*3 belongings apart- some her from the KENNEDY, Before UTTER and appellant that accused Henderson of KEITH,1 JJ. destroying some property, of his and that appellant finally threatened Henderson OPINION saying, going get “You’re it.” to KENNEDY, Justice. also introduced evidence State show- juryA appellant guilty found of murder 9, ing p.m. around 3:40 November punishment and assessed years at 99 in 1982, a appellant about half-hour after shot Department the Texas of Corrections. Brown, Rona Lou he entered a Gibraltar Savings and Loan where he Office shot and Although appellant does not contest the Henderson, his girl- killed Granelda former sufficiency of the evidence to It is this which friend. conviction, summary of the facts neces- in contends his second of error sary place perspective to which, should have been excluded and he challenge to the of certain says, constitutes reversible error. evidence. Appellant trial, was indicted for court Prior trial held a hear- Brown, manager jury’s presence of an out ruled complex. According Jerauld, Dorothy relating that evidence to Granelda Hender- mother, appellant Brown’s Appellant came son’s would admitted. death be manager’s p.m. objected presence office at about 3:00 on No- outside “running 9, 1982, gave and the trial court counsel a requested he vember Justice, Appeals, 1. Associate Su- Art. Ninth tion. See as amended. (Ret.), designa- preme sitting by Judicial District Exceptions.” Bill objection No further is offered under this “context of preserve complaint rationale, offense” prejudicial nature of review. TEX.CODE CRIM. it will rarely render it inadmissible so long 40.09, 6(d)(3) (Vernon PROC.ANN. art. truly stage jury’s § as sets the for the Supp.1985). comprehension of the whole criminal trans- action.
At trial evidence of the killing of Granel- da through admitted a tell- While it is obvious the two Savings er of the Gibraltar and Loan and shootings contemporaneous, were not it is the medical examiner. apparent hostility that the before the —both crime and after the crime—between Gra- settled that accused is It is well an nelda played Henderson and to be tried on accusation made entitled significant role motivation in pleading and that he should the State’s committing the murder of Rona Lou some collateral crimes or be tried for *4 Brown. It has been held that even if the generally. being a criminal Albrecht v. is motive not an essential element of the State, (Tex.Crim.App.1972). 486 97 S.W.2d offense, always “evidence of motive is ad brief, State, relying the its missible a because it is relevant as circum the rule in Al- exceptions two stated stance tending prove the commission of brecht, argues that the of Granelda State, an offense.” 628 Bush v. S.W.2d admissible to either show Henderson was (emphasis 441 (Tex.Crim.App. in gestae” the appellant's motive or as “res original) clearly While the State estab offense, contending Hen charged that the appellant’s ill-feelings lished toward Hen jury for the derson murder was showing couple’s derson facts of the context of the understand pre-killing appellant that disputes, the fact sets various killing. While Albrecht forth girlfriend shortly killed his after Brown is above, general rule exceptions to the stated specifically showing in relevant motives of extraneous offense evi “true” test feelings or at the time Brown killed. recently admissibility was set forth dence State, in v. Williams where It has also been stated that two or it evi Crim.App.1983),where was held that or more are so blended connected offenses dence extraneous offenses committed another, with one evidence of commis- may upon a accused become admissible any sion of all of them is admissible on or prosecution that the showing both the trial which is itself a offense to a issue is relevant material transaction scheme, detail of Euziere v. the whole relevancy and that the value the case (Tex.Crim.App.1983), 648 700 S.W.2d inflammatory its outweighs the evidence and that is continu- where an offense also v. prejudicial potential. See Boutwell transaction, part ous another offense is April (Tex.Crim.App. 711-83 No. closely interwoven or of the case trial or 185 688 S.W.2d 1985); v. Gonzalez trial, proof the case on of all blended with Christi, 1985). relating facts transaction or oth- to the part of the circum- proper er offense is as stated, however, also been It has attending stances the offense. Hoffert immediately prior occurs that what (Tex.Crim.App.1981). 