Burton, Arthur Berry v. State ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued July 22, 1999
    In The
    (Hand nf Appeala
    For The
    ifiimt Eiatrirt nf Emma
    N O. 01—97-00716-CR
    ARTHUR BERRY BURTON, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 184th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 689238
    0 P I N I O N
    Following two mistrials occasioned by hung juries, a jury in the third trial
    convicted appellant, Arthur Berry Burton, of capital murder. The court assessed
    punishment at life imprisonment. Appellant raises forty numbered issues on appeal.
    We overrule all issues and affirm.
    FACTS
    In the early morning hours of February 16, 1995, Javier and Hilda De Los
    Reyes, who were living adjacent to the Hallmark Air Conditioning Company, heard
    three gun shots. Several minutes after hearing the shots, Mrs. De Los Reyes saw a
    person “covered with a towel or rag” get out of a large, gold car and get into a second
    car, which was parked underneath a light in the Hallmark parking lot. The person
    then returned to the first car, and the first car drove away. Mr. De Los Reyes called
    the police.
    Two officers arrived at the parking lot and found a car with a leg protruding
    from the car door. Inside the car, they found the body of the victim, whom they
    identified as David Bane. Bane’s gun holster was open and empty.
    Jacqueline Kelly Pearson (“Pearson”),l appellant’s former girlfriend with
    whom appellant had lived prior to the murder, testified that sometime in mid—
    February, 1995, appellant arrived at her house in the middle of the night. According
    to Pearson, appellant told her he had shot a security guard. Appellant had a gun,
    which he left on Pearson’s dresser.
    ‘ At the time of the offense Pearson’s last name was Kelly.
    2
    434-35, the Supreme Court held that the defendant had an adequate alternative where
    the same court reporter reported at both the mistrial and the trial at issue; was a good
    I
    x
    friend of all the attorneys; and, at any time upon request, would have read back to
    counsel his notes of the mistrial well in advance of the second trial.
    We also decline to find that the court erred in denying appellant’s motion for
    l
    transcripts from the second trial for purposes of appeal. Giveh appellant’s possession
    of transcripts of the first trial and transcripts of his own and the co—actor’s testimony
    I
    f
    s
    from the second trial, appellant’s apparent access to the attorney and investigator
    from the first two trials, counsel’s ability to draw the trial court’s attention to
    potential discrepancies between testimony at the first and second trials, counsel’s
    ability to request limited portions of the transcript from the second trial, and inclusion
    of the complete transcript of the trial that is the basis of this appeal, we conclude that
    the transcript of the second trial would have been of limited value.
    We Overrule appellant’s issues one through three.
    RECUSAL é
    In issue four, appellant complains that Judge Hatten should have recused trial
    Judge Krocker. In issue 23, appellant complains that Judge Krocker should have V
    ruled on his second motion to recuse. ;
    ll
    By motion dated and filed June 10, 1997, appellant mjoved that the trial judge
    recuse herself. Appellant’s counsel stated:
    I . . . discovered that this Honorable Court in the persdn of Jan Krocker
    refused to accept a plea bargain for a state jail felony agreed upon by the
    State and Shannon Babineaux. Thus, this Honorable Court is a witness
    as to impeachment of Babineaux as well as not in a position to rule on
    admissibility of such impeachment. Therefore, we move to both recuse
    Judge Krocker and to continue this case for 30 days.
    The court referred the matter to an administrative judge, who assigned Judge
    William Hatten to hear the motion. Counsel’s. theory at this hearing appears to have
    been the following. Details of Babineaux’s plea agreementi had been introduced at
    appellant’s second trial. Subsequent to that trial, Judge Krocll853 S.W.2d 543
    , 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). This court
    reviews a judge’s denial of a motion to recuse under an abuse of discretion standard.
    Bruno v. State, 
    916 S.W.2d 4
    , 6 (Tex. App—Houston [1st 1:5)ist.] 1995, pet. ref’d).3
    Under that standard, even if the lower court gives the wrongireason for its decision,
    the appellate court will sustain the decision if the decision is correct on any theory of
    law which finds support in the record. Bee v. State, 
    974 S.W.2d 184
    , 190 (Tex.
    App—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (discussing standard in context of review of
    evidentiary rulings). Regardless of whether the appellate coiirt would have reached
    a different result, it should not reverse so long as the trial court's ruling was within
    the zone of reasonable disagreement. Montgomery v. State, 
    810 S.W.2d 372
    , 380—81
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (opinion on reh'g) (discussing standard in context of review
    of evidentiary rulings).
    3 The State does not contend that the first motion was untimely. See Stafi’ora’
    v. State, 
    948 S.W.2d 921
    , 925 n.6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. refd) (ten-day
    requirement of rule 18a is not absolute and does not contemplate situation in which
    party cannot know basis of the recusal until after motion :for recusal is no longer
    timely).
    14
    A reasonable view of the record supports Judge Hatten’ls decision not to recuse
    Judge Krocker. Although Judge Krocker might be the only fwitness regarding why
    she took certain actions in Babineaux’s case, appellant does gnot explain, and we do
    not see, why Judge Krocker’s motivation would be relevant to Babineaux’s
    credibility. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Tex. R. EVIfD. 402.
    The fact that Judge Krocker presided in proceedings involving Babineaux
    similarly does not warrant recusal. A judge’s involvemeréit in prior proceedings
    involving the defendant in and of itself does not justify recusal. Kemp v. State, 
    846 S.W.2d 289
    , 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Judge Krocker’slinvolvement in the co-
    actor’s case here certainly does not.
    We overrule issue four.
    We also agree with the court that appellant’s second lnotion for recusal was
    untimely and was the same motion Judge Hatten had previousin overruled. Although
    rule 18a requires a hearing on a motion to recuse, such a reqdirement does not apply
    unless the recusal motion states valid grounds for recusal. Cf. Texaco, Inc. v.
    Pennzoz'l, Ca, 
    729 S.W.2d 768
    , 855-56 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ
    ref’d n.r.e.) (no error to refiise hearing on motion to disqualify retired judge's
    certification to sit on any case where such challenge may be made only in a quo
    warranto proceeding).
    We therefore overrule appellant’s issue 23.
    15
    COURT’S EXPLANATION OF F ELON Y MURDER DURING VOIR DIRE
    In issue five, appellant contends that the trial court misstated the law when it
    explained felony murder to the prospective jurors during 1 voir dire. He further
    contends that the purported misstatement deprived him of his peremptory challenges.
