Jessop v. State (368 S.W.3d 653, 2012)

OPINION

J. WOODFIN JONES, Chief Justice.

Appellant Raymond Merrill Jessop and nine other members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), living at the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch in Schleicher County, Texas, were indicted for sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(A) (West 2011). Subsequently, a jury convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department. See id. § 12.33 (West 2011). This appeal followed. Appellant brings forward thirty-five points of error. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural background of this case are fully discussed in prior opinions of this Court, most recently in our opinion in Jeffs v. State, No. 03-10-00272-CR, 2012 WL 601846, at *1-4 (Tex.App.-Austin Feb. 24, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), and will not be repeated here. We discuss further background details only as necessary to address the points of error raised by appellant in this appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his first two points of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. First, he asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for sexual assault of a child because the State failed to prove the element of penetration. Second, he contends that the evidence is insufficient because it fails to demonstrate that the sexual assault occurred in Texas.

Additional Background

Appellant, a lifelong member of FLDS, moved to the YFZ Ranch in Schleicher County, Texas, in December 2003 with his family — including multiple “celestial wives” and numerous children — and lived with them in a single residence on the ranch. On August 12, 2004, appellant was “sealed” in a spiritual or celestial marriage to J. Jessop, a female FLDS member born September 16, 1988, who had also moved to the YFZ Ranch in December 2003. The ceremony took place at the “prophet’s” house on the ranch in Schleicher County when J. Jessop was 15 years old and appellant was 32. Following the celestial marriage ceremony, appellant and J. Jes-sop lived together in the same household, purportedly as husband and wife. On August 15, 2005, when she was 16 years old, J. Jessop gave birth on the ranch to a daughter. DNA testing confirmed that appellant was the biological father of the child.

Due process requires that the State prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 313, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242, 246 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781; Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by reference to the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge for the case. Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tex.Crim.App.2009); Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider all the evidence in the record, whether direct or circumstantial, properly or improperly admitted, or submitted by the prosecution or the defense. See Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485, 489-90 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Allen v. State, 249 S.W.3d 680, 688-89 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no pet.). We review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the trier of fact resolved conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that supports the verdict. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781; see Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). A legal-sufficiency review requires us to defer to the jury’s determinations of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. When faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences, we must presume that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the verdict and must defer to that resolution. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781; Padilla v. State, 326 S.W.3d 195, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). The jury, as exclusive judge of the facts, is entitled to weigh and resolve conflicts in the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom. Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; see Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979). In assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we have a duty to ensure that the evidence presented actually supports a conclusion that the defendant committed the crime that was charged. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); see Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex.Crim.App.2010).

Evidence of Penetration

Appellant was charged with the offense of sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(A), (c)(1),(2). The State alleged in the indictment, and had the burden to prove, that appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the penetration of the female sexual organ of “J. Jeffs Jessop,” a child younger than 17 years of age who was not the spouse of appellant, with appellant’s sexual organ. In his first point of error, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove penetration. He complains that the State’s evidence was largely circumstantial and failed to eliminate the possibility that J. Jessop could have become pregnant by artificial insemination. He points to the lack of testimony from J. Jessop as support for this contention.

The lack of direct evidence is not dispositive of the issue of appellant’s guilt. The State is not required to present direct evidence to establish guilt. See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); Sanders v. State, 346 S.W.3d 26, 32 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref'd). Indeed, circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt and may alone be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); Sanders, 346 S.W.3d at 32. The law does not require that each fact “point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; see Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 49; Sanders, 346 S.W.3d at 32. The standard of review on appeal is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence cases. Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex.Crim.App.2010); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 49.

Moreover, it is not incumbent upon the State to exclude “every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt” for the evidence to be considered sufficient. Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 157-61 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), overruled on other grounds by Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 571 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Sanders, 346 S.W.3d at 32; Villarreal Lopez v. State, 267 S.W.3d 85, 97-98 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.) (citing Harris v. State, 133 S.W.3d 760, 763-65 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, pet. ref'd)); see Orona v. State, 836 S.W.2d 319, 322 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, no pet.) (“Geesa rightfully abolished the logically inconsistent requirement in a circumstantial-evidence case that a legal-sufficiency review, in which the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, must also negate the existence of any alternate reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt”).

In a prosecution for sexual assault of a child, penetration may be proven by circumstantial evidence. See Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130, 133 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Nilsson v. State, 477 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Belt v. State, 227 S.W.3d 339, 342 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.); Quinton v. State, 56 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet. ref'd). There is no requirement that the child victim testify about penetration. Villalon, 791 S.W.2d at 133; Nilsson, 477 S.W.2d at 596. Evidence of the slightest penetration is sufficient. Vernon v. State, 841 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see Nilsson, 477 S.W.2d at 595.

At trial, the jury received evidence that both appellant and J. Jessop moved to the YFZ Ranch in Schleicher County, Texas, in December 2003. The evidence showed that appellant was sealed to J. Jessop in a celestial or spiritual marriage for “time and eternity” in August 2004 in a ceremony that was performed on the YFZ Ranch when she was 15 years old. Evidence further showed that after the marriage ceremony, appellant and J. Jessop lived together in the same household, purportedly as husband and wife, including engaging in a sexually intimate relationship. Finally, the evidence showed that one year after being sealed in a spiritual marriage with appellant, J. Jessop gave birth to a daughter when she was 16 years old. Additional evidence documented the birth of a baby girl in August 2005 to “Raymond and [J.] Jessop.” DNA testing also established that appellant was the biological father of her child.

