## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 06- 399- CR
S T E VE N R AYGAI T AN AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 89TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

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

### OP I NI ON

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON A ppe l l antSt eve n Ray G ai ta n a p p ea l s hi s con vi ct i on f ort w o c ount s of
m ur der . I n t w o poi nt s, G ai t an ar gues t hathi s C onfr ontat i on C l ause const i t ut i onal r i ghts w er e vi ol at ed w hen t he t r i al court al l ow ed a chi l d w i t ness t o t e s t if y b y c lo s e d -c ir c u it t e le v is io n . F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o rt h b e lo w , w e h o ld t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d no t e rr b y pe r m i t t i ng t he chi l d w i t nes s t o t es t i f y by2

cl osed- ci r cui tt el evi si on and , al t er nat i vel y, w e hol d t hatany er r orw as har m l ess. A c c o rding l y , w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

II. F ACT UALAND P RO CEDU RA L B ACKGROUND O n O ct obe r 5, 200 4, at abo ut 10: 30 p. m . , X . P. , w ho w as ei ght y e a rs o ld , a n d h is b r o t h e rC .P ., w h o w a s t w o o rt h r e e y e a r s o ld , d r o v e w it h t h e ir
m ot he r, S te l l a P. , t o t he hom e o fa f am i l y f r i end . As St el l a P. an d he rs ons ar r i ve d a tt he r esi dence, G ai t an and a passenger , M anuel G ar za G onzal es, si m ul t aneou sl y pul l ed up i n f r ont oft he r esi dence. G ai t an, Stel l a P. , and her sons al l exi t ed t he vehi cl es. The bo ys w entt o t he f r ont yar d of t he r esi dence

w hi l e St el l a P. and G ai t an t al ke d. A conf r ont at i on oc cur r ed bet w ee n St el l a P. and G ai t an, and G ai t an shot S t el l a P. ; she f el l i nt o t he st r eet , bl eedi ng. G ai t an t r i ed t o pl ace Stel l a P. i nt o t he backseatofhervehi cl e, butw hen he w as
u n s u c c e s s fu l , h e s i m p l y d ro v e a w a y . S te l l a P . w a s l e ft l y i n g i n th e s tre e t w h e re sh e d i ed. D ur i ng t he t r i al , t he j ury he ar d t es t i m ony vi a c l os ed- ci r cui tt el evi si on f r om X . P. an d l i ve t es t i m ony f r om G onz al es , al ong w i t h o ther s. Att he con cl us i on oft he evi den ce , t he j ury c onvi ct ed G ai t an f or t he m ur der of St el l a P. , an d t he t r i al courtsent enced G ai t an t o l i f e i m pr i sonm entand assess ed a $1 0, 00 0 fi ne. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed.1 ... I tap pea r s f r om t he r ec or d be f or e u s t hatdur i n g X . P. ’ s t es t i m ony,

X . P. , t he att or ney s and t he j udge w ent t o a n a dj oi ni ng r oom an d t hatX . P. ’ s l i ve t e s t i m ony w as br oadcastf r om t he adj oi ni ng r oom t o t he court r oom and w as v i ew ed by Gai t an and t he j ury on a sc r ee n i n t he cou rt r oom . Dur i ng X.P .’s t est i m ony, t he t r i al courtr epeat edl y t ol d G ai t an’ s coun sel t hathe coul d r equest a b re a ka t a n yti m e to c o n fe r w i th h i s c l i e n t.

2 ... G ai t an pr oper l y r ai sed hi s as- appl i ed const i t ut i onal chal l enge i n t he t r i al c o u rt. A c c o rd Curryv. S tate , 9 1 0 S .W .2 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); Ba rne tt v. S tate , 201 S. W . 3d 231 , 232

- 33 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2006, no p e t .) (b o t h re c o g n iz in g t h a t a s -a p p lie d c o n s t it u t io n a l c h a lle n g e is w a iv e d if itis n o t ra i s e d i n th e tri a l c o u rt). 3 III. R I GH TT O C O NFRO NT W I T NE SS ES I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , G ai t an ar gue s t hatt he t r i a l co urter r ed by p er m i t t i ng X . P. , a chi l d w i t nes s, t o t es t i f y bycl os ed- ci r cui tt el evi si on. 1 Gai t an con t end s th a t t h e S tate fai l e d to p ro v e t h e n e c e ss i ty fo r t h i s p roc e d u re a n d tha t,
con se que nt l y, he w asi m pr ope r l y de ni ed hi s r i ghtt o f ac e- t o- f ac e c onf r ont at i on oft he chi l d w i t ness a g a i nsthi m . I n hi s second poi nt , G ai t an contends t hat T e x a s C o d e o f C ri m i n a l P roc e d u re a rt i c l e 3 8 .0 7 1 , s e c ti o n 3