    The basis of appellant’s complaint lies in the court’s useiof “accidental” in the
    following passage:
    There is a special law in Texas concerning felony murder which
    basically says that if a person intends to commit a certain felony, for
    example, robbery, or burglary, whatever it may be, and a death results,
    for example, a gun goes off accidentally, it wouldn’t be a murder, a real
    homicide, as you normally think of a homicide, becapse there was no
    intent to kill someone. But if death resulted because of the action of the
    perpetrator of the crime in committing another felony, there are some
    exceptions as to that felony, then that would be a criine called felony
    murder.
    The penal code provides in relevant part that a person commits the offense
    commonly referred to as “felony murder” if that person “Commits or attempts to
    commit a felony . . . and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or
    attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or
    attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
    individual.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (Vernon 1994).
    The court’s hypothetical example involved (1) a persdm committing a felony,
    (2) using a firearm, (3) committing an action during the felony that resulted in death.
    Although the court’s hypothetical referred to an “accidental”;i discharge of a gun, that
    16
    statement was intended as an exception to the concept being explained. The
    hypothetical clearly tied the perpetrator’s action in committing a felony to the
    resultant death. Use of a gun during a robbery in a manner that resulted in death
    would constitute a clearly dangerous act. Ross v. State, 861 lS.W.2d 870, 876 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1993) (opinion on reh’ g) (stating that, if mannei in which weapon was
    used amounted to an act clearly dangerous to human life, resulting homicide
    constitutes the offense of felony-murder as defined by section l9.02(a)(3) of the
    Texas Penal Code). The court’s hypothetical was a correct statement of the law.
    We overrule issue five.
    WITNESS’S PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM RULE 613
    In issue six, appellant contends that the trial court violated rule 613 of the
    former Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence when it permitted the victim’s father, Clyde
    Bane, to remain in the court room. In issue seven, appellan:t contends that the trial
    court further violated article 38.05 of the Texas Code of Criininal Procedure when,
    in the presence of the jury, the court told Bane that the rule  not apply to him.
    On June 11, 1997, before the jurors entered and the gwitnesses were sworn,
    appellant objected to the State’s request that Bane be permitted to remain in the
    courtroom during the trial. Appellant objected to Bane’s preSence in the courtroom,
    not to Bane’s testimony. Appellant has not established harm from Bane’s presence
    in the courtroom. Even if the court erred in permitting Bane to remain, that factor
    17
    alone would not constitute reversible error. Choice v. State, 
    883 S.W.2d 325
    , 327
    (Tex. App—Tyler 1994, no pet.) (stating that violation of sequestration rule by a
    witness is not itself reversible error, but becomes reversible error only when the
    questioned testimony is admitted and complaining party harmed).
    The only purpose of Bane’s testimony was to identify a photograph of the
    victim. None of the witnesses Bane heard would have influenced that testimony. See
    Bell v. State, 
    938 S.W.2d 35
    , 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (purpose of sequestration
    rule is to prevent one witness from influencing another). Any violation of the
    sequestration rule did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. See TEX. R. APP. P.
    44.2(b).
    We overrule issue six.
    We also conclude that the court’s one sentence explanation singling out Bane
    and stating that he could stay in the courtroom was not a comment on the weight of
    the evidence in violation of article 38.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
    Appellant does not explain, and we do not see, how the coqu comment constituted
    a comment on the weight of the evidence or was a remark calculated to convey the
    court’s opinion of the case to the jury.
    We overrule issue seven.
    18
    EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
    In issues eight through 22 and 24 through 32, appellant addresses the trial
    court’s admission and exclusion of evidence. We review these issues under the
    standard applied to discretionary decisions. Allridge v. State, 
    850 S.W.2d 471
    , 492
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (trial court has broad discretion in determining admissibility
    of evidence, and appellate court will not reverse unless clear abuse of discretion is
    shown).
    Vehicle Identification.
    In issue eight appellant obj ects that testimony by Hilda De Los Reyes
    identifying photographs of a vehicle was inadmissible hearsay. “‘Hearsay’ is a
    statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing,
    offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” TEX. R. EVID. 801(d).
    “A ‘statement’ is (1) an oral or written verbal expression or (2) nonverbal conduct of
    a person, if it is intended by the person as a substitute for verbal expression.” TEX.
    R. EVID. 801(a).4
    The State asked De Los Reyes about her perceptions of the similarities between
    objects (the vehicle and the photos), not about what she told someone about her
    perceptions. The testimony was not hearsay.
    4 Rules 801(a) and (d) of the Texas Rules of Evidence are substantively
    identical to former rules 801(a) and (d) of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.
    19
    We overrule issue eight.
    Prior Inconsistent Statements.
    Appellant raises several issues relating to the State’s introduction of prior _
    inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes. These issues concern claims of
    inadequate foundation and claims of improper rulings related to limiting instructions.
    Claims of inadequate foundation.
    In issues 10 and 31, respectively, appellant complains that the State did not
    establish the proper time, place, and person predicate for introducing the prior
    inconsistent statements of David Johnson and Tallas Harrison. We disagree.
    Appellant contends that the State did not inform Johnson of the person to
    whom the prior statement was made when the State sought to impeach Johnson with
    his testimony at an earlier hearing on April 15, 1996. The April 15th “hearing”
    referred to the appellant’s first trial. Thus, the question implicitly informed the
    witness that the statement was made to the judge, the jury, and the parties at that
    hearing. The form of the question avoided the risk of informing the present jury that
    appellant had been tried previously.
    The purpose of the foundation requirements for the impeachment rule is to put
    the witness on notice as to which statements are going to be used to impeach his or
    her credibility. Cf. Joseph v. State, 
    960 S.W.2d 363
    , 366 (Tex. App—Houston [lst
    20
    Appellant’s friend, Curtis Hill, testified that at some point in February 1995,
    appellant told Hill that he had shot somebody. Appellant also told Hill that he was
    with “Shannon” at the time of the shooting.2 The day after appellant confessed to
    Hill, they were watching a neWs program about the shooting, and appellant told Hill,
    “[T]hat’s what I was talking about.”
    Shannon Babineaux testified that he was with appellant the night of the
    shooting. He heard gunshots while he was waiting in the car by Hallmark. After
    appellant returned to where Babineaux was waiting, appellant said he had had to
    “bust” the victim. As they were driving away, appellant began talking about a pistol
    and told Babineaux he had to retrieve the gun from the security guard. Babineaux
    grabbed a towel from appellant’s car to conceal his identity, ran to the victim’s car,
    and took the gun.
    David Johnson received a gun from Pearson. Johnson gave the gun to his
    brother Timmie Lane, who gave it to the police. The bullets taken from the victim’s
    body matched bullets fired from the gun Lane had given the police.
    The defendant denied committing the offense, saying he was at a party in New
    Waverly the night of February 15 and the early morning hours of February 16.
