## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . 0182- 07 FE R N A N D O LA N C O N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE FOURTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

W EBB CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., K EASLE R , H ERVEY , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . J OHNS ON , J. , f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng opi ni on, i n w hi c h P RI CE and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . W OMACK , J. , di s s e nt e d. O P I N I O N A pp el l ant, F ernand o L anco n, st oo d tr i al w i t h tw o co -defend ants , A l fon oso V il lareal an d Jo rge Z u n iga. A p p ell an t w as c o n v ict ed o f o n e c o u n t eac h fo r m u rde r, at t empt ed murde r , and dea dl yconduct . T he j uryas s es s ed puni s hm entattw enty - fi ve y ear s ’ , fi ft een y ear s ’ , and t en y ear s ’ confi nement , r es pect i vel y . V i l l ar eal w as al s o foundL ancon - Pag e 2

gui l t y , butZ uni ga w as acqui t t ed. A ppel l antappea l ed the convi ct i ons bas ed on fa ctual in su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to su sta in h is c o n v ictio n s, th e f a ilu re o f th e p ro se c u to r to d isc lo se e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e , an d th e im p ro p e r a d m iss io n o f tw o p h o to g ra p h s in to evi dence . T he courtof appe al s hel d thati tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on t o admi tthe t w o phot ogr aphs i nt o evi dence , and thatA ppel l antfai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hati tw as r eas onabl ypr obabl e thatt he out come of t he tr i al w oul d have be en di ffe r enthad the p ro s e c u to r m a d e a tim e ly d is c lo s u re o f th e a lle g e d e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e . L a n c o n v . S ta te , 22 0 S . W . 3d 57 (Tex . A pp . – S an A ntoni o, 20 06 )( m em . op . ). T he co urtof ap peals al so hel d t hatt he evi dence w as fac tual l yi ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe convi ct i ons and r emanded t h e c a s e f

o ra n e w tr i a l . T h e S t a t e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rd i s c r e t i o n a r yr e v i e w, wh i c h we gr ant ed t o cons i derw hethert he courtof appe al s corr ect l yappl i ed the fa ctual - s uffi ci ency sta n d a rd o f

re v iew . W e d e ter m in e th a t th e sta n d a rd w a s n o t co rre c tlya p p lied . W e v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls a n d re m a n d th e c a se f o r th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls to cons i dert he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence underthe s t andar d s etfor t h i n W a tso n v . S ta te , 2 0 4 S . W . 3 d 4 0 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). FACTS W e f ir st l ayo u t th e u n d ispu ted f ac ts of this case . O n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , A p p ell an t’ s c o - d e f e n d a n t , A l f

o n s o V i l l a r e a l , w a s a th i s n e i g h b o r h o o d r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r . A n o t h e rb o y, H ect orD om i nguez, w as al s o vi s i t i ng t he r ec c ent erw i t h hi s fr i end, D ani el D i az. W hi l e at t he r ec c ent er , D om i nguez s t ar t ed a ve rbal al t er cat i on w i t h V i l l ar eal . W hen the ar gum entL ancon - Pag e 3

