Court Opinion

ID: 9412432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 08:06:58.028431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:18.462782
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
       ___________________________

            No. 02-22-00265-CR
       ___________________________

      ADRIAN ROBINSON, Appellant

                      V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS

   On Appeal from the 396th District Court
          Tarrant County, Texas
        Trial Court No. 1635269D

 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Adrian Robinson appeals his conviction for engaging in organized

crime by committing murder and by committing deadly conduct.1 See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. §§ 19.02(b), 22.05, 71.02(a)(1). On appeal, Robinson argues in a single

point that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting extraneous offense

evidence over Robinson’s Rule 403 objection. See Tex. R. Evid. 403. We affirm.

                                   I. BACKGROUND

      On the night of January 12, 2020, while driving his 17-year-old sister-in-law

Cheyenne Moore home in his white Chevrolet Tahoe, Zachary Coble heard gunshots.

Initially, the shots were not directed at his vehicle, but minutes later, his vehicle was

riddled with bullets, which penetrated the windows, fenders, and doors. After the

barrage of gunfire, Zachary noticed that Cheyenne was slumped over and bloody, so

he rushed her to the hospital. But Cheyenne’s life could not be saved. She died from

her wounds.

      1
       Robinson was indicted on six counts: murder (Count One); engaging in
organized crime by committing murder (Count Two); engaging in organized crime by
committing aggravated assault (Count Three); aggravated assault (Count Four);
engaging in organized crime by committing deadly conduct (Count Five); and deadly
conduct (Count Six). At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the trial court granted
Robinson’s motion for a directed verdict on Counts Three and Four. The jury
convicted Robinson on Counts Two and Five, but because it could not reach a
unanimous verdict on Count One or Count Six, the trial court granted Robinson’s
motions for a mistrial on each of those counts.

                                           2
       Fort Worth Police Detective Earnest Pate was assigned to investigate

Cheyenne’s murder. He began by using surveillance footage to piece together a series

of similar and recent shootings—two on the same evening and another that had

occurred two weeks earlier—and he discovered that all involved a silver Hyundai

Sonata with a defective taillight.

       Shortly before Cheyenne had been shot, two other shootings had occurred in

the same area. Ten minutes earlier, there had been a shooting at a nearby apartment

complex called the Buttercup Apartments, and just one minute before Cheyenne was

shot, someone working on a red Ford Mustang had been shot near an intersection

only a few blocks away.2 Analysis of shell casings found at the three crime scenes

indicated that all of the shootings—as well as a shooting that had taken place on

Horne Street approximately two weeks earlier—were related. And, although the

surveillance footage placed a silver Hyundai Sonata with a defective taillight at all

three crime scenes on the evening of January 12, Detective Pate was unable to read its

license plate.

       But when Detective Pate reviewed surveillance footage from the Horne Street

shooting that had occurred two weeks earlier, the Sonata’s license plate could be seen.

Using that license plate number, he was able to track down the vehicle’s owner, Erin

Baldwin. Detective Pate interviewed Baldwin, who informed him that on the night

       The shooting at this nearby intersection was presumably the source of the
       2

gunfire that Coble had heard shortly before Cheyenne was shot.

                                          3
Cheyenne was shot, Robinson and two other men—Christopher Williams and Braylin

Brown—had borrowed Baldwin’s Sonata. Based on this information, Detective Pate

obtained arrest warrants for Robinson, Williams, and Brown.

       Detective Pate ultimately concluded that Robinson had been the one who had

actually shot Cheyenne, and Robinson was later indicted on six counts pertaining to

Cheyenne’s shooting death.

       Before trial, the State notified Robinson of its intent to present evidence of

certain extraneous offenses, including the Buttercup Apartments and Mustang

shootings that had taken place immediately before Cheyenne was shot. Robinson

responded with a motion in limine seeking to exclude the extraneous offense

evidence. After a pretrial hearing, the trial court overruled Robinson’s objection to

the evidence and indicated that it would allow the introduction of evidence of the

other shootings as same-transaction contextual evidence. But the court clarified that

Robinson would need to object to the evidence when it was offered or mentioned in

front of the jury.

       At trial, Detective Pate testified about his investigation of the three January 12,

2020 shootings as detailed above. In addition, Williams, who was a passenger in the

Sonata at the time of the shootings on January 12, testified as a State’s witness.