    Kanessah Hall and Tallas Harrison testified in support of the alibi, but the State
    2 Shannon Babineaux used a variety of names.
    3
    Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d ) (referring to time and place foundation requirements). The
    ‘ question fillfilled that purpose.
    We overrule issue 10.
    In issue 31, appellant contends that the State never asked Harrison about when
    Harrison had made a prior statement about the date of a party (the event appellant was
    relying on for his alibi). Appellant also contends that the State’s question was
    improper because the State did not ask Harrison whether he previously said he
    “remembered” the date of the party, but instead asked whether Harrison had
    previously said he was “sure” of the date.
    At one point in the State’s cross-examination of Harrison, the prosecutor
    referred to a discussion between Harrison, Bob Reece (the investigator), and herself.
    After the court sustained appellant’s objection that the State had not confronted
    Harrison with the time, place, and person to whom Harrison made the statement, the
    prosecutor adequately confronted Harrison with the time of the statement (about two
    weeks ago during the only occasion on which she had met with Harrison), with the
    place of the statement (the Harris County Jail), and with the persons to whom it was
    made (the prosecutor and Reece). The prosecutor provided Harrison with an
    opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
    We overrule issue 31.
    21
    Claims relating to limiting instructions.
    Issues nine, ll, 16, 17, 30, and 32 concern the court’s denial of appellant’s
    requests for instructions limiting the use of impeachment evidence. When evidence
    has limited admissibility and a party requests an instruction to that effect, the court
    should give the limiting instruction at the time the evidence is admitted. Rankin v.
    State, 
    974 S.W.2d 707
    , 711—13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (0p. on reh’g).
    In issue nine, appellant claims that the trial incorrectly denied his request-for
    a limiting instruction after appellant’s impeachment of State’s witness Hilda De Los
    Reyes. The court denied the request without explanation.
    We do not decide whether the testimony appellant elicited from De Los Reyes
    on cross—examination was, in fact, inconsistent with her prior direct testimony. Even
    if the testimony was inconsistent, appellant was not entitled to a limiting instruction.
    Netherjy v. State, 
    692 S.W.2d 686
    , 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (reasoning that rule
    requiring limiting instruction when State impeaches own witnesses does not apply
    when defendant impeaches State’s witness); Jones v. State, 
    810 S.W.2d 824
    , 828
    (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist] 1991, no pet.) (same).
    We overrule issue nine.
    In issue 11, appellant complains that the court denied his request for an
    instruction limiting David Lee Johnson’s prior statement indicating when appellant’s
    girlfriend, Jacqueline Pearson (“Jasmine”), had given Johnson the gun used in the
    22
    shooting. At trial, Johnson testified that Jacqueline had given him the gun three days
    after Johnson had returned home from a stay in the hospital. In the prior statement,
    Johnson had stated that he had not seen Pearson for about a week after returning
    home from the hospital. It appears that the purpose of Johnson’s testimony about the
    gun was primarily to show how it got from Pearson (who had received it from
    appellant) to Timmie Lane, Johnson’s brother, from whom the police had retrieved
    the gun. Whether Johnson received the gun three days or a week after his return had
    no bearing on appellant’s guilt or innocence.
    The jury could have used the prior statement only for impeachment. No
    limiting instruction was required. Cantrell v. State, 
    731 S.W.2d 84
    , 95 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1987).
    We overrule issue 1 1.
    In issues 16 and 17, appellant contends that the court should have given
    instructions limiting the use of Curtis Hill’s statements about how long Hill had
    appellant’s car before Hill allowed the car to be towed. By appellant’s own-
    description, he elicited or introduced all of the statements for which he contends there
    should have been limiting instructions. Under these circumstances, we conclude that
    appellant was not entitled to a limiting instruction. Netherjy, 692 S.W.2d at 705;
    Jones, 801 S.W.2d at 828.
    We overrule issues 16 and 17.
    23
    In issues 30 and 32, appellant contends that the trial court improperly denied
    his requests for an instruction limiting the use of Harrison’s prior statements to
    Investigator Reece concerning the date of the party appellant was relying on for an
    alibi. At trial, Harrison testified that he had been with appellant in Willis and then
    at a party in New Waverly the evening and night of February 15 (the night of the
    murder). According to Harrison, he and appellant left the party around 3 :00 or 4:00
    am. and then went back to Willis. Harrison’s trial testimony corroborated appellant’s
    alibi. The State’s rebuttal witness, Gloria Jones, however, placed appellant in New
    Waverly on the evening of February 16.
    As discussed above, the State cross—examined Harrison regarding a prior
    statement to the prosecutor and Investigator Reece, in which Harrison said he
    remembered that he was with appellant on February 14, because it was Valentine’s
    Day. In rebuttal the State called Reece, and Reece testified that Harrison had said the
    party was on February 14.
    Even were we to conclude that the court erred in not giving a contemporaneous
    instruction, that error was harmless. Unless the jury concluded there had been more
    than one party, the jury could not have believed both Jones’s testimony and
    Harrison’s prior statement. Given the facts surrounding Jones’s ability to pinpoint
    the date, it is more likely that the jury believed Jones. Finally, the jury heard
    24
    testimony about appellant’s incriminating statements to Pearson, Babineaux, and
    Hall. Absence of a contemporaneous limiting instruction did not harm appellant.
    We overrule issues 30 and 32.
    Purported Comment on Accused’s Silence.
    Issue 12 involves the trial court’s handling of appellant’s objection to Officer
    Brown’s testimony that he “[a]ttempted an interview with Mr. Burton.” Appellant
    contends that this testimony constituted an impermissible reference to appellant’s
    invocation of his right to silence. Although his argument does not directly address
    the matter, appellant frames the issue in terms of the trial court’s refusal to rule on
    appellant’s objection until after the prosecutor could continue questioning Brown.
    The State urges that, read in context, Brown’s original comment “could only
    be reasonably interpreted to mean that he attempted to interview appellant to obtain
    consent to search his car, and that appellant voluntarily agreed.” We agree. Hicks v.
    State, 
    837 S.W.2d 686
    , 692 (Tex. App—Houston [lst Dist] 1992, no pet.)
    We overrule issue 12.
    Attempted Impeachment with Misdemeanors
    In issues 13 and 15, appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in
    not permitting him to impeach two of the State’s witnesses with evidence of their
    prior misdemeanor convictions. Issue 13 concerns the attempted impeachment of
    David Lee Johnson; issue 15, the attempted impeachment of Curtis Hill.
    25
    On its face, rule 609(a) is limited to impeachment with felonies or crimes
    involving moral turpitude. There is, however, an exception to rule 609(a), which
    “applies when a witness makes statements concerning his past conduct that suggest
    he has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any offense.” Delk v. State, 855
    ‘ S.W.2d 700, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Appellate courts have narrowly restricted
    this exception to rule 609(a) to situations where a witness makes an unambiguous
    claim of never having been arrested or convicted before. See Delk, 855 S.W.2d at
    704-705; Lewis v. State, 
    933 S.W.2d 172
    , 177—79 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi 1996,
    pet. refd).
