### NUM BER 13-08- 0056 2-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG
JOH N DA

VID UR BIN A , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 27 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, J o h n D av id Ur bin a, ap peal s from hi s c onv icti on by a j ur y for c api tal murde r. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.0 3( a) (2 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. Ur bin a rais es el ev en i s s ue s o n ap pe al

. W e affi r m.As t hi s i s a m em or andum opi ni on and t he par t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s of t he ca se, we wi l l not 1 r eci t e t hem her e except as necessar y t o adv i se t he par t i es oft hi s C our t ' s deci si on and t he basi c r easons f or i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4.

U rbi na ’ s stat em en t s do no t i nd i c ate w he t he r “ G i l ” i s G i l be rt o V i l l arrea l , t he pe rso n l i s t ed i n t he j ury 2 c h a rg e a s e i th e r th e p rim a ry a c to r o r a p a rty to A g u i l a r’s m u rd e r. H o w e v e r, n e i th e r p a rty to th i s a p p e a l a s s e rts th a t t h e “ G il” r e f e r r e d to in th e s ta te m e n t is a n yo n e o th e r th a n G ilb e r to V illa r r e a l. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND 1 On Ap ril 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , Ur b in a live d i n t h e 32 0 0 bl o ckof So u th Clo sn e r in Ed in b u rg, Tex as, at a k now n “ crack hous e.” That ev eni ng , Mi g uel Ag uil ar w as murde re d dur ing the
course of a robber

y at The Gas D epot conv eni ence sto re i n Edi nburg , w here Ag uil ar
w or ked as a cler k. T he foll ow ing day , the “crack house” w as ra ide d by

the Edi nburg pol ic e, and U rb ina , amo n g o thers, w as tak en to the pol ic e s tati on to be i nter v iew ed. Ur bin a coope ra ted w ith t he i nv est ig ators, tes ted n eg ati v e for g un resi due, pass ed a pol y g ra ph
ex aminat ion , and w as all ow ed to l eav e the pol ic e s tati on. Dur ing the w eek- lon g investig ation into Aguilar’s murde r, Ur bina v isited th e po lice station multip le time s, usua lly at t he req uestof Rob ert Al v arez , an inv est ig ator w it h the Edi nburg Pol ic e D epar tment. On May 2, 20 07, Urbina gav e a w ritten an d oral stat em entto Detect iv e Alvarezin
w hic h U rb ina i ndi cat ed th at he procured a handg un fo r “G il ,” w ho th en robbed The Gas Dep ot an d k il led Ag uil ar , w hil e U rb ina ac ted a s a sc out a n d a l o o ko ut. Bo th t he w ri tten 2 and oral sta tements w ere admi tted int o evid e n ce ov er U rb ina ’s obj ect ion and moti on to supp ress. Th e jury

charge auth oriz ed th e jury to f ind Urbina guiltyof capita l mur d er, mu rder, or aggravated robbery as eithe r the principa l acto r or as a party to the of fense s. The ju ry retur ned a g eneral v erdict of gui lty of capit al murd er , and the tr ial courti mposed a sentenc e of li fe impr is onment w it hout parole

. See i d. § 12 .31( a) (2 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 009) (p ro v idi ng a s entenc e of li fe w it hout parole i n c api tal murder ca ses w hen t he St ate d oes not s eek the d eath penal ty ). Thi s a ppeal ens ued.3 II. M OT I ON TO S U PPRESS In hi s first is sue, U rb ina arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by

deny ing hi s mot ion to supp ress. Urbina cont end s that the oral and w ritten statem enthe m ade w as involunta ry becau se itw as ind uced by promis es made to him by D etec ti v e Al v arez . See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 38.21 (V er non 200 5) ; Ma rt ine z v. Sta te , 1 2 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2004)

. W e di sag re e. “G enerall y , a tr ial co urt' s r uli ng on a moti on to suppress is rev iew ed byan abuse of discretion st and ard.” Oles v. State , 993 S.W .2d 103 , 106 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99). W e use a bi furcat ed s tandard, g iv ing “‘a lmos t total deference to a tri al cour t' s deter minat ion of

the historical facts th at th e record sup ports esp ecially w hen the trial court's fact f indings are base d on an evaluatio n of credibility

and d em ean or.’” Am ador v. Sta te , 221 S.W .3d 6 66, 6 7 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ). W e “ afford the s a m e l e vel of deferenc e to a tr ial co urt' s r uli ng on ‘ appl ic ati on of law to fact questio ns,’ or ‘mixed q uest ions of law and fact,’ if

the reso lut ion of

those question s turns on an evaluatio n of credib il it y

and dem ean or.” Id. (quo ti n g Monta nez v. State , 195 S.W .3d 101, 109 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2006)

. W e “ re v iew de n ov o ‘ mix ed q uest ion s of law and fact’ tha t do no t dep end upo n credibility and dem ean or.” Id. (quo ti n g Mo ntanez , 195 S.W .3d at 109 ). “At a hear ing on a moti on to su ppress , t he tri al cour t is the sol e and ex cl usi v e tr ier of fact an d judge of

the cred ibility

of w itnesse s as w ell as the weig ht to be gi ve n their testim ony.” Gar

za v . St ate , 213 S.W .3d 3 38, 3 46 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. As suc h, “ the trial judge may choose to believe or disbelieve any or all of a w itness's te stimo ny.” Id. “A st atement of an acc used may be used in ev ide nce ag ain st him if i t app ears t hat the s ame w a s f re e ly

and v olu ntar il y

made w it hout compul si on or persuas ion

. . . .” T EX .4

C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 38.21. “[ F] or a promis e to re nder a c onfessi on i nv ali d under [ a ] rt ic le 3 8

