|
|
NUMBER 13-05-166-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG
JOHN LONGORIA, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Appellant, John Ruben Longoria, was found guilty of possession of methamphetamine, a controlled substance, and sentenced to two years= incarceration in a state jail facility. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. '' 481.102; 481.115(b) (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2004-05). He now appeals his conviction, alleging that the trial court erred when it permitted the State to admit evidence of an extraneous offense. We affirm.
Longoria=s home was originally investigated by Child Protective Services (CPS), which was responding to allegations it received that drugs were being sold out of the house to the detriment of Longoria=s children. The CPS investigator testified that she noted the presence of a camera surveillance system and bullet holes in the walls from a previous drive-by shooting. A police officer who participated in the search of Longoria=s residence on the night of his arrest testified to finding illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia in the house. The officer also testified, over Longoria=s objection, to finding a Asawed-off shotgun@ and ammunition in a closet during the search. Longoria now argues that evidence regarding the weapon had no probative value but was instead highly prejudicial, and therefore, its admission constituted reversible error in violation of Texas Rules of Evidence 403 and 404. See Tex. R. Evid. 403, 404.
We review rulings on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). As a general rule, the State is entitled to establish the circumstances surrounding an arrest, unless the evidence is inherently prejudicial with no relevance to any issue in the case. Hernandez v. State, 484 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). A decision to admit the extraneous offense evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.
Evidence of extraneous offenses is generally not admissible. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(a). However, rule of evidence 404(b) allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts if the evidence has relevance apart from character conformity. See id. 404(b). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible to prove identity or intent, to establish motive, or to show opportunity or preparation. Id.; see Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). In addition to the explicit exceptions set out in rule 404(b), extraneous offense evidence may be admissible as contextual evidence. Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). There are two types of contextual evidence: (1) evidence of other offenses connected with the primary offense, referred to as same transaction contextual evidence; and (2) general background evidence, referred to as background contextual evidence. Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79, 86‑87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). "Same transaction contextual evidence is admissible as an exception under Rule 404(b) where such evidence is necessary to the jury's understanding of the instant offense." Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29, 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); see Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Here, the officer described all contraband found and seized during the search of Longoria=s residence, including the shotgun and ammunition. When Longoria objected to the admission of testimony concerning the shotgun, the State explained that Athe illegal firearm goes to show the defendant=s intent, his knowledge, and an affirmative link to the possession of a controlled substance.@
We agree with the State=s assertion in this case. The court of criminal appeals has previously found, in the context of a deadly weapon finding in connection with drug charges, a jury would rationally conclude that the guns are being used to protect and facilitate the possession and delivery of those drugs. See Coleman v. State, 145 S.W.3d 649, 654-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Gale v. State, 998 S.W.2d 221, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Possession of an illegal weapon would thus qualify as Asame transaction contextual evidence@ in the circumstances of this offense, which establishes affirmative links between the methamphetamine and Longoria. See Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d at 33; Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Therefore, we conclude, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the testimony regarding the shotgun was more probative than prejudicial and thus admissible.
Longoria=s issue is overruled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rogelio Valdez,
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this 9th of February, 2006.