### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444
NO. 03-03-00559- CR

Ro dgyLe e Ne sby , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BURNET COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 9322, H ONO RAB LE GUILFO RD L. JONES, II I, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
We wi t h d ra w t he prior opinion and judg ment dated Ma rch 24, 2005, a

nd the following opinion is subs tituted.

A ju r y f o u n d Ro d g y L e e N e s b y g u il ty o f a g g r a v a te d s e xu a l a s s a u lt o f a child and assessed punishment at ninety -nine y ears i n prison. See Tex . P en. Co de A nn . § 22 .0 21 (a)(1 )(B) (West Supp. 2004-05). Nesby complains that the district c ourt err ed by admitting testimony

of the complaining witness and two other c hildren about e x trane ous acts by appellant. We will aff

irm the jud g me nt.2 BACK GR OUND Nesby was c onvicted for

having sex wit h his longt i m e girlfriend’ s minor d a u g h t e r , w h o w a s c a l l e d

“ M ar b l e F a l l s N u mb e r

1 1 8 ” d u r i n g t r i a l
. ( W e w i l l s h o rt e nt h i s p s e u d o n ym to “MF- 118” and w ill shorten other pseudony ms simi larly .) He wa s convicted f or an inc ident
occur ring on or about October 31, 2001. Only MF-118 te stified about that incident, but she a nd her cousins, MF-122 and M F- 124, all testified about previous sex ual ac tivity involving Ne sby , MF-118, and these other c hildren. After Nesby ’s objection to testimony about extraneous ac ts involvi ng other childre n , th e c o u

r t i n s tr u c te d the jurors that they

could consider

testimony

about incidents conc erning children othe r t han MF -118 only if the jurors f

ound bey ond a re asonable doubt that Nesby committed the extraneous off

ense; the c ourt also li m i ted the jury ’s use of the se extraneous off enses to such iss ue s a s p lan, pr e pa

ratio n, int e nt, op po rt

un ity , an d ide nti ty of the vic timand /or the a c c us e d in

thi s
case . On appe al, Nesby

challeng es the a dmission of thi s evidenc e. Othe r e v id e n c e a d d

u c e d a t tr ia l p r o v id e s c o n te xt f o r e v a lu a ti n g th e d is tr ic t c ourt’s admission of the children’ s testimony . The State be g an i t s case with testimony from police investigators L arr

y L amb and Me lony

My ers a nd the written statements Nesby g ave them. I n one statement, Ne sby descr ibed M F- 118 as disturbed, inappr opriately sexual in behavior and dr ess, and vindictive
. N e s b y in d ic a te d th a t M F
- 1 1 8 ’ s a c c u s a ti o n s a g a in s t h im w e r e mo ti v a te d b y an g e r that he wo uld no t le t he r m ov e in wi th hi m and his ne w w if e . In h is s e c on d s ta te me nt, Ne sb y sa id tha t MF- 1 1 8 w a s s e xu a l l y a g g r e s s i v e t o w ar d

h i m an d h a d t o u c h e d h i s p e n i s a g a i n s th i s wi ll
nume ro us tim e s. Ne sb y sa id that on c e , wh e n his sh ou lde r w a s in jur e d, MF -1 18 and

MF -1 24 c a me int o h is b e dr oo m, h e ld h im do wn , and ins e rt e d his pe nis int o MF -1 18 ’s va g ina
. (L a mb t e sti fi e d th a t,
a t ti me of tr ia l, M F -1 18 wa s a

bo ut 5 ’1 , 1 00 po un ds , an d tha t MF- 12 4 wa s abo ut 5’ 3, 12 0 p ound s;3

the inc ide nt oc c ur

re d mor e tha

n tw o y e ars be fo re tr ia l.) Ne sb y sa id t hat, w he n h e did

no t ma int a in penetr ation, the g irls la

ug hed and compar ed him to an unc le with whom they had also ha d sex. The
e xpe ri e nc e up se t hi m and he mov e d o ut o f t

he ho us e . A ft e r t

he det ect ives te sti fi e d, the State adduce d evidenc e fr om various per sons reg ardinghow MF- 118’s ac cus at i o n s came to light. The State then ca lled the childre n to the stand.