. 2 1 , t h e p ro m is e m u s tb e p o s it ive , m a d e o r s a n c t io n e d b y so m e o n e in a u t h o ri t y, and o f s u ch an i nfluenti al nature tha t i t w oul d c ause a defendant to s peak untr uthfull y .” Ma rt ine z , 127 S.W .3d a t 794

. At t he hear ing on h is moti on to su ppress , U rb ina as ser ted t hat D etec ti v e Al varez had used him as a co nf iden tial informa nt to help Detect iv e Alv arez app rehe nd drug dea lers throu gh the use o f

“con trolled buys.” Urbina stat ed th at Dete ctiv e Alvarezused him in this
manner si x or se v en ti mes, that Det ect iv e Al v arezw oul d g iv e hi m the money to make a dr ug purchas e, t hat he w oul d make the purchas e, t hat D etec ti v e Al v arezw oul d ar re st the deal er , and thatD etec ti v e Al varezw oul d l et hi m keep the dr ug s, w hic h he w oul d the n cons ume. Ur bin a further tes ti fied that Det ect iv e Al v arezhad als o “ made” so me cha rg es ag ain st Ur bin a “ dis appear .” Vanes sa Bal daz o, U rb ina ’s fiancé, tes ti fied at the moti on to suppress hear ing that Detect iv e Alv arez gav e Urbina mone y on sev eral occasio ns so tha t Urbina could buy g as, g ro cer ies , c ig arettes , food, a nd s oda. Bal daz o s aw Detec ti v e Alv areztak e the money out
o f h is o wn wa ll e ta n d gi ve itt o Ur b in a . Ba ld a zo a ls o s t a t e d t h a tsh e h a d a s k e d De t e c t ive Al v arezto g iv e her money to hel p her pay her bil ls and that Det ect iv e Al v arezpromis ed to g et he r $250, alt houg h he nev er g av e her

any money . Ur b in a a n d B a ld a zo b o t h t e s t if ie d t h a td u ri ng inv estigat io n in t o t h e m u rd e r, De t e c t ive Al v arezco nti nual ly

aff ir med thatU rb ina w as not g oin g to be in a n y t ro u b le and t hat
ev er ythi ng w as “o kay .” U rb ina st ated tha t, pri or to re cordin g hi s s tatement , he and Det ect iv e Al v arezdrafted the sta tement in suc h a w ay thatthe sta tement coul d “ be pr esent e d p ro p e r [ s i c ] i n c o u rt

. ” U r b i n a a s s e r t e d t h a t D e t e c t i v e A l v a re z n e e d e d the5

sta tement of s omeone at the s cene so that the a ctu al murde re r coul d be prosec uted and tha t Detecti v e Al v arezpromis ed hi m he w oul d notg o to jai l but t hat D etec ti v e Al v arez
w ou l d he l p hi m g eti nt o a dr ug reh ab i l i ta ti on p rog ram . Det ect iv e Al v areztes ti fied at the suppress ion heari ng that he w as not in the di v is ion of the pol ic e depar

tment that handl ed “ cont ro ll ed buy s” and he c oul d not hav e and did not use Urbina to han dle such transact ions. Dete ctiv e Alvarezd e n ie d u s ing U rbina as a conf iden tial informa nt, but he recalled one instan ce w here he paid U rbina $60 to conta ct him w hen a sus pecti n a d ifferent cas e c a m e t o Urb ina ’s hous e. Reg ardin g dr ug reh a b il it a t ion, Det ective Alv arez noted thathe instruct ed Urbina thatUrbina could
v olu ntar il y

ente r a re habi li tati on prog ra m, butthatD etec ti v e Al v arezco uld not g et hi m in to
one. D etecti v e Alv arezasser ted that he did not make anypromis es to Ur bin a i n order to indu ce him to giv e the state me nts, th at he did not tell Urbina w hatto say in the state me nts, and t hat U rb ina g av e the st atements f re ely and v olu ntar il y . Fur

ther , U rb ina i nit ial ed th e
w ar nin g parag ra ph atthe beg inn ing of the w ri tten sta tement, w hic h decl ared, in re lev ant part, thathe un dersto od h is ri ghts and thathe “knowin gly and v olun tarily

w aive[d] such ri g hts and f re e ly a nd v olu ntar il y [made] the

. . . sta tement w it hout compul si on or persuas ion .” B y d e n yin g U rb in a ’s m o t io n t o su p p re s s , t h e t ri a l c o u rtim p l i e d ly c h o s e t o b e li e ve Det ect iv e Al v arez and to dis bel iev e Ur bin a and Bal daz o. See G a r za , 213 S.W .3d a t 346