A fact finder may support its verdict with reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Laster, 275 S.W.3d at 523; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 14. Jurors are free to use their common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and experience gained in the ordinary affairs of life when giving effect to the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Obigbo v. State, 6 S.W.3d 299, 306 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.); Jones v. State, 900 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, pet. ref'd); Wawrykow v. State, 866 S.W.2d 87, 88 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1993, pet. ref'd); see Saenz v. State, 976 S.W.2d 314, 322 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (“Jurors are expected to draw upon their own experiences and common knowledge and apply them to the facts at hand.”).

In this case, the circumstantial evidence of penetration is compelling. Using common sense and common knowledge, the jurors could rationally conclude that appellant and J. Jessop, as spiritual husband and wife, were involved in a sexually intimate relationship, one including sexual intercourse, that resulted in the conception of their daughter. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and with proper regard for the jury’s power to resolve conflicts, evaluate credibility, and weigh the evidence, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the penetration of J. Jessop’s sexual organ with his sexual organ when she was younger than 17. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of penetration is legally sufficient. We overrule appellant’s first point of error.

Territorial Jurisdiction

In his second point of error, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove territorial jurisdiction. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that appellant’s sexual assault of J. Jessop occurred in Texas because the direct evidence fails to show that the sexual act resulting in the conception of the child took place in Texas.

Texas has jurisdiction over an offense if the conduct constituting the offense occurs inside this state. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.04(a)(1) (West 2005). Jurisdiction can be established by circumstantial evidence. Vaughn v. State, 607 S.W.2d 914, 920 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Gunter v. State, 327 S.W.3d 797, 799-800 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010, no pet.); see, e.g., Walker v. State, 195 S.W.3d 250, 257-58 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, no pet.); James v. State, 89 S.W.3d 86, 89 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). It is unclear whether the State must prove territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evi dence. See Torres v. State, 141 S.W.3d 645, 654 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, pet. ref'd). Regardless of which standard is applied, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction in Texas.

The circumstantial evidence — viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and with proper respect for the jury’s power to resolve conflicts, evaluate credibility, and weigh the evidence — showed that appellant and J. Jessop lived together in a sexually intimate relationship as spiritual husband and wife on the YFZ Ranch in Schleicher County, Texas, prior to, during, and after the birth of their child. We hold that this is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant sexually assaulted J. Jessop in Texas. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778; see also Geesa, 820 S.W.2d at 155, 161. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to prove that Texas has territorial jurisdiction. We overrule appellant’s second point of error.

II. DNA EVIDENCE

In his next three points of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting DNA evidence of his paternity of J. Jessop’s child. He first argues that the DNA evidence was not sufficiently reliable scientific evidence. In addition, he asserts that the admission of the DNA evidence violated the presumption of innocence and shifted the burden of proof because one of the statistics used to express the results of the DNA testing used a calculation that employed a 0.5 prior paternity presumption. Appellant also claims that the admission of the testimony about the DNA evidence violated his right to confront witnesses against him.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.2009); Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). Such rulings will rarely be disturbed by an appellate court. Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128, 136 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); Rodgers v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525, 527-28 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). As with other types of evidentiary rulings, we will uphold the trial court’s decision unless it lies outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Layton, 280 S.W.3d at 240 (citing Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh’g)). If the record supports the trial court’s decision on the admission of evidence, there is no abuse of discretion. Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531, 537 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 379; Marsh v. State, 343 S.W.3d 475, 478 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2011, pet. ref'd).

DNA Paternity Testing

After testifying about her background and experience, Amy Smuts, a DNA forensic analyst from the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, described the basic process of DNA testing: extraction, amplification, detection, and comparison. Smuts explained that the DNA is first extracted from the sample. The analyst then amplifies the original DNA so there is more to work with. Next, the analyst uses an instrument to visualize or detect a pattern or profile that can be compared to different samples. Finally, the analyst compares the genetic profile from an unknown sample to the genetic profile from a known sample for DNA identification or, in a forensic paternity test, compares the genetic profiles of a mother, a child, and an alleged father.

The record reflects that DNA paternity testing differs from DNA identification analysis only as to the final step of how the test results are used — that is, the comparison the analyst makes after generating the DNA profiles. Smuts testified that the scientific principles underlying DNA analysis and the procedures she outlined are accepted in the scientific community as valid. She indicated that the scientific principles underlying DNA paternity testing are the same scientific principles underlying DNA identification analysis. She further testified that the scientific principles underlying DNA paternity testing and the procedures used are accepted as reliable in the scientific community.