141 S.W.2d the commission of the of subsequent showing a con always Given the fense on trial is admissible under tinuing Granelda reasoning that events do occur a feud between appellant, clear that evidence of jury right to have vacuum proper appellant’s hostility toward Henderson placed setting in its so offense with offense may realistically wholly is not unconnected that all evidence evalu bar, shooting of though even ated. Maddox (Clinton, J., at the same committed (Tex.Crim.App.1985) concur Brown was not Nonetheless, Clinton, the evi- ring). by Judge location As noted when and time. killings only me, denee shows that the occurred MR. SCHIWETZ: Excuse apart Honor, a short time and that killed if pose hypotheti- he want to cal, Brown when entry refused into his later objection, again I have no but he is apartment. victim’s Applying the just reciting above facts now. factors, we find shootings the two THE COURT: Sustained. Ask a sufficiently pur- related in time and question, please. pose to allow the to consider the evi- MR. right. RHODES: All dence complains was inadmissi- Q (By Rhodes) Well, you Mr. I will ask
ble. We cannot find that the trial court you if weren’t aware of these facts. abused its in admitting discretion the evi- police You reports, had the that Mr. dence. one, Lott had caused the death of landlady. that, You knew about Even if it were error to admit this parently reason, for—if there was a evidence, we would not find the error to of, the reason that he had told her— require reversal of the conviction because she’d told him go he couldn’t into his our review of the statement of facts shows apartment. counsel used the evidence You have heard that? complains of which he now as the basis in his questioning expert A I State’s wit have read the offense re- ness. ports, yes. Q behavior, Well that’s kind of bizarre example, For during the cross-examina- you say? wouldn’t
tion
one witness
counsel
Well,
depends
A
if he—it
on how
asked the following questions:
*5
define bizarre.
Q. Let me
you: Say
ask
the—now I
Q Well,
term,
I will use a different
specifically talking
wasn’t
about talk-
you
then. You said
didn’t feel
like
mean,
to witnesses of a crime.
I
family
to talk to
and
certainly you can take a witnesses’
get
adequate background
some
Well,
statement and if they say:
he
—not
adequate.
my
That’s
word—some
exhibited odd
up
behavior—he came
background information in this ease
and seemed calm and all of a sudden
me,
you
to
I would like
tell me
to
he
gun
had a
shooting
out and was
case,
why
you
got
in this
where
have
someone,
Gibraltar,
or like at
that he
killed,
people
really
two
what
just came in and shot someone?
seems like—
I’m talking
going
about
behind the
me,
MR. SCHIWETZ: Excuse
like,
scene.
you
Seems
like
never
Again,
ques-
Honor.
could he make a
called me
talking
and asked about
tion?
father,
mother,
brothers,
the
the
the
question.
MR. RHODES: This is a
girlfriend
anything,
you?
did
THE COURT: Excuse me. Sus-
A
right.
That’s
you
didn’t call
to ask
question.
tained.
Just ask a
Don’t
you.
to talk to
your personal opinion.
state
Well,
Q
case,
thing you
this
did
know,
true,
is it not
general
knew that
rule is that
if
even
people
two
had been killed within a
the admission of certain evidence in a trial
time, within,
very short
I don’t
improper,
know was
it does not constitute revers
(sic)
span was,
what if
time
proved by
but
the
ible error if the same facts were
day
same
and both
them were un-
other
objected
evidence not
to.
Brasfield
people,
apparently
armed
the rea-
(Tex.Crim.App.
them,
soning
killing
1980);
at least osten-
Weddle v.
tion and Rona Lou immediately prior to her murder by By evidence, such the State had
successfully proven all the extenuating
circumstances, prior which occurred
pellant’s killing of Brown. K-MART APPAREL FASHIONS In Bush v. CORPORATION, Appellant, Crim.App.1982), Ap the Court of Criminal peals stated: vir., RAMSEY, Appellees. Nina et It must be remembered the initial
inquiry in determining No. 01-85-090-CV. comparison pro of evidence involves a Texas, Appeals potential prejudice. bative value to Fur (1st Dist.). Houston *7 ther, in determining offenses, extraneous this Court must ex 6, 1985. June amine the the state “evidence which has July Rehearing Denied proof to offer essential ele case”, supra of its ments Albrecht
101; Ruiz v. State [579
Cr.App.1979)], order supra, in to estab necessary relationship
lish between
the offenses and the crime for which stands charged.” at 445. I would
Bush that, case, in the the admission
hold instant
of the extraneous offense was not prove or even warranted