No. 01-03-00765-CR
Opinion issued July 29, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 943678.
Panel consists of Justices NUCHIA, ALCALA, and HIGLEY.
SAM NUCHIA, Justice.
Appellant, Jesse Scott Benge, pled not guilty to a state jail felony charge of criminal mischief to a motor vehicle. A jury found him guilty, and the trial court assessed his punishment at two years in jail, probated for a period of five years. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing testimony by the owner of the car regarding the cost of repairs to the car over appellant's hearsay objection. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Around midnight on September 7, 2002, Jerry Wallace saw a red Jeep going down the street without its headlights on. He then saw the Jeep go around the corner of the street, then return going the opposite way. The driver parked the Jeep, got out, smoked a cigarette, and then got back into the Jeep. The driver then drove the Jeep around the block again and parked a short distance from where he had parked before. At no point were the lights of the Jeep on. Wallace walked toward the Jeep and, while he was walking, heard a loud "boom boom," which sounded like something hard hitting metal. After he heard this sound, he headed for the Jeep in order to obtain its license plate number. As Wallace approached the Jeep, appellant came running up. Wallace asked appellant what he was doing, and appellant claimed to be looking for his girlfriend. Wallace confronted appellant, saying that Wallace knew that appellant had done something because Wallace had heard the noise. Appellant denied doing anything. Wallace observed appellant attempting to get his keys out of his pocket and get into the Jeep and noticed that appellant's demeanor was that of a person being caught doing something wrong. Wallace called out the license plate number of appellant's Jeep to his friends, who were nearby and who wrote it down. Appellant got into his Jeep and left the scene shortly thereafter. After appellant had left, Britni Gray ran into the street, saying that someone had vandalized her car. While in the house, Britni had heard someone near the car and had gone into her mother's bedroom to inform her. Britni and her mother, Kim Gray (Gray), went outside to investigate the noise. Wallace told them about the Jeep and provided them with the license plate number and a description of the driver. Gray indicated that it sounded like appellant, who was her former boyfriend. The Jeep was owned by appellant's family and appellant was identified by Wallace at trial. At trial, Gray stated that there were two large dents in the passenger side of her car. She testified that the cost of repairs was "about $1800." When asked if she knew the exact amount of the damage to her car, Gray referred to the car dealership's repair estimate and responded that the cost of repair was $1,879.33. The written estimate was admitted into evidence over appellant's objection. DISCUSSION
Appellant, in his sole point of error, contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the damage estimate of Gray's car into evidence over his objection because the dealership's repair estimate was inadmissible hearsay. Appellant asserts that the State did not qualify the estimate under any hearsay exception and that the only foundation offered for introduction of the estimate was Gray's testimony that she received the estimate from the dealership. Appellant also asserts that the estimate read by Gray was not an original document, but rather a copy received by Gray almost six months later. Standard of Review We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision lies outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex.Crim. App. 1990). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we consider whether the court acted without reference to guiding rules or principles; that is, whether the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. Id at 380. Error in the admission of evidence is subject to a harm analysis under rule 44.2(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex.R.App.P. 44.2(b); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). A violation of the evidentiary rules that results in the erroneous admission of evidence is nonconstitutional error. King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Any nonconstitutional error that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. Tex.R.App.P. 44.2(b). Assuming that the trial court erred by admitting the estimate because it did not meet any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, we conclude that the error was harmless. The record reflects that the same evidence conveyed in the estimate came in at trial through Gray's testimony. Although appellant asserts that Gray's knowledge came solely through the estimate, a review of the record indicates otherwise. Gray responded to the prosecutor's question about damages to her car by stating an approximation of the cost of repairs. Subsequently, the estimate was admitted into evidence; Gray reviewed the estimate; and she testified to the exact amount of the damage. Therefore, any error in the admission of the estimate was rendered harmless in light of Gray's prior testimony proving the same facts. See Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). We overrule appellant's sole point of error. CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.