During the comparison for DNA paternity testing, the analyst first compares the DNA profiles of the child, mother, and alleged father to determine if the alleged father can be excluded as the biological father. A child inherits two different alleles at each genetic marker — one from the mother and one from the father. At a particular genetic marker, a child and its mother will always have at least one allele with matching values. The child’s other allele at that locus — the “obligate allele”— must have come from the biological father. The exclusion analysis examines a number of genetic markers and excludes the alleles that match between the mother and the child. According to Smuts, only the true biological father will have the obligate paternal allele at every locus. The result of this initial comparison is either an exclusion — the alleged father is not the biological father — or an inclusion. To be excluded, the alleged father must not match at two or more alleles. However, to be included the alleged father must have matching alleles at each locus.

If an alleged father cannot be excluded, the analyst conducts a statistical analysis using the genetic profiles. In performing the statistical analysis, Smuts testified that the lab uses the FBI allele frequency database in the calculations to quantify the results. She testified that labs all over the country use the FBI database to quantify the results of the DNA comparison, that the database is accepted within the scientific community as valid, and that the use of the database is accepted in the scientific community as reliable. The statistical values representing the DNA test results are reported in three ways: the probability of exclusion, the combined paternity index, and the probability of paternity.

The first statistical value calculated, the “probability of exclusion,” considers the genetic profiles of only the mother and child, and is defined as the probability of excluding a random individual from the relevant population given the alleles of the child and mother. The probability of exclusion utilizes an established population database, such as the FBI database, and reflects the strength of the DNA test by showing the percentage of the male population that would have been excluded by the test. The probability of exclusion is equal to the frequency of all men in the population who do not contain alleles that match the obligate paternal alleles of the child at all genetic markers analyzed. It is the percentage of the male population that cannot have contributed the obligate paternal alleles to the child at all tested loci, or, more simply, the percentage of the male population that is excluded as the biological father.

The next statistical expression of the DNA test results is the “combined paternity index.” An individual paternity index number is a calculated value generated for a single genetic marker or locus and is associated with the statistical strength or weight of that locus in favor of or against paternity given the alleles of the tested participants and the science of inheritance. The paternity index calculations utilize allele frequencies generated from established population databases, such as the FBI database. The paternity index reflects the likelihood that the tested man passed the required allele (at a specific genetic marker) to the child as compared to an untested man of the same race. The individual paternity index values for all examined loci are then multiplied to calculate the combined paternity index. The combined paternity index — the product of multiplying all the individual paternity index numbers of the examined alleles together — is a summary of the genetic evidence of a match between the tested man and the child. The number reflects that the observed genetic results are that many times more likely if the tested man is the true biological father than if an untested randomly selected male of his race was the father. Thus, the combined paternity index is a measure of the strength of the genetic evidence and is an odds ratio, not a probability, that depicts the likelihood of the tested man being the biological father, as compared to the likelihood of a random unrelated man in the population being the biological father.

Finally, the DNA test results can be expressed as a “probability of paternity.” The probability of paternity translates the combined paternity index into a percentage. The probability of paternity is a computation that tests the hypothesis that the alleged father is indeed the biological father of the child. This statistic is calculated using the combined paternity index in a mathematical formula along 'with another variable called a “prior probability,” which represents the social non-genetic evidence. The formula requires the use of a prior probability of an event occurring, but since genetic labs do not have access to or interest in non-genetic evidence, they seek to utilize a neutral prior-probability value. Smuts testified that it is standard for paternity testing labs to use a value of 0.5 for the prior paternity because, being at the mid-point of possible values, it translates into a neutral assumption — paternity and non-paternity have equal weight. The 0.5 prior probability is the statistical expression of the proposition that the tested man either is or is not the biological father, without giving greater weight to either possibility. The probability of paternity is often characterized as a percentage reflecting the percent likelihood that the tested male is actually the father of the child.

Appellant’s Test and the Results

Law enforcement officers collected buccal swab samples from the mother, J. Jes-sop, the victim in this case, and her child, Z.J., and a blood sample from appellant. The samples were taken to the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, where DNA tests were performed. The record reflects that the samples in this case were processed in a team approach routinely used in the lab. Amy Smuts processed the samples of the mother and child while Christina Capt, another forensic analyst at the lab, processed appellant’s blood sample. Smuts testified about the results of the DNA tests on the samples from mother and child and, based on the testing done by Capt, the resulting statistical analysis. Capt subsequently testified regarding the DNA results of the test on appellant’s blood sample. Smuts testified that 15 genetic markers were examined. She went through each of the' 15 loci tested for all three genetic profiles-, explaining how the obligate paternal alleles were determined. She testified, and demonstrated to the jury, that appellant’s profile contained all of the obligate paternal alleles — that is, appellant’s DNA profile matched alleles with Z.J.’s DNA profile at all 15 loci. Consequently, appellant could not be excluded as the biological father of the child.

Because appellant was not excluded, the previously described statistics were generated to express the DNA results. The probability of exclusion was 99.99997 percent. In other words, based on the DNA profiles of J. Jessop and her child, 99.99997 percent of the male population could not have contributed the obligate paternal alleles at all 15 loci and are excluded from the possibility of being Z.J.’s biological father. The combined paternity index was 57,040,000. This means that the observed genetic results are 57,040,000 times more likely if appellant is Z.J.’s true biological father than if an untested randomly selected unrelated male of his race is the father. The probability of paternity was 99.999998 percent, reflecting a 99.999998 percent likelihood that appellant is actually the father of Z.J. as compared to an untested randomly chosen male of his race. The focus of appellant’s complaints at trial, and now on appeal, relate to this third statistical figure because the calculation utilizes a 0.5 prior probability of paternity in the formula.

