Court Opinion

ID: 9767742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:24:47.293261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.697310
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
dissenting.
Houston complains that evidence of extraneous offenses was admitted over his objections. See Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 401, 403, 404(b). The evidence came from three sources: Houston’s written statement, testimony of the complainant, and testimony of the complainant’s sister.
RULES OF EVIDENCE
Before reciting the facts of the offense and the evidence that Houston complains of, a review of the rules of evidence concerning “other crimes, wrongs, and acts” will be helpful. See id. at 404(b).
CONDUCT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF RULE 404(b)
Rule 404(b) does not speak of “extraneous offenses”; rather, it limits the admissibility of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” Id. An extraneous offense is any act of misconduct, whether resulting in prosecution or not, which is not shown in the charging paper and which is shown to have been committed by the accused. Hernandez v. State, 817 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.); Gomez v. State, 626 S.W.2d 113, 114 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1981, pet. ref’d). *185Thus, an extraneous offense is by definition an “other crime.” But the rule does not stop there. It also limits the admissibility of “other wrongs” and “other acts.” An example was presented in Mayes v. State, where the objectionable evidence was proof that Mayes was, at the time of the offense, confined in “administrative segregation” in the prison. Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79, 85 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).
BACKGROUND EVIDENCE
Generally the State is entitled to introduce evidence of the facts and circumstances of an offense, i.e., the “background evidence.” Id.; Burns v. State, 556 S.W.2d 270, 282 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 935, 98 S.Ct. 422, 54 L.Ed.2d 294 (1977). Such evidence is “relevant” in the sense that it illuminates circumstances otherwise dimly perceived by the factfinder. Mayes, 816 S.W.2d at 85. However, Mayes held that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may not be admitted on the sole justification that it is “background” evidence. Id. at 88. The admission of character evidence on the rationale that it is “background” evidence helpful to a jury conflicts with the proscription of Rule 404(b) — character evidence is not admissible as an “other purpose” under the rule. Id.; Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 404(b).
SAME TRANSACTION CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE
“Same transaction contextual evidence” of other crimes is admissible as an exception to the propensity rule where several crimes are intermixed, blended with one another, or so connected that they form an indivisible criminal transaction and full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of them cannot be made without showing the others. Mayes, 816 S.W.2d at 86 n. 4; see also Taylor v. State, 420 S.W.2d 601, 605 (Tex.Crim.App.1967) (holding that testimony that Taylor, who was charged with the murder of Lucia Etter, had also killed Fritz Etter, who was riding in the same pickup as Lucia, was properly admitted because the other offense was “part of the case on trial, or blended or closely interwoven therewith”). The exception exists because in narrating the offense on trial it is impracticable to avoid describing the other offense, not because the other offense has any evidentiary purpose. Mayes, 816 S.W.2d at 87 n. 4.
OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS
When the State attempts to adduce evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts,” the defendant must object in a timely fashion to preserve his complaint for appeal. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 387 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (on rehearing). After objection, the State must satisfy the court that the other crime, wrong, or act has relevance apart from its tendency to prove the defendant’s character to show that he acted in conformity therewith. Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 404(b). If the court determines that the evidence has no relevancy apart from character conformity, then it is inadmissible. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 387.
The State may, however, persuade the court that the evidence has relevance apart from character conformity, i.e., that an “other purpose” such as those set forth in Rule 404(b) will be served by admission of the evidence. Id. at 387-88; Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 401, 404(b). Upon a defendant’s request, the State should articulate the purpose for which the evidence is offered, and the court should articulate the reason for its admission. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 387.
Upon further objection that the relevancy of an extraneous offense is substantially outweighed by any of the factors listed in Rule 403, usually unfair prejudice, the court must engage in the balancing process. Id. at 389; Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 403. Factors that may be used in the balancing process include (1) the inherent probative value of the evidence, (2) the similarity of the conduct to the offense on trial, (3) the strength of the evidence of the extraneous conduct, (4) the nature of the extraneous conduct and its potential for impressing the jury in irrational, but indelible ways, (5) the trial time necessary to develop the evidence, giving consideration to whether the jury’s attention will be diverted from the offense on trial, and (6) the State’s “need” for the evidence including (a) the availability of other evidence which tends to accom*186plish the same “other purpose,” (b) the strength of the other evidence, and (c) whether the purpose served by the admission of the extraneous conduct relates to an issue that is in dispute. Id. at 389-90. Because of the presumption that probativeness outweighs prejudice, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating how the negative attributes of the evidence substantially outweigh its probative value. Id.