— th e sta tu te aut hor i zi ng a chi l d t o t est i f y by cl osed- ci r cui t t el evi si on— i s unconst i t ut i onal as a p p lie d t o h im in t h is c a s e b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f a ile d t o p r o v e a n in t e r e s tin pr ot ect i ng X . P. f r om G ai t an’ s pr esence. 2Thes e p oi nt s ar e i nt er r el at ed, s o w e d i s c u s s t h e m t o g e t h e rb e l o w.4

A . Th e Law Th e Texas C ode o f C r i m i nal Pr ocedu r e aut hor i zes a t r i al courtt o or der t hatt he t es t i m ony of a chi l d youn ger t han t hi rt ee n ye ar s ofag e b e t ak en i n a
r o o m o t h e rt h a n t h e c o u rt r o o m a n d b e t e le v is e d b yc lo s e d -c ir c u ite q u ip m e n tin th e c o u rtro o m to b e v i e w e d b y th e c o u rt a n d th e fi n d e r o f fa c t i f th e tri a l c o u rt det er m i nes t hat t he chi l d w oul d be una vai l abl e t o t es t i f y i n t he pr es enc e o ft he d e fe n d a n t a b o u t a n o ffe n s e , i n c l u d i n g m u rd e r. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 3 8 .0 7 1 , § § 1 (1 ), 3 (a ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); s e ea l s o Ba r nesv. Sta te , 165 S. W . 3d 75 , 8 4 -8 5 (Tex. A pp. — A us t i n 2005, no p et . ) . I n m ak i ng a det er m i nat i on of unavai l abi l i t y, t he t r i al courtshal l consid e r r el evantf act or s, i ncl udi ng t he r el at i ons h i p o f th e de f end antt o t he chi l d; t he cha r ac t eran d dur at i on oft he al l ege d of f ens e; t he age , m at ur i t y, an d e m ot i ona l s t abi l i t y oft he
c h i l d ; th e ti m e e l a p s e d s i n c e th e a l l e g e d o ffe n s e ; a n d w h e th e r th e c h i l d i s m o re l i kel y t han no tt o be unav ai l abl e t o t est i f y because ofem ot ional orphysi cal causes, i ncl udi ng con f r ontat i on w i t h th e d ef endan t , ort he chi l d w oul d suf f er undueps ych ol ogi ca l orphy si ca l ha r m t hr ough hi s i nvol vem ent at t he hea r i ng or p ro c e e d i n g . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 3 8 .0 7 1 , § 8 (a )(1 )-(2 ). Becau se t hi s st at ut e oper at es t o depr i ve a def endan toff ace- t o- f ace c o n f r o n t a t io n , t h e t r ia l c o u rtm u s th e a re v id e n c e a n d m a k e a c a s e -s p e c if ic d e te rm i n a ti o n : (1 ) th a t th e u s e o f th e s ta tu to ryp ro c e d u re u ti l i z e d i s n e c e s s a ry5

t o pr ot e c tt hew e l f a r e of t he pa rt i c ul a rc hi l d w i t ne s s w ho s e e k s t o t e s t i f y; ( 2) t hatt he chi l d w i t nes s w ou l d bet r aum at i z ed, notby t he cou rt r oom ge ner al l y, but by t he pr esence oft he def endan t ; and ( 3) t hatt he em ot i onal di st r ess su f f er ed by t he chi l d w i t nes s i n t he pr es enc e o ft he def end anti s “m or e t han de
m i n i m i s, i .e., m o re th a n m e re n e rvo u sn e ss o r e x c i tem e n t or so m e rel u c tan c e to t est i f y. ” Hi

gh to w e rv. S ta te , 8 2 2 S .W .2 d 4 8 , 5 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); G o nza les v. S tate , 8 1 8 S . W . 2 d 7 5 6 , 7 6 2 ( T e x . Cr i m. Ap p . 1 9 9 1 ) . T hese fi n d i n g s a re n o t re q u i re d b yth e s ta tu te b u t a re c o n s ti tu ti o n a l l y re q u i re d . S ee a ls o Ma ryla n d