Reliability of DNA Paternity Evidence

Pursuant to Rule 702, before admitting expert testimony, the trial court must be satisfied that three conditions are met: (1) that the witness qualifies as an expert by reason of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) that the subject matter of the testimony is appropriate for expert testimony; and (3) that admitting the expert testimony will actually assist the fact finder in deciding the case. Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); see also Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664, 670 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). These conditions are commonly referred to as (1) qualification, (2) reliability, and (3) relevance. Vela, 209 S.W.3d at 131. Reliability focuses on the subject matter of the witness’s testimony. The proponent of the expert testimony must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the expert testimony is reliable. Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 881 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

To be considered sufficiently reliable as to be of help to a jury, scientific evidence must meet three criteria: (1) the underlying scientific theory must be valid; (2) the technique applying the theory must be valid; and (3) the technique must have been properly applied on the occasion in question. Vela, 209 S.W.3d at 134; see Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Factors that could affect a trial court’s determination of reliability include, but are not limited to: (1) the extent to which the underlying scientific theory and technique are accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community, if such a community can be ascertained; (2) the qualifications of the expert testifying; (3) the existence of literature supporting or rejecting the underlying scientific theory and technique; (4) the potential rate of error of the technique; (5) the availability of other experts to test and evaluate the technique; (6) the clarity with which the underlying scientific theory and technique can be explained to the court; and (7) the experience and skill of the person(s) who applied the technique on the occasion in question. Kelly, 824 S.W.2d at 573.

The record in this case demonstrates that the State satisfied the three criteria to establish the reliability of the DNA paternity evidence. DNA evidence has certainly been held admissible in Texas. See Jackson, 17 S.W.3d at 672; Campbell v. State, 910 S.W.2d 475, 478-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Hicks v. State, 860 S.W.2d 419, 423-24 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), overruled on other grounds by Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); Kelly, 824 S.W.2d at 573. In addition, Smuts testified that the underlying scientific theory of DNA analysis is valid and that the technique applying the theory is valid; that the scientific community considers DNA analysis an accepted science; and that the procedures used in DNA testing are accepted in the scientific community as valid. Smuts also testified that DNA paternity testing, based on the same scientific principles and techniques, is similarly accepted within the scientific community as valid. Further, Smuts testified that the statistical expression of the DNA results is accepted within the scientific community. She testified that the FBI database used in calculating the probability of exclusion, paternity indexes, and combined paternity index is used by labs throughout the country and that the use of the FBI database is accepted within the scientific community. In addition, she testified that the formula for calculating the probability of paternity, including the 0.5 prior probability, is used by paternity labs throughout the country. Finally, the record reflects that Smuts and Capt properly applied the techniques of DNA paternity testing in this case.

In his third point of error, appellant asserts that the DNA evidence identifying him as Z.J.’s father was not sufficiently reliable. However, he fails to articulate why the evidence was unreliable or how the State failed to establish its reliability. Appellant does not challenge the science behind general DNA testing or the validity of general DNA testing procedures. Nor does he challenge the science behind DNA paternity testing. In fact, during the 702 hearing, defense counsel explicitly told the trial judge that he was “not arguing that DNA testing is not a valid way to establish paternity.” Appellant’s attack on the reliability of the DNA evidence is, primarily, a challenge to the calculation of the statistical expression of the DNA results in the probability-of-paternity statistic, which appears to be a challenge to the validity of DNA paternity testing procedures. He argues that the DNA evidence was unreliable because Smuts could not explain “the science behind the use of Bayes’ Theorem” in the formula of her statistical calculation of probability of paternity. However, the State is not re-quired to present an expert on probability and statistics in order to show that DNA testing is reliable. Roberson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 156, 168 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. ref'd); Griffith v. State, 976 S.W.2d 241, 251 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd). Neither Kelly nor Rule 702 requires such a showing as a prerequisite to admission. Roberson, 16 S.W.3d at 168; Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 251. Moreover, appellant’s complaint centers on the probability-of-paternity statistic because it uses a 0.5 prior probability in the calculation. However, Smuts testified that the formula for calculating the probability of paternity, including the use of 0.5 prior probability, is standard and used by paternity labs throughout the country. She further testified that this calculation of probability of paternity is accepted within the scientific community. From this testimony, the trial court could have concluded that the techniques applying the theory of DNA paternity testing were valid.

Appellant also suggests that the DNA evidence produced is unreliable because, according to appellant, the lab failed to use an inbreeding co-efficient in the statistical analysis of the DNA results to account for the insular FLDS population. At the 702 hearing, appellant argued that “the population substructure was improperly applied” and that “there was evidence of a more proper population substructure that they didn’t apply.” Contrary to appellant’s contentions, there is no evidence in the record that a different inbreeding coefficient should have been used or that a different population substructure should have been applied. The record reflects only that there were, at some point, discussions by some lab personnel about the possibility of using a different inbreeding co-efficient, but that no different inbreeding co-efficient was used. The evidence in the record reflects that the statistical analysis was performed in the manner accepted by the scientific community. Smuts repeatedly testified that the use of the FBI database, which incorporates an inbreeding co-efficient, in the statistical analysis is accepted as valid in the scientific community. Nothing in the record reflects that the science or techniques were improperly applied in this case.