If a determination is made that the evidence is admissible, the court should, upon request, instruct the jury that the evidence is limited to whatever purpose will be served by its admission. Id. at 387-88; Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 105(a).
THE OFFENSE
Houston was charged with the sexual assault of N.D. by placing his mouth against her vagina. The offense occurred while his family was on an outing with N.D.’s family at Lake Whitney. Soon after they arrived at the lake, Houston took N.D., her sister C.D., and his daughter C.W. to a nearby store. After they returned and after lunch, N.D. started walking down a trail. Houston stopped her, and they went to a little white building. She testified that Houston told her that he would let her have some pictures that he had taken on the way to the store if she would ‘let him lick [her] private.” He pulled her inside the building, held her against the wall, pulled her bathing suit down, and “put his mouth on [her] vagina.” As she was pulling her bathing suit up, her father arrived and told her to go tell her mother what had happened. The families, who lived in the same trailer park, continued to see each other. Houston was arrested more than one year later and gave a voluntary statement admitting the offense.
THE DISPUTED EVIDENCE
N.D. testified that, while she, Houston, C.D., and C.W. were in the car going to the store, Houston stopped and got a camera from the trunk. He told the girls that he would give them five dollars and buy them “candy and stuff” if they would pose for nude pictures. He took pictures while N.D. and C.W. pulled their bathing suits to one side, exposing their vaginas. C.D. did not participate in the picture-taking. Houston did not give them any money, but bought candy for N.D. and C.W. He did not buy C.D. anything.
C.D. testified to the events that occurred on the way to the store. She gave no testimony about the facts of the assault. Houston’s statement also contained references to the events surrounding the picture-taking.
Each time evidence of these events was offered, Houston objected on the basis that the testimony concerned extraneous offenses prohibited by Rule 404(b) and that its probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial nature of the testimony. The record does not reveal that the State made any attempt to persuade the court that the evidence had relevance apart from character conformity. However, the State’s brief states:
“The evidence complained of by Appellant was not evidence of unrelated offenses. They were occurrences that were intimately connected with the events surrounding the commission of the primary offense. Events do not occur in a vacuum; and the jury had a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to the commission of the offense, so that the jury could realistically evaluate the evidence.”
APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
The court did not have the benefit of the Mayes decision, because Houston was tried shortly after the opinion in Montgomery and before Mayes was decided. Mayes, 816 S.W.2d 79; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d 372. Nevertheless, the rules enunciated in Mayes are applicable, as well as those found in Montgomery. See id.
I do not believe that the admission of the evidence of picture-taking can be justified under the “same transaction contextual evidence” exception to Rule 404(b). See Mayes, 816 S.W.2d at 86 n. 4. The events surrounding the picture-taking and the events that constituted the offense were separated by time and by distance. The *187picture-taking occurred before lunch and on the way to the store; the assault occurred after lunch and “down the trail.” Thus, it was not impracticable for N.D. to narrate the events surrounding the assault without describing the picture-taking. See id. at 87 n. 4. The fact that N.D.’s sister, C.D., testified only about the picture-taking demonstrates that the two events were not so “intermixed,” or “blended,” or “connected” as to form an indivisible criminal transaction, such that testimony of the assault could not be given without describing the picture-taking.1 See id. As the footnote to Mayes suggests, it was not “necessary” for the State to prove the picture-taking to prove the assault. See id. (citing Solosky v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 537, 236 S.W. 742 (1922), where, in a prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the court describes the use of the pistol as “so intermingled with those [facts] that it was necessary for the state to prove, in order to make out its case, that the development of the essential facts would have been difficult, if not impossible, without revealing the acts of the appellant in the use of the pistol”).
The evidence of picture-taking was not admissible as “background evidence.” See Mayes, 816 S.W.2d at 88. The admission of character evidence on the rationale that it is “background” evidence helpful to a jury conflicts with the proscription of Rule 404(b) — it is not admissible as an “other purpose” under the rule.2 Id.; Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 404(b).