    The testimony appellant cites to support his attempted impeachment of Johnson
    and Hill does not meet this rigid standard. The cited passages from Johnson’s
    testimony concern only Johnson’s temporary possession of the gun used in the instant
    offense and Johnson’s statements during the course of the investigation of the instant
    offense. They do not refer to “past” behavior. They did not imply that Johnson had
    never committed a crime.
    The cited passages from Hill’s testimony concern only Hill’s reason for not
    asking appellant any questions, Hill’s reason for not contacting the police, and Hill’s
    cooperation with the police when they questioned Hill about the instant offense.
    They do not refer to “past” behavior. They did not imply that Hill had never
    committed a crime.
    26
    The cited passages did not open the door to impeachment with misdemeanor
    convictions. Lewis, 933 S.W.2d at 178-79 (defendant’s declarations did not open the
    door to impeachment with misdemeanor convictions when declarations neither
    invoked the past nor implied that appellant never committed a crime). The trial court
    did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.
    We overrule issues 13 and 15.
    Refreshment of Recollection
    In issues 14 and 20, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible
    error by permitting two State witnesses, Curtis Hill and Shannon Babineaux, to read
    their out-of—court statements to the jury. The record does not support appellant’s
    contention.
    After Hill testified that he could not remember appellant’s telling Hill when the
    shooting had occurred, the prosecutor showed Hill his prior written statement and
    asked him whether he recognized it. Hill recognized the statement and read it to
    himself.
    Hill did not read his statement out loud. The State did not offer Hill’s
    statement into evidence. The State’s use of the statement to permit Hill to refresh his
    present recollection of what he had previously told the police was proper. Wood v.
    State, 511 SW. 2d 37, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (describing permissible use of
    memorandum for purposes of refreshing recollection).
    27
    We overrule issue 14.
    Appellant does not cite this Court to any portion of the reporter’s record where
    the prosecutor asked Babineaux to read his out-of-court written statements, either to
    himself or to the jury. He cites only passages in which Babineaux testified that the
    first time the officer did not ask him about “no gun or nothing,” and that, in the
    second statement, Babineaux “[s]aid something about the gun.”
    Nevertheless, appellant contends that Babineaux’s responses to the
    prosecutor’s questions about differences between his two out of—court-statements
    constituted a reading of his statements. Appellant cites no law and develops no
    argument in support of this contention. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h) (arguments must
    be supported by citations to authority); Mosley v. State, 
    983 S.W.2d 249
    , 256 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1998) (contention rejected as inadequately briefed where appellant made
    no argument in support).
    We overrule issue 20.
    Hill’s “Ostentatious Act”
    In issue 18, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error
    when it denied his request to instruct the jury to disregard Curtis Hill’s “ostentatious
    act.” The “act” apparently occurred when appellant was cross-examining Hill about
    the dates he “hung out” with Babineaux, and appellant objected to Hill’s answer as
    28
    being non-responsive. Appellant then objected to “the witness’s face,” and the court
    admonished Hill not to make any facial expression.
    Appellant continued with his objection to the non—responsiveness of Hill’s
    answer; and, in the course of that objection, objected to the court’s comments in the
    course of ruling on his objection. Appellant did not request an instruction to
    disregard until immediately after the lunch break, which had followed the court’s
    ruling on appellant’s objections.
    The only descriptions of the “ostentatious act” are those provided by
    appellant’s counsel, when he stated, “[m]y specific objection is to the witness’ [sic]
    ostentatious sign, and the act —— there was a physical act that he made when I asked
    the very last question . . . .” and when counsel reiterated, “the act — this ostentatious
    n5
    sign, act, and shaking of his head to the question. The only case appellant provides
    in support of his argument, McFarland v. State, 
    834 S.W.2d 481
     (Tex. App—Corpus
    Christi 1992, no pet.), concerns a prosecutor’s specifically described overt actions,
    for which the court gave an instruction to disregard.6 It is inapposite.
    We overrule issue 18.
    5 On appeal, appellant represents the description as follows: “Hill’s
    ostentatious sig[hi]n[g], act, and shaking of his head.”
    6 The additional cases appellant cited in his original brief also concerned only
    a prosecutor’s inappropriate actions.
    29
    Evidence Hill Never a Suspect
    Appellant frames issue 19 in terms of whether the trial court erred in overruling
    appellant’s rule 403 objection to Officer Swaim’s testimony that Curtis Hill was never
    a suSpect in the case. Appellant, however, does not develop his rule 403 argument
    in this court. See Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 256 (contention rejected as inadequately
    briefed where appellant made no argument in support); see also Matthews, 892
    S.W.2d at 209 (inadequate argument where contention not explained).
    Instead, appellant argues that Swaim’s testimony constituted a comment on
    Hill’s credibility. If appellant is indeed making'the latter argument, he has not
    preserved it, because rule 403 does not support exclusion of evidence on the grounds
    of improper bolstering. Cohn v. State, 
    849 S.W.2d 817
    , 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)
    (emphasizing that rule 403 does not mandate exclusion of relevant evidence simply
    because it corroborates testimony of an earlier witness).
    We overrule issue 19.
    Babineaux’s Charges and Convictions
    In issue 21, appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his objection
    to Babineaux’s testimony about the “facts of his prior conviction(s).” Appellant
    directs this Court to cases holding that the State may not inquire into the facts of an
    accused’s prior convictions. The State, however, did not inquire into the underlying
    3O
    impeached Harrison with his prior statement that he was sure the party was February
    14. The State’s rebuttal witness, Gloria Jones testified that she saw appellant at a
    party in New Waverly on the evening of February 16, the night after the shooting.
    APPLICATION OF RULE 44.2
    OF THE TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
    Preliminarily, appellant states that he “expects” this Court to apply rule
    81(b)(2) of the Former Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and that to do otherwise
    would penalize appellant by holding his counsel “accountable for [counsel’s] trial-
    time failure to foresee that Rule 44.2 would be promulgated and Rule 81(b){2) would
    be repealed.” He also contends that rule 44.2(b), which applies to non-constitutional
    error, “is unconstitutionally retroactive, as well as violates our equal rights and due
    course of law, without [sic] violating our separation of powers.”