There was evidence before the trial court of Smuts’s qualifications, experience, and skill to perform the DNA paternity test, the existence of literature supporting the underlying scientific theory and technique, the availability of other experts to test and evaluate the technique, and the clarity with which the underlying scientific theory and technique can be explained to the court. Based on Smuts’s testimony, the trial court could conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the scientific theory underlying DNA paternity testing is valid; that the technique applying the theory — including the statistical analysis — is valid; and that the technique was properly applied by the lab analysts in this case. We conclude that the trial did not abuse its discretion in finding that the DNA paternity evidence was reliable.

Presumption of Innocence

In his fifth point of error, appellant challenges the probability-of-paternity statistic calculated from the DNA test results because, he contends, the use of a 0.5 prior probability in calculating the statistic violates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof.

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, an accused in state court has the right to the “presumption of innocence” — the right to be free from criminal conviction unless the State can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by probative evidence adduced at trial. Miles v. State, 204 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (citing Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 483 n. 12, 485-86, 98 S.Ct. 1930, 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978)); Madrid v. State, 595 S.W.2d 106, 110 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). The Texas Legislature has codified the presumption of innocence in the Texas Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 2.01 (West 2011); Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.03 (West Supp. 2011).

The presumption of innocence is a doctrine that allocates the burden of proof in criminal trials. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 533, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Taylor, 436 U.S. at 485, 98 S.Ct. 1930. The phrase is “an inaccurate, shorthand description of the right of the accused to ‘remain inactive and secure, until the prosecution has taken up its burden and produced evidence and effected persuasion.’ ” Bell, 441 U.S. at 533, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (quoting Taylor, 436 U.S. at 483 n. 12, 98 S.Ct. 1930); see Miles, 204 S.W.3d at 825; see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1306 (9th ed. 2009). “The principal inaccuracy is the fact that it is not technically a ‘presumption’ — a mandatory inference drawn from a fact in evidence. Instead, it is better characterized as an ‘assumption’ that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence.” Taylor, 436 U.S. at 483 n. 12, 98 S.Ct. 1930; see Madrid, 595 S.W.2d at 110 (“The so-called presumption of innocence is not an inference based on proven fact; rather, it is an assignment of a burden of proof prior to trial based on the substantive law requiring the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

The presumption of innocence has no correlation with actual innocence. Zimmerman v. State, 860 S.W.2d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (“the presumption of innocence does not carry with it the connotation that a defendant is in fact innocent”); Johnson v. State, 263 S.W.3d 405, 417 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008, pet. ref'd); Miles v. State, 154 S.W.3d 679, 683 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (Hudson, J., concurring), aff’d, 204 S.W.3d 822 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). Rather, the presumption of innocence is merely an expression regarding the State’s evidentiary burden and not a suggestion or intimation of the defendant’s actual innocence. See Madrid, 595 S.W.2d at 110; Miles, 154 S.W.3d at 684 (Hudson, J., concurring). The presumption serves as a reminder to the jury of the State’s burden to prove its case and as an admonishment to consider nothing but the evidence adduced at trial in passing on the defendant’s guilt. Bell, 441 U.S. at 533, 99 S.Ct. 1861; Miles, 204 S.W.3d at 825.

Appellant acknowledges that this same challenge has been previously addressed— and rejected — by the Amarillo Court of Appeals. In Griffith v. State, 976 S.W.2d 241, 246-50 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd), the appellant had been convicted of sexually assaulting a mentally retarded female patient at the state school. Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 242. The assault had resulted in pregnancy and birth of a child. Id. At trial, the court admitted evidence in the form of paternity test results showing a 99.99 percent probability that Griffith was the father of the child. Id. On appeal, Griffith complained that the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the DNA testing, specifically the probability-of-paternity statistic based on Bayes’ Theorem, which was calculated using a 0.5 prior probability, on the ground that it violated the requisite presumption of innocence in a criminal trial. Concluding that the use of a probability-of-paternity statistic in a criminal proceeding did not violate the presumption of innocence, the Griffith court held:

The use of a prior probability of .5 is a neutral assumption. The statistic merely reflects the application of a scientifically accepted mathematical theorem which in turn is an expression of the expert’s opinion testimony. It is subject to the same conditions applied to all other testimony. The jury is free to disregard it. It can be weakened on cross and in argument. The statistic does nothing to shift the burden of persuasion or production in a criminal matter.

Id. at 247. We agree with the Griffith court’s evaluation of the probability-of-paternity statistic.

