CORRECTED MAJORITY OPINION
SCOTT BRISTER, Chief Justice.
In October 1999, appellant Frank Sidney Ferguson assisted three current or former peace officers in stopping a motor home, in which they found what appeared to be fifty kilograms of cocaine. Shortly thereafter, appellant assisted in a raid on a “stash house” from which $50,000 in cash was recovered.
But a jury found they were acting as outlaws, not officers of the law. According to three accomplices who testified at appellant’s trial, their operations were one of several “drug rip-offs” in which renegade officers would steal narcotics and money under the pretense of conducting police raids, sell the narcotics, and keep the proceeds for themselves. According to their testimony, appellant participated in several such heists for a fee of $5,000, driving up [295]*295in his Houston Police Department patrol car to make their activities look “official.”
The October 1999 heist was a sting operation involving 41 officers and several law enforcement agencies. The motor home and the “stash house” were wired for video and audio surveillance, a tracking device was placed in the cocaine,1 and the movements of the participants were further tracked by ground and helicopter units.
A jury found appellant guilty of burglary (assessing ten years in prison) and possession with intent to deliver at least four hundred grams of cocaine (assessing forty years in prison and a $10,000 fine). He presents three evidentiary questions on appeal, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).
Prior Inconsistent Written Statement
Appellant’s first complaint concerns his attempt to impeach one of his associates, Michael Wagner, with a prior written statement. Shortly after the arrests, Wagner wrote a detailed, nine-page statement in which he attempted to prove the heist was a legitimate police raid and not a crime. After reaching a plea agreement with the State, Wagner abandoned this version of events and testified against appellant.2
During cross-examination, appellant’s counsel questioned Wagner about the statement, and sought to introduce it in its entirety:
Q: Did you, up to the time that you cut a deal with the State, take the position and tell other people that, in fact, this was a legitimate drug arrest and y’all were a victim of circumstance?
A: [by Michael Wagner] Yes, sir.
[[Image here]]
Q: I’m handing you Defense Exhibit No. 1. That’s something you and your brother prepared; is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, it is.
Q: And when did you and your brother prepare that?
A: This is back when I first got out of jail.
Q: All right. Now up to the time of you making a deal with the State for a reduced sentence, that was kind of your position in this thing, wasn’t it?
A: Yes, sir.
[By defense counsel]: At this time I move to introduce Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1.
The State’s attorney objected:
[By prosecutor]: It’s improper impeachment under Rule 613(a). He has unequivocally admitted this is his statement; therefore, no extraneous evidence of that statement is to be admitted before the jury ...
The trial judge sustained the objection. The court also instructed counsel not to “go into” the contents of the statement, although it is not entirely clear whether counsel’s request or the court’s ruling per[296]*296tained to every line or only limited parts of the statement.3
Rule 613 prohibits extrinsic evidence of an inconsistent statement unless the witness denies it:
In examining a witness concerning a prior inconsistent statement made by him, whether oral or written, and before further cross-examination concerning, or extrinsic evidence of, such statement may be allowed, the witness must be told the contents of such statement and the time and place and the person to whom it was made, and must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny such statement. If written, the writing need not be shown to him at that time, but on request the same shall be shown to opposing counsel. If the witness unequivocally admits having made such statement, extrinsic evidence of same shall not be admitted ...
Tex.R. Evtd. 613(a) (emphasis added). The rule is not as complicated as it looks; only three elements are required as a predicate for admission of a prior inconsistent statement:
• identification of the statement (by time, place, and person),
• a summary of the contents, and
• a denial by the witness as to what the statement contains.
[297]*297Here, counsel’s cross-examination established only the first two—he identified the statement and summarized its contents. Because Wagner admitted the statement’s contents, the trial court correctly refused to admit anything at that point.
But it was error if the trial court prevented any further questions about any part of the statement. In the statement, Wagner made direct references to appellant’s innocence, declared the State’s informant untrustworthy (giving reasons for that opinion), and alleged the police could not have known whether their actions were legitimate or criminal. He also explained his involvement, even though he was not a police officer.. The jury heard none of these statements, and Wagner was never called upon to admit or deny their validity.