w a s o v e r, V ill a re a l m a d e a p h o n e c a ll an d w a s s o o n p ick e d u p in a m a ro o n c a r. S h o rtly there af ter, D o m ing u ez an d D iaz lef t th e re c c en ter an d b eg an w alkin g to F red d ie S o li z’s hous e, w hi ch w as appr oxi m at el yone bl ock aw ay . W hen D om i nguez a nd D i az a r r i ved at t he Sol i z hous e, Fr eddi e Sol i z ca m e outt o t he s i dew al k i n fr ontof the hous e t o t al k t o the tw o b o y s. A m a ro o n o r p u rp le c a r w ith th re e p e o p le in sid e sto p p e d in f ro n t o f th e S o liz hous e, and V i l l ar eal gotoutof the ca rt o fi ghtD om i nguez. A s econd pe r s on, hol di ng a gun, al s o gotoutof the ca r . T hi s s econd i ndi vi dual fi r ed tw o s hot s i n t he di r ect i on of D om i nguez, D i az, and Sol i z, w ho w er e s t andi ng i n fr ontof the Sol i z hous e. W hen the s hoot i ng s t ar t ed, D om i nguez r an t ow ar d t he bac k of the hous e, w hi l e Sol i z and D i az s t ay ed i n t he fr onty ar d. A ft erfi r i ng tw o s hot s , the s hoot erj um ped bac k i nt o t he ca r , as di d V i l l ar eal , and the ca rs ped aw ay . T hi s ent i r e i nci dentl as t ed forl es s than one mi nut e. W hi l e nei t herof the s hot s hi tt he thr ee boy s i n t he fr onty ar d, one bul l etw entthr ough the w all o f th e S o li z re side n ce an d h itan d k il led e leve n -m o n th-o ld F ed erico S o li z III. T he fi r s t911 cal l t he pol i ce r ece i ved w as m ade a t9: 20 p. m . W hen the D et ect i ves arr i ved att he s cene at9: 30 p. m . , t heyas ked D om i nguez w ho had s hotathi m , and D om i nguez t ol d t hem t hatt he s hoot erw as A ppel l ant , a cous i n of V i l l ar eal . A s econd 911 cal l w as r ece i ved at9: 26 p. m . , i n w hi ch the ca l l ers ai d t hatthe s us pect s m i ghtbe at1418 K ea rne yS tr ee t, the a d d ress a t w h ich A p p ell an t l ived w ith h is gran d m o ther. O ff icers w ere sen t t o the a d d ress, bu t th eyd id n o t fi n d A p p ell an t or th e m aro o n v eh icl e. W h il e o ff icers w er e att he s cene of the s hoot i ng, D om i nguez s aw A ppel l antdr i ve byi n a w hi t e C adi l l acL ancon - Pag e 4

and i nform ed the off

i cer s . R oughl yfourm i nut es aft erthat , I nves t i gat orR odr i guez not i ced thatt he w hi t e C adi l l ac ha d s t opped i n t he s t r eetabouta hal f a bl ock aw ayfr om th e s c e n e . P o lic e a p p ro a c h e d th e C a d illa c a n d d e ta in e d A p p e lla n t a n d J o rg e Z u n ig a . D et ect i ve C antu admi ni s t er ed guns hot - r es i due t es t s on bot h A ppel l antand Zuni ga and t ook t he cl ot hi ng t hatt heyw er e w ear i ng. D om i ng uez an d D i az gav e videot aped st at em ents t o the poli ce. T heyw ere al so s how n phot o l i neups and as ked i f A ppel l antw as i n t he l i neup. B oth i dent i fi ed A ppel l ant c o rre c tly . S o liz a lso to ld p o lice th a t A p p e llan t w a s th e sh o o ter , b u t d id n o t id e n tifyh im in a l i neup. Pol i ce w er e neve rabl e t o l ocat e the mar oon vehi cl e, nordi d t heyr ecove rthe w eapon thatw as us ed i n t he s hoot i ng. A l t hough Z uni ga’ s guns hot - r es i due ca m e bac k pos i t i ve, A ppel l ant ’ s guns hot - r es i due t es tcame back ne gat i ve, s o t her e w as no phy s i cal evi dence l i nki ng A ppel l antt o t he cr i m e. T he r es tof the fa ct s s ur r oundi ng the ca s e ar e cont es t ed, as A ppel l antcl ai m ed that hi s y oungerbr ot her , E duar do, comm i t t ed the cr i m e. A ttr i al , both D om i nguez a nd D i az test ifi ed , as d id three g ir ls w h o w ere w itn esse s to the sh o o ti n g an d sev era l po li ce o ff icers and det ect i ves . D om i nguez t es t i fi ed thatV i l l ar eal exi t ed the mar oon vehi cl e and a s ked hi m i f he w ant ed t o fi ght , and w hen A ppel l antgotoutof the ca r , V i l l ar eal or der ed A ppel l antt o s hoot . A l t hough D om i nguez r an ei t herw hen the gun w as cocke d orw hen t he s hoot i ng began, he t es t i fi ed thathe s aw A ppel l ants hootthe gun. H e al s o s t at ed that he w as s how n t hr ee l i neups on t he ni ghtof the s hoot i ng. A tfi r s tD om i nguez t es t i fi ed thatL ancon - Pag e 5

