i i i i i i
OPINION
No. 04-08-00381-CR
Arthur Wayne BERKLEY, Appellant
v.
State of TEXAS, Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-CR-2053 Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding1
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 19, 2009
AFFIRMED
Arthur Wayne Berkley was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to sixty years in prison.
On appeal, Berkley argues the trial court erred by denying a motion to strike the venire, denying a
motion for mistrial, and admitting a medical report and testimony about it into evidence. We affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
1 … Sitting by assignment 04-08-00381-CR
STRIKING THE VENIRE
In his first point of error, Berkley complains the trial court erred in failing to dismiss or strike
the venire after a comment made by one of the panel members. In the closing part of his individual
voir dire, Berkley’s counsel asked the panel, “Is there anything that anyone almost said or thinks
would be very important for any of us to know about?” In response, one juror stated “I don’t think
I could judge Mr. Berkley. I could be very, very, wrong. But I have a feeling that I recognize him
from parole. That’s where I work. And it wouldn’t be fair for him; for Mr. Berkley.” Berkley’s
attorney simply stated “Okay. I appreciate that.”
After voir dire concluded and the parties were discussing challenges for cause with the court,
the trial judge indicated Berkley had moved to strike the panel because of the venireperson’s
comment. Although the court ultimately dismissed the venireperson for cause, it denied the motion
to strike, stating the juror information form revealed the juror worked for the board of pardon and
paroles, and defense counsel invited the complained-of comment. Berkley did not seek to conduct
any additional voir dire or make any further request of the court concerning this issue.
When complaining of the trial court’s denial of a motion to strike the venire because of
something a venireperson said, the burden is on the defendant to show (1) other members of the
panel heard the remark, (2) other panel members were influenced by the remark to the defendant’s
detriment, and (3) the juror in question or one of the other jurors influenced by the remark was
“forced” on the defendant. Callins v. State, 780 S.W.2d 176, 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), cert.
denied, 497 U.S. 1011 (1990); McGee v. State, 923 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1995, no pet.).
-2- 04-08-00381-CR
Berkley failed to meet his burden to demonstrate harm. Assuming other panel members heard
the venireperson’s remark, there is no evidence any of them was affected by the remark to Berkley’s
prejudice or that such panel member was seated as a juror in this case. We overrule Berkley’s first
point of error.
REQUEST FOR MISTRIAL
Berkley next complains of the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial due to comments the
complainant made during her testimony. The evidence at trial revealed the complainant and her
boyfriend attended a party together. During the party, they got into an argument and the complainant
left the party on foot. Berkley approached the complainant, claiming to be an off-duty police officer,
and told her she had to accompany him to his residence so he could complete some paperwork. The
complainant testified Berkley said he had witnessed the argument and had already taken the
boyfriend into custody for creating a disturbance. The complainant accompanied Berkley to a
residence where he sexually assaulted her. The complainant was allowed to leave, and she later
called police to report the crime. A police officer drove the complainant in a patrol car to police
headquarters to obtain a statement. On the way, the officer requested she show him the residence
where the crime occurred. As she was providing this portion of her testimony, the complainant
related that the police officer told her the officer already knew the house because “he’s got in trouble
a lot or something.” Berkley immediately requested an instruction to the jury to disregard the
comment and a mistrial. The court granted the former but denied the latter. He instructed the jury
to “disregard the statement made by the witness as to whether the defendant had previously been
in any kind of trouble. That is not a proper subject for your consideration. You will limit yourself
-3- 04-08-00381-CR
to the evidence concerning this case.” On appeal, Berkley claims the remark was so prejudicial the
instruction to disregard could not remove the harm to Berkley.
We review a trial court’s decision to deny a mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard.
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A mistrial is a remedy of last resort.
“Only in extreme circumstances, where the prejudice is incurable, will a mistrial be required.” Id.
Usually, an instruction to disregard the argument will cure any error caused by improper argument.
See, e.g., Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 357 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 832
(1995).
Berkley argues he was harmed by the complainant’s comment and, due to the nature of the
comment, any instruction by the court could not remove the harm. We disagree. The trial court
promptly instructed the jury to disregard the statement and the jury is presumed to have followed that
instruction. See Gamboa v. State, No. AP-75,635, 2009 WL 928552, at *4 n. 12 (Tex. Crim. App.
