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

NO. 03-0 6 -00 530 -CR

Wa r de ll M oo r e , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF F AY ETTE COUNTY , 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2005 R-02 7 , HO NORAB LE DAN R. B ECK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th e jur y c on vic te d Ward e ll M oo re of the of fe ns e of a g g ra

va te d a ssa ult wi th a de a dly
wea pon. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.02(a) (2) (West Supp. 2006). Puni shment was asse ssed at 75 y ear s’ imprisonment. I n a sing le point of err or, Moore challeng es t he admissi bility of evide nce
re la tin g to a

pr ior a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult c on vic tio n. We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND The ju ry h ear d evidenc e that in the ea rly morning hours of January 30, 2005, SchulenburgChief of Police Randy Mican wa s dispatched to the r esidenc e of Evely n “B onnie” Wright in r esponse to a 911 call. Acc ording to the testimony of the 911 oper ator who r ece ived the call, the c aller, w ho did not ide n t ify herse lf, repor

ted that Wright’s throat had bee n cut by Moore. A na u d i o t a p e r e c o r d i n g o f

t h e 9 1 1 c a l l w a s p l aye d

f o r t h e j u r y.2 Chief Mican te stified that Moore wa s prese nt when he a rrived at the crime sc ene a nd that Mican immediately took Moor e into “ protec tive custody ” bec ause se vera l people we re standing
ar o u n d t h e h o u s e w h o “ s e e m e d

t o b e h o s t i l e ” t o w ar d s M o o r e . W h e nh e t o o k M o o r e i n t o c u s t o dy, Mican “ noticed blood on [Moore’s] hands.” Ther e wa s also blood on Moore’s shirt. B lood samples taken f rom Moore’ s shirt later tested positive for Wright’s DN A. Sta c e y Mart in, ano the r S c hu le nb ur g po lic e of fi c e r, late r ar

ri ve d at the sc e ne . M art in chec ked on the status of the victim insi de the house, determined that Wright’s injuries w ere sever e, and ca lled a medic to e nsure that Wright was transporte d to the near est hospital. L ater , Martin had
a conve rsation with o n e o f t h e b y standers, F reddie Ray Houston, who told him t hat the we apon Moore use d to cut Wright wa s in the backyard a nd then pointed it out to him
. Martin identified the
wea pon as a box cutter. Chief Mican also observe d the box cutter that night and te stified that it had blood on it. S amples of the blood teste d positive for Wright’ s DNA.

Severa l witnesses testified about e vents prio r t o the offic ers’ arr ival at Wright’s house. Moore ’s brother , Robert, testified that he had walked by the house on the night in question
and vis ite d w ithMs. Wri g ht. Rob e rt te sti fi e d th a t w he n h e wa s ta lki ng wi th Wrig ht, he sa w that hi s brother w as also in the house. Robert noticed that Moore had a box cutter “ at the bottom of his leg .” T h i s co n ce rn ed Robert, and he testified that he wa rned Wrig ht that Moore had a box cutter. Acc ording to Robert, Wright re sponded that she wa s not worried a bout Moore. Wrig h t a ls o te s ti f

ie d
. Sh e e xp la in e d th a t b o th M o o r e an d an o th e r ma n, Allen Jac ks on , w e re liv ing a t he r ho us e aro un d the tim e of the inc ide nt. Al l th re e of the m ha d b e e n at a pa rt y that e ve nin g . E a c h of the m r e tur ne d h ome se pa

ra te ly a t di ff e re nt t ime s. Wri g ht t e sti fi e d th a t,3

afte r Moore arr ived home, she w as in the kitchen c leaning
. J ackson was i n his bedroom and Moore
wa s in the liv ingro om. As Wri g ht wa s a bo ut t o p ut s ome be e r i nto he r r e fr ig e rator , M oo re c a me int o the kit c he n a

nd tol d h e r, “ Do n’ t to uc h th a t [e xple tiv e ] b e e r. ” Wri g ht r e sp on de d, “ War de ll, thi s is not y our bee r.” H oweve r, bec ause Moor e sounded dr unk, Wright decide d to let him have the bee r and turne d around to wash the di shes. Wright t estified that Moore came up be hind her a nd told her that if she touche d t h e b ee r, h e was g oing to c ut her throat. Wright did not believe him and continued wa shing the dishes. The ne x t thing Wrig ht knew, she f elt something w arm a cross he r throat. She thoug ht it w as s we at . She rea ched up, w iped her throat, and sa