Williams explained that on the day Cheyenne was killed, he drove with Robinson and

Brown to a motel to trade vehicles with Baldwin. After swapping their BMW truck

for Baldwin’s “dark gray” vehicle, the three men went to the east side of Fort Worth

                                            4
and searched unsuccessfully for a rapper whom Brown wanted to fight. Williams

testified that while their car was stopped at a stop sign, Brown jumped out and began

shooting at a person working on a red Ford Mustang. According to Williams, both

Brown and Robinson fired at the Mustang and the person beside it, but he did not

know why.

      After Robinson and Brown got back in the car, the group began driving down

Rosedale Street until a white Tahoe pulled up next to them. Williams testified that—

again, for unknown reasons—Robinson shot out the window at the Tahoe.

According to Williams, sometime later, Robinson showed him a news article about

the shooting and Cheyenne’s death, but Robinson did not seem remorseful about it.

      Another witness, Leontye Willis, testified that Robinson had also shown him an

article about Cheyenne’s death and had admitted to shooting her. Again, Robinson

was described as unremorseful.     To the contrary, Willis described Robinson as

“excited” about it.

      Ultimately, the jury found Robinson guilty of Counts Two and Five of the six-

count indictment—engaging in organized crime by committing murder and by

committing deadly conduct. The trial court sentenced Robinson to 75 years in prison

on Count Two and 20 years in prison on Count Five.3 This appeal followed.

      3
       These sentences are to run concurrently.

                                         5
                                   II. DISCUSSION

       In a single point, Robinson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

admitting evidence of the Buttercup Apartments and Mustang shootings over

Robinson’s Rule 403 objection because the evidence’s probative value was

substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. See Tex. R. Evid. 403.

However, Robinson has failed to preserve this issue for our review.

A. Standard of Review

       We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse

of discretion standard. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003);

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 379 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). We will not reverse a

trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence unless the record shows a clear

abuse of discretion. Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 595. An abuse of discretion occurs only

when the trial court’s decision was so clearly wrong as to lie outside that zone within

which reasonable persons might disagree. Id. If the trial court’s evidentiary ruling is

correct on any applicable theory of law, we will not disturb it even if the trial court

gave the wrong reason for its ruling. De la Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2009); Qualls v. State, 547 S.W.3d 663, 675 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018,

pet. ref’d).

B. Admissibility of Extraneous Offense Evidence

       Rule 404(b)(1) generally disallows evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts

solely to prove a person’s character to show that the person acted in conformity with

                                           6
that character on a particular occasion. Tex. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). However, such

extraneous offense evidence may be admissible to prove motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Tex. R.

Evid. 404(b).

      Additionally, “extraneous-offense evidence may . . . be admissible as same-

transaction contextual evidence, where ‘several crimes are intermixed, or blended with

one another, or connected so that they form an indivisible criminal transaction.’”

Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting Rogers v. State,

853 S.W.2d 29, 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)); see also Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524,

532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The primary purpose of same-transaction contextual

evidence is to help the jury better understand the nature of the alleged offense by

putting it in context. See Swarb v. State, 125 S.W.3d 672, 681 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2003, pet. dism’d); see also Singleton v. State, No. 2-03-512-CR, 2004 WL

2416748, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 28, 2004, pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (noting that “[t]he purpose for admission” of

same-transaction contextual evidence is “to help the jury better understand the nature

of the alleged crime”). As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized, “the

jury is entitled to know all relevant surrounding facts and circumstances of the

charged offense; an offense is not tried in a vacuum.” Prible, 175 S.W.3d at 732

(quoting Moreno v. State, 721 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)).

                                          7
      In addition, same transaction contextual extraneous offense evidence is

admissible because in narrating one offense that is intermixed with another, it is often

impracticable to avoid describing the other offense. Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79, 86–

87 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Lamb v. State, No. 01-03-00587-CR, 2004 WL 1472114,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 1, 2004, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). “In other words, if narration of the primary offense

would make little or no sense without bringing in the other offense, then evidence of

the other offense should be admitted.” Singleton, 2004 WL 2416748, at *1 (citing Jones

v. State, 962 S.W.2d 158, 165 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.)).

C. Rule 403

       Like all relevant evidence, same-transaction contextual extraneous offense

evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 if the danger of unfair prejudice

substantially outweighs the evidence’s probative value. See King v. State, 189 S.W.3d

347, 354 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.); see also Tex. R. Evid. 403.