. As the t ri er

of fact atthe s u p press ion hear ing , t he tr ial co urt w as the s ole j udg e of the
credi bil ity

of the w it ness es and t he w eig ht t o be g iv en to thei r tes ti mony . See i d. The t ri al
cour t found t hat n o one promis ed Ur bin a any thi ng in ex chang e for maki ng the sta tements and t hat h e made t hem v olu ntar il y . W e c oncl ude that t he tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to deny theI n t hei r br i ef s t o t hi s C our t , bot h par t i es com bi ned t hese i ssues f or di scussi on p ur poses. Because 3 t he s t an da r d of

r ev i ew f orUr bi na ’ s l eg al s uff i ci en cy , di r ec t ed v er di ct , and cha r ge er r ori ss ue s i s t he s am e, we w i l l a l s o c o m b i n e th e s e i s s u e s fo r p u rp o s e s o f d i s c u s s i o n . See P e ra l e s v . S ta te , 117 S

. W

. 3d 434, 443 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 3, pet

. r ef ’ d) ( “ A chal l enge t o t he deni al of a m ot i on f or di r ect ed v er di ct i s a chal l enge t o t h e l e g a l s u ff i c i e n c y o ft h e e v i d e n c e . ” ) ( ci t i ng W illia m s v . S ta te , 937 S. W

. 2d 4 79, 482 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 )) ; M u llin s v . S ta te , 173 S. W

. 3d 167, 178 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 2005, no p et

. ) ( hol di ng t hat beca use t he e v id e n c e w a s le g a lly a n d f a c tu a lly s u ff ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e a p p e lla n t’s c o n v ic tio n a s a p a r ty, t h e tr ia l c o u r t d id not er r by i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y on t he l aw ofpar t i es) ( ci t i ng L a d dv . S ta te , 3 S. W

. 3d 547, 564 (T ex. C r i m . App. 19 99 ))

.

6 moti on to su ppress i s w it hin th e zo n e of reason abl e di sag re ement. See State v . D ixon , 206 S. W .3d 5 87, 5 90 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. Ur bin a’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. III . S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE By issues two, three, four, an d f iv e, Urbina cont end s t hat : (1) the ev iden ce is legally and factu ally

insuf f icie n tt o s u p port th e v erdict (issues two and thre e); (2) the trial court
er re d by deny ing his motio n for

direct ed v erdict ( is sue four) ; and ( 3) the tr ial co urt er re d by ins tr uct ing t h e j u ryon t he l aw of par ti es becau se the e v ide nce did not suppo rtsu ch an instructio n (issue f iv e). 3 A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W hen rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce, w e mustdete rmi ne w hether

“‘ any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the essenti al el ements of the cr ime bey ond a
reaso nab le dou bt’—no t w het her ‘[w e be liev e] th at th e evidence at the trial esta blished g uilt be y on d a rea s on ab l e do ubt.’” Laster v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 5 12, 5 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 ( 1979) ). “[ W ]e ass ess all of the evidence “‘in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e prose cution .’” Id. (quo ti n g Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 31 9.) “Af

ter giv ing proper def eren ce to th e factf in d e r' s role, w e w ill uph old th e v erdict unl ess a ra ti onal factfinder m usthav e had re asona ble doubtas to any es sent ial el ement.”7

Id. at51 8 (cit in g Nar

vai z v. Sta te , 840 S.W .2d 415 , 423 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92)). “Ev iden ce tha t is leg ally suf f icient, h owev er, can b e de em ed factu ally insuf f icient in tw o w ay s: ( 1) the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv icti on i s ‘t o o we a k’ to s uppor t t he factf inde r's v erdict, or (2) conside ring conf l i cti ng e v i de nc e, th e factf inde r's v erdict is ‘against the g reat weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the evidence .’” Id. (quo ti n g W ats on v . St ate , 204 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ))

. I n co n d u c t in g a fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c y re vie w, we defer to the j ur

y ’s findi ng s. Id. W e consid er all of the evidence in a neut ral lig ht an d w ill “f ind the e v iden ce factu ally in suf f icient w hen nece ssaryto ‘prevent ma nifest injust ice.’” Id. (qu o ti n g Cai

n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 404 , 407 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97)). “A ch all eng e to the deni al of a moti on for direct ed v erdict i s a ch all eng e to the l eg al suf f iciency of

the e vid ence .” Per

ale s v . St ate , 117 S.W .3d 4 34, 4 43 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti 20 0 3 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g W il liam s v . St ate , 937 S.W .2d 4 79, 4 82 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ). “ In g eneral, an i nst ru cti on on the l aw of par ti es maybe g iv en to the jur y w henev er the re is suf

f icient evidence to supp ort a jury v erdict tha t th e defend antis cr imina lly respo nsible u nde r the law of parties.” Ladd v

. St ate , 3 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 64 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 9). W e meas ure the l eg al and factu a l su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce based on a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Gr

otti v. Sta te , 273 S. W .3 d 27 3, 2 80
- 81 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 200 8). A hy pot het ically correctj u ry charge “ accura tely prom ulgates th e law , is author iz ed by

the ind ictment, does not unnec ess ar il y inc re ase the s tate' s b urden of proof or restrict the stat e's the ories of liability , and ade quately describes the particular of fense for which the defend antw as tried.” Id. I n a h y pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e, t he el ements of capi tal murder

under se cti on 19. 03( a) (2 ) of the pena l code are: (1 ) the p erson; ( 2)8

dur ing the course of commit ti ng or att empti ng to commi t a ro bber y ; ( 3) i ntentio n a ll y ; ( 4)
caus es the d eath; ( 5) of an i ndi v idu al. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.03( a) (2 ); see a lso id. § 19.0 2(b)(1) (Vernon 200 3) (li s t in g t h e elem ent s of murd er)

