Nos. 05-04-01218-CR, 05-04-01219-CR
Opinion Filed August 16, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Causes No. F03-43489-R and F03-43490-R. Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.
Opinion By Justice FITZGERALD.
A jury convicted Eric Cornelius West of assault of a public servant and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. The trial court assessed punishment at five and two years' confinement, respectively. On appeal, West complains the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of extraneous offenses and, having admitted the evidence, failed to give the jury a limiting instruction as to its proper use. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
This offense forms the basis of trial cause number F03-43489-R and appellate cause number 05-04-01218-CR.
This offense forms the basis of trial cause number F03-43490-R and appellate cause number 05-04-01219-CR.
Background
West was pulled over by a police officer for driving a car with an expired registration sticker. The officer asked West for his driver's license; West could not produce it. In response to the officer's questions, West gave his name as Eric West and his date of birth as April 11, 1970. The officer ran West's name on his computer and discovered outstanding warrants for an "Eric West" with the date of birth April 11, 1971. The officer asked West to turn the vehicle off and step out. Instead of complying, West moved his hand toward the gearshift. Fearing West was preparing to drive off, the officer reached for West's hand through an open window. As the officer did so, West put the car in gear and accelerated. The car dragged the officer approximately fifteen feet before he was able to push off and roll away from the vehicle. The officer received minor injuries. The vehicle was located the next day. A warrant was obtained, and the car was searched. Among the items found in the car were (1) a Louisiana driver's license bearing West's picture and the name David Lee James; (2) an Arkansas identification card bearing West's picture and the name David Ray Adams; (3) a Texas temporary driving permit, with no picture, bearing the name Eric Cornelius West; and (4) another Texas temporary driving permit, with no picture, bearing the name David Ray Adams. West was not located until approximately one year later. He was charged with aggravated assault of a public servant and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. His case was tried to a jury. When the State offered evidence of the various identification documents found in West's vehicle, West objected that the documents were not relevant and that they did not fit within rule 404(b). The objection was overruled. In closing argument, the State argued, inter alia, that the presence of the false identification documents gave West a motive to evade detention: he did not want to be caught with these documents in his possession. The jury found West guilty of the lesser-included offense of assault of a public servant and guilty of evading detention or arrest with a motor vehicle. In this Court, West charges that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of extraneous offenses in the guilt-innocence stage and in failing to give a limiting instruction in the charge to the jury. Admissibility of False Identification Documents
West argues initially that evidence of the false identification documents was inadmissible evidence of an extraneous offense. We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 101-02 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). "An extraneous offense is any act of misconduct, whether resulting in prosecution or not, that is not shown in the charging papers." Manning v. State, 114 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Evidence of such uncharged offenses is generally excluded because it has no tendency to make the existence of any fact at issue more or less probable. See Tex. R. Evid. 401 (definition of relevant evidence); see also Tex. R. Evid. 402 ("Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible."). Nor is such evidence admissible "to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). In this case, evidence of the false identification documents was evidence of the uncharged offense of fraudulent possession of identifying information. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.51(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Accordingly, that evidence would generally be inadmissible. The rules provide exceptions to this general rule of inadmissibility. Extraneous-offense evidence can be admitted when it is offered not to prove the character of the defendant, but for some other purpose. Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). Acceptable "other purposes" include "proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). In this case, the State argued specifically that the identification documents provided evidence of West's motive to evade detention. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the documents as evidence of motive.Limiting Instruction
Finally, West argues that if the trial court admitted the extraneous-offense evidence for one of rule 404(b)'s other limited purposes, then the court was required to give a limiting instruction to the jury that would restrict the evidence to its proper scope. See Tex. R. Evid. 105(a). We agree. However, our review of the record establishes that West did not request such a limiting instruction. In the absence of such a request, West may not complain on appeal that the trial court admitted the evidence without limitation. See id.Conclusion
We decide West's issue against him, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.