v. Cra ig , 4 9 7 U .S . 8 3 6 , 8 5 5 -5 6 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 3 1 5 7 , 3 1 6 9 (1 9 9 0 ); Hi ghtower, 822 S. W . 2d at 51. I f t he t r i al co urtm ak est hes e f i ndi ngs , t hen t he C onf r ont at i on Cl aus e d oesnotpr ohi bi tt he us e of a pr oce dur e t hat , de sp i t e t he abs enc e o ff ac e- t o- f ac e c onf r ont at i on, en su r est he r el i abi l i t y oft he evi den ceby
s u bj e c ti n g i t to ri g o ro u s c ro s s -e x a m i n a ti o n . G onzales , 818 S. W . 2d a t762. B . T h eF a c ts T h e tr i a l co u rtco n d u c ted a p retri a l h e a ri n g o n “T h e S t a t e ’s M o ti o n to H aveTes t i m o n y o f C h i l d W i t nes s Take n O ut si de t he C ourt r oom . ” A tt he h e a ri n g , th e tr i a l co u rth e a rd tes ti m o n y fr o m W i c h i ta F a l l s p o l i c e o ffi c e r B e tty Ki ng a nd hea r d exp ert t es t i m ony f r om W al t erSw i nhoe , a l i ce ns ed cou ns el oran d th e ra p i s t.3 ... S w i n hoet es t i f i ed t hathew asnotab l e t o t r ac e t he t r aum a c r ea t i ng

t he PT S D t o t hi s i nci dent and t hatbef or e t hi s i nci dent occur r ed , X .P . st art ed o u t w i th a d i fficu l t l i fe s ty l e th a t i n v o l v e d fre q u e n tl ym o v i n g . 6 O ffice r K i n g te s ti fi e d th a t s h e ta l k e d to X .P . a t th e s c e n e o f h i s m o th e r’s
m ur der . O f f i ce rKi ng s ai d t hatX . P. ha d w i t ne s s e d “ a p art i cul ar l y vi ol ent of f ense” and t hathe w as i n shock w hen she spoke t o hi m . X .P. w as concer ned abo uthi s m ot herand keptaski ng O f f i cerK i ng w hen he w oul d get t o see her . O f f i cer K i ng sai d t hat both X . P. and C . P. w er e w or r i ed abou tw hat

w asw r ong w i t h t hei rm ot herbe ca us e t heyha d obs erved he r“ l ayi ng a tt he end oft he dr i vew ay t her e on t he gr oun d and t hey w er en’ tr eal l y s u re w h a t w as
w r ong w i t h her . ” W al t erSw i nhoet es t i f i ed t hathe w as t he di r ec t oroft he TaftCounse l i ng C e n ter. S w i n h o e tes ti fi e d tha t X .P.’s g ra n d m o t h e rh a d arran g e d for X .P. to
r ec ei ve cou ns el i ng f r om hi m be ca us e X. P. w asex per i enc i ng ne gat i ve r ea ct i ons f r om hi s m ot her ’ s dea t h, i ncl udi ng ni ght m ar es , an d ne ede d he l p i n gr i evi ng f or hi s m ot her . S w i nho e coun sel ed X . P. on A pr i l 26 , 20 06 ; M ay 2, 20 06 ; and M ay 9 , 2 0 0 6 . S w i n h o e te s ti fi e d t h a t X .P . sh o w e d i n c re a s e d “ a ro u s a l s i g n s ,” i n c re a s e d a g i ta ti o n , a n d s i g n s o f p o s t-tra u m a ti c s tre s s d i s o rd e r (P T S D ). 3 X . P . w as very guar ded and avoi ded t al ki ng abou t t he i nci dent, ot hert han t o say t hat he had heard a f i r ecr ackerand saw som et hi ng at t he scene. S w i nho e sai d t hat4 ... Sw i nhoeex pl ai ned t hatt he se con dary t r aum a t hatm i ghtr es ul tf r om