Be fore MF-122 te stified, the cour t ag ain instructed the jur

y reg ardingex t ra n eous offe nses. The court told jurors they could consider

the other of

fense s only

if they believed be y ond
a rea sonable doubt that Nesby committed them. Even then, the c ourt said, they could consider

the oth e r o ff e ns e s o nly

fo r t he purp os e of

c on sid e ri ngpla

n, pr e pa ratio n, int e nt, op po rt

un ity , a nd ide nti ty of the victim and/or the a ccuse d in this case. MF -122 testified that, whe n he wa s seven or eig ht y ear s old, he and his siblings sometimes stay ed with Nesby and MF -118 duringthe day . MF-122 te stified that Nesby

would tell MF -118 to “ start doing stuff to his thing” and that Nesby would put “the sper m
or wh a te ve r o n h e r b utt .” MF -1 22 te sti fi e d th at N e sb y the n to ld h im t o s imu lat e hav ingse x with MF -1 18 . M F -1 22 te sti fi e d tha t this ha pp e ne d to him th re e or

fo ur tim e s, e ve ntu a lly

le a din g to h im having sex wit h MF-118. On cross-e x amination, MF-122 a dmitted that he had pre viously denied that these e vents occ urre d, but he explained that he made the de nials beca use he w as shy

and sca red. MF-124 testified that she was fourtee n y ear s old at the time of trial. S h e t es t i fi ed that, o ne su mme r w he n s he wa s e le ve n y e ars old , Ne sb y ba by sat se ve ra l ti me s f

or he r, he r b ro the rs , MF-118 a

nd MF-118’ s sisters. After the cour t ga ve the limiting instruction about extraneous offe nses, MF- 124 testified about a time that she and MF -118 we re ly ing in be d watching television while wea

ring T-shi rts and boxer shorts. Nesby came in and lay

betwee n them. He4

re mov e d M F -1 18 ’s un de rw e ar and be g an fe e lin g he r “ bo tto m pa rt ” and he r br e a sts un de r the T- sh ir t. He the n h a d s e x with

MF -1 18 , g e tti ngon

top of he r and pe ne tr a tin g he r wi th his pe nis
. MF -1 24 sa id she saw N esby

fondle a nd have se x with MF-118 about six or seven times over the next week or so. MF -1 24 sa id t

hat MF -1 18 wa s tw e lve y e ars old a t th e tim e of

the se a c ts. MF-118 w as fifte en at the time of trial. She testified that, when she was in first g rade , Nesby beg an comingin t o h er r oom and rubbing her va g ina ar ea ove r her panties, then unde r her panties. After she m ade the se statements, Ne sby objected a

nd reque sted a limiting instruction; the
c ourt ov e rr ule d h is o bje c tio n a

nd re qu e st f or a lim iti ng ins tr

uc tio n. MF -1 18 te sti fi e d th a t N e sb y fi rs t had sex with her when she was seven or eig ht y ear s old and did so many times after

that. Be fore she testified about eve nts involvi ng the other c hildren, t h e court gave an instruc tion lim iting the
a pp lic a bil ity of e xtra ne o u s o f f e n s e s t o p u

r p o s e s o f i d e nt i fi c a tio n o f t

he de fe nd ant, pr e pa

ratio n, int e nt, and opportunity . MF-118 the n rec oun t ed t h e incident during w hich MF- 124 was pre sent; her test im on y ma tc he d M F -1 24 ’s e xce pt t hat MF -1 18 te sti fi e d th a t N e sb y fi rs t tr ie d to have se x with MF-124 be fore turning to MF-118. She c onfirmed that Ne sby made M F- 1 2 2 have se x with her. Finally , she testified a

bout a time when Ne sby

had sex with her on the kitchen table whe n she wa s y oung er tha

n fourtee n y ear s old. This last incident was the one f or which N esby

was c onvicted. MF-118 de nied telling a

ny one that she ha d sex wit h her unc le o r gr andfather or te lling any state authority that she had sex with any one other than Nesby . She denied f orcingNesby

to have sex wit h her. She a dmitted t h at s h e i n i tially denied to Ne sby ’s new w ife that Ne sby touched he r ina pp ro pr ia te ly ; MF -1 18 sa id s he wi thh e ld t hat in fo rm a tio n in re ta liatio n fo r the ne w w if e ’s ro le in5

e nd ingNe sb y ’s re la tio ns hip wi th M F -1 18 ’s mot he r. MF -1 18 sa id s he la te r d e c ide d to e xpos e the se
a c t i v i t i e s t o p r o t e c tN e s b y’ s d a u g h t e r s f r o m N e s b y.
DI SCU SSIO N Nesby raises thre e issues on appe al conc erningthe cour t’s admission of testimony by MF -1 18 , M F -1 22 , a

nd MF -1 24 re g ard inge xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e s; b e c a

u s e o f t h e sim ila ri ty of the iss ue s, Nesby argues these issues tog ether . He c ontends that t h e ev i d en ce was unne cessa ry , and that the pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t of thi s e vid e nc e so far ou tw eighs the pr ob a tiv e va lue that th e c ourt a bu se d it s dis c re tio n b y

a dmi tti ngit. The State, a s the proponent of this ex trane ous offe nse evide nce, be ars the bur den of showing admissibili ty
. Se e Ra nk in v . S tat e , 974 S.W .2d 707, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (op. on reh’ g ). Evidenc e is r eleva nt a nd g ener ally admissible if it ha s “any tendenc y to make the exist ence of any fa c t th a t is of

c on se qu e nc e to the de te rm inatio n of t he a c tio n mo re pr ob a

ble or le ss p ro ba

ble tha n it wo uld be wi tho ut the e vid e nc e .” Te x. R. E vid . 4 01 ; see also Tex. R. Evid. 402. Evidence of other c rimes or ba d acts is not admissi ble to prove the defe ndant’s cha rac ter in orde r to show that the cha rg ed ac ts were in conformity with tha t ch ara cter , but is admissi ble to prove motive,
o p p o rtu n it y , in te n t, p r e p ar a ti o n , p la

n , kn o w le d g e , id e n ti ty , o r a b s e n c e o f mi s ta k e o r a c c id e n t. T e x. R. Evi d. 40 4(b) . Wh e re the State ’s dir e c t e vid e nc e that c le arl y sh ow s an e le me nt o f t

he c ri me is neither c ontradicte d by

the def endant nor

undermined by cr oss-examination, evidence of other crimes to show the e lement is irrele vant. Se e Ra nk in , 974 S.W .2d at 719. The leg islature has de termined that, notwithstan d i n g rule 404, e vidence of other
c ri me s, wr on g s, or

a c ts c omm itt e d b y

the de fe nd ant ag a ins t a chi ld v ic timsh a ll b e a dmi tte d f or its6

bear ing on r eleva

nt matters such a s the state of mind of the de fenda nt and the child and the relationship of the defe ndant and the c hild before and af ter the of fense
. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. Ann. ar t. 38.37, § 2 (West Supp. 2004-05). This Court has held that evidenc e of e x trane ous sexual conduct with a child helps to prove that acts other wise unthinkable to the avera g e juror c ould occur , showing , for e x ample, that a pe rson in a position of authority , custody , or ca re of a y oung child has develope d an unnatur al attitude and r elationship toward that c hild. Er ns t v . S tat e , 971 S.W .2d 698, 70 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin , 1 99 8, no pe t.) ; se e als o M on tgo me ry

v . S tat e , 8 1 0 S. W. 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 9 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1990); J

oh ns v . S tat e , 23 6 S.W. 2d

82 0, 82 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 51 ). Ev ide nc e that is rel evan t unde r a

rt ic le 38 .3 7 s til l is su

bje c t to e xclu sio n if

its pr ob a tiv e va lue is s ub sta nti a lly outwei g h e d b y th e d an g e r o f u n f a ir p r e ju d ic e , c o n f