Houston objected to the inclusion of evidence of the picture-taking when his statement was admitted into evidence. When N.D. and C.D. testified about the picture-taking, Houston’s statement admitting guilt of the assault was already in evidence. The State did not assert, and the court did not find, that the evidence had relevance apart from character conformity, 1.e., that an “other purpose” such as those set forth in Rule 404(b) would have been served by admission of the evidence. See Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 404(b); Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 387-88. The court did not engage in the balancing process required after an objection under Rule 403. See Tex. R.Crim.Evid. 403; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389.
Thus, I would sustain Houston’s points one through four.
WAS THE ERROR HARMLESS?
I cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the evidence of picture-taking made no contribution Houston’s punishment. See Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(2). In applying the “harmless error” rule, the focus is not on the propriety of the trial’s outcome but on the integrity of the process. See Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). It is necessary to examine the source of the error, the nature of the error, whether or *188to what extent the State emphasized it, and its probable collateral implications. Id. The error and all its effects must be isolated, using these considerations and any other considerations suggested by the facts of the case. Id. Consideration must be given to how much weight a juror would probably place on the error, and ask whether a rational trier of fact might have reached a different result if the error and its effects had not occurred. Id.
The error that I perceive in admitting evidence of the picture-taking cannot be said to have contributed to Houston’s conviction; he admitted the assault in his written statement and does not challenge the statement on appeal. At the punishment phase, however, the State made no opening statement and announced, “No additional evidence, Your Honor.” Thus, the State produced no evidence of a criminal record, Houston’s general reputation, his character, or any other evidence relevant to sentencing. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 37.07, § 3(a) (Vernon Supp.1992). Houston offered evidence that he had completed a substance-abuse treatment program, that he had never been convicted of a felony in any state or federal jurisdiction, that he had been honorably discharged from the army, and that he had been baptized while in jail awaiting trial for the assault.
The punishment-phase charge stated: “[I]n fixing the Defendant’s punishment ..., you may take into consideration all the facts shown by the evidence admitted before you in the full trial of this case....” Thus, the jury was instructed that it could consider the picture-taking in assessing Houston’s punishment. During the guilt-innocence phase, evidence of the picture-taking was admitted in three ways. As stated, C.D. testified only about the extraneous offense. The State spent a considerable amount of the total trial time proving the extraneous offense and made arguments to the jury about the picture-taking during both the guilt-innocence and punishment phases of the trial. Under the facts of this case, I believe that a juror might place undue weight on the prejudicial aspects of the picture-taking and that the effect of the error was such that the process whereby the jury applied the law to the facts to reach a verdict during the punishment phase was compromised, resulting in a fifty-year sentence. See Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 587-88. Thus, I cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence of the picture-taking made no contribution to Houston’s punishment. See Tex.R.App.'P. 81(b)(2).
I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the trial court.

. I cannot agree, as the majority suggests, that the pictures themselves would necessarily have been admissible at trial, had they been available. They did not tend to make the existence of any fact of consequence any more or less probable. See Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 401, 402. They were evidence of the extraneous offense. See id. at 404(b). And they would have been subject to an objection under Rule 403 that their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial nature. See id. at 403. In view of the fact that Houston admitted the offense in his written statement, the objection could well have prevailed because (1) the probative value of the pictures as tending to prove any element of the offense would be negligible, (2) the pictures would tend to impress the jury in irrational, but indelible ways, (3) the potential for diverting the jury’s attention from the offense on trial would be great, and (4) the State’s "need" for the pictures would be limited. See id. at 403; Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 389-90 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

. In my view, the rationale "that events do not occur in a vacuum and the jury has a right to have the offense placed in its proper setting so that all evidence may be realistically evaluated,” previously used to justify admission of evidence relevant only "in the sense that it illuminates circumstances otherwise dimly perceived by the factfinder,” is now limited to background events which do not constitute evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 401, 404(b); Mayes, 816 S.W.2d at 85, 88. Thus, cases like Mann v. State, 718 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim.App.1986) holding that testimony about extraneous offenses was admissible if part of the res gestae or background were, by implication, overruled by the Mayes holding that such a rule conflicts with the proscription of Rule 404(b). Id.