Opinion
No. 05-04-01480-CR
Opinion Filed August 16, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. MA03-19212-L. Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Alan Roberts appeals his conviction for misdemeanor assault-domestic violence. After the jury found Roberts guilty of assault and found the victim was a member of his household, the trial court assessed punishment at 210 days' confinement (probated for eighteen months) and a $500 fine. In a single point of error, Roberts charges the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of an extraneous offense. We disagree, and we affirm the trial court's judgment. The charge against Roberts grew out of an altercation with his wife, Carol. The disagreement began over a financial matter. The couple argued verbally for some time. Then Roberts left the house to have dinner with friends. When he returned after approximately one and one half hours, the disagreement escalated. Both Roberts and Carol testified at trial, giving their versions of the physical altercation. Carol testified Roberts was the aggressor; Roberts claimed his involvement in the physical dispute was purely self defense. The issue on appeal concerns a statement made by Carol when she was being examined on redirect by the prosecutor:
Q. Ms. Roberts, you said you didn't get any kind of medical treatment. Would you explain to the jury why you didn't get medical treatment?
A. I didn't get medical — I just — it all just happened so fast. I didn't feel like I was hurting to where I couldn't take care of myself. I didn't want to go ahead and go to the hospital. We don't have insurance and I just felt like I would just take care of myself. I figured there would be bruises and I would get over it. I've been — I've had them before and I figuredAt this point defense counsel objected, calling the remark "extraneous." The court overruled the objection, and Carol went on discussing her injuries. Her statement that she "had [bruises] before" is not referred to again in the record. Nor is there any reference to any event related to bruises incurred in the past. Roberts argues in this Court that Carol's statement amounted to evidence of a prior assault by Roberts. This evidence, he argues, seriously undermined his credibility in a hotly contested case. As a result of the testimony, Roberts avers, the jury was prevented from properly evaluating his claim of self defense. The State argues that Carol's comment was not evidence of an extraneous offense. "To constitute an extraneous offense, the evidence must show a crime or bad act, and that the defendant was connected to it." Lockhart v. State, 847 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). We conclude Carol's statement fails to qualify on both grounds. First, the statement that she had bruises before is not, standing alone, evidence of a crime or bad act. Bruises can and often do result from behavior that is entirely unrelated to criminal or bad conduct. Second, even if the bruises Carol referred to had been inflicted by criminal or bad conduct, her statement did not link Roberts to that conduct. Indeed, when Carol made the statement about other bruises, she was not cataloguing injuries Roberts had inflicted upon her. Instead, she was explaining why she did not believe she needed medical treatment. We find nothing in the statement or its context that qualifies as evidence of an extraneous offense by Roberts. We overrule Roberts's point of error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.