he di d notr ecogni ze a ny one, buthe l at ers t at ed thathe i dent i fi ed A ppel l ant . W hen D o m ing u ez w as a sk ed ab o u t th e a p p ea ran ce o f th e sh o o ter, h e f ir st said tha t he d idn ’t r emem berw hatt he s hoot erw as w ear i ng, butm om ent s l at erhe s ai d thatA ppel l anthad b e e n w e a rin g a w h ite s h irt, b lu e sh o rts, a n d a b lu e N e w Y o rk Y a n k e e s c a p a n d h a d h e ld t he g un i n h i s r i gh than d. D om i ng uez als o ad m i t t ed thathe sm ok ed m ari j uan a al m ost everyday , i ncl udi ng t he dayof the s hoot i ng. H ow ever , D om i nguez t es t i fi ed thathe w as 100% s ur e thatA ppel l antw as t he s hoot erand nothi s br other , E duar do, w hom Do mi n g u e z a l s o k n e w. D ani el D i az t es t i fi ed thathe knew A ppel l antbeca us e he ha d s een hi m befor e, but t hathe di d notknow V i l l ar eal pr i ort o t he s hoot i ng. D i az a l s o s ai d t hathe di d nots ee w h o w a s d ri v in g th e v e h ic le a n d th a t h e id e n tif ie d A p p e lla n t a n d V illa re a l f ro m lin e u p s . T he dayaft ert he s hoot i ng, D i az i dent i fi ed Zuni ga as the dr i ver . D i az t es t i fi ed thatthe s hoot erw as w ear i ng a w hi t e s hi r tand pant s , butno bas ebal l cap. H e al s o admi t t ed on the s t and that , w hi l e he c oul d notbe pos i t i ve thathe s m oked mar i j uana the dayof the s hoot i ng, i tw as pos s i bl e bec aus e he of t en s m oked mar i

j uana. K im b e rl yS a n c h e z , a g ir l w h o w a s a ls o a t th e re c c e n te r o n th e d a yo f th e s h o o tin g , tes tifie d th a t sh e w itn e ss e d th e a rg u m e n t b e tw e e n D o m in g u e z a n d V ill a re a l. S h e sa id t hat , aft ert he ar gum ent , s he s aw V i l l ar eal m ake a phone ca l l and hea r d hi m as k for “M oi ky , ” A ppel l ant ’ s ni ckname. Sanchez t es t i fi ed thats he di d notknow w ho M oi kyw as ori f V i l l ar eal even s poke t o hi m on t he phone. She had l eftthe r ec c ent erw i t h herL ancon - Pag e 6

fr i ends , M oni ca a nd M el i s s a Sol i z, and had s t art ed w al ki ng t o t hei rhous e w hen s he s aw t he mar oon cars t op i n fr ontof the Sol i z hous e and s aw s om eone i n a w hi t e s hi r tgetout of the ca r . Sanchez t es t i fi ed thatw hen theyhear d t he guns hot s , s he and he rfr i ends r an b ac k to the rec ce n ter. T he pol i ce of