    In Fowler v. State, No. 0075-98, slip op. at 5 (Tex. Crim. App., Mar. 31, 1999),
    the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Fowler did not suffer injustice as a result of
    application of rule 44.2(b), the rule in effect at the time of the disposition of Fowler’s
    appeal, even though the Tenth Court of Appeals conceded that it would have reversed
    had it applied former rule 81(b)(2). The Court of Criminal Appeals observed,
    “Appellant . . . received that to which he was entitled. Appellant was entitled to
    nothing more than an appellate review of his conviction.” Fowler, slip op. at 4. The
    facts of the conviction, but only into the charges Babineaux had faced and the
    disposition of those charges.
    We overrule issue 21.
    Attempted Cross-examination about Babineaux’s Not Having Testified at
    Appellant’s First Trial
    In issue 22, appellant contends that the trial court erred in not permitting
    appellant to cross—examine Babineaux about his not having testified in appellant’s
    first trial. The sole case appellant cites in support of his contention is Sanders v.
    State, 
    52 Tex. Crim. 156
    , 105 SW. 803 (1907), which concerned impeachment of a
    defendant by reference to his not having testified at a former trial. Appellant does not
    develop an argument from this case, but presents this Court only with a question. See
    Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 256 (contention rejected as inadequately briefed where
    appellant made no argument in support); see also Matthews, 892 S.W.2d at 209
    (inadequate argument where contention not explained).
    The State responds by pointing to Judge Onion’s subsequent description of
    Sanders as “stand[ing] alone.” Franklin v. State, 
    606 S.W.2d 818
    , 853 n.3 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1979) (0p. on reh’ g) (Onion, J ., concurring). But see Raflel v. United
    States, 271 US. 494, 496, 
    46 S. Ct. 566
    , 567 (1926) (citing Sanders and holding that
    it was not error to require defendant, who offered self as witness at second trial, to
    disclose that he had not testified in own behalf at first trial).
    31
    Regardless of the admissibility of Babineaux’s prior silence, we cannot
    conclude that its relevance or probative value was such as to warrant reversal,
    particularly in light of the evidence the jury heard regarding the disposition of
    Babineaux’s charges. Appellant explained to the trial court that “[w]hat he wanted
    to get into is [Babineaux] didn’t testify because there was not an offer made to him
    at the first proceeding.” Although the court precluded questions about Babineaux’s
    silence, the court permitted appellant to “go into the fact that . . . whatever happened,
    3)
    you can go into that concerning the punishment on crimes pending. Appellant
    thoroughly questioned Babineaux about the disposition of the charges deriving from
    his involvement in the instant case and other cases.
    We overrule issue 22.
    Jacqueline Pearson’s Medical Records
    In issues 24, 25, and 26, appellant contends that the trial court erred in
    excluding portions of defense exhibits that contained Jacqueline Pearson’s medical
    records. The document that is the subject of issue 24 is a single page “screening
    form” dated February 9, 1995, five days before the murder.
    To the extent that appellant discusses the screening form, he argues only that
    the form was relevant. He does not address the State’s hearsay objection. He does
    not explain why both the form itself and the contents of the screening form were not
    hearsay. He does not point to any exceptions that would render both the form and its
    32
    contents admissible. Kirchner v. State, 
    739 S.W.2d 85
    , 87 (Tex. App—San Antonio
    1987, no pet.) (stating that, when ruling of trial court concerned whether evidence
    was admissible under hearsay exception, it was incumbent on defendant to provide
    appellate court with argument and authority supporting same allegation of error).
    We overrule issue 24.
    The document that is the subject of issue 25 consists of four pages of “Progress
    Notes,” covering May 8, June 3, and June 18, 1997, a period immediately prior to,
    and during, appellant’s trial. The document was part of Defendant’s Exhibit 3, which
    contained medical records from May and June, 1997. The State objected to Exhibit
    3, in part on the ground that portions of the exhibit were not relevant and in part on
    the ground that portions of the exhibit were highly prejudicial.
    The court sustained the State’s objection in part, but did admit the bulk of
    Exhibit 3 with redactions. The redacted portions concerned details of Pearson’s
    suicide attempt and her statement that she had unprotected sex in order to contract
    AIDS.
    Issues of relevance are left to the trial court's discretion, and we will not reverse
    absent an abuse of that discretion. Ford v. State, 
    919 S.W.2d 107
    , 115 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1996). Similarly, we review a trial court’s balancing of probative value and
    prejudice for abuse of discretion, looking for whether the trial court’s determination
    33
    was a reasonable view of all the relevant facts. Santellan v. State, 
    939 S.W.2d 155
    ,
    169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We will not reverse unless the trial court’s ruling was
    outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Ford, 919 S.W.2d at 115; Montgomery,
    810 S.W.2d at 391.
    We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on the
    admissibility of the medical records. In considering the documents that are the
    subject of issue 25, the trial court reviewed each of the portions to which the State
    objected and listened to the arguments of both parties. The court considered the
    relevance of each portion and, where necessary, weighed the probative value of the
    evidence against its potential for prejudice. The trial court’s ruling was not outside
    the zone of reasonable disagreement.
    We overrule issue 25.
    The record that is the subj ect of issue 26 dealt with a period commencing two
    weeks after Pearson had completed her statements to the police and ending long
    before appellant’s trials. Appellant contends on appeal that the document was
    “essential for the jury to evaluate [Pearson’s] credibility, especially regarding her
    cooperation in the investigation of this cause.” However, when the trial court asked
    appellant for his response to the State’s argument that the record was not relevant,
    appellant had no response. The court sustained the State’s objection.
    34
    “In order to succeed, appellant must show that the Trial Court clearly abused
    its discretion in excluding the testimony.” Breeding v. State, 
    809 S.W.2d 661
    , 663
    (Tex. App—Amarillo 1991, pet. ref” d) (citing Johnson v. State, 
    698 S.W.2d 154
    , 160
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). He has not done so here.
    We overrule issue 26.
    Excluded Testimony from Medical Expert
    In issue 27, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it sustained the
    State’s objection to a question posed to his medical expert. The question was whether
    certain disorders, “linked together, can affect one’s psychological ability to perceive
    the here and now?” The State objected on the ground of relevance. The medical
    record about which appellant was questioning the expert, was the medical record from
    June 1997, the time of the trial, not the time of the perceptions about which Pearson
    was testifying. The trial court’s ruling was not outside the zone of reasonable
    disagreement. Ford, 919 S.W.2d at 1 15; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 39.
    We overrule issue 27.
    Pearson’s Letter
    In issue 28, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it sustained the
    State’s hearsay objection to a letter ostensibly written by Pearson to appellant. In the
    letter, Pearson referred to a paper someone else had shown her and then stated, “All
    35
    I could see was my baby getting lethal. But I know you didn’t do it.” Appellant
    contends that the letter qualified under the hearsay exception for statements against
    interest. TEX. R. EVID. 803(24).