The function of Bayes’ Theorem, a conditional probability theory, is to show the effect of a new item of evidence on a previously established probability. In this case the new item was the DNA test results. The previously established probability was the probability of appellant’s paternity based on the other non-test evidence without the benefit of the scientific tests. Theoretically, Bayes’ Theorem permits a mathematical calculation of the probability of a man’s paternity of a child based on all the information known about the child and the man. However, in the scientific lab setting, in arriving at the probability percentage, a DNA analyst is restricted to considering the test evidence only, having no knowledge of the actual facts of the case and no information about the child and the tested man. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 476 N.E.2d 127, 138 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (rejecting appellants’ invitation to require experts to include prior probability based on consideration of circumstantial non-test evidence available concerning appellants’ parentage because any expert determination of prior probability based on facts of case would invade function of jury). Therefore, in order to employ the theorem, the lab substituted a neutral probability for the prior-probability variable, i.e., the probability based on non-test evidence. See id. (holding that 0.5 probability invoked in Bayes’ Theorem was a neutral consideration and probability-of-parentage statistic was admissible). This statistically neutral probability, expressed as a 0.5 prior probability, gives paternity and non-paternity equal weight. As Smuts testified at the 702 hearing, the 0.5 prior probability is a neutral assumption that merely assigns equal statistical probability to the possibility that the tested man is the biological father as to the possibility that he is not the biological father.

Contrary to appellant’s contention, the prior probability cannot be zero, as he suggests the presumption of innocence requires. As the Griffith court observed:

[T]he presumption of innocence cannot require us to enter a prior probability of zero into Bayes’ Theorem.... A zero prior probability does not simply presume a defendant is innocent. Rather, a zero probability, in fact presumes that it was impossible for the defendant to be the father. When a zero prior probability is plugged into Bayes’ Theorem (the formula), naturally the probability of paternity results becomes 0%. The presumption of innocence does not require a jury to assume it was impossible for a defendant to commit the crime charged. Rather, it requires the jury to assume as a starting proposition that the defendant did not commit the crime, until proven otherwise.

Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 249 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted); accord Butcher v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 3, 9 (Ky.2002) (quoting Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 249).

Appellant here, like the appellant in Griffith, complains that the 0.5 prior probability destroys the presumption of innocence because it assumes that appellant had intercourse with the victim — a fact that the State must prove. As to the neutrality of the 0.5 prior probability, the Griffith court observed, “Logically, the prior probability assumes intercourse could have occurred and thus the putative father could be the actual father, but the statistic does not necessarily assume intercourse did occur.” Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 248 (emphasis in original). By making the prior assumption equally weighted, Bayes’ Theorem also allows that intercourse may not have occurred at all. Id. The use of a 0.5 prior probability merely acknowledges that intercourse preceded the birth of the child, while positing that there is no greater chance that the alleged father engaged in that intercourse with the mother than that another individual did. See Butcher, 96 S.W.3d at 8-9; Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 248. The 0.5 prior-probability assumption says only that it is just as likely that the defendant is the father as any man chosen at random. See State v. Spann, 130 N.J. 484, 617 A.2d 247, 253 (1993). Accordingly, a 0.5 prior-probability assumption assigns no more culpability to appellant than it does to any other random male individual.

Like the appellant in Griffith, appellant here relies on several cases from other jurisdictions to support his argument. The courts in State v. Hartman and State v. Skipper held that paternity test results predicated on a prior-probability assumption were inadmissible because such evidence violates the presumption-of-innocence requirement of criminal proceedings. State v. Hartman, 145 Wis.2d 1, 426 N.W.2d 320, 326 (1988); State v. Skipper, 228 Conn. 610, 637 A.2d 1101, 1107-08 (1994). In reviewing these decisions, the Griffith court found that these holdings were flawed, principally because the underlying rationale assumed — based in large part on a single law review article, Robert W. Peterson, A Few Things You Should Know About Paternity Tests (But Were Afraid To Ask), 22 Santa Clara L.Rev. 667 (1982) — that the probability-of-paternity statistic mandated the assumption that the alleged father had sexual intercourse with the mother. Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 247 (citing Hartman, 426 N.W.2d at 326; Skipper, 637 A.2d at 1106). The author of the law review article, not a statistician or geneticist but an attorney and professor, concluded that the Bayes’ Theorem accurately reflects the odds that the accused is the father only if one assumes that the defendant and a random man both had intercourse with the mother. Id. at 248 (citing Hartman, 426 N.W.2d at 326). Among other criticisms of the article, the Griffith court found that the author failed to cite direct authority, either legal or scientific, to support his statement. Id. The court disagreed with the author’s basic assumption that the occurrence of intercourse is implicit in the prior-probability value. Id.; accord Spann, 617 A.2d at 253 (“The conclusion [that intercourse was assumed in the calculation of the probability-of-paternity percentage], however, is incorrect.”). Like the Griffith court, we disagree with the underlying rationale of these decisions. Just because the value allows for the possibility of intercourse with the alleged father does not mean it mandates the assumption that intercourse occurred. We agree that both Skipper and Hartman were based on a flawed premise. See Butcher, 96 S.W.3d at 8-9; Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 247-49. Accordingly, we do not find support for appellant’s contention in those cases.

The record contains testimony from Smuts addressing the reliability of the probability-of-paternity statistic. At the 702 hearing, after testifying about her credentials and expertise in the field of molecular biology as applied to genetic testing, she testified that the methodologies employed in the DNA paternity testing were standard, including the statistical calculations that were used to interpret the test results. Specifically, Smuts testified that use of the 0.5 prior-probability value was standard in DNA paternity testing and that it was a neutral assumption because the alleged father has an equal chance of being the father or not being the father. In light of this testimony, the trial court could reasonably conclude that the Bayes’ Theorem calculation, using a 0.5 prior probability, was commonly used in reporting DNA paternity results and that the probability-of-paternity statistic is accepted in the scientific community of molecular biology in reporting paternity results. Based on Smuts’s testimony, the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the probability-of-paternity statistic under the Kelly test.