Apr. 8, 2009). Nothing in the record demonstrates the comment had any harmful effect or that the
jury was unable to follow the trial court’s instruction. Accordingly, we overrule Berkley’s second
point of error. See id. at *4 (presuming jury disregarded testimony about extraneous offense when
trial court gave prompt instruction to do so); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 591-92 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d) (holding jury presumed to have followed trial court’s instruction to
disregard deputy sheriff’s testimony that defendant confessed).
CRAWFORD VIOLATION
In his final point of error, Berkley asserts his right to confront witnesses was violated when
the trial court admitted into evidence a medical report prepared by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner
-4- 04-08-00381-CR
Cathy Krausse, who did not appear as a witness, and permitted Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner
Shelly Botello to testify about Krausse’s report.
Botello testified she was the coordinator of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners program at
Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital. She explained her professional and educational
qualifications to the jury and testified she had performed over 800 examinations of possible sexual
assault victims. Botello identified the medical records relating to the initial examination of the
victim in this case, established the business records predicate, and explained that Krausse, the nurse
who performed the examination, was living in Alaska.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
i i i i i i
OPINION
No. 04-08-00381-CR
Arthur Wayne BERKLEY, Appellant
v.
State of TEXAS, Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-CR-2053 Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding1
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 19, 2009
AFFIRMED
Arthur Wayne Berkley was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to sixty years in prison.
On appeal, Berkley argues the trial court erred by denying a motion to strike the venire, denying a
motion for mistrial, and admitting a medical report and testimony about it into evidence. We affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
1 … Sitting by assignment 04-08-00381-CR
STRIKING THE VENIRE
In his first point of error, Berkley complains the trial court erred in failing to dismiss or strike
the venire after a comment made by one of the panel members. In the closing part of his individual
voir dire, Berkley’s counsel asked the panel, “Is there anything that anyone almost said or thinks
would be very important for any of us to know about?” In response, one juror stated “I don’t think
I could judge Mr. Berkley. I could be very, very, wrong. But I have a feeling that I recognize him
from parole. That’s where I work. And it wouldn’t be fair for him; for Mr. Berkley.” Berkley’s
attorney simply stated “Okay. I appreciate that.”
After voir dire concluded and the parties were discussing challenges for cause with the court,
the trial judge indicated Berkley had moved to strike the panel because of the venireperson’s
comment. Although the court ultimately dismissed the venireperson for cause, it denied the motion
to strike, stating the juror information form revealed the juror worked for the board of pardon and
paroles, and defense counsel invited the complained-of comment. Berkley did not seek to conduct
any additional voir dire or make any further request of the court concerning this issue.
When complaining of the trial court’s denial of a motion to strike the venire because of
something a venireperson said, the burden is on the defendant to show (1) other members of the
panel heard the remark, (2) other panel members were influenced by the remark to the defendant’s
detriment, and (3) the juror in question or one of the other jurors influenced by the remark was
“forced” on the defendant. Callins v. State, 780 S.W.2d 176, 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), cert.
denied, 497 U.S. 1011 (1990); McGee v. State, 923 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1995, no pet.).
-2- 04-08-00381-CR
Berkley failed to meet his burden to demonstrate harm. Assuming other panel members heard
the venireperson’s remark, there is no evidence any of them was affected by the remark to Berkley’s
prejudice or that such panel member was seated as a juror in this case. We overrule Berkley’s first
point of error.
REQUEST FOR MISTRIAL
Berkley next complains of the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial due to comments the
complainant made during her testimony. The evidence at trial revealed the complainant and her
boyfriend attended a party together. During the party, they got into an argument and the complainant
left the party on foot. Berkley approached the complainant, claiming to be an off-duty police officer,
and told her she had to accompany him to his residence so he could complete some paperwork. The
complainant testified Berkley said he had witnessed the argument and had already taken the
boyfriend into custody for creating a disturbance. The complainant accompanied Berkley to a
residence where he sexually assaulted her. The complainant was allowed to leave, and she later
called police to report the crime. A police officer drove the complainant in a patrol car to police
headquarters to obtain a statement. On the way, the officer requested she show him the residence
where the crime occurred. As she was providing this portion of her testimony, the complainant
related that the police officer told her the officer already knew the house because “he’s got in trouble
a lot or something.” Berkley immediately requested an instruction to the jury to disregard the
comment and a mistrial. The court granted the former but denied the latter. He instructed the jury
to “disregard the statement made by the witness as to whether the defendant had previously been
in any kind of trouble. That is not a proper subject for your consideration. You will limit yourself
-3- 04-08-00381-CR
to the evidence concerning this case.” On appeal, Berkley claims the remark was so prejudicial the
instruction to disregard could not remove the harm to Berkley.
