Everett Dale Webb v. State , 575 S.W.3d 905 ( 2019 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00149-CR
EVERETT DALE WEBB,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 14-03111-CRF-85
OPINION
In three issues, appellant, Everett Dale Webb, challenges his conviction for
indecency with a child by contact. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1) (West Supp.
2018). Specifically, Webb argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
extraneous-offense evidence of other sexual offenses in violation of Texas Rules of
Evidence 403 and 404(b) and that the trial court’s limiting instruction regarding the
extraneous-offense evidence was erroneous. See TEX. R. EVID. 403, 404(b). Because we
overrule all of Webb’s issues on appeal, we affirm.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of
discretion. Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A trial court
abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to any
guiding rules or principles. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App.
1990). When considering a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, we will
not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless it falls outside the “zone of reasonable
disagreement.” Id. at 391; see Manning v. State, 114 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
II. TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 404(b)
In his first issue, Webb contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
admitting extraneous-offense evidence of two prior sexual offenses he committed. In
particular, Webb argues that the evidence is inadmissible because the defense of
fabrication was not at issue at the time the evidence was admitted, and because the
extraneous offenses are too dissimilar to the offense in this case.
A. Preservation of Error
At the outset, we will address the State’s contention that Webb’s complaint in this
issue was not preserved. When the State moved to introduce extraneous-offense
evidence pertaining to sexual-assault offenses allegedly committed by Webb against two
Webb v. State Page 2
other victims, T.T. and C.H., Webb objected under Rule 404(b). See TEX. R. EVID. 404(b).
Though Webb argued a Rule 404(b) notice objection, a fair reading of the record shows
that Webb did alert the trial judge to his argument that Rule 404(b) prevented the
admission of extraneous-offense evidence when Webb had not yet put into issue a
defense of fabrication. Accordingly, we conclude that Webb preserved his complaint in
this issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A) (noting that a complaint is preserved for
appellate review if the record shows that appellant made the complaint to the trial court
by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling that the
appellant sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court
aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context).
B. Applicable Law
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character
of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. TEX. R. EVID. 404(b). It may,
however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Id. “The
exceptions listed under Rule 404(b) are neither mutually exclusive nor collectively
exhaustive.” De la Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). “‘Rule 404(b)
is a rule of inclusion rather than exclusion.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bowie, 232 F.3d
923, 929, 344 U.S. App. D.C. 34 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). “The rule excludes only that evidence
that is offered (or will be used) solely for the purpose of proving bad character and hence
Webb v. State Page 3
conduct in conformity with that bad character.” Id. (citing Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707,
709 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)).
Rebuttal of a defensive theory is one of the permissible purposes for which
extraneous-offense evidence may be admitted. See Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 626
(Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Further, extraneous offenses are admissible to rebut theories
raised by the testimony of a defense witness during direct examination or a State’s
witness during cross-examination. See Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 444, 453-54 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005); Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
The State may present extraneous-offense evidence to rebut a defensive theory of
fabrication. See Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). To be admissible
for rebuttal of a fabrication defense, “‘the extraneous misconduct must be at least similar
to the charged one.’” Newton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, pet.
ref’d) (op. on remand) (quoting Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 887 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App.
2002)). The requisite degree of similarity is not exacting, and the extraneous conduct need
only be sufficiently similar to the charged offense. Dennis v. State, 178 S.W.3d 172, 178
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d); see Newton, 301 S.W.3d at 317 (“Although
some similarity is required, the requisite degree of similarity is not as exacting as
necessary when extraneous-offense evidence is offered to prove identity by showing the
defendants ‘system’ or modus operandi.” (internal citations omitted)).
C. Discussion
Webb v. State Page 4
On appeal, Webb contends that he did not accuse the child victim, R.G., of
fabricating her story through cross-examination, nor did he put fabrication at issue by an
opening statement made prior to the admission of the extraneous-offense evidence. As
such, Webb asserts that he did not open the door to the use of the extraneous-offense
evidence to rebut such a defense.
During voir dire, Webb repeatedly asked a prospective juror about assumptions
that children are telling the truth; the possibility of children changing their story when
presented with information by law enforcement or by the passage of time; and the
possibility of children lying about serious incidents. In fact, defense counsel used the
term “lying” or “lie” eight times in the questioning of this particular prospective juror
regarding allegations made by children.
Additionally, during cross-examination of R.G., defense counsel asked a series of
questions designed to suggest that R.G. was lying or changed her story regarding various
facts pertaining to the incident. Specifically, defense counsel highlighted differences
between R.G.’s testimony and statements made to law enforcement regarding clothing
that was allegedly ripped during the incident, what body parts Webb touched, Webb’s
actions prior to driving her to Williamson Park—the location of the incident, R.G.’s
explanations for why she did not call 911 while she was in Webb’s truck, why R.G. did
not sustain any injuries attributable to Webb’s actions, and R.G.’s recollection that child
locks prevented her from opening the door to Webb’s truck to escape. It is also
Webb v. State Page 5
noteworthy that defense counsel asked the State’s first witness, William Dunford of the
Bryan Police Department, about obtaining statements from witnesses and the
opportunity for complainants to create or concoct stories when speaking to different
parties.
Viewing defense counsel’s voir dire and cross-examination of Officer Dunford and
R.G. in the proper context, and keeping in mind that a trial court’s ruling on the
admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion
standard, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s conclusion that the defensive theory
of fabrication was raised at this point falls outside the “zone of reasonable
disagreement.”1 Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 380; see Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457, 469
(Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also Leal v. State, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 7918, at **5-6 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio July 27, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(concluding that the defensive theory of fabrication was raised when, during voir dire
and cross-examination of several witnesses, defense counsel repeatedly made reference
to people being falsely accused of sexual crimes and to children making up allegations of
sexual abuse and defense counsel repeatedly used the terms “lying” and “lies” regarding
the child victim’s credibility).
1 The State further argues that Webb also asserted his fabrication defense in his opening statement;
however, a review of the record shows that Webb did not make his opening statement until after T.T. and
C.H. testified and the State rested. Therefore, at the time the trial court ruled on Webb’s Rule 404(b)
objection, Webb had not yet made his opening statement. Accordingly, because it was not before the trial
judge at the time the objection was made and ruled on, we will not consider Webb’s opening statement in
this issue.
Webb v. State Page 6
This is not to say that any questioning of a child victim automatically invokes a
fabrication defense and, thus, opens the door to the admission of extraneous-offense
evidence under Rule 404(b). See Aguillen v. State, 534 S.W.3d 701, 714 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2017, no pet.) (“Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that
extraneous-offense evidence is admissible to rebut a defensive theory raised in opening
statement or raised by the State’s witnesses during cross-examination, the fact that the
State’s witnesses are cross-examined does not, in and of itself, authorize the introduction
of extraneous-offense evidence. Likewise, a challenge to the complainant’s credibility on
cross-examination does not automatically open the door to extraneous-offense evidence.”
(citing Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288, 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Caldwell v. State, 477
S.W.2d 877, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972))). Rather, under these facts, we hold that defense
counsel’s voir dire and cross-examination of Officer Dunford and R.G. went beyond
merely pointing out inconsistencies in R.G.’s story and, thus, raised the defensive theory
of fabrication, which, in turn, allowed for the admission of extraneous-offense evidence
under Rule 404(b) to rebut that defensive theory. See TEX. R. EVID. 404(b); Daggett, 187
S.W.3d at 453-54; Moses, 105 S.W.3d at 626; Ransom, 920 S.W.2d at 301; see also Leal, 2016
Tex. App. LEXIS 7918, at **5-6.
Next, Webb argues that the extraneous-offense evidence was inadmissible under
Rule 404(b) because the evidence was too dissimilar from the offense involved in this
case. We disagree.
Webb v. State Page 7
The record reflects that the nature of the extraneous-offense evidence proffered by
the State was sufficiently similar to the offense in this case. See Newton, 301 S.W.3d at 317-
18; see also Dennis, 178 S.W.3d at 172. Specifically, R.G., T.T., and C.H. alleged that Webb
molested them when they were teenagers. R.G. testified that she was molested at age
sixteen; T.T. was thirteen when Webb molested her; and C.H. stated that Webb
continually molested her from when she was eight years old until she was twenty-one
years old. Additionally, the evidence demonstrated that Webb entered the lives of each
of the victims by being in a relationship with a family member. Moreover, similar to R.G.,
both T.T. and C.H. stated that Webb rubbed on their bodies and touched their breasts and
private areas.
Therefore, because defense counsel’s cross-examination advanced his defensive
theory of fabrication and opened the door to the use of extraneous-offense evidence to
rebut that defense, and because the extraneous offenses proffered by the State are
sufficiently similar to the offense charged in this case, we cannot conclude that the trial
court abused its discretion by overruling Webb’s Rule 404(b) objection. See TEX. R. EVID.
404(b); De la Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343; Bass, 270 S.W.3d at 563; see also Newton, 301
S.W.3d at 317-18 (concluding that an extraneous offense was sufficiently similar to the
charged offense where the victims were the defendant’s step-daughters; both were about
ten years old when the sexual assaults occurred; both were similar in appearance; the
defendant did not threaten either of them; and the sexual assaults occurred for several
Webb v. State Page 8
years); Dennis, 178 S.W.3d at 172 (holding that an extraneous offense was sufficiently
similar to the charged offense where the offenses involved teenage girls that Dennis
knew; both occurred in Dennis’s apartment on a couch in the living-room area; both
occurred in the summer of 2001; and Dennis did not say much to the victims as he
sexually assaulted them). We overrule Webb’s first issue.2
III. TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 403
In his second issue, Webb argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
admitting the extraneous-offense evidence because the probative value of the evidence
was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
and misleading the jury. We disagree.
A. Applicable Law
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” TEX. R. EVID. 403. Rule 403
favors the admission of relevant evidence and carries a presumption that relevant
evidence will be more probative than prejudicial. Allen v. State, 108 S.W.3d 281, 284 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003); Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 652-53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When
2In addition, even if the door had not been opened to rebut the defensive theory of fabrication, the
extraneous-offense evidence would also be admissible under a couple of the exceptions listed in Rule
404(b)(2)—namely, intent and knowledge. See TEX. R. EVID. 404(b)(2); see also Shepard v. State, No. 10-06-
00002-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3602, at *8 (Tex. App.—Waco May 9, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (“[A]n appellate court should affirm a trial court’s decision ‘if it is reasonably
supported by the record and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case.’” (quoting State v. Dixon,
206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006))).
Webb v. State Page 9
considering a Rule 403 objection, the trial court must balance (1) the inherent probative
force of the proffered item of evidence along with (2) the proponent’s need for that
evidence against (3) any tendency of the evidence to suggest a decision on an improper
basis, (4) any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues,
(5) any tendency of the evidence to be given undue weight by a jury that has not been
equipped to evaluate the probative force of the evidence, and (6) the likelihood that
presentation of the evidence will consume an inordinate amount of time or merely repeat
evidence already admitted. Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006).
The trial court has broad discretion in conducting a Rule 403 balancing test, and
we will not lightly disturb its decision. Allen, 108 S.W.3d at 284. All testimony and
physical evidence will likely be prejudicial to one party or the other. Jones, 944 S.W.2d at
653. It is only when there exists a clear disparity between the degree of prejudice of the
offered evidence and its probative value that the evidence is considered unfairly
prejudicial and in violation of Rule 403. Id.; see Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 389
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on reh’g).
B. Discussion
Webb’s primary contention in this issue is that the probative value of the
extraneous-offense evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
Webb v. State Page 10
prejudice because of the lack of similarities between the charged offense and the
extraneous offenses.
The extraneous-offense evidence was probative to rebut Webb’s defensive theory
of fabrication. Further, we have already concluded that the extraneous-offense evidence
is sufficiently similar to the charged offense to have probative value on this issue. See
Newton, 301 S.W.3d at 317-18; see also Dennis, 178 S.W.3d at 172. Thus, this factor weighs
in favor of admissibility.
