IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD–1514-14
RONNIE LEON DABNEY, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS
WICHITA COUNTY
M EYERS, J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court.
OPINION
A jury found Appellant, Ronnie Leon Dabney, guilty of manufacturing
methamphetamine, and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He appealed the
conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior
unadjudicated offense of manufacturing methamphetamine because the State failed to
give proper notice under Rule of Evidence 404(b).1 The court of appeals held that the
1
Unless otherwise noted, all future references to Rules refer to the Rules of Evidence.
Dabney–Page 2
evidence was inadmissable and reversed the trial court’s judgment. Dabney v. State, No.
02-12-00530-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11496 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth Oct. 16, 2014)
(mem. op., not designated for publication). The State filed a petition for discretionary
review raising the following three grounds:
1. Did the Memorandum Opinion incorrectly add a notice requirement for
rebuttal evidence that the State used to rebut Appellant’s defensive theory
after Appellant’s counsel opened the door to such evidence in voir dire and
in opening statement?
2. Did the Memorandum Opinion ignore the Court of Criminal Appeals’
directive that a trial judge is afforded almost absolute deference in
determining whether a prosecutor acted willfully and thereby improperly
substitute its judgment for the trial judge’s in finding the prosecutor was
engaging in gamesmanship instead of legitimately rebutting a defensive
theory?
3. Did the Memorandum Opinion, in its harm analysis, improperly ignore
the overwhelming evidence of Appellant’s guilt, including the fact that he
absconded during trial and was absent for closing arguments at
guilt/innocence?
We will reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
FACTS
Prior to trial, Appellant filed a request for notice of the State’s intent to use
evidence of extraneous offenses pursuant to Rule of Evidence 404(b).2 The State
2
Rule 404(b) says:
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. 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,
provided that upon timely request by the accused in a criminal
case, reasonable notice is given in advance of trial of intent to
introduce in the State’s case-in-chief such evidence other than that
Dabney–Page 3
provided notice that it intended to use Appellant’s prior DWI offense, two possession of
controlled substance offenses, and two assault offenses for impeachment or in the
punishment phase. The circumstances surrounding one of the prior possession of
methamphetamine convictions was the evidence that Appellant claims was improperly
raised by the State. During opening statements of the guilt stage of trial, Appellant stated
that the evidence would show that the methamphetamine lab found on his property was
set up by others in his absence and without his knowledge and that he arrived home just
minutes before the police arrived and discovered the lab. The defense stated to the jury:
[H]ave you ever seen a movie like The Fugitive or Double Jeopardy where
a person in movies is found in suspicious circumstances and arrest and
convict them and then the rest of the movie they’re trying to prove their
innocence? Law enforcement is chasing them and ultimately at the end of
the movie, lo and behold they’re innocent and exonerated. Have you ever
seen anything like that?
***
This case -- I have talked to you about movies where an innocent person is
found in suspicious circumstances and they’re arrested, convicted, sent to
prison, and they escape. In the rest of the movie they’re trying to show
themself to be innocent when they are, in fact, innocent. That’s what
happens in this case. Ronnie is living that in real life.
***
Ronnie was upset that this happened. He didn’t know it was going on; he
didn’t give permission; and he wasn’t assisting or aiding.
***
Ronnie Dabney has been living this movie where he’s innocent, found in
suspicious circumstances, and he’s trying to prove himself not guilty. At
the end of this case, we’re gonna ask you to end this -- this travesty he’s
been under and find him not guilty. Thank you.
The State filed a brief to the trial court stating that it should be allowed to present
arising in the same transaction.