. A person commi ts ag g ra v a t e d ro b b e r

y i f h e c o mm i t s ro b b e r y a n d e i t h e r “ c a u s e s s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u ryto
ano the r” or “uses or exhibits a dead ly w eap on. ” Id. § 2 9.0 3(a)(1), (2) (Ve rnon 200 3). “ A perso n com mits [rob bery] if, in the course of comm itting th ef

t . . . and wi th inte nt to obta in
or mai ntai n c ontrol of the proper ty , he

. . . i n te n ti o n a ll y , k now ing ly , or reck les sl y

ca uses bod ily injury to an oth er.” Id. 2 9.0 2(a)(1) (Ve rnon 200 3). “A person is cr imina lly respon sible for an offense commi tted by the c onduc t of anot her i f . . . ac ti ng w it h i ntentto promote or
ass is t t he c ommis si on of the offense, he sol ic it s, enco urag es, direct s, aid s, or att empts to aid th e oth er person to com mit the of fense . . . .” Id. § 7. 02( a) (2 ) (V er non 200 3)

. W hen
we re vie w th e su f

f ic ie n c y o f t h e e vid e n c e s u p p o rt in g a d e fe n d a n t ’s p a rt ic ip a t io n a s a p a rt y, “w e may co nsi der ‘ ev ents oc cur ri ng before, dur ing and after the commis si on of the offense, and may rely on a cti ons of the defendant w hic h s h o w a n understa ndi ng and common design to do the pro hibite d act. ’” Ki ng v. State , 29 S.W .3d 556, 564 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2000) (qu o ti n g R a n s o n v

. S tate , 9 2 0 S

. W

. 2 d 2 8 8 , 3 0 2 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ))

. Ad d it io n a ll y, “[ c]i rc umstan ti al ev ide nce is as probati v e as direct ev ide nce in est abl is hin g the g uil t of an acto r, and circum stan tial evi den ce alon e can be suf f icient to e s t ablish guilt.” Clayton v. State , 235 S.W .3d 772 , 778 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07). B. Discus sion Ur bin a arg ues that beca use there is no phy si cal ev ide nce li nki ng hi m to e it her the
ro bber y of The Gas D epot or

to Ag uil ar ’s murder , t he ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he jur y ’s v erdict and the tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru cti on on the l aw of par ti es and that he w as enti tl edT he St at e ar gues t hat U r bi na f ai l ed t o ad equat el y br i efhi s ar gum ent conce r ni ng t he j ur y i nst r uct i on 4 o n th e l a w o f p a rti e s b e c a u s e h e fa i l e d to c i te a n y a u th o rit i e s to s u p p o rt h i s c o n te n ti o n . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 2. However , U rbi na r eci t ed t he a ppl i cabl e st andar d of r ev i ew f or t hi s i ssue a nd i ncor por at ed h i s l egal s u ff i c i e n c y a rg u m e n t. F o l l o w i n g th e s e re c i ta ti o n s , U rb i n a p re s e n te d h i s a rg u m e n ts o n th i s i s s u e . T h e S ta te f ol l owed t he sa m e pa t t er n i n i t s br i ef

. W e con cl ude t hat U r bi na p r oper l y br i ef ed t hi s i ssue. 9 to a direct ed verdict. The State conte nds th at Ur b in a’s state me nt is suf f icient evidence 4 to s ust ain U rb ina ’s co nv icti on as a pa rty to the offenses co mmitt ed by Vi ll ar re al. W e ag re e
w it h the Sta te. In hi s s tatement , U rb ina st ated that on th e ev e n in g of Apr il 22, 2007, Vi ll ar re al
ar r i v ed a t th e ho us e w he re U r bi na w as “g etti ng hi g h. ” Vi l l ar rea l a nd U r bi na “ s mo k ed s om e crack ,” and Vi ll ar re al w anted “s ome more” but did not hav e any money . Ur b in a di d not hav e any money ei ther , buthe “h ad ac ces s t o a p is tol that[Vi ll ar re al] co uld us e.” Vi ll ar re al left, and w hil e Vi ll ar rea l was gon e , U rb ina w ent t o Tom D re w ry ’s hous e and took a g un
w it hout Drew ry ’s kn ow led g e. W hen Vi ll ar re al re tur ned, Ur bin a g av e hi m the g un, a nd Vi ll ar re al left t o “ sc ope i t out .” Vi ll ar re al re tur ned betw een 9: 00 an d 9:1 5 p.m. , and infor med U rb ina that the only place he coul d “hi t w here theydon’t know him” w as The Gas Dep ot. Pursu a nt t o Vi ll ar re al’ s i nst ru cti ons, U rb ina rode hi s b ik e ov er to The Gas D epot to deter mine w hether any one w as there. Ur bin a re tur ned and infor med Vi ll ar re al that no one w as at The G as Dep ot. Vi ll ar re al tol d U rb ina to re tur n to t he s tore and, w hen Vi ll ar re al drov e by , t o “ g iv e [V il lar re al] a s ig nal thatthe coas t w as cl ear and that no one w as at t he sto re .” U rb ina w ent b ack to the sto re and saw that onl y Ag uil ar w as there. He si g nal ed to Vi ll ar re a l , w h o ro b b e d t h e s t o re a n d k i l l e d A g u i l a r . W h e n U r b i n a s a w V i l l a r re a l s hoot Ag uil ar , he ra n to some f rie n d s’ m otel room and took a s how er . Later

