1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO
. 09
- 14
- 00089
- CR

____________________ JOSHUA GLAZE , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ ______________________ On A ppeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No
. 22030

________________________________________ ____ ____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Joshua Glaze of murder and sentenced Glaze to life in prison. In one appellate issue, Glaze challenges the trial court’s refusal to admit a toxicology report into evidence at trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

“ A trial court has broad discretion in determining th e admissibility of the evidence[.]” Allridge v. State , 850 S.W.2d 471 , 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). W e review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Oprean v. State , 201 S.W.3d 724 , 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “Error may not be predicated upon a2 ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected[.]” Tex. R. Evid. 103(a); see Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).
The medic al examiner testified that the victim died of a gunshot wound to
the back of the neck. On cross

- examination , Glaze sought to admit a toxicology
report into evidence. The State argued that the report was ir relevant to the victim’s

c ause of death or to who shot the victim and was more prejudicial than probative. Glaze argued that the report showed that the victim ingested marihuana before the
murder and was , thus, re levant to the surviving witnesses’ veracity regarding the details surrounding the murder

. The trial court excluded the report. During a subsequent bill of exception, Glaze re
- urged h is contention that the report called
the su rviving witnesses’ veracity into question. The trial court found that any probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
and confusion of the issues.
Even r elevant evidence may be excluded when “ its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. ” Tex. R. Evid. 403. “‘Unfair prejudice’ refers to a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. ” Casey v. State , 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim.3 App. 2007). “‘Confusion of the issues [] ’ refers to a tendency to confuse or distract the jury f rom the main issues in the case[]” and lead to consideration of factual disputes that are only tangentially related to the issue s in the case. Id . at 880; Wiley
v. State , 74 S.W.3d 399, 407 n.21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). According to the record, the victim was with two friends , Horace Theal and Briana Herring, at the time of the murder. On ly Theal testified at trial. Glaze

argues that Theal failed to disclose that the victim had used drugs before the
murder ; thus, Glaze maintains that Theal might have concealed other information
if he failed to disclose any criminal acts by the victim, Theal, or Herring. Glaze
contends that the to xicology report was necessary to allow him to challenge
Theal’s credibility. Even without the report, however, q uestion s asked of a witness

on cross
- examination, which may have a tendency to affect the witness’ s credibility are considered proper. Koehler v. State , 679 S.W.2d 6, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Assuming questions about drug use would have had a tendency to
affect Theal’s credibility , t he record does not demonstrate that Glaze attempted to question Theal about any drug use on the night of the murde r. 1

1 Glaze also complains that the toxicology report creates questions regarding the evidence, or lack thereof, collected by the State. However, Glaze did not present this argument at trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).4 Moreover , the issue before the jury was whether Glaze intentionally or knowingly cause d the victim’s death. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02 (b)(1) (West 2011 ). E vidence that the victim ingested marihuana before the murder is , at best, tangentially related to whether Glaze murdered the victim , and such evidence carried with it the danger of the jury making a decision based on e motion or prejudice against the victim. See Casey , 215 S.W.3d at 879; see also Wiley , 74
S.W.3d at 407 n.21. Acc ordingly, we conclude that t he trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the toxicology report. See Oprean , 201 S.W.3d at 726

. We overrule Glaze’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED

.

___________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice
Submitted on November 10, 2014 Opinion Delivered November 19, 2014 D o Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton , JJ.