Court Opinion

ID: 9775759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:08:31.60458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.877164
License: Public Domain

WHITHAM, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part. I concur in overruling appellant’s first ground of error, but for reasons different from that of the majority. I find merit in appellant’s second ground of error. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand.
I will address appellant’s second ground of error first. In my view, the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the L.B. extraneous offense. Contrary to the majority’s holding, I find no sufficient similarity between the offense against complainant and the offense against L.B. To my mind, there are similarities between the offense against complainant and the offense against L.B., “but they are more in the nature of the similarities common to the type of crime itself rather than similarities peculiar to both offenses alone.” Ford v. State, 484 S.W.2d 727, 730 (Tex.Crim.App.1972).
Consider the similarities the majority perceives between the offense against the complainant and the offense against L.B. First, the distance of one mile. In my view, a distance of one mile given the highly concentrated urban population of the Dallas areas involved is meaningless. Second, the sharing of a house with someone else, but being alone at the time of the offense. In my view, the rape of a woman alone is common to the type of the crime itself rather than a similarity peculiar to the offenses against complainant and L.B. Third, the rapist’s act of concealing his *429face. In my view, concealment of the rapist’s face is common to this type of crime itself rather than a similarity peculiar to the offenses against complainant and L.B. Moreover, wearing a ski-mask, as in the offense against L.B., is dissimilar from attempting to pull over one’s face a T-shirt garment as in the offense against complainant and a sweatshirt garment as two years earlier in the offense against P.H. Fourth, the order to L.B. to remove her nightgown and to cover her face with the nightgown. The majority treats the order to cover L.B.’s face as the rapist’s efforts at concealment. L.B. had been taken to her living room, forced to open the living room drapes and forced to commit oral sodomy. All this before L.B. was told to cover her face. I fail to see an effort at concealment of the rapist’s identity in such an episode. In any event, complainant was not required to cover her face. Fifth, forcing complainant and L.B. to each commit oral sodomy before being raped. In my view, forced oral sodomy is common to this type of crime itself rather than a similarity peculiar to the offenses against complainant and L.B. Sixth, the effort to escape unobserved by the victim. In my view, unobserved escape is common to this type of crime itself rather than a similarity peculiar to the offenses against complainant and L.B.
Furthermore, there are three distinct dissimilarities between the offense against L.B., on the one hand, and the offenses against complainant and P.H. First, there is the Memorial Day proximity in both the offenses against complainant and P.H. There was no Memorial Day proximity in the offense against L.B. The majority makes much of Memorial Day proximity to justify the P.H. testimony. Second, there are the trips into an alley from the victim’s home, sexual violence and subsequent instructions to return home in both the offenses against complainant and P.H. There was no sexual violence in an alley in the offense against L.B. The majority makes much of sexual violence in an alley to justify the P.H. testimony. In L.B.’s case, however, the entire criminal episode occurred in L.B.’s house. The assailant forced L.B. to open the living room drapes and commit oral sodomy and submit to rape in front of the uncovered window. To my mind, sexual violence in alleys is a distinguishing characteristic from sexual violence in front of uncovered living room windows. Third, there is the attempt by the rapist in both the offenses against complainant and P.H. to cover his face by a garment he was wearing on his upper body. A T-shirt in the offense against complainant. A sweatshirt in the offense against P.H. The rapist in the offense against L.B. did not attempt to cover his face by a garment he was wearing on his upper body.
Evidence of extraneous offenses can only be admitted on the issue of identity where there are distinguishing characteristics common to both offenses such that the accused’s acts are earmarked as his handiwork, or figuratively, marked with his “signature.” Collazo v. State, 623 S.W.2d 647, 648 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). I do not find appellant’s “signature” affixed to the offense against L.B. Accordingly, I would hold that there are not sufficient similarities between the offense against complainant and the offense against L.B. If there is no sufficiently distinctive characteristic, then the relevancy of the evidence cannot outweigh its prejudicial potential. Collazo, 623 S.W.2d at 648. Therefore, I would hold that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of L.B. concerning an extraneous offense. Consequently, I would sustain appellant’s second ground of error and reverse and remand.
I concur, however, in the majority’s holding that the testimony of P.H. concerning an extraneous offense was admissible. In cases such as the present case we are looking for common elements. The common distinguishing characteristic may be the proximity in time and place of the extraneous offense to the offense for which *430the accused is being tried. Or, the common element may be the mode of commission of the crimes, or the mode of dress of the perpetrator, or any other element which marks both crimes as having been committed by the same person. Ford, 484 S.W.2d at 729-30. Thus, remoteness in time is but one element. In my view, the absence of one element does not operate to the exclusion of other elements. Therefore, I cannot agree that the majority must find an intervening similar offense to ameliorate an otherwise too-remote offense to permit the P.H. evidence. Indeed, it is the majority’s efforts to find an intervening similar offense to ameliorate a perceived too-remote offense that leads them to strain to hold that the testimony of L.B. concerning an extraneous offense was admissible. As discussed above, that holding is wrong.
Nevertheless, the majority goes to great lengths, as shown below, to bridge a two year period between the offense against complainant and the offense against P.H. with the offense against L.B. which occurred approximately one year before the offense against complainant and approximately one year after the offense against P.H.

That the majority needlessly emphasizes proximity in time can be found in its language that “[furthermore, the presence of an intervening similar offense works to ameliorate an otherwise too-remote offense.” In my view, ample common elements outside the concept of proximity in time may be found to permit the P.H. testimony. To my mind, appellant’s on or near Memorial Day sexual violence against complainant and P.H. in alleys after forceably removing them from their homes and after attempting to cover his face by a garment he was wearing on his upper body is common element enought and firmly affixed appellant’s “signature” to the offenses against complainant and P.H. regardless of proximity in time. I agree, therefore, that the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of P.H. concerning an extraneous offense. Consequently, I concur in overruling appellant’s first ground of error.