The trial court had discretion to prevent impeachment with every sentence in the nine-page statement, but not to limit cross-examination to the whole document rather than portions of it. See McGary v. State, 750 S.W.2d 782, 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (holding witness may be asked about portions of statement and, if denied, request admission of that portion).
Nevertheless, assuming this was the trial court’s ruling, appellant has not shown how he was harmed. First, his counsel made no offer of proof detailing the questions he wanted to ask or the specific inconsistent statements he wanted to use for impeachment. See Tex.R. Evid. 108; Tex.R.App. P. 88.2. Indeed, when the trial judge invited him to do so, he insisted he wanted admission of the whole statement. Thus, it is impossible for us to assess harm without constructing the cross-examination ourselves, which we cannot do. Moreover, as discussed more fully below, appellant’s involvement in this crime was confirmed by numerous witnesses (including several participants). We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no impeachment using Wagner’s statement would have altered the outcome of appellant’s trial. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(a). We overrule appellant’s first point of error.
Understanding of the Law
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CORRECTED MAJORITY OPINION
SCOTT BRISTER, Chief Justice.
In October 1999, appellant Frank Sidney Ferguson assisted three current or former peace officers in stopping a motor home, in which they found what appeared to be fifty kilograms of cocaine. Shortly thereafter, appellant assisted in a raid on a “stash house” from which $50,000 in cash was recovered.
But a jury found they were acting as outlaws, not officers of the law. According to three accomplices who testified at appellant’s trial, their operations were one of several “drug rip-offs” in which renegade officers would steal narcotics and money under the pretense of conducting police raids, sell the narcotics, and keep the proceeds for themselves. According to their testimony, appellant participated in several such heists for a fee of $5,000, driving up [295]*295in his Houston Police Department patrol car to make their activities look “official.”
The October 1999 heist was a sting operation involving 41 officers and several law enforcement agencies. The motor home and the “stash house” were wired for video and audio surveillance, a tracking device was placed in the cocaine,1 and the movements of the participants were further tracked by ground and helicopter units.
A jury found appellant guilty of burglary (assessing ten years in prison) and possession with intent to deliver at least four hundred grams of cocaine (assessing forty years in prison and a $10,000 fine). He presents three evidentiary questions on appeal, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).
Prior Inconsistent Written Statement
Appellant’s first complaint concerns his attempt to impeach one of his associates, Michael Wagner, with a prior written statement. Shortly after the arrests, Wagner wrote a detailed, nine-page statement in which he attempted to prove the heist was a legitimate police raid and not a crime. After reaching a plea agreement with the State, Wagner abandoned this version of events and testified against appellant.2
During cross-examination, appellant’s counsel questioned Wagner about the statement, and sought to introduce it in its entirety:
Q: Did you, up to the time that you cut a deal with the State, take the position and tell other people that, in fact, this was a legitimate drug arrest and y’all were a victim of circumstance?
A: [by Michael Wagner] Yes, sir.
[[Image here]]
Q: I’m handing you Defense Exhibit No. 1. That’s something you and your brother prepared; is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, it is.
Q: And when did you and your brother prepare that?
A: This is back when I first got out of jail.
Q: All right. Now up to the time of you making a deal with the State for a reduced sentence, that was kind of your position in this thing, wasn’t it?
A: Yes, sir.
[By defense counsel]: At this time I move to introduce Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1.
The State’s attorney objected:
[By prosecutor]: It’s improper impeachment under Rule 613(a). He has unequivocally admitted this is his statement; therefore, no extraneous evidence of that statement is to be admitted before the jury ...
The trial judge sustained the objection. The court also instructed counsel not to “go into” the contents of the statement, although it is not entirely clear whether counsel’s request or the court’s ruling per[296]*296tained to every line or only limited parts of the statement.3
Rule 613 prohibits extrinsic evidence of an inconsistent statement unless the witness denies it:
In examining a witness concerning a prior inconsistent statement made by him, whether oral or written, and before further cross-examination concerning, or extrinsic evidence of, such statement may be allowed, the witness must be told the contents of such statement and the time and place and the person to whom it was made, and must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny such statement. If written, the writing need not be shown to him at that time, but on request the same shall be shown to opposing counsel. If the witness unequivocally admits having made such statement, extrinsic evidence of same shall not be admitted ...