thatni g ht, Ur bin a re tur ned t o D re w ry ’s hous e and made sure that Drew ry sta y ed hi g h s o tha t he w oul d notS pe c i fi cal l y , U r bi na d i r ect s us t o t he t est i m onyof t he f ol l owi ng wi t nesses: Anast aci a Agui l ar, 5 Agui l ar ’ s m ot her ; El i j i o Vel a, a gr ani t e sho p owner ; Jam es Ram i r ez , a pat r ol off i cer wi t h t he Edi nbur g Pol i ce D epar t m ent ; Jose Fra nci sco G ar z a, an i nv est i gat or w i t h t he Edi nbur g Pol i ce Depar t m ent ; D av i d Val dez , an i nv es t i ga t or wi t h t he Edi nbur g Pol i ce Depar t m ent ; N or m a Jea n Far l ey , t he ch i eff or ensi c pat hol ogi st f or H i dal go Count y ; C al ei gh Rose G ar ci a, a col l ege st udent who went i nt o T he G as Depot f ol l owi ng t he m ur der b u t w h o d id n o t s e e A g u ila r ’s b o d y; R ic h a r d D r e w r y, a f ir e m a r s h a l w ith th e C ity o fE d i n b u r g w h o g a v e h is br ot her , T om D r ewr y , t he g un used i n Agui l ar ’ s m ur der ; R osi e R odr i guez , t he owner of T he G as D epot ; N i na M ar i e Lo pez , a per son who used cocai ne at t he “ cr ack house” wi t h Urb i na; M ar gar et G onz al ez , a cust om er o f T h e G a s D e p o t w h o m a d e a p u rc h a s e fro m A g u i l a r s h o rtl y b e fo re h e w a s m u rd e re d ; a n d D e te c ti v e A l v a re z. 10 sus pectthathis gun wa s m issing

. Vi ll ar re al re tur ned t he g un, a nd U rb ina put the g un under neath Drew ry ’s bed. Ur bin a w ent home, gothig h, an d, w hen t he c ops ar ri v ed, h e ran outthe ba ck doo r. Ur bin a di re cts us to the t e st im o ny of the t ri al w it ness es and as ser ts that none of thes e w it ness es present ed any phy sic a l e v ide nce li nki ng U rb ina to the robber y and murde r. W hil e w e agree that there w as no DNA or f ing er pr intev ide nce li nki ng U rb ina to 5 the c ri mes, phy si cal ev ide nce is not neces sar y for a conv icti on in thi s c ase. See Cl ayton , 235 S. W .3d a t 778

. Ur bin a’s st atement demo n st ra te s that he i ntended to promote or
ass is t Vi ll ar re al in the ro bber y by procur ing the g un and by ac ti ng as a s coutand a l ookou t. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 7.0 2( a) (2 ); Cum pia n v . St ate , 8 1 2 S

. W

. 2 d 8 8 , 9 0 (T e x. App.–S an Ant oni o 1991, no pet.) (h old ing ev ide nce suffici ent to sus tai n burg lar y co nv icti on
w hen w it ness id e n ti f ie d defendant as a l ookou t)

. Ur bin a al so ind ic ated that Vi ll ar re al murde re d Ag uil ar

and that he fled the s cene once he s aw Vi ll ar re al shootAg uil ar . See Cl ayton , 235 S.W .3 d a t 7 8 0 ) (“ [A] factfinder may draw an i nferenc e of g uil t from the ci rc umstan ce of f li g ht.” ). L a te r, U rb ina ke pt D re w ry hi g h w hil e he hid the g un unde r Drew ry ’s bed. See G uevar a v . St ate , 152 S.W .3d 45, 50 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ( sta ti ng tha t atte mp ts to con ceal incrimin ating evi den ce are circum stan ces of g u il t ). Nina Marie L o p e zt e s t i fi e d t h a t o n t h e n i g h t o f t h e mu rd e r , w h i l e s h e w a s a t U r b i n a ’ s h o u s e , U r b i n a l e ft11

and re tur ned w it h approx imat ely $100 of coca ine

. She no ted t hat U rb ina w as “j umpy ” and that Ur bin a tol d her

thatthe pol ic e w ere after him and that he had bee n hi din g “ under neath
w here the ca nal w as. ” Rev iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to t he prosec uti on, w e c oncl ude that a rati onal j uror

co uld hav e found bey ond a re asona ble doubt that Ur bin a w as g uil ty as a par ty to capi tal murder

. See Laster , 275 S.W .3d a t 517 ; see a lsoT EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § § 7

. 0 2 (a )( 2 ), 1 9

. 0 3 (a )( 2 ), 2 9

. 0 2 (a )( 2 ). Re vie win g t h e e vid e n c e in a n e u t ra l li gh t , we conclu de t h a tthe evidence is not too w eak to supp ort the jury ’s v erdict no r is the v erdict ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. See Laster , 275 S.W .3d a t 518 . Additio nally, w e conclu de that the evidence is suf f icient to supp ort the jury ’s v erdict that Ur bin a is cr imi nal ly respon si ble under

the law of par ti es and t hat t he tr ial co urt di d not
er r by incl udi ng in the jury

charg e an ins tr uct ion on t he l aw of par ti es. See La dd , 3 S.W .3d at 56 4; Mull

ins v. Sta te , 173 S.W .3d 1 67 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 2005, no pet .) ( hol din g that
w hen t he ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t to s uppor t t he defendant’ s c onv icti on as a pa rty , t he tr ial
cour t doe s n ot er r by

i ncl udi ng a law

of parti es ins tr uct ion i n the j ur y ch arg e) ; see a lsoT EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 7.0 2(a)(2). U rb in a’s secon d, th ird, fourth , and f if th issue s are ov er ru led

. IV. L ESSER -I NCL UDE D O FFEN SES In hi s s ixth an d s ev enth is sues , U rb ina arg ues that the tr ial courterred by deny ing his req uest s t o i ncl ude in th e j u ry charg e i nst ru cti ons on th e l ess er-i ncl uded offenses of
man sla u ghter an d c ri minal ly neg li g ent h omic ide

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.04 (V er non 2 0 0 3) ( Ma nsl aug hter ); § 19 .05 ( Ver non 200 3) ( Cr imi nal ly N eg li g ent H omic ide )12

Ur bin a c ontends thatbec ause the c harg e c ontai ned t he l ess er-i ncl uded offens e s o f m u rd er and ag g ra v ated ro bber y , “s ome ev ide nce of t he charg ed offense of capi tal [murder] w as abse nt.” See i

d. § 19.02 (M urder ); § 29.03 (V er non 2003) ( Ag g ra v ated Robb er y ). U rb ina “s ug g est s t hat t he mi ss ing el ements must inv olv e the cul pabl e mental sta te

. . .” and that becau se m u rd er

and ag g ra v ated ro bber y i nv olv e di fferent ment al sta tes than ca pit al
mu rder, the trial court erred by ref using to giv e instructio ns on man slaughte r and crimina lly negligent hom icide. T he St ate asserts tha t the trial c o u rt d id n o t err in denying Urbina’s
re q uest s b ecaus e “there w as no ev ide nce suppo rt ing a c oncl usi on th at [ Ur bin a] .

. . acted
re ck les sl y

or w it h c ri minal neg li g ence, as oppos ed to i ntent ion all y .” W e ag re e w it h the Stat e. A tr ial co urt i ncl udes a c harg e on a lesser-i ncl uded offense w hen ( 1) “ the l ess er include d of

fense [is] included w ithin th e proo f nece ssary to establish the of fense charged”; and ( 2) “ some ev ide nce [ ] exi st[ s] in the re cord that w oul d permi t a jur y rati onal ly

to find tha t if app ellantis g uilty, he is guilty only of the lesse r of

fense .” Sm it

h v . St ate , 187 S. W .3d 1 8 6 , 1 9 5 ( T e x. Ap p .– Fo rtW o rt h 20 0 6 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Sal ina s v . St ate , 163 S.W .3d 7 34, 741 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ; Rou ss eau v . St ate , 855 S.W .2d 6 66, 6 72- 73 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) ; Roy

ste r v. State , 622 S.W 2d 442, 446 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1981) ). The Stat e does not cont estthatmansl aug hter and cr imi nal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide are l ess er-i ncl uded offenses of capi tal murder ; t herefore, Ur bin a has sati sfied the first prong . See Car denas v. Sta te , 30 S. W .3d 384 , 392 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 20 00) (not ing that m ansla ughter an d crimina lly neg li g ent homic ide are les ser-i ncl uded of fenses of capi tal m urder ). W e mustdete rmi ne
w hether there i s s ome ev ide nce in the rec ord that w oul d per mit the j ur y to find th at i f Ur bin a13

is g uil ty , he is g uil ty

onl y of mansl aug hter

or crim in a lly

neg li g ent h omic ide

. Sm it h , 187 S.W .3d a t 195

. Here, the jur

y w as charg ed that it coul d find Ur bin a g uil ty of c api tal murder ei ther as t h e p r i ma r

y a c t o r o r a s a p a rt y t o A g u i l a r ’ s mu rd er . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 7.02( a) (2 ), 19.0 3(a )(2 ). U rb ina ch all eng es the t ri al cour t’ s d eni al of his req uest ed ins tr u c t i o n s o n t h e g ro u n d s t h a t : ( 1 ) t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a t h e w a s a w a re of and dis re g arded t he s ubst anti al ri sk thatVi ll ar re al w oul d c ommit capi tal murder , t herefore, he is onlyg uilty of

man slaughte r; o r (2) the e v iden ce shows th at he shou ld have bee n aware subs tanti al and unjus ti fiabl e ri sk that Vi ll ar re al w oul d c ommit capi tal murder , t herefore, he is gui lt y o nly

of cr imi nal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide

. See i d. § 19 .04 ( Ma nsl aug hter ), § 19 .05 (C ri m in a lly N e gli g ent H omic ide ); see als o id. § 6. 03( c) , ( d) ( Ver non 200 3) ( defini ng the cul pabl e mental st ates of re ck les snes s a nd c ri minal neg li g ence)