Smuts testified before the jury, based on the neutral 0.5 prior probability, that appellant’s probability of paternity was 99.999998 percent. She also testified before the jury that even if the prior probability in the calculation were reduced to 0.1(10%), reflecting a lower assumption that appellant was the father, the probability of paternity would be 99.99998 percent. She further testified that if the prior probability in the calculation were increased to 0.7(70%), reflecting a higher assumption that appellant was the father, the probability of paternity of would be 99.9999992 percent. At trial, appellant had ample opportunity to question the use of the pri- or-probability value and call it to the attention of the jury. Defense counsel questioned Smuts on the use Bayes’ Theorem and prior probability and attempted to weaken the effect of the seemingly reliable evidence at issue. We believe the jury was aware that Smuts was expressing her opinion and was free to accept or disregard it. In the case before us, there was non-scientific evidence that appellant had access and opportunity to have intercourse with J. Jessop. The DNA test itself indicated appellant was the true biological father of the child — appellant’s DNA profile matched alleles with ZJ.’s DNA profile at all 15 genetic markers. Smuts testified that the statistical calculations, including the probability of paternity, were used as the standard method of reporting paternity tests. As with any other expert testimony, the jury was free to disregard it entirely. Nothing about the 0.5 value shifted the burden of persuasion to appellant.

We agree that “ ‘[t]he 50 percent prior chance assumption does not require shifting the burden of proof to the defendant and is not an impermissible assumption; rather, it is part of a scientific theory and the jury should be so told.’ ” Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 242 (quoting Hartman, 426 N.W.2d at 327 (Steinmertz J., dissenting)). We find no violation of presumption-of-innocence principles in the use of a prior probability to deduce the likelihood of paternity based on DNA test results. See Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 242; Butcher, 96 S.W.3d at 10. We conclude that the probability-of-paternity statistic meets the Kelly admissibility requirements and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such evidence.

Substantial Rights Not Affected

Although we conclude that the statistical evidence of probability of paternity was properly admitted, assuming ar-guendo that the statistic was improperly admitted, we conclude that such error was harmless.

The erroneous admission of expert testimony is non-constitutional error. See Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Accordingly, any error must be disregarded unless it affected appellant’s substantial rights. See Tex. R.App. P. 44.2(b); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). A substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). If the improperly admitted evidence did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect on its deliberations, such error is harmless. Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)); Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). In conducting a harm analysis, we examine the entire trial record and calculate, to the extent possible, the probable impact of the error on the rest of the evidence. Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)). Important factors in considering non-constitutional error are “‘the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.’ ” Bagheri, 119 S.W.3d at 763 (quoting Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002)). In analyzing the erroneous admission of expert testimony, we may consider, among other things: (1) the strength of the evidence of the appellant’s guilt; (2) whether the jury heard the same or substantially similar admissible evidence through another source; (3) the strength or weakness of an expert’s conclusions, including whether the expert’s opinion was effectively refuted; and (4) whether the State directed the jury’s attention to the expert’s testimony during arguments. See Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 286-88.

In this case, appellant had ample opportunity to cross-examine Smuts on the use of the prior probability. During cross-examination, the defense pointed out to the jury the nature of the probability-of-paternity statistic and how it could perhaps be misleading. The record demonstrated that changing the prior probability affected the probability-of-paternity percentage. More importantly, however, the critical science here was that of the DNA extraction and comparison, not the statistical representation of the DNA test results. The probability-of-paternity statistic merely reinforces the truly condemning evidence of paternity — the DNA test itself. See Griffith, 976 S.W.2d at 242 (Quinn, J., concurring). The evidence of extraction and comparison proffered by Smuts, prior to converting the results into any statistics, established that Z.J. could have obtained her DNA only from her mother and appellant (or appellant’s identical twin). Here, the test results speak for themselves. Appellant’s DNA profile matched Z.J.’s DNA profile at all 15 genetic markers tested. The defense did not question or even object to this DNA evidence.

Moreover, the application or use of Bayes’ Theorem relates to only one portion of the DNA evidence. Bayes’ Theorem has no effect on the DNA testing itself— that is, developing the genetic profiles from the samples. Nor does Bayes’ Theorem affect two of the three statistical representations of the DNA test results: the probability of exclusion and combined paternity index. These other two statistics provide similar and equally compelling information about appellant’s paternity of Z.J. The DNA test included appellant— matching him with Z.J.’s DNA at all 15 genetic markers tested — while excluding 99.99997 percent of the male population of his race. The combined paternity index reflected that the observed genetic results are 57,040,000 times more likely if appellant is Z.J.’s true biological father than if an untested randomly selected unrelated male of his race is the father. Further, other non-scientific evidence revealed that appellant had access to J. Jessop, that the two were joined in a spiritual marriage and lived together, purportedly as husband and wife, and that a baby girl named Z.J. was born to “Raymond and [J.] Jessop” in August of 2005. We conclude that the admission of evidence regarding the probability of paternity, even if error, did not contribute to appellant’s conviction. We overrule appellant’s third and fifth points of error.

