Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Gina Martinez v. State

Gina Martinez v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 11, 2009
Docket07-08-00489-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Gina Martinez v. State (Gina Martinez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gina Martinez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

NO. 07-08-0489-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL A


SEPTEMBER 11, 2009

______________________________


GINA MARTINEZ, APPELLANT


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________


FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;


NO. 58,385-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE

_______________________________



Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Gina Martinez, was convicted of harassment of a public servant and sentenced to four years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ) and a fine of $2500. Through two issues, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in: 1) admitting extraneous offense testimony in contravention to Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) and, 2) finding that the probative value of the evidence admitted was not outweighed by the undue prejudice of that evidence under Rule 403. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural Background

          On August 7, 2008, Amarillo police officers were dispatched to an address on North Polk to investigate a report of criminal mischief being committed by a female breaking windows in an apartment complex. Officer Slatten was the first officer to arrive on the scene. He observed a female, later identified as appellant, standing between two of the apartment buildings, who matched the general description he had been given. When Slatten saw appellant, he approached and ask her to identify herself. As Slatten was attempting to identify appellant, witnesses started advising him that she was the person he was looking for and that she might be armed. Upon receiving this information, Slatten decided to detain appellant, put hand restraints on her, and place her in the back of his patrol car while he continued the investigation.

          After conducting some additional investigation, Slatten returned to his patrol car to advise appellant that she was being arrested for criminal mischief. Appellant became irate and belligerent upon hearing this information. At that time, appellant began cursing loudly and banging her head on the patrol car windows. Slatten was attempting to transfer appellant to another patrol car for transportation, when he noticed she had slipped her hand restraints off. After placing her in the second patrol car, the officers noticed she was kicking the windows of the patrol car. At this time, they decided to place appellant in leg restraints. While Slatten was attempting to place her in leg restraints, appellant attempted to bite him several times. Based upon this action, a decision was made to place a “Red Man helmet” on appellant’s head. Slatten testified that this was done to make it more difficult for appellant to try and bite someone. Slatten testified that after he placed the helmet on appellant, he was leaning over appellant in an attempt to get her secured in the rear seat of the patrol car when she spat at him, hitting him in the left eye. Slatten further testified that, immediately after spitting on him, appellant made a statement to the effect that she had AIDS.

          At the trial, when Slatten was asked why he had been dispatched to the apartment complex, appellant’s trial counsel objected stating, “He’s going to get into why they showed up, Your Honor, which goes to propensity to commit other crimes, wrongs or acts . . . .” Appellant’s counsel further objected that the proposed evidence was more prejudicial than probative and lacked relevance. The trial court overruled the objections. Based upon the trial court’s rulings to these objections, appellant has appealed the judgment of the trial court.

Standard of Review

          We review a trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. See Cameron v. State, 241 S.W.3d 15, 19 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Because trial courts are in the best position to decide questions of admissibility, appellate courts will uphold a trial court's admissibility decision when that decision is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. An appellate court may not reverse a trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of evidence solely because the appellate court disagrees with the decision. Id.

Rule 404(b)

          Appellant’s first issue contends that the trial court’s decision to allow Slatten to testify why he was initially dispatched to the scene, violated Rule 404(b) by allowing evidence of extraneous offenses before the jury. Initially, we observe that, according to the rules of evidence, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that do not have relevance apart from character conformity is inadmissible. See Rule 404(b). However, evidence of extraneous offenses is admissible if it is relevant to a fact of consequence apart from the tendency to show conduct in conformity with character. See Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). As the rule itself notes, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts are admissible for other purposes, such as, to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. See Rule 404(b). Separate and apart from the exceptions noted in Rule 404(b), “extraneous offenses may be admissible as same transaction contextual evidence when ‘several crimes are intermixed, or blended with one another, or connected so that they form an indivisible criminal transaction.’” See Maranda v. State, 253 S.W.3d 762, 767-68 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2007, pet. dism’d) (quoting Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 731-32 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005)). When this type of evidence is present, avoiding reference to it would make the State’s case difficult to understand or incomplete. Id. at 768. Under these circumstances, the jury is entitled to receive all the relevant surrounding facts for an offense is not tried in a vacuum. Id. (citing Moreno v. State, 721 S.W.2d 295, 301 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986)).

          

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Prible v. State
175 S.W.3d 724 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Casey v. State
215 S.W.3d 870 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Maranda v. State
253 S.W.3d 762 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Yates v. State
941 S.W.2d 357 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Cameron v. State
241 S.W.3d 15 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Gallo v. State
239 S.W.3d 757 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Moreno v. State
721 S.W.2d 295 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gina Martinez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gina-martinez-v-state-texapp-2009.