. Urbina’s argume nt fails to recogniz e tha t a def end antca n be guilty as a party only
w hen he act s i ntent ion all y . See i d. § 7. 02( a) (2 ) (“ A person is cr imi nal ly respon si ble for a n offense commi tted by

the condu ct of another if

. . . act ing w it h intent to prom ote or assist the c ommis si on of the offense, he sol ic it s, encou ra g es, direct s, aid s, or attempt s to aid the other person to c ommit the o ff ense . . . .” ) (e mphasi s a dded) ; Bar nes v. State , 56 S.W .3d 2 2 1 , 2 3 6 ( T e x. Ap p .– Fo rtW o rt h 20 0 1 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Lawton v. State , 913 S.W .2d 5 42, 5 5 4 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ))

. “W h e n a p a rt y is n o tt h e ‘p ri m a ry a c t o r, ’ t h e S t a t e m u s tp ro ve condu ct cons ti tuti ng an o ff ense plu s a n ac t by the defendant don e w it h the i ntentto prom ote or assist such con duct .” Chr is tens en v

. St ate , 2 4 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 , 3 1 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [ 1 stD ist .] 2 0 0 7 , p e t. ref ’d ) (o p . o n reh ’g) (ci ti n g Beier v. Sta te , 687 S. W .2d14

2 , 3 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) and Miller v. State , 83 S. W .3d 308 , 313 (Tex. App. –Au stin 2002, pet. re f'd))

. The ju ry ch arg e foll ow ed s ect ion 7.02 (a )( 2) by req uir ing that , t o find Ur bin a g uil ty as a par

ty , t he j ur y mustfind b ey ond a re asona ble doubtthatU rb ina i ntended to promote or

as si st Vi ll ar re al. W e c onclud e t h a t the tr ial co urt di d noter r by deny ing Ur bin a’s re q uest ed les ser-i ncl uded offense ins tr uct ion s. Ur bin a’s si xth and sev enth is sues are ov er ru led

. V. V I OLA TI ON OF TH E R ULE In his eighth, ninth , ten th, a nd e leventh issue s, Urbina argues t h a tt h e trial court
er re d by fail ing to str ik e or

di sal low ce rt ain tes ti mony

due to v iol ati ons of t he R ule and by deny ing hi s mot ion for mi str ia l b a sed on th ese same v iol ati ons. See T EX . R. E V ID . 614 (allow ing the exclusion of certain w itnesse s upo n a m otion f rom e ither pa rty or the cou rt’s
ow n moti on; commonl y re ferred to as “ the R ule ”) ; see a lsoT EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 36.03 (V er non 200 7) ( prov idi ng for t he ex cl usi on of certa in wit n ess es “w ho for the pur poses of the p ro sec uti on i s a v icti m, cl ose re lat iv e of a decea sed v icti m, or g uardia n of
a v icti m . . . .” ); Rus sel l v. State , 155 S.W .3d 1 76, 1 79 ( Tex . Crim

. Ap p . 2 0 0 5) ( “The procedu re o f ex cl udi ng w it ness es from the cour troom i s c ommonly

ca ll ed putti ng the
w it ness es ‘un der

the ru le. ’ T he purpos e of pl aci ng w it ness es under the ru le is to prev ent the t est imony

of one w it ness from i nfluenc ing the tes ti mony of another, con sc iou sl y or not .”). W e us e an abuse o f d isc re tion s tandard to re v iew both a t ri al cour

t’ s d eci si on to
a l l o w t e s t i mo n y

fro m a w i t n e s s w h o h a s v i o l a t e d t h e R u l e a n d a t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f a moti on for

m is tr ial

. See M

ino r v. State , 91 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 29 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 02,15

p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Guer

ra v. Sta te , 771 S.W .2d 4 53, 4 74- 75 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1988) ); W ead
v. State , 129 S.W .3d 126 , 129 (T ex. Crim. App

. 200 4). To dete rmine w het her a trial court
a b u s e d it s d is c re t io n in a ll o win g a vio la t io n o f t h e Ru le , t h e re b y h a rm in g t h e d e fe n d a n t , we uti li z e a tw o- ste p anal y si s. Mi nor , 91 S.W .3d at 829; Potter v. Sta te , 74 S.W .3d 1 05, 1 10 (Tex

. Ap p . –W a c o 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t

. ) ( “ I n re v i e w i n g t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s d e c i s i o n t o a l l owthe tes ti mony , w e l ook at w hether the defendant w as har med by the w it ness 's v iol ati on; t hat is , w hether

the w it ness 's presence d u ring other tes ti mony

resul ted i n i nju ry

to the d e fe n d a n t. ”) (ci ti n g Bel l v. State , 938 S.W .2d 3 5, 50 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ). Fi rs t, w e as cer

tai n w hether

the w it ness i s o ne w ho has “ been s w orn or l is ted a s
w it ness [ ] i n the ca se and ei ther [hea rd ] testi mony

or [di sc uss ed] a nother ’s tes ti mony ” or is a pe rs on w ho w as “n ot i ntended to be [a w it ness ] and [i s] not conne cte d w it h the ca se- inchief b ut w ho [ha s], due t o events du ring trial, beco me [a] ne cessary [w itness] .” Mi nor , 91 S. W .3 d at82 9 (cit in g Gue rra , 771 S.W .2d a t 476 ). Se cond,
w e mu st det ermin e: (1) w het her the witness actu ally conferred w ith or hea rd the t est imony

of another

w it ness w it hout cour

t per mis si on; a nd ( 2) w hether “the w itness’s testimo ny cont radict[e d] th e test mo ny of a w itness h e actu ally heard from t he oppo si ng si de or co rroborate[ d] t he te sti mony of another w it ness he a ct u a lly