X .P .’ s h a v in g t o t e s t if y in G a it a n ’s p r e s e n c e “ m ig h tb e w o r s e o rm o r e d if f ic u lt to p roc e ss tha n e v e n th e fi rst tr a u m a , b e c a u se i t’ s a l m o st l i k e su rvi v o r’ s g u i l t. A nd . . . w hen he com es up w i t h hi s ow n fear s i n r eal i t y, i tw oul d be w or se t han t he r eal i t y i t sel f . ” S w i nho e al so st at ed t hat “t he event t hatcr eat e[ s] t hat [a n x i e tya n d a g i ta ti o n ] w o u l d c re a te a l o t m o re d i s tre s s i n a c o u rtro o m .” 7 X . P. ’ s avo i dan ceoft al ki ng abo ut t he i nci den ti s “o ne oft he gr ea t es ts i gnsof t r aum a. ” Sw i nhoet es t i f i e d t hatheas ke d X. P. ’ s gr and m ot hert o s t op t al ki ng abo utt he i nci den t bec aus e X . P. w oul d c ove rhi s f ac e, ge tvi si bl y a gi t at ed, an d sh ow s om e a ggr ava t i on oran gerw hen hi s gr and m ot herw oul d bri ng up “m om m a ort he i nci dent. ” W h e n a s k e d w h e t h e ritw o u ld b e h a r m f u l t o X .P .’ s w e lf a r e t o h a v e h im t es t i f y w hi l e i n t he sa m e r oom w i t h Gai t an, Sw i nhoet es t i f i ed: I be l i evet hati f th e p er pet r at orw asi n t hi s r oom an d duet o t he si gnsan d s ym pt om s, i tw oul d de f i ni t el y e xac er bat e t he si gnsan d sym pt om s t hat ar e al r eady pr esent and cr eat e m or e ni ght t er r or s, m o r e o ft h e i n t e r n a l c o n f lic t . H em ig h tn o ts h o w it , b u titw o u ld d e fi n i te l ye x a c e rb a te i t. S w i nho e expl ai ned t hatX . P. ’ s di st r ess f r om t est i f yi ng i n G ai t an’ s pr esence
w oul d be m uch m or e sever e t han j ustner vousness, exci t em ent , orr el uct ance t o t est i f y and t hati tm i ght even cr eat e a secondar y t r aum a. 4Sw i nho e t est i f i ed t h a tift h e t r ia l c o u rt r e q u ir e d X .P . t o t e s t if y in G a it a n ’s p r e s e n c e , X .P . w o u ld
su f f erundu e p sy cho l ogi ca l ha r m an d t hathi s em ot i ona l s t abi l i t y c oul d be h a rm e d .8

Sw i nhoes ai d t hatt he pri m ary r i skoft r aum a f orX . P. i n t he cou rt r oom s e t t in g w o u ld b e c o n f r o n t a t io n w it h t h e p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e o f f e n s e a n d t h a tif
con f r ont at i on w i t h t he per pet r at or cou l d be avo i ded , t hatw oul d pr eve ntundu e h a r m t o X .P . S w in h o e e x p la in e d t h a t f o r X .P ., itw o u ld b e p a rt ic u la r lyt r a u m a t ic t o beputi n a r oom w i t h G ai t an and a l ot ofpe opl e a nd a skX . P. t o go t hr ough t he eventsofO ct ober5, 20 04 , because X . P. w oul d devel op a new f earbased
o n G a it a n ’s p r e s e n c e a n d t h e f e a ro fg e t t i n g i n t r o u b le f o rt e llin g t h e p e o p le

w h o a r e p r e s e n t a b o u t wh a t Ga i t a n d i d . S wi n h o e b a s e d t h i s c o n c l u si on on X . P. ’ s r equ es t , ex pr es se d dur i ng cou ns el i ng, t o f i nd a s af e p l ac e w her e n o one c o u l d h e a r h i m o r s e e h i m c ryw h e n h e ta l k e d a b o u t h i s m o th e r. A tt he con cl us i on oft he hea r i ng, t he t r i al co urtr ul ed: W e l l , h a v i n g h e a rd th e tes ti m o n yg i v e n , I ’ve tak e n i n to ac co u n t a l l oft he f ac t or s, i ncl udi ng t he r el at i ons hi p oft he D ef endan tt o t he chi l d, t he char act erand durat io n o f th e al l eged o f f e n s e a n d t h e a g e , m a t u r it ya n d e m o t io n a l s t a b ilit yo ft h e c h ild and t he t i m e el apsed and I com e t o t he i nescapabl e concl usi on t hat sign i fi c a n t tr a u m a w o u l d b e h a d sh o u l d [ X .P.] be req u i red to te sti fy in t he sam e room w i t h the presen ce of t he D efen da nt i n t h is m a tte r. S o I o r d e rt h a tt h e t e s t im o n yb e t a k e n b yc lo s e d -c ir c u it tel e v i sion . W e w i l l c e rt a i n l y g i v eM r. G a i tan ev e ry o p p o rt u n i ty to conferw i t h hi s att or ney and M r . Rasm ussen w i l l be abl e t o t ake a br ea k a tan y t i m e h e w i sh est o do so t o c onf erw i t h hi s cl i e n t on th a t m a tte r.9