w that it was blood. Wright testified that she turned around a nd saw that Moore was “ fix ing to c ut ag ain.” She thre w her arm up to def

end her self and Moor e cut he r ac ross her ar m . W ri gh t then fe ll backwa rds into the ref rig erator as Moore continued “sla shing” at her . Wright testified that she did not re member
any thi nga ft e r t

hat. Allen J ackson te stified that he found Wrig ht ly ing on th e f loor with her throat slashed, cut in sever al place s. J ackson a lso testified that he saw Moore standing ne ar he r with a box cutter. J ackson told Moore that he needed to leave , and, accor ding to J ackson, Moore we nt outside. J ackson also left the sc ene a

nd beg an runningfrom hou s e t o h o u s e to find a phone so he could c all 911. DuringJ ackson’ s testimony , as wil l be dis cussed in more detail below, the State introduced e vidence of Moore ’s prior c onviction for ag g ravated assault in an a ltercation involvi ng J ackson.

Two of the by standers at the crime sc ene, F reddie Ray Houston and

h is s is te r, Tame ka Houston, also testified for the S tate. Fr eddie Ray testified t hat All en J ackson r an over to his sis ter’s ho us e , w he re F re dd ie Ray wa s sta y ing that ni g ht, and

tol d h im that Mo or e ha d c ut Wr ig ht’ s th ro a t.Th re e oth e r w itn e sse s, Chi e f M ic an, Tame ka Ho us ton , a

nd Mo or e ’s br oth e r, Rob e rt , a lso 1 te sti fi e d th a t th e y

did no t ha ve any do ub t th a t Mo ore cut Wr ig ht’ s thro a t. M oo re ob je c te d to thi s te sti mony fr om Chi e f M ic an, bu t th e dis tr ic t c ou rt ov e rr ule d th e ob

je c tio n. Mo or e did

no t ob je c t to thi s te sti mony

fr om t he oth e r w itn e sse s. 4 Fr eddie Ray

informed Ta

meka of J ackson’ s statement. Tameka called 911, and the pair then went to Wright’s house. Both Freddie Ray and Tameka recounted that once they arr ived at the house, they could see Wright throug h the front door , holding he r throat a nd “wa lking around stag g ering , trying to ge t to the door.” F reddie Ray tried to open the door, but Moor e, who ha d appar ently re- enter ed t h e h o u s e , “

j u mp e d f r o m b e h i n d

t h e d o o r an d s w u n g a b l a d e ” a th i m . A c c o r d i n g t o F r e d d i e R ay, Moore told him, “ Get back. You’re not g etting in.” At this point the police a rrived a nd, Fr eddie Ray te sti fi e d, Mo or e “ ra

n o ut t he ba c k do or and

pit c he d th e bla de .” At

tr ia l, F re dd ie Ray

te sti fi e d th a t,
a ft e r M oo re wa s arr e ste d, he a sk e d Mo or e if and why he c ut Wr ig ht’ s thro a t. A c c or din g to F re dd ie R ay , M o o re at first denied suc h acts, but then star ted smiling and a dmitted, “I t was over a bee r.” F re dd ie Ray

te sti fi e d th a t he did

no t ha ve any do ub t th a t Mo or e c ut Wr ig ht’ s thro a t. 1 The jury convicted Moor e of a g g ravated assa u l t wi t h a dea dly wea pon and punishment was assesse d at 75 y ear s’ imprisonment. This appeal f ollowed.
DI SCU SSIO N I n a sin g le po int

of e rr or , Moo re argue s tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in admitting evide nce r elating to his prior conviction for ag g ravated assault. The evidenc e at issue wa s admitted during J ackson’ s testimony
. During Moore’ s cross-e x amination of J ackson, the following exchang e occ urre d:5

Q: Have y ou had disputes with Mr. Moore, War dell Moore? A: Ha

ve Iha d d isp ute s w ithhim ? Q: Ye s. A: No t a s I

re c oll e c t. Q: Wer e y ou

a ll o n f ri e nd ly te rm s? A: Wel l, j us t a

hi a nd by e te rm s.
L ater , Moore a g ain aske d J ackson a bout his prior relationship with Moore: Q: You eve r had a

fig ht with Mr. Wardell Moore? A: What does that have to do with this case ? Q: I ’m just asking you. A: Inever