fi cer s and det ect i ves t es t i fi ed aboutthei ri nves t i gat i on of the ca s e, in c lu d in g th e ira rr iv a l a t th e s c e n e a n d th e lin e u p s s h o w n to D o m in g u e z a n d D ia z . D et ect i ve C antu t es t i fi ed thathi s t heoryof w hathappene d i n t he 14 mi nut es betw een the fi r s t911 cal l and A ppel l antand Zuni ga dr i vi ng byi n t he C adi l l ac w as thatthe thr ee men dr ove aw ayfr om t he s hoot i ng, A ppel l antdr opped V i l l ar eal off, A ppel l antand Zuni ga di s pos ed of the ca rand thei rcl ot hi ng, A ppel l antw as hed hi s hands , and then A ppel l ant a n d Z u n ig a g o t in A p p e llan t’s w h ite C a d ill a c to re tu rn to th e sc e n e . D e tec tiv e C a n tu admi t t ed thathe had no e vi dence t o pr ove hi s theory . D et ect i ve C antu al s o t es t i fi ed about a s ear ch w arr antt hatw as exec ut ed atthe home of L y di a Fernandez , an auntof V i l l ar eal an d A p p ell an t. S ev era l peo p le w ere arrested at F ern an d ez ’s ho m e a n d w ea p o n s w ere s ei zed, al t hough none mat ched the murde rw eapon. A l l t hr ee de fenda nt s , i ncl udi ng A ppel l ant , t es t i fi ed attr i al . A ppel l antand Zuni ga t es t i fi ed aboutt he eve nt s l eadi ng up t o t hei rdet ent i on and s ai d t hattheyw er e t ogetheron th a t e v e n in g b u t th a t n e ith e r o f th e m h a d b e e n w ith V illa re a l o r i n v o lv e d in th e s h o o tin g . A p p e llan t als o tes tifie d th a t h e a n d h is b ro th e r, E d u a rd o , h a d b e e n ra ise d in se p a ra te hous ehol ds , and he de m ons t r at ed thathe w as l eft - handed bys i gni ng hi s name i n fr ontofL ancon - Pag e 7

t he j ur y . V i l l ar eal t es t i fi ed thatE duar do w as the s hoot er , butthathe di d notknow that E d u a rd o h a d a g u n a n d h e d id n o t o rd e r E d u a rd o to s h o o t a t D o m in g u e z a n d D ia z . V i l l ar eal admi t t ed thathe fl ed t o M exi co fol l ow i ng the s hoot i ng. A ddi t i onal l y , s ever al fami l ym ember s of A ppel l antand V i l l ar eal t es t i fi ed, i ncl udi ng J os e G onzal ez, t he cous i n of A ppel l ant , E duar do, and V i l l ar eal , w ho t es t i fi ed t hathe w as t he dr i verand Eduar do w as the s hoot er . G onzal ez s t at ed thathe w as t ol d by hi s A untL y di a t o pi ck V i l l ar eal up atthe r ec c ent erbeca us e V i l l ar eal w as gett i ng beat en up and Eduar do came al ong. G onzal ez s ai d t hat , aft erhe and Eduar do pi cked up V i l l ar eal , t heyw er e dr i vi ng back home w hen Eduar do and V i l l ar eal j um ped outof the car , ar gued w i t h s om e boy s on t he s t r eet , and then Eduar do s t art ed s hoot i ng. G onzal ez t es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow t hatE duar do had a gun a nd thataft erthe s hoot i ng he dr opped both E duar do and V i l l ar eal off a thi s aunt ’ s hous e. H e al s o s ai d t hathe had not t al ked t o E duar do s i nce thateveni ng and thoughtthatthe pol i ce w oul d arr es tE duar do b e c a u se h e h e a rd th a t th e yw e re lo o k in g f o r V ill a re a l. G onzal ez’ s m ot her , A va M ar i a G onzal ez, t es t i fi ed thats he ow ned the mar oon car and thathers on had dr i ven i ton J une 11. M r s . G onzal ez a dm i t t ed thatw hen s he w as ques t i oned byt he pol i ce, s he t ol d t hem t hathers on had arr i ved home at7: 45 p. m . and h a d n e v e r l e f

t th e h o u s e a f

te r t h a t. Sever al aunt s of A ppel l antand Eduar do t es t i fi ed thaton t he dayof the s hoot i ng and i n t he day s aft er , t heyhear d E duar do confe s s thathe had be en the s hoot er , butthatheL ancon - Pag e 8