We review a trial court’s decision to deny a mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard.
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A mistrial is a remedy of last resort.
“Only in extreme circumstances, where the prejudice is incurable, will a mistrial be required.” Id.
Usually, an instruction to disregard the argument will cure any error caused by improper argument.
See, e.g., Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 357 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 832
(1995).
Berkley argues he was harmed by the complainant’s comment and, due to the nature of the
comment, any instruction by the court could not remove the harm. We disagree. The trial court
promptly instructed the jury to disregard the statement and the jury is presumed to have followed that
instruction. See Gamboa v. State, No. AP-75,635, 2009 WL 928552, at *4 n. 12 (Tex. Crim. App.
Apr. 8, 2009). Nothing in the record demonstrates the comment had any harmful effect or that the
jury was unable to follow the trial court’s instruction. Accordingly, we overrule Berkley’s second
point of error. See id. at *4 (presuming jury disregarded testimony about extraneous offense when
trial court gave prompt instruction to do so); Brock v. State, 275 S.W.3d 586, 591-92 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d) (holding jury presumed to have followed trial court’s instruction to
disregard deputy sheriff’s testimony that defendant confessed).
CRAWFORD VIOLATION
In his final point of error, Berkley asserts his right to confront witnesses was violated when
the trial court admitted into evidence a medical report prepared by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner
-4- 04-08-00381-CR
Cathy Krausse, who did not appear as a witness, and permitted Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner
Shelly Botello to testify about Krausse’s report.
Botello testified she was the coordinator of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners program at
Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital. She explained her professional and educational
qualifications to the jury and testified she had performed over 800 examinations of possible sexual
assault victims. Botello identified the medical records relating to the initial examination of the
victim in this case, established the business records predicate, and explained that Krausse, the nurse
who performed the examination, was living in Alaska. Over Berkley’s hearsay, “Crawford,” and
improper predicate objections, the trial court admitted the examining nurse’s report. Botello next
explained the steps involved when conducting an examination of the victim. She testified a history
is obtained to ensure a proper medical diagnosis is made and proper treatment is given. Botello also
testified the nurse examiner documents her observations of the victim’s general and emotional
appearance, in part to determine whether the victim might be mentally or chemically impaired and
to evaluate the victim’s psychological needs. At the State’s request, Botello read some of the history
and the examining nurse’s observations of the complainant’s general and emotional appearance from
the report. Botello also provided her interpretation of some of nurse Krause’s observations.
In Crawford v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant’s right to
confrontation under the Sixth Amendment is violated when a witness is permitted to relate out-of-
court “testimonial” hearsay statements unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a
prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004); see De La Paz v. State,
273 S.W.3d 671, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Statements are testimonial only when “the primary
purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal
-5- 04-08-00381-CR
prosecution.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006). Once an objection is made based on
Crawford, the proponent bears the burden to demonstrate its admissibility. De La Paz, 273 S.W.3d,
at 680-81. We review de novo the trial court’s ruling admitting evidence over a confrontation
objection. Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Berkley did not have prior opportunity to cross-examine Krausse as to the contents of her
report. Therefore, resolution of this issue turns on whether the report is testimonial within the
meaning of Crawford. The United States Supreme Court recently noted that medical records,
created for treatment purposes, are not “testimonial” within the meaning of Crawford. Melendez-
Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2533 n.2 (2009). Because there was evidence before the
court that the purpose of the report was to render medical treatment to the complainant, and this
evidence went unchallenged, we hold the trial court did not err in admitting the nurse’s report of the
examination. Berkley also complains the trial court erred in allowing Botello to read from Krausse’s
report. However, if a document is properly admitted into evidence, a witness may read the contents
of that document to the jury. See Wheatfall v. State, 882 S.W.2d 829, 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
Lastly, Berkley asserts the trial court erred in allowing Botello to interpret for the jury some of the
observations Krausse made in the report. Although Berkley objected to admission of the report when
it was first offered, he did not object to any of the State’s questions or Botello’s answers. He
therefore failed to preserve this complaint for appellate review. See TEX . R. APP . P. 33.1. Berkley’s
final point of error is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Publish
-6-