Confi’ontation

Appellant complains in his fourth point of error that the admission of the DNA testimony violated his right to confrontation because Smuts was unable, according to appellant, to sufficiently explain the reasoning and science behind the mathematical formula for calculating the probability-of-paternity statistic used to express the DNA results.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides a right in both federal and state prosecutions to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. U.S. Const, amends. VI, XIV; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). The principal concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990).

To implicate the Confrontation Clause, an out-of-court statement must (1) have been made by a witness absent from trial and (2) be testimonial in nature. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-52, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 641—42; King v. State, 189 S.W.3d 347, 358 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). It is the “literal right to ‘confront’ the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause.” California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). Thus, Crawford’s holding applies only when the extrajudicial testimonial statements of a witness who does not testify at trial are sought to be admitted. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (emphasis added). When the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of prior testimonial statements. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354; Green, 399 U.S. at 162, 90 S.Ct. 1930; Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 641-42; see, e.g., Eustis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd); Hanson v. State, 180 S.W.3d 726, 731 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.); Crawford v. State, 139 S.W.3d 462, 465 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. ref'd).

Moreover, “ ‘the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.’” Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 643 (quoting Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 19, 106 S.Ct. 292, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985)) (emphasis in original). The “ ‘Confrontation Clause is generally satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose [forgetfulness, confusion, or evasion] through cross-examination, thereby calling to the attention of the factfinder the reasons for giving scant weight to the witness’ testimony.’” Id. (quoting Fensterer, 474 U.S. at 21-22, 106 S.Ct. 292); see United States v. Kappell, 418 F.3d 550, 555-56 (6th Cir.2005) (though two young children were unresponsive or inarticulate at some points during trial testimony, they were subject to cross-examination, and Confrontation Clause guarantees only opportunity for cross-examination).

In this case, Smuts, the DNA forensic analyst, testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination regarding the DNA evidence about which appellant complains. Simply because she did not provide the answers to appellant’s satisfaction does not mean appellant was denied the right to confront her. Discerning no violation of appellant’s confrontation rights, we overrule appellant’s fourth point of error.

III. CHURCH RECORDS

In points of error six through nine, appellant argues that the trial judge erred in admitting documentary evidence seized from the vaults of the temple and temple annex of the YFZ Ranch. Appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by admitting this documentary evidence because the evidence was not properly authenticated under Rule 901 of the Texas Rules of Evidence and, further, because such evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay. In addition, he complains that the evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible under Rules 401 and 402 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, inadmissible character conformity evidence under Rule 404(b), and substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. Appellant further argues that the admission of this documentary evidence violated his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses under both the United States and Texas Constitutions. Finally, appellant asserts that the admission of this evidence violated his right to due process under the United States Constitution and his right to due course of law under the Texas Constitution.

Preservation of Error

Initially, we note that there are multiple preservation issues in connection with appellant’s evidentiary complaints. Preservation of error is a systemic requirement on appeal. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Tex.Crim.App.2009); Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510, 515 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). A reviewing court should not address the merits of an issue that has not been preserved for appeal. Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 473-74 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (citing Ford, 305 S.W.3d at 532).

First, appellant offers no argument or authority with respect to his complaints that the evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible under Rules 401 and 402, impermissible character conformity evidence under Rule 404(b), or substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. Nor does he present any argument or authority concerning his contention that the admission of this documentary evidence violated his right to due process under the United States Constitution and his right to due course of law under the Texas Constitution. Accordingly, we consider these complaints inadequately briefed and as presenting nothing for our review. See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(i); Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (failure to adequately brief issue, either by failing to specifically argue and analyze one’s position or provide authorities and record citations, waives any error on appeal); Aldrich v. State, 928 S.W.2d 558, 559 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); see also Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344, 358 (Tex.Crim.App.2011).

Second, in his argument concerning the violation of his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, appellant provides authority only regarding the United States Constitution. Because appellant does not provide separate authority or argument for his state constitutional claim, we do not address it. See Berry v. State, 233 S.W.3d 847, 855 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681, 690-91 n. 23 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). In addition, because appellant does not argue that the Texas Constitution provides more protection than the United States Constitution, nor explain how it would, we properly resolve this claim under only the United States Constitution. See Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697, 702 n. 8 (Tex.Crim.App.2010); Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 251 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

Third, a review of the record reflects that identical objections were not made to each and every exhibit. Thus, as to some exhibits, some complaints have not been properly preserved for appeal. See Tex. R.App. Proc. 33.1(a) (to preserve complaint for appellate review, party must have presented specific and timely request, motion, or objection to trial court and, further, must have obtained adverse ruling); Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.2011); Peavey v. State, 248 S.W.3d 455, 470 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, pet. ref'd).

Finally, appellant complains globally about the admission of a “large amount of documents,” referring to the documents with group labels, but fails to identify any specific exhibit in the record. In his reply brief, appellant acknowledges his failure to identify exhibits, but then merely lists in a footnote, without any citations to the record, 46 exhibits included in the “church and family records” of which he complains. An appellant is obligated to point out to the appellate court where the record shows that he