t houghthe had s hotone of the boy s i n fr ontof the hous e. O ne aunteven t ol d t he pol i ce t hats he bel i eved thatE duar do had w r apped the gun i n a t ow el and hi dden i t , w hi ch resu lt ed in the su b seq u en t search o f L y d ia F ern an d ez ’s ho m e. V il lareal’s m o ther, Y o lan d a , tes tifie d th a t sh e a lso h e a rd E d u a rd o a d m it t o th e sh o o tin g o n tw o se p a ra te occa s i ons , and s he gave D et ect i ve C antu a s t at ementaboutthi s fi ve day s aft erthe s hoot i ng. CO URT O F AP PEALS DE CI S I ON O n appea l , A ppel l antar gued thatthe evi dence t o s uppor thi s convi ct i on w as fac tual l yi ns uffi ci ent , t hatt he pr os ecut orfai l ed t o di s cl os e exc ul pat oryevi dence , and that t he tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on byadmi t t i ng tw o phot ogr aphs i nt o evi dence . T he co u rto f a p p ea ls de term ined that the e v iden ce w as f ac tuallyinsu ff

ici en t t o su p p o rt A ppel l ant ’ s convi ct i ons . T he courtal s o hel d t hatA ppel l antfai l ed t o s how thati tw as rea so n ab lyp rob ab le th at th e tri al ou tcom e w o u ld h av e b ee n d iffe ren t had the e x cu lpato ry evi dence been pr oper l ydi s cl os ed, and thati tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on t o admi tt he phot ogr aphs i nt o evi dence . In a d d re ss in g its d e c isio n th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s f a c tu a llyin su f

f icie n t, th e c o u rt laid out , verbat i m , t he s t andar d of r evi ew di s cus s ed i n W at s on . T h e c o u rt th e n sta ted th a t it s deci s i on w as bas ed on the “obj ect i ve unr el i abi l i t yof D om i nguez’ s and D i az’ s t es t i m ony t hatFer nando Lancon w as t he s hoot ercoupl ed w i t h t he w ei ghtand quant i t yof the evi dence t hatt he s hoot erw as notFer nando butE duar do L ancon. ” L a n c o n v . S ta te , 220L ancon - Pag e 9

S. W . 3d 57, 67 ( T ex. A pp. – San A nt oni o, 2006) ( m em. op. ) . T he courtdet ai l ed the di s cr epanc i es i n D om i nguez’ s and D i az’ s t es t i m onyand expl ai ned thatthei rconfl i ct i ng t es t i m ony , coupl ed w i t h t he unvary i ng t es t i m onyof A ppel l ant ’ s defe ns e w i t nes s es , l ed t hem t o fi nd t hatvaca t i ng A ppel l ant ’ s convi ct i on and r emandi ng the ca us e fora new t r i al w as “nec es s aryt o arr es tt he occ ur r ence of a mani fes ti nj us t i ce. ” Id . a t 6 8 , quot i ng J o h n so n v . S ta te , 2 3 S . W . 3 d 1 , 9 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). A N A L Y S IS F a c tu a l S u ffic ien c y R e v iew , G e n e r a lly T he Factual C oncl us i vi t yC l aus e of the Texas C ons t i tut i on s t at es that“[c our t s of appea l s ] s hal l be conc l us i ve on al l ques t i ons of fa ctbr oughtbefor e them on appeal or err or . ” T EX . C ONST . a r t . V, § 6 . We h a v e p r e v i o u s l yd e t e r mi n e d th a tth i s me a n s th a twe ar e notperm i t t ed t o conducta de novo r evi ew of a c our tof appe al s ’ fac tual s uffi ci ency d e te rm in a tio n . C a in v . S ta te , 9 5 8 S . W . 2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). H o w ev er, t he dec i s i on of the courtof appe al s i s notcompl et el yunr evi ew abl e, as the ques t i on of w h e th e r t h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls a p p lie d th e c o rr e c t ru le o f la w is a le g a l q u e s tio n . I d. T her efor e, ourr evi ew i s cent er ed upon w hetherthe courtof appe al s appl i ed the corr ect s t andar d of r evi ew and cons i der ed al l of the r el evantevi dence . W e ca nnots i m pl ydo our o w n f a c tu a l-su f