      “Rule 403 favors the admission of relevant evidence and carries a presumption

that relevant evidence is more probative than prejudicial.” James v. State, 623 S.W.3d

533, 546–47 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, no pet.) (first citing Montgomery, 810

S.W.2d at 389; and then citing Emich v. State, No. 02-18-00059-CR, 2019 WL 311153,

at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 24, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication)). Because of this presumption, it is the burden of the party opposing the

admission of the evidence to show that the evidence’s probative value is substantially

                                           8
outweighed by one or more of the dangers listed in Rule 403—including unfair

prejudice. James, 623 S.W.3d at 547; Wells v. State, 558 S.W.3d 661, 669 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref’d); Sanders v. State, 255 S.W.3d 754, 760 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2008, pet. ref’d).

      To determine whether evidence is admissible in the face of a Rule 403

objection, the trial court must conduct a balancing test. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at

389; see Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641–42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has instructed that when undertaking a Rule 403

analysis, courts must balance (1) the inherent probative force of the proffered item of

evidence and (2) the proponent’s need for that evidence against (3) any tendency of

the evidence to suggest a decision on an improper basis, (4) any tendency of the

evidence to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues, (5) any tendency that a

jury that has not been equipped to evaluate the probative force of the evidence would

give it undue weight, and (6) the likelihood that presentation of the evidence will

consume an inordinate amount of time or merely repeat evidence already admitted.

Gigliobianco, 210 S.W.3d at 641–42.

D. Robinson Failed to Preserve His Sole Appellate Point

      To preserve error in the admission of evidence, a party generally must object

each time that the objectionable evidence is offered. Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 13

(Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003);

Clay v. State, 361 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). Further,

                                           9
for a complained-of error to be preserved for appellate review, the legal basis of the

complaint raised on appeal must comport with the objection made at trial. See Lovill v.

State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Because Robinson failed to object on Rule 403 grounds—or,

indeed, on any grounds—when the challenged extraneous offense evidence was

offered at trial, he has failed to preserve his sole appellate point. See Lovill, 319 S.W.3d

at 691; see also Geuder, 115 S.W.3d at 13.

       Robinson concedes that he failed to object to the admission of the extraneous

offense evidence during trial, but he contends that because he filed a motion in limine

complaining of the extraneous offense evidence that was heard and overruled in a

pretrial hearing, he was not required to object again during trial to preserve his

appellate complaint.4 We disagree.

       As noted above, before trial, the State notified Robinson of its intent to present

evidence of certain extraneous offenses, including the Buttercup Apartments and

Mustang shootings. Robinson filed a motion in limine requesting that the trial court

instruct the State not to mention or refer to any of Robinson’s extraneous offenses

and arguing in the alternative that the trial court should hold a hearing outside the

jury’s presence before any specific mention of an extraneous offense to determine,

       4
        Although—as Robinson concedes—he did not object at trial to the admission
of the extraneous offense evidence he now challenges on appeal, he did object to the
admission of evidence of a separate extraneous offense that was not addressed in the
pretrial hearing on his motion in limine.

                                             10
among other things, “whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by

danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issue[s].”

      At the pretrial hearing to determine whether the State’s extraneous offense

evidence was admissible, the State called Detective Pate to testify and, based on his

testimony, argued that the evidence of the Buttercup Apartments and Mustang

shootings was admissible as same-transaction contextual evidence.         In response,

Robinson expressed his disagreement with both the State’s assertion that “it would

not make sense for the jury not to know about all three . . . shootings” and its

contention that the three shootings were “so interwoven that it[ would] not [be]

possible for the State to put on evidence . . . in this case . . . without references or

bringing in evidence of the other cases.” He then stated that he stood on his “original

objection” that the evidence was “extraneous” and “proper for punishment but not

for guilt or innocence.” But—crucially—at no point during the hearing did Robinson

argue that the extraneous offense evidence’s probative value was substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or reference Rule 403 as a basis for

excluding the evidence.

      The trial court overruled Robinson’s objection, and then the following

exchange occurred:

      [Robinson’s Counsel]:      Will I need, Your Honor, ever to object in
                                 front of the jury about this?