    The admissibility of an out—of—court statement under the exceptions to the
    general rule against hearsay is within the trial court's discretion. Lawton v. State, 
    913 S.W.2d 542
    , 5 5 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “All hearsay exceptions require a showing
    oftrustworthiness.” Robinson v. Harkins & Co., 
    711 S.W.2d 619
    , 621 (Tex. 1986).
    We do not decide whether Pearson’s statement qualified as one against interest,
    because we conclude that it was not sufficiently trustworthy to warrant admission.
    As part of his offer of proof, appellant provided Pearson’s testimony from appellant’s
    second trial, where Pearson testified that she put the statement in the letter because
    she “wanted somebody else to believe he didn’t do it. ” When the State asked her who
    she had in mind, Pearson replied, “Whoever was reading [appellant’s] mail.” She
    testified she loved appellant at the time she wrote the letter. We cannot say the trial
    court abused its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection. 1
    We overrule issue 28.
    36
    Jones’s Testimony about her Daughter-in-Law
    In issue 29, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his
    hearsay objection to Gloria J ones’s testimony about the date .on which her daughter-
    in-law had taken an overdose of sleeping pills. The State called Jones to rebut
    Harrison’s testimony that appellant had been with him at a party in'New Waverly the
    evening of February 15 and into the morning of February 16, 1995.
    Jones testified that, on the evening of February 16, 1995, she had seen
    appellant at a domino party in New Waverly at the apartment of Jennifer Spelling,
    who lived across the hall from Jones. When the State asked Jones whether there was
    anything during that week that had caused her to remember this specific date, Jones
    replied, “It was the week that my daughter-in-law took all my pills that Sunday -—.”
    Appellant objected that the statement was being offered for its truth and constituted
    hearsay. Only after a series of questions and answers concerning the date the
    daughter-in-law took the pills and the date she had been transferred to Hermann
    hospital, did appellant request a voir dire “[t]o establish the level of her personal
    knowledge on any of this.” The court then admonished the State to include in its
    questions whether Jones was answering from her personal knowledge.7
    7 Appellant subsequently established that Jones had not been with her
    daughter-in—law when she took the pills or when she was transported to Hermann
    Hospital.
    3 7
    Jones testified that she had visited her daughter-in-law at Hermann Hospital on
    February 16, and left for New Waverly around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. That was the last
    time she saw her daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law died on February 19.
    Appellant did not object, nor did he have a valid hearsay objection, to J ones’s
    testimony about her last visit to see her daughter-in-law on February 16. Given the
    latter testimony, even if the trial court erroneously denied appellant’s objection to
    J ones’s testimony about other dates during the week of the- party, the error did not
    affect substantial rights. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). Cf. King v. State, 
    953 S.W.2d 266
    , 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (substantial right is affected when error had
    substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining jury’s verdict).
    We overrule issue 29.
    LIMITING INSTRUCTION IN THE FINAL CHARGE
    In issues 33 and 34, appellant contends that the trial court erred when, in its
    final charge to the jury, it included an instruction limiting the use of witnesses’
    criminal histories to impeachment. The charge, as given, read:
    You are further instructed that any evidence that any witness has
    been convicted in any case or cases, was admitted [before] you for the
    purpose of aiding you, if it does aid you, in passing upon the credibility
    of the witness and the weight to be given his testimony, and you will not
    consider the same for any other purpose.
    Appellant had requested that the court limit the charge to defense witness
    Tallas Harrison. As in the court below, appellant reasons that, because the State did
    38
    not request a limiting instruction at the time the criminal histories of its witnesses
    were introduced, it was not entitled to such an instruction in the charge.
    Appellant’s reasoning in issue 33 implicitly derives from case law holding that,
    absent objection and a timely request for a limiting instruction, a party may not
    complain about the lack of such an instruction on appeal. SUch a holding is not the
    equivalent of, and does not necessarily lead to, a conclusion that, absent a request for
    a contemporaneous limiting instruction, the trial court errs in including such an
    instruction in the charge.
    In issue 34, appellant suggests that the limiting instruction constituted an
    impermissible comment on the evidence in violation of rule 38.05 of the Texas Code
    of Criminal Procedure. Apart from citing rule 38.05 in the caption, appellant cites no
    authority in support of this issue and does no more than incorporate his argument
    from issue 33. Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 256 (rejecting contention as inadequately
    briefed where appellant made no argument in support); Matthews, 892 S.W.2d at 209
    (finding argument inadequate and overruling point of error where contention not
    explained). Finally, even if the instruction constituted error, appellant was not
    harmed. The criminal histories — as distinguished from Babineaux’s involvement
    in the instant offense — did not have any bearing on appellant’s guilt or innocence.
    They were relevant only to impeachment of the witness, which more often inured to
    appellant’s benefit rather than to the State’s. They had no substantive use.
    39
    We overrule issues 33 and 34.
    DENIAL OF INSTRUCTION ON FELONY MURDER
    In issue 35, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request
    for a lesser included instruction on felony murder. In Rousseau v. State, 
    855 S.W.2d 666
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), the court explained that the appropriate test to determine
    whether a defendant is entitled to a charge on a lesser included offense is the
    following:
    first, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof
    necessary to establish the offense charged, and, second, some evidence
    must exist in the record that would permit a jury rationally to find that
    if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense.
    Id. at 672-73 (emphasis in original).
    Felony murder is a lesser included offense of capital murder. Id. at 673. The
    only question in this case is whether there was evidence that would permit the jury
    rationally to find that appellant had the intent to rob Bane, but not to cause his death.
    Id.
    Appellant points to statements that would support the claim that he intended
    “I
    to rob Bane, for example a phrase that purportedly meant he was trying to hurt
    somebody, make some money,”’ and a statement that “‘heneea’ed some money or
    something.”’ He also refers to the position of Bane’s body after the shooting. We fail
    to see how a jury could find from this evidence a lack of intent to cause death. The
    40
    court also held that “the Tenth Court’s application of Rule 44.2 did not violate the
    Texas Constitution’s prohibition of retroactive laws.” Id. at 8.
    Similarly, appellant in the instant case is entitled to nothing more than appellate
    review of his conviction. Moreover, unlike the Tenth Court, on those few issues in
    this appeal where we find error, we cannot say that we would have reversed had we
    applied the former rules.
    We overrule appellant’s “unnumbered issue.”
    PRIOR MISTRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
    In issues one through three, appellant contends that on three occasions, the trial
    court erroneously denied his request for transcripts from his second mistrial: twice
    prior to trial and once immediately prior to submission of the charge to the jury, when
    he sought the transcript for inclusion in his bill of exceptions for purposes of appeal.