The trial court could have reasonably concluded that the State’s need for the
extraneous-offense evidence was “considerable” given that there were no eyewitnesses,
other than the complainant, and no physical evidence available to corroborate the
complainant’s testimony. See Gigliobianco, 210 S.W.3d at 642; Wheeler, 67 S.W.3d at 889;
see also Bargas v. State, 252 S.W.3d 876, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.);
Blackwell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 1, 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d); Dennis,
178 S.W.3d at 181. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of admissibility.
Extraneous-offense evidence of this nature does have a tendency to suggest a
verdict on an improper basis because of the inherently inflammatory and prejudicial
nature of the crimes of a sexual nature perpetrated against children. See Newton, 301
S.W.3d at 320. However, this danger of unfair prejudice was counterbalanced, to some
degree, by the trial court’s limiting instructions contained in the court’s charge. See
Webb v. State Page 11
Blackwell, 193 S.W.3d at 17-18. Nevertheless, as the State concedes, this factor weighs in
favor of exclusion of the evidence. See Newton, 301 S.W.3d at 320.
Next, we note that the extraneous-offense testimony provided by T.T. and C.H.
was neither confusing nor highly technical such that the jury was ill-equipped to evaluate
the probative force of the evidence. Furthermore, the extraneous-offense evidence was
contextual and relevant to whether or not Webb sexually assaulted R.G. in this case. See
Bass, 270 S.W.3d at 562-63 (concluding that evidence was relevant where it showed that
the defendant abused other children in a similar fashion). Accordingly, we conclude that
the extraneous-offense evidence concerning T.T. and C.H. did not have a tendency to
distract the jury or be given undue weight by the jury. See Bass, 270 S.W.3d at 562-63; see
also Robisheaux v. State, 483 S.W.3d 205, 220-21.
With regard to the final factor, the parties engage in page counting to determine
whether an inordinate amount of time was spent in the presentation of the extraneous-
offense evidence. While we share the concerns raised in the concurring note in Newton
regarding page counting to determine this factor, see Newton, 301 S.W.3d at 322 (Gray,
C.J., concurring with a note), the State concedes that this factor slightly weighs in favor
of exclusion.
Out of the six factors, only two somewhat favor exclusion. We, therefore, cannot
say that there is a “clear disparity” between the danger of unfair prejudice posed by the
extraneous-offense evidence and its probative value; and as such, we cannot conclude
Webb v. State Page 12
that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling Webb’s Rule 403 objection. See TEX.
R. EVID. 403; Gigliobianco, 210 S.W.3d at 641-42; Allen, 108 S.W.3d at 284; Jones, 944 S.W.2d
at 653; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 389. As such, we overrule Webb’s second issue.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT’S LIMITING INSTRUCTION
In his third issue, Webb asserts that the trial court erred by giving a limiting
instruction regarding the aforementioned extraneous-offense evidence that allowed the
evidence to be considered “for any bearing the evidence has on the character of the
defendant and acts performed in conformity with that character.”
After the trial court overruled his multiple objections to the admission of the
extraneous-offense evidence, Webb requested a running objection and that the trial court
issue a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the evidence. The trial court granted
Webb’s requests for a running objection and a limiting instruction. The limiting
instruction was given before the testimony of T.T. and provided the following:
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to give you an instruction as it relates to
testimony you may hear. There may be testimony introduced regarding
extraneous crimes or bad acts other than the one charged in the indictment
in this case. This testimony and evidence may be admitted only for the
purpose of assisting you, if it does, in showing the lack of fabrication only,
if it does, and to rebut any defensive theory in connection with the offense
alleged in the indictment in this case or for any bearing the evidence has on
relevant matters including the character of the defendant and acts
performed in conformity with that character and for no other purpose. You
cannot consider this testimony and evidence unless you find beyond a
Webb v. State Page 13
reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the acts which may be
referenced.[3]
Webb did not object to this instruction.
Given the above, we conclude that Webb’s failure to object to the trial court’s
limiting instruction given immediately before T.T.’s testimony did not preserve error in
this issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, we overrule Webb’s third issue.
V. CONCLUSION
Having overruled all of Webb’s issues on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed May 15, 2019
Publish
[CRPM]
3 Despite the foregoing, the jury charge included a correct statement regarding the jury’s usage of
the extraneous-offense evidence. Specifically, the charge stated:
Any testimony and evidence of extraneous crimes or bad acts was admitted only for the
purpose of assisting you, if it does, in showing the defendant’s motive, intent, if any, or
to rebut any defensive theory in connection with the offense alleged in the indictment in
this case, and for no other purpose. You cannot consider such testimony and evidence
unless you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed these
acts.
Webb v. State Page 14