.]. [Th e tr ia l c ourt ] te lls y ou specific ally in he re that that’s wher e y our focus is to be, what y ou focus on, what thi s c a se is a

bo ut. [The trial court] tells y ou three times y esterda y and ag ain this morning a s set out on pag e 3 h e r e : I f th e r e is s o me k in d o f a c c u s a ti o n , ma y b e s o me o f y o u mi g h t think, g osh, [J .P.] seeme d like a nice littl e g irl, [R .C.] seeme d like a nice littl e g irl and, g osh, may

be something happene d. Idon’t neces s arily believe that something happene d to [t he complainant] , but, gosh, [R.C.] , what Judge Price tells y ou is y ou c a n’ t g o c on vic t so me bo dy on the ba sis of

so me oth e r a c c us a tio n. Yo u c a n o nly us e it if it helps y ou in making a dec ision and determination. I t specifica lly say s that on pa g e 3 in e a c h o f t he se ts o f i ns tr

uc tio ns
. During its c losing jury arguments, the State argued that, in or der to a cquit appellant, the jur y would have to be lieve that the c omplainant, R.C., J .P. a nd L .O. all independe ntly falsely acc used

a pp e lla nt f or no a pp a re nt re a so n. Th e Sta te a rgue d th a t th e on ly re a so n th a t th e se fo ur

pe op le wo uldBa ss-8

6 Rul e 40 4( b) pr ov ide s in

re le va nt p a rt : Evidence of other c rimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the c hara cter of a per son in order

to show action in confor mity there with. I t may , howeve r, be a dmi ssi ble fo r o the r p ur po se s, su c h a s p ro of

of mot ive , o pp or

tun ity , inte nt, prepa ration, plan, knowle dg e, identity , or abse nce of mistake or ac cident . . . . acc use appe llant is that they wer e telling the truth. [S TATE]: W hat y ou have to be lieve is that four pe opl e h ave c ome in here or four alleg ations have be en made and that all those pe ople have lied. * * * [Ap pe lla nt’ s] ow n so n sa id, I do n’ t se e ho w it is po ssi ble fo r a ll tho se fo ur pe op le to have g otten toge ther. I

don’t see how

it’s possible.
At the ver

y least, y ou knew that in 1994, this ma n wa s co n fr onted with somebody who said that he had molested them, [the complainant]. At t he ver y least, y ou know in 2000, a completely

separ ate pe rson who has no c ontact, no knowledg e, no relationship wit h [t he complaina nt] , [R .C.] in 2000, she m ade a shocking ly

simil ar alleg ation at the ver

y least. I t doesn’t happe n. I t doesn’t happe n.

* * * No motive. No reason for these people to come in here and tell y ou, except for one : Th a t it is the tr uth . I t is the ha

rd , p a inf ul t ruth t hat th is m a n s itt ing he re be tr a y e d th e ir tr us t. H e be tr a y e d th e tr

us t of his c on g re g a tio n. He be tr a y e d th e tr us t of the pe op le who believe d in him. And most sadly of all, he be tray ed the trust of c hildren. * * * There is no reason f

or y ou to have he ard w hat y ou h av e h ea rd and the pain that obvious l y i t co s t them to tell y ou that. There is no other re ason than that it is the t r u t h , t h a tt h i s m a n i s g u i l t y o f i n d e c e n c y. On direc t appea l, appellant claimed t hat t he ex trane ous-offe nse evidence involving J .P. and
R.C. wa s inadmissible unde r Rule 404(b), beca use this evidence was off ere d (and c ould only

have
been use d) sol ely for a char acte r-c onformity purpose. We understand the court of a ppeals to have 6
decide d that the trial cour t abused its discretion to admit this ex trane ous-offe nse evide nce to r ebut

a pp e lla nt’ s “ fa br ic a tio n” de fe ns e e ve n thou g h this e vid e nc e wo uld have be e n admis sib le to r e bu t a “fr ame- up” or a

“re taliation” d ef

ense. Se e Ba ss , 222 S.W .3d at 575-78. We exercise d ourBa ss-9

discretionar

y authority to reviewt h i s decision. The thr ee g rounds upon which we g rante d revie w
state:
1. Was the Sta te e nti tle d to re bu t App e lla nt’ s “ fa br ic a tio n defen siv e the or y ” wi th specific instances of extraneous m isconduct t hat t ended to show the victim did not

“ fa br ic a te ” he r a c c ount o f [a pp e lla nt’ s] c ri me s?
2. I s there , as the Court of Appea ls claims, a meaning ful distinction between “ frameu p ” a n d “ r e t a l i a t i o n ” d e f

e n s i v e t h e o r i e s a n d

a “ f a b r i c a t i o n ” d e f

e n s i v e t h e o r

y?
3. Did [appellant’s] swe eping comments in his opening statement that he could not have c ommitt ed the of

fense beca

use he w as a minister a

nd had impecca

ble cha rac ter a uth or ize the Sta te to i ntr od uc e e vid e nc e of e xtra

ne ou s ba d a c ts to re bu t th a t c la im? Concerning the court of appea ls’ distinction betwe en a “fa brication” defe nse (e x trane ous offe nses i nadmissible) and a “fr ame- up” or a “re taliation” def

ense ( extraneous offe nses admissible),
the Sta te a rgue s: The c ourt below a c k

n o w le d g e d

that this C ourt has found e x trane ous offe nse evide nce admissible to rebut defe nsive theories of “fr ame- up” and “ reta liation.” I t noted that frame-up and re taliation theories both “include an implication of fa brication,” but he ld th a t th e y a r e n o t “ th e s a me
. ” I t a p p e a r s to h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t there is an impor t an t disti nction beca use fr ame- up and re taliation theories, unlike a “ mere ” fa br ic a tio n th e or

y , c on ta in a

n e le me nt o f m oti ve on

the pa rt of the a lle g e d v ic timto fabric a te he r c la ims . T his a na ly sis fa ils to a pp re c ia te the ba sis of

the a dmi ssi bil ity of such e vidence

. Ex trane ous offe nse evide nce is a dmissibl e if it has som e logical releva nce a side from char acte r conf

ormity . I n fra

me-up a nd reta liation cases, it i s cer tainly true that proof of a n e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e mig ht t e nd

to d isp ro ve the de fe ns e a lle g a tio n tha t the vic tim has some motive to fabr icate her claims. But this is simply one wa y that the evidenc e tends to show that the alleg ations were not fabric ated.
I t seems obvious that, if the State ca n show that a defe ndant has committed simi lar se xua l a ssa

ult s a g a ins t un re la te d a nd un c on ne c te d c hil dr e n, a n a ff ir ma tive defe ns e a lle g a tio n th a t th e vic tim[of the c ha rg e d of fe ns e ] fa br ic a te d h e r c la ims is l e ss l ike ly to be true. B y

showing that the victim’s alleg ations are less likely to be fa bricated, the evidenc e dire ctly rebuts the defe nsive claims and has logic al re levanc e aside from c h a r a c t e r c o n f o r m i t y.Ba ss-10

7 Although a defe nsive opening statement is not itself evidenc e, it does inform the jury of “the nature of t he defenses relied upon and the fac ts expected to be prove d in their support.” See Ar tic le 36.01(a) (5), T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC .; Nor ton v . S tat e , 564 S.W .2d 714, 717-18 (Te x .Cr.App. 1978). When, as here , the def

ense c hooses to make its opening statement immediately afte r the State’s opening s t at em ent, t he State may rea sonably

rely on this defensive ope ning statement as to what evidenc e the de fense intends to present a nd rebut this anticipated de fensive e vidence during its casein-chief as opposed to wa iting until rebuttal. See Article 36.01( b), T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC ., (p e rm itt ingde fe ns ive op e nin g state me nt i mme diate ly a ft e r S ta te ’s op e nin g state me nt) . We a lso no te that the def

ense in this case prese nted evidence to support its opening statement. Se e Da gg e tt , 187 S.W .3d at 453-54 (if

extraneou s-offe nse evide nce is improper ly admitted during State’s ca se-inc hie f, thi s e rr or

may be c ur e d b y

de fe nd a nt’ s su

bs e que nt t e sti mony

wh ic h o pe ns the do or

to t his extraneous-off

ense e vidence in rebuttal).