                                          11
      The Court:                 I think the first time you need to, yeah. And
                                 then I would give you the running objection
                                 in the presence of the jury.
      [Robinson’s Counsel]:      Without creating a -- from my experience
                                 sometimes juries run down some rabbit trail
                                 or another. . . . Is there a way I can make that
                                 objection to preserve the record without
                                 having to go into the detail that we’re going in
                                 here?
      The Court:                 If you -- if we get to the point where they are
                                 going to start talking about the extraneous,
                                 you could do that before we call the witness in
                                 the presence of the jury so for purposes of the
                                 record you’re covered.
      [Robinson’s Counsel]:      I’m guessing . . . [the State] will want to
                                 reference it [in its opening statement], and I
                                 would probably want to have some way to
                                 protect my objection on the record. I’m not
                                 sure I want to interrupt [the State’s] opening
                                 statement.
      The Court:                 No, no, no. Before -- I think you would be
                                 covered that if you stand up and say, I’m
                                 anticipating that the State is going to go into
                                 the extraneous offenses that the Court
                                 reviewed pretrial and I renew my objection.
Thus, the trial court clearly instructed Robinson that he would need to object to the

mention or admission of the extraneous offense evidence at trial, or prior to opening

statements, to preserve his objection. At that point, the trial court indicated that it

would grant a running objection to obviate the need for further objections.

      But Robinson did not do so. As anticipated, the State discussed the Buttercup

Apartments and Mustang shootings during its opening statement, but—despite the

                                          12
trial court’s clear instructions at the pretrial hearing—Robinson did not object. Later

the State presented three witnesses—Williams, Willis, and Detective Pate—who

testified about the other shootings without any objection from Robinson. Finally, the

State referenced the other shootings in its closing statement, but, once again,

Robinson did not object.

      Thus, the record clearly shows that Robinson failed to preserve his appellate

complaint either by objecting on Rule 403 grounds each time the extraneous offense

evidence was offered at trial, see Geuder, 115 S.W.3d at 13, or by obtaining a running

objection on those grounds, see id.; Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858–59 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991).

      Robinson relies on Maynard v. State, 685 S.W.2d 60, 64–65 (Tex. Crim. App.

1985), to support his contention that his motion in limine was sufficient to preserve

his appellate complaint, but his reliance on this case is misplaced. In Maynard, the

appellant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of an extraneous

offense. Id. at 63. At trial, when the State attempted to elicit evidence of the

extraneous offense, the appellant objected and requested that the matter be taken up

outside the presence of the jury. Id. at 64. The trial court then dismissed the jury and

held a hearing on the admission of the extraneous offense evidence.           Id.   The

appellant objected at the hearing and again in the presence of the jury when the

evidence was introduced. Id. The trial court overruled both objections. Id.

                                          13
      On appeal, the appellant argued that his motion in limine was sufficient to

preserve error, but the Court of Criminal Appeals emphatically rejected this argument,

stating that the appellant’s “contention [was] patently without merit” and noting that

“[i]t is axiomatic that motions in limine do not preserve error.” Id. However, the

court agreed that the appellant’s objection made during trial at the hearing outside the

jury’s presence when the State attempted to introduce the extraneous offense

evidence was sufficient to preserve the asserted error. Id. at 64–65.

      Thus, Maynard is distinguishable from the present case and does not support

Robinson’s preservation argument.       Because—unlike the appellant in Maynard—

Robinson never objected to the admission of the extraneous offense evidence during

trial, his preservation argument rests solely on his motion in limine. But, as noted

above, the Maynard court emphatically rejected the notion that a motion in limine

could preserve error. Id. at 64. Thus, far from supporting Robinson’s preservation

argument, Maynard actually undermines it.

      Because Robinson failed to object on Rule 403 grounds each time the State

offered evidence of the Buttercup Apartments and Mustang shootings at trial or to

obtain a running objection on those grounds, he did not preserve his appellate

complaint for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see also Gary v. State, No. 02-21-

00171-CR, 2023 WL 2805477, at *5–7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 6, 2023, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that appellant’s written

objection—which was never ruled on—and motion in limine did not preserve his

                                            14
appellate argument that extraneous offense evidence was not admissible under Rule

403 because he did not object when the evidence was offered at trial or obtain a

running objection on Rule 403 grounds); Gauna v. State, 534 S.W.3d 7, 10–11 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (holding that Rule 403 objection during pretrial

hearing under Article 38.37 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was not

sufficient to preserve error and that defendant was required to renew his objection

when the witness testified or obtain a running objection).

      Accordingly, we overrule Robinson’s sole point.

                                  III. CONCLUSION

      Having overruled Robinson’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                     /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

                                                     Bonnie Sudderth
                                                     Chief Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: July 27, 2023

                                          15