had a f ight with Warde ll Moore.
I mmediately

afte r this exchang e, Moore passed the witness and the State asked f or a benc h confe renc e. The S t at e ar gu ed to the district court that Moore had “ope ned the door ” for admitting evide nce r elating to M o o re ’s prior c onviction for ag g ravated assault in an incide nt involving Jackson. Moore disagr eed, arguing that J ackson’ s denial of the f ight pr evente d the door fr om be ing op e ne d. Th e dis tr ic t court a g re e d with the State : “I thi nk it did op e n the do or . We w ill le t y ou ta lk a bo ut i t.” Th e State the n p ro c e e de d to a sk Jac ks on in r e dir e c t: Q: Okay
. Mr. Halpain asked y ou some questions a bout you g etting into a f

ight with Wardell Moore. Ha ve y ou ever

foug ht with W arde ll Moore? A: No.Mo or e ob je c te d to the a dmi ssi on of the pic tur e s, statin g wi tho ut e xplanatio n, “ I t de a ls w ith 2 a pr ior iss ue tha t I thi nk y ou ba rr e d f ro m th e se pr oc e e din g s. ” Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ov e rr ule d th is objection. 6 Q: B ut t

he re wa s an in c ide nt b e tw e e n you and War de ll M oo re , r ig ht? A: Th e re wa s an in c ide nt, y e s. Q: I n fac t, Wardell Moore - y ou have testified ag ainst him before , haven’ t y ou? A: Yes. On my

own per sonal ca se. Q: Ok ay . T hat w a s a c ri min a l c a se , w a sn ’t

it? A: Ye s. Q: I n fac t, that scar on your chin, that’s a cut t h at Wardell Moore did to y ou, isn ’t it? A: Ye s. Q: Wardell Moore w as convic ted of doingthat, wasn’t he ? A: Ye s, he wa s. Moore did not object to any of this testi m o n y . T h e State then pr ocee ded to show J ackson pic tures depic ting his injuries and a sk e d Jac ks on

to i de nti fy

the pic tur e s: 2 Q: Okay . And all three of those picture s are differ ent ang les of the wound that y ou rec eived f

rom Wardell Moore? A: Ye s. Q: What did W arde ll Moore use to cut you? A: A box cutter.7

Q : O k ay. W h e nW ar d e l l M o o r e w a s c o n v i c t e d , h e w e n tt o t h e p e n i t e n t i ar y, c or re c t? A: Ye s. On a pp e a l, M oo re ob

je c ts to the a dmi ssi on of his pr ior c on vic tio n o n th e ba sis of ru le of e vid e nc e 60 9( a ). Rul e 60 9( a ) p ro vid e s:
For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidenc e that the witness has been c onvicted of a crime sha ll be admitted if elicited fr om the witness or established by public rec ord but only

if the cr ime was a fe lony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of punishment, and the court de termines that the pr obative value of a dm i t t i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e o u t w e i g h s i t s p r e j u d i c i a l e f

f e c tt o a p art y.
Tex. R. Evi d. 609(a)
.

We first note t h at rul e 609 applies to situations in which the witn ess has bee n convicted of

a cr ime and the pr oponent of the e vidence is seeking to attack the credibili ty of that wi tne ss. Th a tw a s n o tt h e s i tu a t i o nh e r e . Ja c k s o nw a s t h e w i t n e s s , n o tM o o r e , an d t h e S t a te int ro du c e d M oo re’ s p ri or

c on vic tio n n ot a s im

pe a c hme nt e vid e nc e , b ut a s e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e
e vid e nc e un de r r

ule 40 4( b) . Ru le 40 4( b) pr ov ide s:
Evidence of other c rimes, wrong s or ac ts is not admis sible to prove the c hara cter of a per son in order to show a ction in conformity there with. I t may , howeve r, be a dmi ssi ble fo r oth e r p ur po se s, su c h a s p ro of

of mot ive , o pp or

tun ity , in te nt, prepa ration, plan, knowle dg e, identity , or abse nce of mistake or acc ident, provided that upon timely

reque st by

the ac cused in a

criminal ca se, re asonable notice is g iven in advanc e of tria l of intent to introduce i n t h e S t at e’s c ase- in-chief such evide nce other than that arising in the same tra nsaction.
Tex. R. Evi d. 404(b). The rec ord re flec ts and Moore doe s not dispute that the State provided Moore with rea sonable notice of its intent to int roduce extraneous offe nse evide nce.8 Be fore turning to admissibil ity , howeve r, we must a ddress the State’s contention that Moore f ailed to pre serve err or on t h at issue. To prese rve e rror , the complaining party must make
a timely , specific objection and obtain a rulingon the objection. See Tex. R. App. P . 33.1(a) . The objection must b e m ad e at the e arliest possible opportunity
. W ils on v . S tate , 71 S.W .3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The point of error on appeal must corr espond to the objec tion made at trial. Car