The t r i al co urtal so s i g n e d a n or dergr ant i ng t he St at e’ s m ot i on. The
o rde r state s, i n p a rt : [T ]h e c o u rt f in d s t h a t t h e c h ild w it n e s s in t h is c a u s e isu n a v a ila b le t o t es t i f y be ca us e h e w oul d s uf fe r u n dueps ych ol ogi ca l an d p h y s i c a l h a rm th ro u g h h i s i n v o l v e m e n t a t tri a l . T h e p ro c e d u re p r o v id e d f o r t h e c h ild v ic t im ’s t e s t im o n y t o b e t a k e n i n a rt ic le 3 8 .0 7 1 , s e c t i o n 3 o ft h e T e x a s C o d e o fC r im in a l P r o c e d u r e is necessary t o pr ot ect hi s w el f ar e. M or eover , t he C ourtnot es t hat t h e c h ild w o u ld b e t r a u m a t iz e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n tin t h e c o u rt r o o m, a n d t h a t h i s l e v e l o f e mo t i o n a l d i s t r e s s woul d be m o re th a n d e m i n i m i s . C . A p p l i c a ti o n o f t h eLa w to th eF a c ts The St at e’ s evi den ce , o u tl i ned ab ove , s at i sf i est he st at ut ory a nd
c o n s t it u t io n a l re q u i r e m e n t s n e e d e d t o a u t h o r iz e t h e u s e o fc lo s e d -c ir c u it t el evi si on f ort he pr ese n ta t i on of X . P. ’ s t est i m ony. The evi dence est abl i shes t ha tX . P . i s “ u n a v a i l a b l e ” t o t e s t i f yu n d e rt h e s t a t u t o r yd e f i n i t i on bec ause— con si der i ng t he r el eva ntf ac t or s— he w oul d s uf f erundu e p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r p h y s i c a l h a rm th ro u g h h i s i n v o l v e m e n t a t th e tri a l . S eeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art . 38 . 07 1, § 8( a) ( 2) . A nd t he e v id e n c e l i kew i se i l l ust r at es t hatt he t r i al courtm ade a case- speci f i c det er m i nat i on t hatt he use ofcl osed- ci r cui tt el evi si on t o pr esent X . P. ’ s t est i m ony w as necessary t o pr ot ect X .P .’ s w e l f a r e , t h a tX .P . w o u ld b e t r a u m a t iz e d b yb e in g f o r c e d t o t e s t if yin G a it a n ’s p r e s e n c e , a n d t h a tt h e e m o t io n a l d is t r e s s t h a tX .P . w o u ld s u f f e rif fo rc e d to te s ti fy i n G a i ta n ’s p re s e n c e w o u l d b e m o re th a n d e m i n i m i s a n d m o re10

th a n m e re n e rv o u s n e s s , e x c i te m e n t, o r s o m e re l u c ta n c e to te s ti fy . See, e. g. , Hi ghtower, 8 2 2 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 ; G onzales , 8 1 8 S .W .2 d a t 7 6 2 . T h u s , w e h o ld t h a tt h e S t a t e m e tit s b u r d e n a n d t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n — e s p e c ia lly
con si der i ng t hatX . P. ’ s t es t i m ony w as pr es ent ed l i ve vi a c l os ed- ci r cui tt el evi si on a n d t h a tG a it a n h a d t h e o p p o rt u n it yt o a n d d id c r o s s -e x a m in e X .P . a tt r ia l— d id
n o t v i o l a te G a i ta n ’sC o n fro n ta ti o n C l a u s e r i g h ts . S e eG o nza les, 818 S . W . 2d at762 ( di sc us si ng Ma ryla n d v. Cra ig ); F

ran ci s v. S tate , No. 07- 05- 00293

- CR, 20 07 W L 14 90 46 1, at*2 ( Tex . A pp. — A m ar i l l o M ay 22 , 20 07 , no pet . ) ( m em . o p .) (no t d e sign a ted fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). W e furth e r ho l d tha t, b e c a u se the S tate
m eti t s bur den t o p re s e nts uf f i ci entev i den ceoft he r equ i si t e s t at ut ory a nd
c o n s t it u t io n a l f a c t o r s , G a it a n ’s a s -a p p lie d c o n s t it u t io n a l c h a lle n g e f a ils ; a rt ic le 3 8 .0 7 1 , s e c t io n 3 d id n o t o p e r a t e u n c o n s t it u t io n a llya s a p p lie d t o G a it a n in t h is
case. D . N o Har m i n Any Eve nt M o reo v e r, ev e n as su m i n g tha t t h e tr i a l co u rterred b yall o w i n g X .P. to t es t i f y bycl os ed- ci r cui tt el evi si on, X . P. ’ s t es t i m ony w ass uch t hati tw oul d not h a v e a ffe c te d th e j u ry ’sd e l i b e ra ti o n s o r v e rd i c t. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4 .2 (a ); W a ll

v. S tate , 18 4 S . W . 3d 73 0, 74 6 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 06 ) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“[ i ] fan a p p e lla t e c o u rtru le s t h a t a c o n s t it u t io n a l e r r o rin t h e a d m is s io n o fe v id e n c e is ha r m l ess, i ti s, i n essence, assert i ng t hatt he nat ur e oft hatevi dence i s such11

th a t i t c o u l d n o t h a v e a f f e c te d th e j u ry ’sd e l i b e ra ti o n s o r v e rd i c t” ); see al so W i l l i a m s v. S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). G ai t an hi m se l ft es t i f i ed att h e g u i l t - i nnoc enc e p has e o fhi s t r i al t hathe
s h o t S te l l a P ., a l b e i t a c c i d e n ta l l y . A n d G o n z a l e s ’ste s ti m o n ym i rro re d X .P .’s t est i m ony. G onzal es t est i f i ed t hat he hear d a gun shot but di d not see G ai t an s h o o t S t e lla P . G o n z a le s t e s t if ie d t h a th e o b s e rv e d G a it a n t r y in g t o p la c e S t e lla P. i nt o t he ca ran d t hat he sa w G ai t an dr i ve aw ay, l ea vi ng St el l a P. l yi ng i n t he st r ee t . Thus , aft erca r ef ul l y r evi ew i n g the r ec or d a nd pe r f or m i ng t he
a p p rop ri a te h a rm a n a l y sis, e v e n i f th e tr i a l c o u rt e rr e d b y p e rm i tti n g X . P . to t es t i f y vi a cl os ed- ci r cui t t el evi si on, w e h ol d t hatbe yond a r ea so nab l e d oubtt he t r i al co urt ’ s er r ordi d n o t c ont r i but e t o Gai t an’ s con vi ct i on orpuni sh m ent bec aus e o t herev i den cead m i t t ed dur i ng t he t r i als how ed t hatG ai t an sh otan d
m u rd e re d S te l l a P . S eeT EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .2 (a ); se eD a vi s v. S tate , 203 S. W . 3d 8 4 5 , 8 5 3 -5 6 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (ho l d i n g tha t Cra wfo rd er r or — adm i t t i ng vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m on i a l s t at em ent s t o of f i ce rt hats upport ed dea dl y w ea pon f i ndi ng— w as har m l ess beyond a r easonabl e d oub tbecause ot herevi dence at tri a l s h o w e d th a t a p p e l l a n t a tte m p te d to s tra n g l e v i c ti m w i th ro p e ), cert. denied, 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 0 3 7 (2 0 0 7 ); W a ll, 1 8 4S .W .3 d a t7 4 5 -4 6 ( h o ld in g t h a te r r o rin adm i t t i ng s t at em entm adeby vi ct i m athos pi t al w asnotha r m f ul be ca us e t he12

o th e r w i tn e s s e s w h o te s ti fi e d a t tri a l o v e rw h e l m i n g l ye s ta b l i s h e d a p p e l l a n t’s g u i l t, e v e n d i s re g a rd i n g th e e rro n e o u s l ya d m i tte d e v i d e n c e ). W e over r ul e G ai t an’ s f i r stand second p oi nt s. I V. C ON C L U S I ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o f G a i ta n ’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL A : C A YC E, C. J. ; H O LM A N an d W A LKER, JJ. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 20, 2008