Court Opinion

ID: 9645959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:40:59.680569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:33.341998
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Chief Justice,
concurring.
In his opinion Justice Dial correctly points out, with reference to appellant’s complaint concerning the admission of evidence of extraneous offenses, that the State did not prove that the 81 deaths of infants during the period from January, 1979, to June 1982, were attributable to any conduct on the part of appellant, and that, therefore, evidence of such deaths was not evidence of extraneous offenses committed by appellant.
If, in fact, no connection was shown between conduct on the part of appellant and the prior infant deaths and CPR events, it is difficult to understand the reason for the admission of evidence concerning such pri- or events. Absent such connection, the evidence is irrelevant.
The majority opinion asserts that the evidence “did no more than assign a statistical association between appellant and the increased mortality rate and CPR events.” A “statistical association” between appellant and the prior deaths would be relevant only if such “statistical association” means that appellant was somehow connected with the prior deaths. The only purpose served by the introduction of the evidence of prior events was to induce the court to believe that there was a connection between such events and appellant’s conduct, and that such connection was evidence that she was guilty of injuring the infant complainant in this case.
The evidence does no more than suggest that appellant was present during many of the prior incidents. Unless we accept mere presence as evidence of guilt, the elaborate statistical structure built by Dr. Istre proves nothing concerning the guilt of appellant. There is no evidence concerning the causes of the prior incidents and, therefore, no connecting link between them and the injury to the child in this case. If the *688testimony, as admitted in the majority opinion, does not prove that appellant was the perpetrator of any extraneous offenses, it cannot be persuasively argued that such evidence circumstantially proves intent, identity or motive, or shows absence of mistake or accident.
In Morgan v. State, 692 S.W.2d 877, 879 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), we are solemnly told that the trend is away “from mechanistic application of general rules and exceptions in determining admissibility of extraneous acts of misconduct by the accused.” Admissibility is to be determined by balancing the probative value of the evidence in establishing a material issue in the case against the potential for prejudicing the trier of fact. It is not easy to understand why placing relevance and prejudicial effect on the scales and then automatically deciding on the basis of the manner in which the scales tilt is not the application of a “mechanistic” test.
As Justice Dial points out, the facts in Morgan are particularly instructive. Most instructive of all are the facts that the alleged offense consisted of indecency with a child and that the evidence of prior acts consisted of two other acts of indecency with the same child. The Morgan opinion, which warns against the rote application of general rules relied on what has all the appearance of a mechanistic and automatic application of the exception that where intent cannot be inferred from the act itself, evidence relevant to the issue of intent, including evidence of extraneous offenses, will be admissible because, under such circumstances, evidence of extraneous offenses “will be more probative than prejudicial.”
The majority opinion overlooks the fact that Morgan actually involves the mechanistic application of an exception to the rule against admissibility of extraneous offenses. In Battles v. State, 140 S.W. 783 (Tex.Crim.App.1911), the Court held that the cases of rape of children prior acts of intercourse between defendant and his victim are admissible. Boutwell v. State, 719 S.W.2d 164, 178 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), makes it clear that the evidence held admissible m Morgan is received because it comes within “a narrow exception for sex offenses” which permits “admission of similar extraneous sex offenses between the minor complainant and the accused.” Even in such cases, the evidence is admissible only when defendant “denies the act or undermines the credibility of the [minor] complainant in some fashion,” because in such cases “there is need for such evidence to shore up some part of the State’s case,” and “the extraneous acts between the [minor] complainant and the defendant are usually more probative than prejudicial.” Id.
Since the “particularly instructive” facts which were present in Morgan are not present in this case, as far as this case is concerned, that case is not particularly instructive.
Morgan points out that where there is a strong need to prove intent because of an otherwise innocent act, extraneous acts are likely to be more probative than prejudicial. In this case, even if we overlook the fact that it does not involve a sexual offense against a child, there is no contention that the child was injured by an innocent act. The testimony of Dr. Copeland establishes that there was more than one instance of an overdose of Heparin and precludes the inference that there was an accidental overdose.
Since there is, and the majority opinion admits, no proof that the prior events were the result of acts committed by appellant, evidence of such prior events has no probative value whatever, and it cannot be seriously argued that its probative value outweighs its possible prejudicial effect.
However, since the trial was before the court, we must presume that the inadmissible testimony was not considered by the court. Tolbert v. State, 743 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).