    Appellant’s first trial ended in a hung jury on April 23, 1996. On May 1, 1996,
    he requested a set of transcripts from this trial, and the court granted his request on
    May 22, 1996. On September 9, 1996, appellant’s second trial ended. in a hung jury.
    Attorney Jim L. Peacock represented appellant in both of these trials.
    On January 16, 1997, Attorney Peacock requested the transcripts of six
    witnesses from the second trial: Shannon “Bailey,” Arthur Berry Burton, Jacqueline
    Pearson, Kanessah Hall, Tiffany Hall, and Curtis Hall. Referring to the court’s
    evidence here is far from indicating that there was a struggle and the gun just “went
    off.” Cf. Butler v. State, 
    981 S.W.2d 849
    , 858 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998,
    pet. filed).
    We overrule issue 35.
    CLOSING ARGUMENTS
    In issues 36 through 39, appellant contends that the trial court erred in its ruling
    on objections during his and the State’s closing argument. With regard to those
    issues where we agree, we cannot conclude appellant was harmed.
    There are four permissible areas for jury argument: (1) summation of the
    evidence; (2) reasonable deductions from the evidence; (3) an answer to the argument
    of opposing counsel; or (4) a plea for law enforcement. See Cz'fuerztes v. State, 
    983 S.W.2d 891
    , 895 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d).
    In issue 36, appellant contends that the trial court deprived him of his “‘sacred
    right’” to attack De Los Reyes’s credibility when it sustained the State’s objection to
    appellant’s representation that, in her prior statement De Los Reyes had said, “I went
    to look and see if I —— the vehicle, but it went by too fast, and I didn’t see it.” During
    her testimony De Los Reyes admitted that she had previously testified, “‘I went to
    ,”
    look at it, but it passed by too fast.
    Had appellant argued that De Los Reyes had not seen the car, we would agree
    that such argument was a reasonable deduction from the evidence. Appellant’s
    41
    representation to which the State objected, however, concerned what De Los Reyes
    had said; and that representation was a misstatement of the evidence. The trial court
    did not err in sustaining the State’s objection.
    Issues 37 through 39 concern the State’s closing argument. Appellant
    complains that the State’s arguments about what Babineaux and Pearson told the
    police went beyond the evidence. Appellant complains that the prosecutor
    impermissiny bolstered the credibility of Pearson, Hill, and Babineaux.
    In arguing to the jury, counsel may draw from the facts in evidence all
    inferences that are reasonable, fair, and legitimate, and will be afforded great latitude
    without limitation in this respect so long as the argument is supported by the evidence
    and offered in good faith. Adams v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 698
    , 700 (Tex.
    App—Houston [lst Dist] 1991, pet. ret’ d) (citing Grz'fi’z‘n v. State, 
    554 S.W.2d 688
    ,
    690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). To determine the propriety of a prosecutor's argument,
    we consider the entire argument, not just isolated statements. Mosley v. State, 
    686 S.W.2d 180
    , 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Although misstatements by the prosecutor
    are not constitutional in nature, they can affect a defendant’s substantial rights.
    Coggeshall v. State, 
    961 S.W.2d 639
    , 643 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 1998, pet. re? d).
    Appellant complains that the argument that Babineaux told the police that he
    was involved and went with appellant was outside the record. The jury, however, had
    heard evidence that Babineaux made two statements to the police. They also heard
    42
    Babineaux’s testimony about what had happened on the night of the shooting,
    including his riding around with appellant and Babineaux’s involvement in retrieving
    the victim’s gun. To argue that Babineaux included these matters in his statement to
    the police was a reasonable inference.
    We overrule issue 37.
    Appellant also complains about the State’s argument that Pearson told the
    police about the gun. Pearson, however, had testified, “I told [David] that the gun
    that he took from my house, that I told the police about it, and they are going to be
    coming to get it and that was it.” The State’s argument did not refer to evidence
    outside the record.
    We overrule issue 38.
    Finally, appellant complains that the State improperly commented on the
    credibility of its witnesses when the prosecutor argued, “The one thing [appellant]
    didn’t count on, is that when asked, [Pearson, Hill, and Babineaux] were going to tell
    the truth to police.”
    The argument was responsive to appellant’s attack on the witnesses’ credibility
    and was a reasonable inference from the evidence before the jury. See Castillo v.
    State, 
    939 S.W.2d 754
    , 761 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d)
    (statements that witness credible permissible when a reasonable inference from
    43
    evidence); Sosa v. State, 
    841 S.W.2d 912
    , 914 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,
    no pet.) (jury argument that answers argument of opposing counsel is appropriate).
    We overrule issue 39.
    RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTION
    In issue 40, appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request
    for an oral response to the jury’s question about the meaning of “specifically” in the
    charge. The question read:
    As used in the 7th paragraph originating on page 3 of the charge, does
    “specifically intended to cause the death of David Garmany Bane”
    require a different level of culpability than “intentionally caused the
    death of David Garmany Bane” as that phrase is used in the 6th
    paragraph originating on page 3 of the charge, and if so what level of
    culpability?
    The court responded, “The word ‘specifically’ has no legal meaning. The level
    of culpability is the same for both paragraphs.” When the court asked the defense
    whether it had any objections to the response, the defendant stated that it did not. The
    court then indicated that it was “just going to send in a written response,” and
    appellant objected, requesting that the court give the instruction orally in open court.
    Appellant now contends that the court failed to comply with article 36.27 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure and that he was harmed because the response misstated the
    law.
    44
    The trial court violated article 36.27 when it denied appellant’s request to
    reSpond orally in open court. Reidweg v. State, 
    981 S.W.2d 399
    , 402 (Tex.
    App.——San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (op. on reh’g). Appellant, however, has not
    demonstrated that he was harmed by the instruction. See id. at 403 (citing McGowan
    v. State, 
    664 S.W.2d 335
    , 358-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), and implicitly placing
    burden on appellant to show harm). Because appellant did not object to the contents
    of the response, he has waived any objection to the content of the response. See
    McGowan, 664 S.W.2d at 358 (failure to specify grounds for objection to answer
    waives error). Additionally, on appeal, he does not explain his contention that the
    response “was an incorrect statement of hornbook law that altered Appellant’s
    culpability to the State’s benefit and his detriment.”
    We cannot conclude that the failure to instruct orally “had a substantial and
    injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” King, 953 S.W.2d at
    271.
    45
    We overrule issue 40.
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    Adele Hedges
    Justice
    Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Andell, and Duggan.8
    Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
    8 Justice Lee Duggan, Jr., retired Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of
    Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.
    46
    previous finding that appellant was indigent, appellant requested that the costs of
    these transcripts be charged to the State.