mo na v . S tate , 941 S.W .2d 949, 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). To prese rve e rror related to t he a dmi ssi on

of e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s, th e de fe nd ant m

us t ti me ly

ob je c t th a t th e e vid e nc e is ina dmi ssi ble un de r r

ule 40 4( b) , at w hic h p oin t th e State mus t sh owthat th e pr of fe re d e vidence is rele vant apa

rt from its tendenc y

to show that the defe ndant is a cr iminal. Loc k ha rt v . S tate , 84 7 S. W.2 d 5 68 , 5 73 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ). I f t he trial cou rt det e rm ine s th a t th e e vid e nc e is rele vant, the def

endant must object fur

ther unde r rule 403. Id
. Moore did not make obje ctions under r ules 404(b) or

403. I n fac t, during the benc h confe renc e, Moore failed to state a spec ific objec tion to the evidence or ar g ue a spe cific r eason w hy the evidenc e was inadmissibl e. Moore did not arg ue that the e vidence was irr eleva nt, more pr e jud ic ia l th an p ro bativ e , o r i mpr op e r fo r any oth e r re a so n. I ns te a d, Mo or e sim ply argue d th a t hi s q u es t i o n s and Jackson’s testimony did not “open the door ” to evidenc e about Moore ’s prior conviction. Moore lodg ed no other complaints. Additionally , all of Jackson’s subsequent testimony about Moore’ s prior convic ti on was a dmitted without a single objec tion from Moore. Moore objected only

to the l ater admission of t he pictures of J ackson’ s injuries, and eve n this objection was
va g ue , w ith Mo ore si mp ly statin g , “ I t de a ls w itha

pr ior iss ue tha t I thi nk y ou ba rr e d f ro m th e se proce eding s.” We ag ree with the State that Moore f ailed to pre serve err or.9 But ev en assuming that Moore pre serve d his complaint, any err or in admitting the
e vid e nc e wo uld no t be re ve rs ibl e be c a us e it wa s ha

rm le ss. Th e e rr on e ou s a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e is
non co n s t i t utional error
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 967 S.W .2d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Nonconstitutional err or t hat does not aff ect substantial rig hts must be disreg arde d. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b). Ther e wa s considera ble evidenc e establishing Moore’ s g uilt apart fr om Moore’s pr ior conviction. See Mo til la v. Sta te , 78 S.W .3d 352, 358 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“[E]vi dence of the defe ndant’s guilt is a fa ctor to be c onsidered in an y t h o ro ug h harm a naly sis.”). Ms. Wright, the vic t i m , i d e n t i f

i e d M o o r e a s h e r

a t t a c k e r an d d e s c r i b e d

h i s a t t a c k

i ng r a p h i c d e t a i l
. M u lti ple witnesses, including Moore’ s brother, Chief Mican, a nd Fred d i e R ay

and Tameka Houston, we re allowe d t o t estify

that they had “no doubt” that Moore c ut Wright’s throat. Jackson testified that when he found Wright on the g round, Moore was s t an ding ne ar he r with a box cutter in his hand. F re dd ie Ray

and Ta me ka Ho us ton te sti fi e d th a t Mo or e pr e ve nte d th e m f ro m e nte ri ngWri g ht’ s h ou se wh e n th e y

arr ive d a nd tr ie d to he lp h e r. F re dd ie Ray te sti fi e d th a t Mo or e swun g a “ bla de ” a t hi m when he tried t o open the door. Fr eddie Ray was a lso allowed to testify that, when he asked Moor e if and why

he cut Wrig ht’s throat, Moore at fi rs t d en i ed s u ch ac ts, but then started smiling and admitted, “I t was over a beer .” Offic er Mican testified that when he place d Moore in custody , Moore had “blood on his ha

nds.” Fur thermore , blood f

ound on Moore’ s shirt and the box cutter found at th e s c e n e te s te d p o s it iv e f o r Wr ig h t’ s D N A
. A d d it io n a ll y , w e n o te th a t t h e St a te d id

n o t e mp h a s iz e Moore’ s prior convic tion. I n fac t, the State did not even mention it duringits closing ar g ument. See id . at 356 (whe ther State e mphasizes error is factor to be consider ed in har

m analy sis). We overrule Moore’ s point of error
.10 CO NC LU SION Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d M oo re ’s po int of e rr or , we a ff ir m the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: August 9, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh