Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): appellant claims there is no evidence that he had reason to believe Levy was a violent person or would n, appellant admitted that he knew Levy had a .45 caliber silver gun. The evidence further demonstrates that appellant knew Levy had the gun with him, at the latest, when Levy used it to strike Vasquez — which was before appellant and his companions robbed Vasquez of his money. “Evidence that a defendant knew his co-conspirators might use guns in the course of the robbery can be sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant should have anticipated the possibility of murder occurring during the course of the robbery.” Love v. State, 199 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd); see also Nava v. State, 379 S.W.3d 396, 406-09 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex.Crim.App. Dec.18, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence showed appellant knew gun was brought when coconspirator removed something wrapped in white towel from truck during criminal transaction (B) holding evidence sufficient that appellant should have anticipated murder when he knew coconspirator had a gun and appellant stated he first saw the gun on the night of the offense when coconspirator showed it to victim (C) holding that the defendant knew of his accomplices gun and benefitted from its presence for protection (D) holding evidence sufficient to support jurys verdict when physical evidence including evidence gun was fired from a distance greater than appellant told police was inconsistent with accidental discharge during a struggle (E) holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept
Output (English): holding that the defendant knew of his accomplices gun and benefitted from its presence for protection