    The record reflects that Attorney Charles Freeman appeared as retained counsel
    as of March 14, 1997. Appellant did not reurge the request for free transcripts until
    sometime in May 1997, representing that the transcripts were necessary for
    impeachment. He alleged indigence, but did not provide facts or an affidavit in
    support of the allegation.
    The motion was not heard until May 20, 1997, three weeks prior to the June 9
    trial date. Referring to appellant’s having made a $70,000 bond, having retained
    counsel, and being employed, the court found that appellant was not indigent and
    denied the request. After the State indicated that it had approval to obtain transcripts
    of appellant’s testimony and that of co-actor Shannon Babineaux, the court provided
    that the defense could have copies of that testimony for the cost of copying. The
    court also observed that it had presided at both trials and did not think that there had
    been discrepancies of any importance between the testimony of the State’s witnesses
    at the first and second trials. Otherwise, the court stated it would have ordered a free
    transcript. The court reiterated that the defense could receive a fair trial without the
    “primarily duplicitous testimony from the second trial,” but that it did need
    appellant’s and Babineaux’s testimony.
    Counsel represented that he had talked with Attorney Peacock and the
    investigator about the testimony of Jacqueline Pearson and Curtis Hill and believed
    that their testimony in the second trial differed from that in the first. The sole
    example related to Pearson’s testimony about a letter.
    The court observed that there had not been discrepancies of any importance.
    If Pearson were to deny she had said something at the second trial, counsel could then
    have the reporter read the statement to the jury. Counsel then requested a thirty-day
    continuance. The court denied the request, but reiterated its direction to the reporter
    to locate Pearson’s testimony immediately after jury selection. Just prior to
    submission of the charge to the jury, appellant asked the court for a “transcript of the
    testimony from the second trial” for purposes of appeal. The trial court overruled the
    request.
    As a matter of constitutional equal protection, an indigent criminal defendant
    is entitled to a free transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for
    an effective defense or appeal. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 US. 226, 227, 
    92 S. Ct. 431
    , 433 (1971) (citing Griflin v. Illinois, 351 US. 12, 19, 
    76 S. Ct. 585
    , 591, 100
    (1956)); Armour v. State, 
    606 S.W.2d 891
    , 893, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. [panel] 1980).
    “It is settled that an indigent defendant is entitled upon timely request to be furnished
    without cost, for use at a subsequent trial, a transcription of the earlier mistrial
    testimony of the State's witnesses.” Richardson v. State, 
    666 S.W.2d 336
    , 
    338 Tex. 7
    App—Houston [1st Dist] 1984, no pet. ) (citing Holden v. State, 
    641 S.W.2d 919
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) and Billie v. State, 
    605 S.W.2d 558
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)
    (as modified on State’s motion for rehearing)).
    In the context of discussing an indigent’s right to transcripts for purposes of
    appeal, the Fourteenth Court has stated that “[t]he trial court has complete discretion
    in its determination of indigency.” T afarroji v. State, 
    818 S.W.2d 921
    , 923 (Tex.
    App—Houston [14th Dist] 1991, no pet). A defendant seeking transcripts of a prior
    mistrial must do so in a timely manner and pursue the request with due diligence. See
    Billie, 605 S.W.2d at 561-62. A court will presume an indigent defendant’s need for
    transcripts of the State’s testimony from a former mistrial, and the State has burden
    of showing lack of need when it desires to oppose a defendant’s motion for
    transcripts. Armour, 606 S.W.2d at 894. In determining whether the State has met
    its burden, the court will consider whether the State has shown that the transcript
    would not have been of value to the defendant and whether there was an adequate
    alternative to providing the transcript. See id.
    We conclude that appellant did not diligently pursue his request for transcripts.
    Attorney Peacock filed the first motion for transcripts on January 16, 1997, over four
    months after the second mistrial. No affidavit of indigence accompanied the motion.
    Appellant only represented, “Defendant has previously proven to the Court that he
    is indigent and therefore cannot afford such expense.” The question, however, was
    8
    whether appellant was indigent at the time of the request, not at the time of his prior
    trial. Cf. Abdnor v. State, 
    712 S.W.2d 136
    , 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (when
    transcripts requested for appeal, issue is financial status at time of appeal, not time
    of trial).
    Attorney Freeman had assumed representation by March 14, 1997, but did not
    file another request for transcripts until May 1997. No affidavit of indigence
    accompanied the motion. No facts supporting the claim of indigence appeared in the
    motion. Counsel only represented that appellant was indigent.
    Granted, the delay in appellant’s case was not so great as that in Holden v.
    State, 
    641 S.W.2d 919
    , 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982), where the defendant waited over
    a year and did not file his motion until the first day of trial. See also Tafarroji, 818
    S.W.2d at 923 (no diligence when request for transcripts for purposes of appeal filed
    over a year after filing of notice of appeal). Appellant’s case, however, is also
    distinguishable from one in which an appellant files his request within weeks after the
    mistrial and repeatedly attempts to obtain a ruling on the motion. See, e. g., Armour,
    606 S.W.2d at 891-92 (appellant filed motion fifteen days after mistrial, presented it
    to presiding judge the same day, and several times thereafter spoke to judge about the
    motion). We conclude that appellant was notrdiligent in asserting his indigence.
    Even if appellant had been diligent, the alternative the court provided appellant
    was adequate. “Relevant factors in the determination of need for a free transcript are
    9
    the value of the transcript of the former trial in connection with the trial or appeal for
    which it is sought, and the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the
    same function as the transcript.” Santos v. State, 
    681 S.W.2d 208
    , 211 (Tex.
    App—Houston [1 st Dist] 1984, pet. ref d).
    Here, the court confirmed that appellant had transcripts of the first mistrial.
    The court also assured that appellant had transcripts of his own testimony and that of
    the co-actor from the second mistrial. Had the court ascertained that there had been
    discrepancies of any importance between the testimony of the State’s witnesses at the
    first and second trials, the court would have ordered a free transcript. Counsel at the
    third trial apparently had access to the counsel and investigator for the first two trials,
    and when he noted a potential discrepancy in Pearson’s testimony, the court ordered
    the reporter to read the testimony to counsel immediately after jury selection. This
    case does not present a situation where appellant had to rely on access to a court
    reporter during the course of the retrial. Cf. Britt, 404 US. 2 at 229, 92 S. Ct. at 434
    (citing Wilson v. McMarm, 
    408 F.2d 896
    , 897 (2d Cir. 1969), in which such an
    alternative was found inadequate). Unlike the defendant in Armour, 606 S.W.2d at
    894, appellant was not forced to locate impeaching testimony at the end of each day’s
    proceedings during the retrial.
    Instead, given all of the resources available to appellant, his case compares
    more than favorably to the situation in Britt. In Britt, 404 US. at 229, 92 S. Ct. at
    10