u s io n o f th e is s u e s , mi s le a d in g th e ju r y , or
ne e dle ss pr e se ntatio n of c umu la tiv e e vid e nc e . Te x. R. E vid . 4 03 ; Hi tt v . S tat e , 53 S.W .3d 697, 706 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). We revie w the admission of evide nce f or an a buse of discr etion. Sa laz ar v . S tat e , 38 S.W. 3d 14 1, 15 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); Mo ntg om e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 378. Rulings on re levanc e should be left larg ely to the trial cour t, relying on its own obser vations and experienc e, and w ill not be reverse d absent an abuse of discretion. Mo re no v . S

tat e , 858 S.W .2d 453, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 93 ); Cor le

yv . S tat e , 987 S.W .2d 615, 618 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 1999, no pe t.). I f the trial c ourt’s ruling was within the “zone of r easona ble disag ree ment,” ther e is no abuse of dis cr et i o n , an d we must uphold t he trial c ourt’s ruling
. Salazar , 3 8 S. W.3 d at 15 3- 54 ; Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 391. To find an error in the admis sion of evidence, we m ust be able to “say with confidenc e that by

no
reas on abl e pe rc e pti on

of c omm on e xpe ri e nc e c an it

be c on c lud e d th a t pr of

fe re d e vid e nc e ha s aMF-118 testified that MF-124 rebuff ed Nesby ’s attempts to fondle or have sex with her, 1 but that testimony

was va g ue about what actually occur red. 7 te nd e n c y t o m a k e t h e e xi s t e n c e o f a f a c t o f c o n s e qu e n c e m o r e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t ha n itwo uld otherwise be . . . .” Mo ntgom e ry , 8 10 S.W. 2d a t 39 1. Up on

fi nd ingsu c h e rr or , w e mu st a sse ss whether the er ror wa s harmful. Id
. Nesby argues that the ex trane ous-offe nse evidence was i rre levant bec ause it wa s not
ne c e ssa ry to p ro ve e le me nts of

the of fe ns e tha t w e re e sse nti a lly un c on te ste d, su c h a s ide nti ty , in te nt, plan, pre paration, and opportunity . But the e vidence was rele vant under article 38.37 to showthe relationship between Ne sby and MF -118 and the ir respe ctive states of mind. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. a

rt. 38.37, § 2. This is true both of evidenc e of inc idents that involved only Nesby and MF-118 a nd of evide nce of incidents that also involved other c hildren. While the events that other children w itnessed or pa

rticipated in a lso may

have involved c rimes ag ains t t h em , MF-118 w as prese nt at and the focus of all the incidents testified a bout in this rec ord. The testimony about such 1
e ve nts wa s thus wi thi n a

rt ic le 38 .3 7 e ve n tho ug h oth e r c hil dr e n w e re pr e se nt a nd , in so me ins tanc e s, involved in the extraneous act. The incidents involving other children c ast light on the state of mind of Ne sby and of MF -118, as we ll as their re lationship. Nesby contends that the evidence of ex trane ous offe nses was so unf airly prejudicia l that it should not have be en admitted. See Tex. R. Evi d. 403. This jury was a sked to det ermine whether Nesby committed one assault of MF-118, but hear d evidenc e fr om multi ple witnesses a bout multipl e assa

ults invol ving mor e than one child. Nesby complains that evidenc e (a nd
argume nt b a se d th e re on ) t hat he c oe rc e d M F -1 22 to h a ve se x with MF -1 18 in t

he pr e se nc e of

his8

sis te r, MF -1 24 , wo uld be e xtre me ly inf lammator y and un fa ir ly pr e

jud ic ia l to a

jur y c on c e rn e d w ith
a dif fe re nt a ssa

ult on a dif fe re nt d ay

inv olv ing on ly

MF -1 18 . H e c on te nd s th a t th e iss ue s c ou ld become confuse d and the jury misled by the arr ay of assaultive incidents in evidenc e whe n Nesby
wa s c ha rg e d w ithon ly