8 The issue doe s not nece ssari l y t u rn o n the ty pe of de fense prese nted, but on whether the (Citations to authorities and pare ntheticals omitted). We ag ree . Our c ase la

w supports a de cision that a defense opening statement, l ike that made
in t his c a se , o pe ns the do or

to t he a dmi ssi on

of e xtra ne ou s- of fe ns e e vid e nc e , li ke that a dmi tte d in
this ca s e, to re but the defe nsive theory prese nted in the def

ense ope ning statement. See P owell v.
Sta te , 63 S.W .3d 435, 438-40 (Te x .Cr.App. 2001) (in pr o s ec u t i o n for indec ency with a child,
defe ndant’s openingstatement that he la cked oppor tunity to molest the complain an t u n d er the
circ umstances of the charg ed offense opened the door t o admission of extraneous-of fense evidenc e that defe ndant molested others unde r almost identical ci rc umstances to re but defe ndant’s lac k of
op po rt un ity de fensi ve the or

y ); se e als o D ag

ge tt v . S tat e , 187 S.W .3d 444, 453-54 (Te x .Cr.App.
20 05 ) (i n pr os e c uti on fo r se xua l a ssa ult of c hil d un de r se ve nte e n, de fe nd a nt’ s sw e e pi ng di rect

examination testi mony

disavowing an

y s e xu a l m is c o n d

u c t w ith minors opened the door to a dmission
of e xtra ne ou s- of fe ns e e vid e nc e of de fe nd a nt’ s se xua l mis c on du c t wi th a no the r m ino r t o r e bu t th is

swee ping testimony ). This c ase law makes no cate g orica l distinctions betwe en “fabrication” 7
de fe ns e s and

“ fr a me -u p” or “ re ta liatio n” de fe ns e s. 8Ba ss-11

ex tra n eo u s -o ff

en s e e v i d en ce h as n o n ch ar ac t er -c o n fo rm i t y re l ev an ce b y , fo r e x am p l e, re b u t t i n g a defe nsive theory or making less probable defe nsive evidenc e that undermines an elementa l f act. See Po we ll , 6 3 S. W.3 d at 43 8; Mo ntgom e ry v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 387 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990) (op. on reh’ g ).

9 The State a lso arg ues t h at the extraneous-of fense evidenc e wa s admissible as substantive evidenc e of a

ppellant’s g uilt under the “doc trine of c hance s.” Se e, e. g. , Case yv . S tat e , 215 S.W .3d 87 0, 88 0- 81 (T e x.Cr .App . 2 00 7) ; R o b b ins v . S tat e , 88 S.W .3d 256, 265-69 (Te x .Cr.App. 2002) (Cochra n, J ., concur

ring in the judgme nt). We did not g rant discretionar y revie w on this iss ue and, the re fo re , d o n ot a dd

re ss i t. We a lso e xpre ss n o o pin ion on wh e the r the tr ia l c ourt ’s un ob je c te d- to limit ing instructions lim ited the jury ’s consider ation of the e x trane ous-offe nse evide nce to its proper purposes. Se e Da

ge tt , 187 S.W .3d at 454-55. I n th is c a se , it

is at le a st su

bje c t to re a so na

ble dis a g re e me nt wh e the r t he e xtra ne ou s- of fe ns e evidenc e was admissible for the nonc hara cter -conf ormity purpose of

rebutting appellant’ s defe nsive theory t h at the complainant f abric ated he r alleg ations ag ainst him and of re butting the de fensive
the or y c le a rl y su g g e sti ngthat a

pp e lla nt, a s a “r e a l de a l” a nd

“ g e nu ine ” pa sto r, wo uld

no t e ng a g e in

t h e ty pe of c onduct alleg ed in the indictment. Se e Da gg e tt , 1 87 S.W. 3d

a t 45 3- 54 ; Po we ll , 63
S.W .3d at 438. I t is subject to rea sonable disag ree ment whether this ex trane ous-offe nse evide nce made these d ef

en s ive theorie s less probable. Se e id .; Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 387. The tria l court, ther efor e, did no t ab u se its discretion to decide that the extraneous-of fense evidenc e wa s

a dmi ssi ble to r e bu t th e se de fe ns ive the or ie s. 9 The judg ment of t he court of appeals i s reve rsed, and the case i s rema nded there for

further
proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.
H e r v e y , J

.

Deliver ed: September

10, 2008 Pub lis h