heard from t he s ame si de on an i ss ue of fact be ar ing upo n the issue of

g uilt or innoce nce. ” Id. ( q uoti n g L o ve n v. Sta te , 831 S.W .2d 387 , 399 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 1992 , no pe t.)). W hen bot h c ri ter ia are met, the tr ial co urt has abus ed i ts dis creti on. Id. Du ri n g t h e gu il t/ in n o c e n c e p h a s e o f h is t ri a l, Ur b in a a ll e ge d t h a tRo s ie Ro d ri gu e z, the o w ner

of The Gas D epot and a Stat e’s w it ness , had been speak ing w it h w it ness es inv olv ed i n the ca se. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 3 6 .0 3 ( prov idi ng for t he
ex cl usi on of the v icti m of the c ri me); see also id

. art. 36.06 (V er non 200 7) ( prohi bit ingT he “ l ady i n r ed” was ne v er i dent i f i ed as a wi t ness and di d not t est i f y at t r i al

. T hus, t he f i r st pr ong 6 o f th e a n a l y s i s i s n o t s a ti s fie d , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n o n th i s g ro u n d

. See Minor , 91 S. W

. 3d a t 829

. 16 w it ness es ex cl uded un der ar t. 36.03 from “ conv ers[i ng ] w it h eac h other or w it h any othe r person about the c ase” and from “ re ad[i ng ] any re por t of or comment upon t he te sti mony in the c ase w hil e under r ule ”)

. Rod ri g uezhad been pl aced under the Rul e, bu t after

her tes ti mony in the tr ial , she w as ov er heard outs ide of t he cour troom ask ing sev eral o th er li ste d w it ness es about the c ase. The t ri al cour t hel d a hear ing on th e al leg ed v iol ati on of the R ule dur ing w hic h Rod ri g uez tes ti fied. She sta ted that she had spok en w it h M arg aret Gonz ale z , D etec ti v e Al v arez , and an uni denti fied “ lad y i n red” w ho w as not a w it ness i n the
cas e. Rod ri g uezcl aimed to ha v e only asked w ho w as tes ti fyi ng and w ho had tes ti fied and tha t no on e w ould answer her question s. She did not ask a bou t “actua l testimo ny” ; she did nottell anyone ab outher ow n test imo ny; and no one answered her question s. Und e r t h e fi rs tp ro n g o f t h e a n a l y s i s , R o d r i g u e z , G o n z a l e za n d D e t e c t i v e A l v a rez
w ere w it ness es w ho had “b een sw or n or li ste d as w it ness es in the cas e and eit her [hea rd ] tes ti mony

or [di sc uss ed] a nother’s tes ti mony . . . .” See M

ino r , 91 S.W .3d a t 829

. 6 Therefore, w e mustdete rmi ne w hether they “act ual ly conferred w it h or heard the t est imony of an ot he r w i tn es s w i th ou t c ou rt pe r mi s s ion.” Id. T h e re is n o e vid e n c e t h a tRo d ri gu e z, Gonz ale z , and Inv est ig ator Al v arezheard the testi mony of other w it ness es, and Rod ri g uez spec ific all y

st ated that she did not dis cus s h er ow n tes ti mony

w it h Gon z ale zor

Inv est ig ator Al v arez . Ass uming , w it hout deci din g , t hat R odr igue z“ confer re d w it h” Gonz ale zand Det ect iv e Al v arez , w e c oncl ude t hat n eit her Gonz ale z ’s nor

D etec ti v e Al v arez ’s tes ti mony corrobo rated or contrad icted th e test imo ny of w itnesse s they “ actu ally hea rd.” Id.17

Ur bin a does not directus to any corroborati ng or c ontradi cti ng tes ti mony per tai nin g to this iss ue in the record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8.1( i)

. There is no e v ide nce that Gonz ale z a n d Detec ti v e Al v arez“ act ual ly heard” the tes ti mony

of any othe r w it ness , i ncl udi ng Rod ri g uez . Gonz ale ztes ti fied th at A g uil ar w as the s tore c ler k a t T h e Gas D epot w ho hel ped her

w it h s ome purchas es shor tl y before he w as ki ll ed. Her t e stimony

di d not
cor ro borate or cont ra dict the testi mony of any othe r w it ness . Det ect iv e Al v arez , i n per ti nent part, testif ied th at he did notp ay an y o f Urbina’s bills. T his testim ony did contra dict Elvi ra Pez a, U rb ina ’s si ste r, w ho te sti fied th at U rb ina t o ld h er thatInv est ig ator

Al v arezhad promis ed to hel p U rb ina pay hi s b il ls

. There is no e vi dence thatInv est ig ator Al v arez “actua lly hea rd” Peza’s testim ony or tha t Rodriguez “conferred w ith” him regarding Peza’s tes ti mony . See M

ino r , 91 S.W .3d at 829. T here fore, we conclude thatthe trial court did not a buse it s d is creti on by not str ik ing R odr ig uez ’s tes timony , by al low ing Inv est ig ator Alv arez and Gon z alez to testif y , and byden y ing U rbina’s m otion for m istrial. U rbina’s eig hth, nin th, tenth , and el ev enth is sues are ov er ru led

. VI. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Ur bin a’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv ered and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.