Tex.R. Evtd. 613(a) (emphasis added). The rule is not as complicated as it looks; only three elements are required as a predicate for admission of a prior inconsistent statement:
• identification of the statement (by time, place, and person),
• a summary of the contents, and
• a denial by the witness as to what the statement contains.
[297]*297Here, counsel’s cross-examination established only the first two—he identified the statement and summarized its contents. Because Wagner admitted the statement’s contents, the trial court correctly refused to admit anything at that point.
But it was error if the trial court prevented any further questions about any part of the statement. In the statement, Wagner made direct references to appellant’s innocence, declared the State’s informant untrustworthy (giving reasons for that opinion), and alleged the police could not have known whether their actions were legitimate or criminal. He also explained his involvement, even though he was not a police officer.. The jury heard none of these statements, and Wagner was never called upon to admit or deny their validity.
The trial court had discretion to prevent impeachment with every sentence in the nine-page statement, but not to limit cross-examination to the whole document rather than portions of it. See McGary v. State, 750 S.W.2d 782, 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (holding witness may be asked about portions of statement and, if denied, request admission of that portion).
Nevertheless, assuming this was the trial court’s ruling, appellant has not shown how he was harmed. First, his counsel made no offer of proof detailing the questions he wanted to ask or the specific inconsistent statements he wanted to use for impeachment. See Tex.R. Evid. 108; Tex.R.App. P. 88.2. Indeed, when the trial judge invited him to do so, he insisted he wanted admission of the whole statement. Thus, it is impossible for us to assess harm without constructing the cross-examination ourselves, which we cannot do. Moreover, as discussed more fully below, appellant’s involvement in this crime was confirmed by numerous witnesses (including several participants). We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no impeachment using Wagner’s statement would have altered the outcome of appellant’s trial. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(a). We overrule appellant’s first point of error.
Understanding of the Law
In his next issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of Eric Gibson, another accomplice who testified against him at trial. After questioning Gibson about his own plea agreement with the State, appellant asked Gibson the following question:
Q: Can you tell the jury what your understanding of deferred adjudication probation is?
The court sustained the State’s objection to the question.
The question clearly asks for Wagner’s opinion of a legal term. Opinion evidence as to legal terms is inadmissible. See Mays v. State, 563 S.W.2d 260, 263 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). If what counsel meant to ask was whether Gibson thought he might escape jail time by changing his story, he should have asked that question. See U.S. v. Wallace, 32 F.3d 921, 926 (5th Cir.1994) (affirming limits on cross-examination of witness that allowed questions as to sentence he thought he might receive, but disallowed questions asking for legal conclusions); U.S. v. Stafford, 983 F.2d 25, 27 (5th Cir.1993) (affirming exclusion of written materials on tax law, but allowing witness to testify as to effect of materials on his beliefs). Because he did not, we hold the trial court committed no error.
Out-of-Court Identification
In his final issue, appellant complains of the admission of an out-of-court identification. During the trial, Officer James Campbell testified that Francisco Perez identified appellant from a photo spread as a participant in a previous counterfeit raid. In response to appellant’s [298]*298hearsay objection, the State asserted the identification was a present sense impression. See Tex.R. Evid. 803(1). The trial court overruled the objection.
This was not a present sense impression, as the statement was made long after the “raid” occurred. Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 651-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (holding statement not connected to contemporaneous observation was not present sense impression). Because Perez did not testify at trial, Officer Campbell’s testimony was hearsay, and the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objection.
Nonetheless, we find the error harmless because it did not affect appellant’s substantial rights or the jury’s verdict. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b); see Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 3-4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Before Campbell testified, Eric Gibson admitted involvement in the previous “raid,” and testified that appellant participated in it as well. Thus, Perez’s identification was cumulative and harmless. Se e Reyes v. State, 84 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).
Moreover, the entire crime here was videotaped. It was undisputed that appellant drove his marked police car outside his assigned area and without permission; that he stopped the motor home, though there was no traffic violation to justify the stop; and that he then followed the other participants to the house where the money was located, leaving after receiving a sign from inside the house. Three associates testified to his involvement and his receipt of $5,000. Given appellant’s use of his badge to commit crime rather than stop it, his sentence is no more (and perhaps less) than one might expect. We conclude that any error did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
J. HARVEY HUDSON, J., corrected concurring opinion.