f icie n c ya n a ly sis , w e c a n re v iew o n lyw h e th e r th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls m is a p p lie d th e s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . Zu n ig a v . S ta te , 1 4 4 S . W . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 2 ( Te x . Cr i m. A pp. 2004) . I n deci di ng w hethert he courtof appe al s appl i ed the corr ects t andar d ofL ancon - Pag e 10

r evi ew w hen i t ’ s r ever s ed forfac tual - i ns uffi ci ency , thi s C our tm us tal s o exami ne w hether t he courtof appe al s carr i ed outt he j udi ci al l y - i m pos ed r equi r ement s fors afe guar di ng a defe ndant ’ s r i ghtt o t r i al byj ur y . T hes e s afe guar ds i ncl ude def er ence t o t he j ury ’ s ver di ct a n d a n e x a m in a tio n o f

a ll o f th e e v id e n c e . R o b e rts v . S ta te , 2 2 1 S . W . 3 d 6 5 9 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T her e ar e thr ee ba s i c gr ound rul es thatgui de a c our tof appe al s i n conduct i ng a fac tual - s uffi ci encyanal y s i s . Fi r s t , the courtof appe al s m us tbe cogni zantof the fa ctt hat a j ur yhas al r eadypas s ed on the fa ct s and mustgi ve due de fer ence t o t he det erm i nat i ons o f th e jury . W h il e the co u rto f a p p ea ls m ayd isag ree w ith the f ac tfi n d er, i t sho u ld af

fo rd th e a p p ro p ri a te d e f

e re n c e in o rd e r t o a v o id s u b s titu tin g its ju d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f th e ju ry. C lew is v . S ta te , 92 2 S . W . 2d 12 6 (T ex. C ri m . A pp . 19 96 ). S econ d, the co urtof ap peals ’ opi ni on s houl d cl ear l yl ayoutand expl ai n how the evi dence s uppor t i ng the ver di cti s t oo w e a k o n its o w n , o r sta te h o w th e c o n tra d ictin g e v id e n c e g re a tlyo u tw e ig h s e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f

th e v e rd ict. T h is is p a rticu lar lyim p o rta n t b e c a u se it as sis ts th is C o u rt in det erm i ni ng w hethert he courtof appe al s appl i ed the s t andar d of r evi ew pr oper l y . T hi r d, t he appe l l at e courts houl d r evi ew al l of the evi dence i n a neutr al l i ght , as oppos ed t o a l egal - s uffi ci encyr evi ew i n w hi ch the evi dence i s vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he v e rd ic t. W

a tso n v . S ta te , 204 S. W . 3d 404, 415 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2006) . A ver di cts houl d be s etas i de onl yi f the evi dence s uppor t i ng the ver di cti s s o w eak a s t o r enderthe ver di ct c le a rl yw ro n g o r m a n if

e s tly u n ju s t. C a in , 958 S. W . 2d at406.L ancon - Pag e 11

R evi ew of

t he C ourt of

A ppeal s ’ D eci s i on A s w e expl ai ned i n G o o dm a n v . S ta te , 6 6 S . W . 3 d 2 8 3 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ), t her e ar e tw o w ay s i n w hi ch the evi dence m aybe i ns uffi ci ent . T he fi r s ti s thatthe e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e v e rd ict, th o u g h leg a llysu f f icie n t, i s n o n e th e les s to o w e a k to su p p o rt it. T h e se c o n d is th a t, w h e n c o n sid e rin g c o n f lictin g e v id e n c e , the ju ry ’s v e rd ict is agai ns tt he gr eatw ei ghtand pr eponder ance of the evi dence . I n t hi s cas e, the courtof appea l s vaca t ed the convi ct i on and r emanded the ca us e fora new tr i al bas ed upon the confl i ct i ng evi dence . T o s uppor tt hi s concl us i on, t he courtof appe al s acc ur at el ys t at ed the s t andar d of r evi ew and addr es s ed al l of the evi dence . T he courtof appe al s i ncl uded a de t ai l ed des cr i pt i on of the undi s put ed fa ct s , as w el l as the evi dence s uppor t i ng and contr aryt o the c o n v ic tio n . Lancon, 2 2 0 S . W . 3 d at 59 -67 . H o w ev er, th e c o u rto f a p p ea ls fail ed to ad h ere t o t he thr ee f