on e of fe ns e . T he lit any

of e xtra ne ou s e ven ts cou ld also be un ne c e ssa ri ly cumulative. But the tria l court has discretion in weighingthe conc erns of unfair pr ejudice. Mozon

v . S tat e , 991 S.W .2d 841, 846-47 (Te x . Crim. App. 1999). Fa ctors in the dec ision include: (1) how compelling ly

the extraneous off

ense e vidence serve s to make a f act of conseque nce more or less probable —a fa ctor whic h is related to the stre ng th of the ev i d en ce pr esente d by the propone nt to show the defe ndant in fac t committed the extraneous offe nse; (2 ) the po te nti a l th e ot he r o ff e ns e e vid e nc e ha s to imp re ss t he jur y “ in s ome irrational but neve rtheless indelible wa y ”; (3) the time the propone nt will need to develop the e vidence , during which the jury will be distracted f

rom consider ation of the indicted of fense ; (4) the forc e of the proponent’s ne ed for this evidence t o p ro ve a f act of c on se qu e nc e , i. e ., do e s th e pr op on e nt hav e oth e r p ro bativ e e vid e nc e a va ila ble to him to help establish thi s fac t, and is this fact re lated to an issue in dispute.
Id . at 84 7; se e als o M

an nin g v . S

tat e , 114 S.W .3d 922, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The testimony

about the extraneous of

fense s was st rong , and compe llingly showed t h e n a tu r e o f

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e nN e s b y an d M F
- 1 1 8 , t h e i r s t a t e s o f m i n d , an d

N e s b y’ s i d e n t i t y,
awa rene ss, and intent. No other evidenc e illust rate d these fac tors as well. The off ender ’s intent or knowledg e while c ommitt ing the act is a c ritical fa ct in the offe nse of a g g ravated sexual a ssault of a child. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.021( a)( 1)(B ).9 The e vidence of the extraneous offe nses had g reat pote ntial to impress the jury in an ind e lib le wa

y . Th e a c ts de sc ri be d we re re pu g na nt. B ut the re pu g na

nc e e vo ke d is ir

ratio na l on ly

if it dist rac ted the jurors from the offe nse charg ed and impelled them to convict Ne sby based on a ctions other than the one for

which he w as cha

rg ed. Th e re la tiv e a mou

nt o f t ime sp e nt on the e xtra ne ou s off e ns e s h a d s ome po te nti a l to distract the juror s from the sing le eve nt for which N esby was c harg ed. As Ne sby

notes, testimony
a bo ut t he c ha rg e d ev e nt oc c up ie d some tw e nty lin e s of te xt on on e pa g e in a g uil t- inn oc e nc e ph a se repor ter’s r ecor d that cover s about 400 pag es. But the imbalance is not that extreme. The testimony from the thre e child witnesses oc cupied less t h an s ix ty pag es, and ma

ny of those pag es did not
c on c e rn e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s. F ina lly , the State ne e de d th e e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e e vid e nc e to s up po rt

its c a se a g a ins t Nesby
. The deter

mination of Nesby ’s g uilt or innocence hinge d on the State’s ability to persuade jur or s th a t he int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

ha d s e x with

MF -1 18
. Hi s in te nt w a s a c ri tic a l is su e in dispute. Wi thout the evidence of ex trane ous offe nses, t he S tate had only the testimony from MF -118
a bo ut t he inc ide nt i n th e kit c he n. Th is w a s b a lanc e d w ithe vid e nc e tha t MF -1 18 lie d a

nd fe lt mot i v ated to harm Nesby . The e vidence of extraneous off enses—pa

rticularly that from the other child witnesses—wa s compelling corr oboration of MF-118’ s version of he r re lationship with Nesby and of his intentions toward he r.

We conclude that the di s t ri ct cour t did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testim o n y f

r o m M F
- 1 1 8 , M F
- 1 2 2 , an d M F
- 1 2 4 r e g ar d in g e xtr an e o u s a c ts c o mm itte d b y Nesby ag ainst MF-118.10 CO NC LU SION Con c lud ingthat th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in admitti ngthi s
e vid e nc e , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: May

5, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh