Beasley v. State

• Decision Date: 18 August 1992
• Docket Number: No. 05-91-00647-CR,05-91-00647-CR
• Citation: 838 S.W.2d 695
• Parties: Raymond Devaunt BEASLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 695

838 S.W.2d 695

Raymond Devaunt BEASLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 05-91-00647-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas Dallas.

Aug. 18, 1992.

John H. Hagler, Dallas, for appellant.

Donald G. Davis, Dallas, for appellee.

Before BAKER, BURNETT and ROSENBERG, JJ.

OPINION

BAKER, Justice.

The State charged appellant with illegal investment in cocaine. A jury found appellant guilty as charged. The jury assessed a ninety-nine-year sentence and a one million dollar fine. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to convict him and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of extraneous offenses. He contends that the State improperly bolstered a witness and that the trial court erred in admitting that witness's testimony. He claims that the State improperly struck minority jurors and that the trial court improperly allowed evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses during the punishment phase. We overrule these points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

THE ILLEGAL INVESTMENT

This case involves a "reverse sting." Through an informant, two Dallas narcotics officers learned that appellant wanted to buy bulk cocaine. The officers met appellant and the informant at a Dallas restaurant. The appellant told the officers that he wanted to buy two kilos of cocaine. The officers told appellant that the cost was $20,000 per kilo.

Appellant told the officers that he was looking for a steady supply of kilos. During this initial meeting, appellant told the officers that he was a "drug enforcer," that he had access to high explosives and high-caliber weapons, and that he had made $80,000 in a Fort Worth drug transaction. Later that evening appellant told the officers that he and his Shreveport associates wanted to buy three kilos of cocaine. One of the officers and appellant had a three-way telephone conversation with appellant's associate from Shreveport. They agreed on a final price of $67,000 for three kilos and arranged for the exchange to take place the next day.

Dallas police set up surveillance with a tactical squad and other officers at the location of the proposed sale. The two undercover officers met appellant and his associate at the restaurant parking lot. One of the officers looked into appellant's car and asked to see the money. Appellant's associate showed the officer a plastic garbage bag filled with money. The confederate got out of appellant's car and went to the officer's car to see the cocaine.

After counting part of the money and showing appellant's associate the cocaine, the tactical officers made the bust and arrested all the parties. The officers seized $65,654 at the scene. The police also arrested three people in another car who fled the scene when the officers arrested appellant and his associate.

THE GUILT/INNOCENCE PHASE OF THE TRIAL

A. Was Batson

¹ Error Committed During Jury Selection?

In his sixth point of error, appellant claims the State struck two black prospective jurors for racially motivated reasons. Appellant objected to the State striking jurors number two, Gladys Lightfoot, and number ten, Cornelia Ford. Appellant was black as were Lightfoot and Ford.

The prosecutor explained his reasons for striking Lightfoot and Ford. The prosecutor said he struck Lightfoot because she had a son who was in a drug rehabilitation program. The prosecutor considered her a dangerous juror for this type of case. The prosecutor said he struck Ford because she had an uncle who was in the penitentiary for a drug offense. The prosecutor said he considered this juror risky, so he struck her. The trial court overruled appellant's Batson motion.

Appellant contends that the prosecutor's reasons for striking the two jurors were not legitimate and that the State did not sustain its burden of showing it exercised its strikes for racially neutral reasons. The State argues that the prosecutor's stated reasons were racially neutral and that the evidence supported the trial court's ruling on the motion.

1. Applicable Law

When an accused claims the State's strikes were racially motivated, he makes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that he is a member of a cognizable race, that the State struck members of his race, and that other facts and circumstances tend to show racially motivated jury strikes. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), aff'd by an equally divided court, 490 U.S. 754, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989). Once an accused makes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with racially neutral explanations for challenging the jurors. See Tompkins, 774 S.W.2d at 200; Miller-El v. State, 790 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1990, pet. ref'd).

The prosecutor must articulate a racially neutral explanation related to the particular case on trial. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723; Tompkins, 774 S.W.2d at 200. The trial judge must evaluate the reasons given by the prosecutor in light of the circumstances of the trial to determine whether the prosecutor's explanations are merely a pretext. See Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707, 713 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861, 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).

A reviewing court must give deference to the trial court's findings. We do not reverse the trial court's conclusions on the Batson hearing unless we determine they are "clearly erroneous." See Whitsey, 796 S.W.2d at 727. Some courts have held that a prospective juror having family members with criminal problems is a racially neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge. See Munson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 778, 779-80 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1989, no pet.); Sims v. State, 768 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1989), pet. dism'd per curiam, 792 S.W.2d 81 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Yarbough v. State, 732 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987), vacated on other grounds per curiam, 761 S.W.2d 17 (Tex.Crim.App.), and 761 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).

2. Application of the Law to the Facts

This case was drug related. During voir dire, juror Lightfoot said she had a son in drug rehabilitation. Juror Ford said she had an uncle in the penitentiary for a drug-related offense. The reasons given by the State for challenging the jurors were related to the facts of this case.

The State questioned both jurors about relatives involved in drug-related criminal matters. We conclude that the reasons articulated by the State for striking Lightfoot and Ford were racially neutral. Yarbough, 732 S.W.2d at 90; Sims, 768 S.W.2d at 865; Munson, 774 S.W.2d at 779-80. The record supports the trial court's ruling. We hold that the trial court's ruling was not clearly erroneous. See Whitsey, 796 S.W.2d at 727. We overrule appellant's sixth point of error.

B. Extraneous Offenses

In his second point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of extraneous offenses. Appellant complains about the testimony of two police officers. The two police officers said appellant told them he was a drug enforcer, that he had access to high explosives and high-caliber weapons, and that he had made $80,000 in a drug-related incident in Fort Worth. Appellant argues that admitting this evidence resulted in reversible error since it referred to unrelated extraneous offenses.

The State notes that this trial was an illegal investment prosecution involving the proposed sale of a large quantity of cocaine. The State asserts appellant's bragging was closely interwoven with the offense and showed the context of that offense. The State argues that the undercover officers were trying to convince appellant that they were drug dealers. The State maintains that appellant made these statements about his involvement in the drug culture to convince the officer that he was who he said he was. The State contends it was not error to admit the evidence because it was relevant to the offense.

1. The Applicable Law

Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. See TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 404(b). Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 403.

The general rule is that an accused may not be tried for some collateral crime or for being a criminal generally. Williams v. State, 662 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). However, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible if it has relevance apart from its tendency to prove the character of a person to show that he acted in conformity therewith. TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 404(b); Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 387 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh'g). A party may introduce such evidence where it logically serves to make more probable or less probable an elemental fact; where it serves to make more probable or less probable an evidentiary fact that inferentially leads to an elemental fact; or where it serves to make more probable or less probable defensive evidence undermining an elemental fact. TEX.R.CRIM.EVID. 401, 404(b); Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 387. Extraneous offense evidence that logically serves any of these purposes is relevant beyond its tendency to prove the character of a person to show that he acted in conformity therewith. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 387. The trial court must first determine whether the extraneous offense is relevant. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 387-88. Second, the trial court must determine whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....