Thesus Williams v. State

OPINION
No. 04-11-00179-CR
Thesus WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008CR5905
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2011
AFFIRMED
A jury found appellant, Thesus Williams, guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child
and the court assessed punishment at fifty-five years’ confinement. In a single issue on appeal,
appellant asserts the trial court erred by admitting the complainant’s testimony that he showed
her a computer clip of two naked people immediately before he sexually assaulted her. The
complainant, E.P., is appellant’s daughter, and she was twelve years old at the time of trial when
04-11-00179-CR
she testified about the sexual assault that occurred several years earlier. We conclude the court
did not err and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the admission of the evidence violates both Texas Rule of Evidence
404(b) and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37. Rule 404(b) precludes “evidence of
other crimes, wrongs or acts to prove the character of a person in order to show action in
conformity therewith.” TEX. R. EVID. 404(b). Such evidence is admissible, however, “for other
purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or
absence of mistake or accident . . . .” Id. Article 38.37 provides that, notwithstanding Rule 404,
“evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts committed by the defendant against the child who is
the victim of the alleged offense shall be admitted for its bearing on relevant matters, including:
(1) the state of mind of the defendant and the child; and (2) the previous and subsequent
relationship between the defendant and the child.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.37, § 2
(West 2005). We review a trial court’s ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence for an
abuse of discretion. Russeau v. State, 291 S.W.3d 426, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Hernandez
v. State, 327 S.W.3d 200, 205 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. ref’d).
On appeal, appellant argues the evidence was not necessary to the jury’s understanding of
the offense because neither E.P. nor her mother mentioned the clip to anyone before trial, neither
the outcry witness nor the examining nurse mentioned the clip, and the SANE report did not
mention it. Therefore, appellant concludes, the jury’s understanding of the offense would not
have been diminished in the absence of the testimony. Appellant also argues the testimony was
not admissible under article 38.37 because it was not relevant to either his or E.P.’s state of
mind. Appellant contends his state of mind was apparent from the details of the alleged offense
-2-
04-11-00179-CR
and from what he allegedly said to E.P.; and E.P.’s own testimony described her state of mind
without reference to the clip. Finally, appellant asserts the testimony was not relevant to the
previous or past relationship between himself and E.P. because E.P. saw the clip immediately
prior to the assault and the clip played no part in E.P.’s outcry or subsequent treatment.
E.P. testified she was in the living room watching television when appellant called her
into his bedroom. Over appellant’s objection, she testified as follows:
Q. [E.P.], you were telling us about what you saw when you walked into your
dad’s bedroom when he called you?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell us what you remember seeing him doing? What was he
doing in that bedroom?
...
Q. He was on the computer?
A. Yes, when I first came in.
Q. Okay. And did you go up to the computer?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it that he was looking at on the computer?
A. It was CD covers, I think, at first.
Q. At first. And then did it change on the computer?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it that you saw?
A. Then it was like a little clip of two people.
Q. Okay. Can you describe what the two people were doing? Just tell me
what you saw.
A. Two people naked.
...
Q. What do you remember them doing on the computer?
A. Like they were touching each other and they were moving.
...
Q. [What did your father tell you?]
A. He asked me did I know what it was.
Q. And what did you say?
A. No.
E.P. said her father then told her “to get on the bed, and he cut the lights off. And I think
he went to the restroom and then he came back, and told me to take my clothes off.” E.P.
complied and appellant told her to lie on top of him and “he put his private part inside of” of her.
-3-
04-11-00179-CR
Although Rule 404(b) precludes the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or
acts to prove the character of a person to show action in conformity therewith, the “other crime,
wrong, or act” may have relevance apart from character conformity if it tends to establish some
elemental fact, such as intent or if it tends to establish some evidentiary fact, such as motive,
opportunity or preparation, leading inferentially to an elemental fact. Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d
18, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29, 33 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993) (Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other offenses connected with primary offense; referred
to as “same transaction contextual evidence”). In fact, “events do not occur in a vacuum, and the
jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of
[the offense] so that it may realistically evaluate the evidence.” Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d
103, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (same transaction contextual evidence admissible to show
context in which criminal act occurred). However, same transaction contextual evidence is
admissible only to the extent that it is necessary to the jury’s understanding of the offense. See
Rogers, 853 S.W.2d at 33.
We conclude E.P.’s testimony regarding the computer clip shown to her by appellant
immediately prior to the sexual assault, coupled with him asking E.P. if she knew what it was she
was looking at in the clip, “shows [appellant’s] attempts to prepare the child to engage in sexual
activity and thus would also show his intent to commit the crime[] charged against him.”
Broderick v. State, 35 S.W.3d 67, 79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref’d) (child testified
defendant showed her pictures of young girls engaged in sexual acts with male adults and told
her she would have to do these things with him). Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by allowing E.P.’s testimony about the computer clip into evidence.
-4-
04-11-00179-CR
CONCLUSION
We overrule appellant’s complaint on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Publish
-5-