Dabney–Page 4
evidence of a previous methamphetamine lab at Appellant’s residence in order to rebut
Appellant’s defensive theory of accident or mistake. The State wished to present
evidence that in 2004 Appellant was present when a search warrant was executed on his
property and an active methamphetamine lab was found. Although Appellant was not
charged with manufacture of methamphetamine in the 2004 case, the State argued that the
similarities between the cases rebutted Appellant’s defensive theory of accident or
mistake. Appellant objected on the grounds that Rule 404(b) required the State to provide
notice of its intent to use this offense. Outside the presence of the jury, the State argued:
It’s my contention that defense counsel, through jury selection, opening
statement, and his examination of all my witnesses to this point, has
advanced the theory that his client was the victim of an unfortunate accident
or mistake. In jury selection he spoke about the movies, The Fugitive and
Double Jeopardy where an innocent person, because of a series of
unfortunate events, appears to be guilty and can’t -- attempts to prove their
innocence. He asked panel members if they believed that that sort of thing
happened in real life. Then in opening statement he continued with that
theme in saying that his client has, quote, been living a nightmare like just
out of one of those movies. It was some quote to that effect. And then he
advanced an elaborate theory about how the Defendant was trying to help
someone out at his house and had given him his keys. And then he goes to
help someone fill their car up with gas. When he gets back, these other
individuals have let someone else operate a meth lab there. It’s all this big
mistake or misunderstanding. And that -- then he proceeds to pursue that
defensive theory of accident; argued that their witnesses in their opening
that they smell of ether on the Defendant’s clothes comes from when he
goes into the shop and tells the guy to get his stuff and leave. So that’s an
innocent explanation for that piece of evidence. And then the two
gentlemen outside the trailer that go into the trailer when Officer Whitefield
drives up, he has suggested multiple times that they could have planted the
baggies and/or the coffee grinder inside the house. And so he’s continued
with this defensive theory that his client is just the victim of an innocent --
or of innocent actions that through unlucky events, through an accident or
Dabney–Page 5
mistake, he appears guilty.
***
In July of 2004, the North Texas Regional Drug Task Force executed a
search warrant at the same residence, 823 Rathgeber. The Defendant was
present. There was an active meth lab in that trailer. And the Court of
Criminal Appeals case law talks about Professor Whitmore’s Doctrine of
Chances, that highly unusual events are unlikely to repeat themselves
inadvertently or by happenstance. So you might have this series of
unfortunate things that happen once, but when almost identical things have
happened in the past, the odds of it being an accident or mistake just are
impossible. And that’s why it serves as rebuttal evidence. The Court of
Criminal Appeals has also explained that there is no need for the State to
wait until a rebuttal portion -- until the defense presents its case when a
defense attorney in opening statement chooses to make their opening after
the State’s opening and advances this theory. The Court of Criminal
Appeals says that we can rely on what [defense counsel] said in his opening
as to his theory of the case and through his examination of the witnesses.
And I think it’s very clear that he is advancing that theory, and so there’s no
reason to wait. The Court of Criminal Appeals to -- for rebuttal portion
says that we can present this rebuttal evidence in our case in chief. The
testimony is simple and directly rebuts the theory.
***
And while I gave notice of the prior conviction that this offense comes out
of in 42,517-A, that was back on November 1st, 2011. So [defense
counsel] was on notice about that. There -- the notice requirements do not
apply to rebuttal witnesses nor do they apply to rebuttal extraneous
offenses. So he was on notice, but there is no notice requirement for rebuttal
evidence as the Court is well aware. Finally, I believe that the probative
value of this evidence outweighs any unfair prejudicial effect. For all the
reasons that I’ve mentioned, the defense counsel has aggressively advanced
this -- you know, it’s all a mistake, you know, his client’s living a nightmare
just like one of these movies, and so he’s clearly advanced that theory. The
similarities between the 2004 event and this event is almost identical except
the meth lab is in the trailer not in the shop. But otherwise, it’s his
residence, same place, he’s present when the search warrant is executed,
and all of these acutrements of a meth lab are found right there. So it’s very
probative.
The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible. The State presented the testimony
Dabney–Page 6
of an investigator for the DA’s office, Bobby Dilbeck, a former police officer who had
executed a search warrant on Appellant’s residence in 2004. During that search, officers
found items commonly used in methamphetamine labs, but did not notice any chemical
odor and did not find several of the components necessary to make methamphetamine.
As a result of this 2004 search, Appellant signed a judicial confession to possessing
methamphetamine. After the rebuttal witness testified, the trial court said to the jury,
“Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you that this evidence you’ve heard has been admitted
for the limited purpose of rebutting, if it does, the defensive theory of mistake or accident.
Also you’ll receive this type of instruction again in the Court’s Charge prior to your
deliberations.”
In its closing arguments, the State again mentioned the prior offense and how it
served to rebut the defensive theory:
The unluckiest man in the world. He wants you to think that his client is
Harrison Ford from The Fugitive, but there’s this confluence of unfortunate
events that frame him. But, ladies and gentlemen, common sense says it’s
not an accident if it has happened twice. That’s why we were able to bring
you the 2004 incident and you got to hear the testimony from Bobby
Dilbeck, and you got to see the Defendant’s Judicial Confession. And you
got to hear when they got called out by that CI. CI told the North Texas
Drug Task Force that Mr. Dabney was selling meth out of his trailer. They
execute a warrant on the property. He’s present. They have all the
accoutrements for a meth lab, all the items, pseudoephedrine, the various
items plus they have meth. You can see his Judicial Confession. You get to
consider that because the law -- it’s the Doctrine of Chances. Something
bad might happen to you once that’s an accident, but if it happens twice, it’s
not an accident, it’s not a mistake. And, ladies and gentlemen, that’s
important evidence that rebuts their defensive theory. [Defense counsel]
used this movie theme, that this is a movie and his client is trapped in a
Dabney–Page 7
movie where he’s trying to -- he’s an innocent person through this
unfortunate set of circumstances, he’s framed. If this is a movie, ladies and
gentlemen, it’s a sequel. If this is a movie, ladies and gentlemen, it would
be titled Meth Lab at Ronnie’s, Part 2. This time they move it to the shed.
It’s happened twice. That rebuts their defensive theory. It’s not an
accident, it’s not a mistake. He knew what he was doing.
The trial court reiterated the instructions it had previously given the jury regarding their
consideration of the rebuttal evidence by including the following language in the jury
charge:
You are further instructed that if there is any evidence before you in this
case regarding the defendant’s committing an alleged offense or offenses
other than the offense alleged against him in the indictment in this case, you
cannot consider such evidence for any purpose unless you find and believe
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such other offense
or offenses, if any, and even then you may only consider the same as
evidence to rebut the defensive theory of mistake or accident.
The jury found Appellant guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine and the trial court
sentenced him to 30 years in prison.
COURT OF APPEALS
Appellant argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the prior crime
because the State did not give notice under Rule 404(b). The State contended that
Appellant opened the door to the extraneous offense by asserting that he did not know
that there was a methamphetamine lab in his home. The court of appeals stated that
Appellant had not raised a defense of mistake or accident and that the extraneous offense,
for which Appellant was not prosecuted or convicted, was not true rebuttal evidence.
Dabney, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS at *15-17. Citing our opinion in Oprean v. State, 201
Dabney–Page 8
S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), the court of appeals reasoned that, despite the
discovery order, the prosecutor made a tactical decision not to disclose his intent to
present evidence of the prior offense. Dabney, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS at *20. The court
of appeals held that “the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present
evidence to the jury of the alleged extraneous offense of manufacturing
methamphetamine when same had not been revealed to Appellant in response to his
404(b) request.” Id. Concluding that the evidence would not have been admissible even
with proper notice, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded
the case to the trial court for a new trial. Id. at *25-26.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The State argues that the court of appeals improperly created a notice requirement
for evidence used to rebut a defensive theory that was raised in voir dire and opening
statements. Appellant raised the defense that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time
with the wrong people and did not know that his guests had set up a methamphetamine
lab on his property. The State says that the rebuttal evidence that officers had previously
found a methamphetamine lab on Appellant’s property was highly relevant to refute
Appellant’s claim that he was a victim of circumstance. The State says that notice is not
required for rebuttal evidence because it cannot predict the need for such evidence until
the defensive theories are presented. According to the State, the decision of the court of
appeals leads to the absurd result of requiring the State to predict any and every possible
Dabney–Page 9
theory that the defense may raise and give notice of all evidence that could be used to
refute those theories.
The State argues that the court of appeals failed to defer to the trial court’s
determination that the extraneous offense evidence was offered for purposes of rebutting
the defensive theory. Instead, the court of appeals unfairly speculated about the motives
of the prosecutor and, without any support in the record, implied that he engaged in legal
gamesmanship and trial by ambush. The State contends that the extraneous offense
evidence was presented because Appellant’s defense that the methamphetamine lab was
created without his knowledge “becomes considerably less probable when one learns that
Appellant had previously operated a meth lab on the same premises.” The State says that
the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice because the evidence casts serious doubt on Appellant’s defensive theory
and, thus, the trial judge was correct in admitting the evidence. The State notes that the
trial judge was in the best position to determine whether the prosecutor needed to present
the extraneous offense evidence to rebut the defensive theory and whether the prosecutor
was attempting to circumvent the trial judge’s discovery order, and therefore, the court of
appeals should defer to the judge’s decision to admit the evidence. The State contends
that the defense had notice that the prosecution may use the evidence in question because
the prosecutor had timely filed a notice of prior convictions that included Appellant’s
2004 conviction for possession of methamphetamine that formed the basis for the rebuttal
Dabney–Page 10
evidence. Finally, the State argues that the court of appeals failed to consider evidence of
Appellant’s guilt in its harm analysis.
Appellant argues that the State has a duty to anticipate what defensive issues it
may want to rebut and provide notice of its intent to introduce any extraneous offense into
evidence. Appellant says that the evidence in question went to an elemental fact in the
case and thus was not rebuttal evidence. Appellant argues that the State was required to
provide notice of its intent to offer the evidence and that the trial court erred in allowing
the extraneous offense into evidence. According to Appellant, his defense was a general
denial that he committed the offense, which does not open the door to evidence of
extraneous offenses. Appellant argues that the cases cited by the State are distinguishable
from the case before us and that the State cites no cases standing for the proposition that
Rule 404(b) does not apply when the defense opens the door to the admission of
extraneous-offense evidence. Appellant says that the State is asking us to do away with
the notice requirement of Rule 404(b).
Appellant contends that the State’s Rule 609 notice of intent to introduce his prior
conviction for possession of a controlled substance did not put him on notice that it
intended to offer, in its case-in-chief, an extraneous offense of manufacturing a controlled
substance. Appellant says that Rule 609 allows for the introduction of evidence to
impeach the defendant’s credibility if he testifies, not for the introduction of extraneous
offenses in the State’s case-in-chief. He also says that, while Rule 609 may allow for the
Dabney–Page 11
introduction of evidence that a witness has been previously convicted of a crime, specific
details of the crime are inadmissible. Moreover, Appellant says that the details of the
crime that were presented by the State were false and were not proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Specifically, Appellant notes that he had been charged only with
possession of a controlled substance as a result of the 2004 search because officers did
not uncover several of the items necessary for manufacturing methamphetamine and that
the State could not prove the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance. Because
the State was aware of the details of the extraneous offense, Appellant says that the
failure to give notice was a willful violation of the pre-trial order. Finally, Appellant
argues that the admission of the extraneous offense was not harmless error.
CASELAW
In Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), the defendant claimed
in opening statements and during cross-examination of the complainant that he could not
have committed the offense of indecency with a child because there were other people in
the room when the alleged molestation occurred. The State offered, as rebuttal evidence,
the testimony of witnesses who said that the defendant had molested them under
circumstances almost identical to the charged offense. Id. at 437. The court of appeals
reversed the trial court, deciding that the evidence was inadmissible because it was
offered to show character conformity. We noted that, because trial courts are in the best
position to decide admissibility questions, appellate courts must review a trial court’s
Dabney–Page 12
decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 438. We determined that it was at
least subject to reasonable disagreement whether extraneous offense evidence that Powell
molested other girls in the presence of others rebutted his defensive theory that he had no
opportunity to commit the offense because he was never alone with the complainant. Id.
Similar to the case before us, the extraneous-offense evidence raised in Bass v.
State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), was presented in the State’s case-in-chief
as rebuttal to the defense raised in the defendant’s opening statements. We decided that a
defense opening statement could open the door to the admission of extraneous-offense
evidence to rebut the defensive theory presented in the opening statement. Id. at 563. We
noted that, although a defensive opening statement is not itself evidence, the statement
does inform the jury and the State of the nature of the defense to be raised and the State
may rebut this anticipated defensive evidence in its case-in-chief. Id.
The “doctrine of chances” tells us that highly unusual events are unlikely to repeat
themselves inadvertently or by happenstance. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 347
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing 2 J OHN W IGMORE, E VIDENCE § 302 at 241 (Chadbourn
rev. 1979)). In De La Paz, the defendant was a former narcotics detective charged with
tampering with physical evidence for filing a false police report about a fake drug deal.
His defense was that, although there were other officers conducting surveillance at the
scene who did not see any contact between the informant and the suspect, he had indeed
witnessed the drug deal. The State was permitted to present evidence of two other fake
Dabney–Page 13
drug deals that De La Paz said he witnessed, but that other officers, as well as the
confidential informant, claimed never occurred. Under the doctrine of chances, De La
Paz’s defense that he witnessed a drug deal that no one else was able to see becomes less
believable when presented with evidence that he has made the same highly unlikely claim
two other times. We concluded that the extraneous-offense evidence was admissible to
rebut the defendant’s assertion of innocent intent. De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 348.
ANALYSIS
As we stated in De La Paz, Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion rather than
exclusion–it excludes only evidence that is offered solely for proving bad character and
conduct in conformity with that bad character. 279 S.W.3d at 343. While Rule 404(b)
requires the State to provide notice of other crimes, wrongs, or acts it plans to introduce in
its case-in-chief, there is an exception to this notice requirement when the defense opens
the door to such evidence by presenting a defensive theory that the State may rebut using
extraneous-offense evidence. To hold otherwise would impose upon the State the
impossible task of anticipating, prior to the beginning of trial, any and all potential
defenses that a defendant may raise. Appellant’s defense that he did not know that there
was a methamphetamine lab on his property opened the door to the admission of evidence
that officers had previously found a methamphetamine lab on his property. Under the
doctrine of chances, Appellant’s defense that he found himself in an unfortunate, highly
unlikely situation becomes less credible when presented with evidence that he has been
Dabney–Page 14
found in that exact same situation before. Because Appellant presented his defensive
theory in opening statements, the State could use extraneous-offense evidence to rebut
this theory in its case-in-chief rather than waiting until the defense rested. Bass, 270
S.W.3d at 563. Rebuttal evidence that was raised by the State only after the defense
opened the door to such evidence in opening statements is not subject to the Rule 404(b)
notice requirement, and the court of appeals erred in holding otherwise.
Appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of Rule 404(b)
evidence for an abuse of discretion. The trial court’s ruling on whether extraneous-
offense evidence was admissible to rebut a defensive theory should be upheld if it is
within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Reversing a trial court’s decision solely
because the appellate court disagrees with it is a misapplication of the abuse-of-discretion
standard. Powell, 63 S.W.3d at 438.
The case cited by the court of appeals, Oprean v. State, 201 S.W.3d 724, is
distinguishable from the case before us because, in Oprean, the prosecutor acted with the
specific intent to disobey the discovery order by failing to turn over evidence. Despite a
pretrial order requiring the prosecutor to turn over all videos containing Oprean’s voice,
the prosecutor failed to provide the defense with a videotape depicting one of Oprean’s
prior offenses. The prosecutor also stated that she intended to present only judgments and
sentences of Oprean’s prior convictions at punishment, but instead, at the punishment
hearing she offered into evidence the videotape depicting a prior offense. Because the
Dabney–Page 15
record revealed that the prosecutor’s conduct was a willful, calculated effort to frustrate
the defense, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the
videotape. Id. at 728. In the case before us, however, there is no evidence that the
prosecutor willfully violated the discovery order. The court of appeals improperly
substituted its judgment for the trial judge’s in concluding that the prosecutor was
engaging in gamesmanship instead of legitimately rebutting a defensive theory.
We hold that the defensive theory raised in voir dire and opening statements
opened the door to the extraneous-offense evidence presented by the State and the State
was not required under Rule 404(b) to provide notice of such rebuttal evidence. There
was no evidence that the State’s presentation of this extraneous-offense evidence as
rebuttal to the defensive theory was an attempt to circumvent the pre-trial discovery order,
and the court of appeals’s application of Oprean to this case was misplaced.
Finding no error in the trial court’s admission of the extraneous offense, we need
not address the State’s third ground for review.
CONCLUSION
The court of appeals erred in adding to Rule of Evidence 404(b) a notice
requirement for rebuttal evidence and in failing to defer to the trial court’s decision. We
reverse the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Delivered: June 8, 2016
Publish