actual - s uffi ci encygr ound rul es des cr i bed above . T h e m ajorityo f th e e v iden ce that the c o u rto f a p p ea ls po ints t o is co n tr ad ict o ry w i t nes s t es t i m ony , and al t hough t he evi dence i s compel l i ng, the j uryi s the s ol e j udge of w h a t w e ig h t to g iv e s u c h te s tim o n y . See T EX . C R IM . P R OC . C OD E A NN . art . 36. 13 and 3 8 .0 4 (sta tin g th a t th e ju ryis th e e x c lu siv e ju d g e o f th e f a c ts a n d o f

th e w e ig h t g iv e n to t es t i m ony ) . A ppel l at e court s s houl d aff or d al m os tcompl et e def er ence t o a j ury ’ s deci s i on w hen t hat deci si on i s based u po n an evaluat i on of credibi l i t y . T he juryi s i n the best pos i t i on t o j udge the cr edi bi l i t yof a w i t nes s beca us e i ti s pr es entt o hearthe t es t i m ony , asL ancon - Pag e 12

o p p o s e d to a n a p p e lla te c o u rt w h o re lie s o n th e c o ld re c o rd . S e e Ma rs h a ll v. S ta te , 210 S . W . 3 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 5 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). T he courtof appe al s det erm i ned thatD om i nguez’ s and D i az’ s t es t i m onyw as

“ o b jec tiv e lyu n re liab le,” a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t itw a s n o t u n re a so n a b le to d istru st th e ir ey ew itn ess testi m o n yg iven the c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing the s h o o ti n g . T h ere w ere m anyi ncons i s t enci es w i t hi n D om i nguez’ s and D i az’ s t es t i m ony , as w el l as in c o n s is te n c ie s b e tw e e n th e irte s tim o n y . D o m in g u e z c o n tr a d ic te d h im s e lf s e v e ra l tim e s . H e tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t re m e m b e r w h a t A p p e llan t w a s w e a rin g , an d th e n m o m e n ts late r g a v e a d e sc rip tio n o f th e c lo th in g . D o m in g u e z a lso h a d tro u b le d e sc rib in g h is act i ons w hen the s hoot i ng s t ar t ed, s ay i ng thathe s t art ed runni ng w hen the gun w as cocke d, w hi l e s t i l l m ai nt ai ni ng t hathe s aw A ppel l antactual l ypul l the tr i ggerw hen he w as runni ng t ow ar d t he bac k of the hous e w i t h hi s back turned. T he des cr i pt i ons gi ven byD om i nguez a nd D i az w er e al s o i ncons i s t ent , w i t h D om i nguez de cl ar i ng thathe r emem ber ed A ppel l antw ear i ng a bas ebal l cap a nd D i az t es t i fy i ng thatthe s hoot erw as not w e a rin g a b a se b a ll ca p . In a d d iti o n , K im b e rlyS a n c h e z d id n o t in c lu d e a b a se b a ll ca p in herdes cr i pt i on of the s hoot er . B ot h D om i nguez a nd D i az a dm i t t ed t o s m oki ng m ar i j uana o f te n , D o m in g u e z e v e n te s tif ie d th a t h e h a d s m o k e d m a ri ju a n a o n th e d a yo f

th e s h o o tin g . A n d D iaz a d m itt e d o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t h e m ig h t h a v e m ista k e n A p p e llan t f o r h is b ro th e r, E d u a rd o . A s p a rt o f th e e v id e n c e c o n tra ryto th e v e rd ict, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls expl ai ned thatt he t es t i m onyof the def ens e w i t nes s es w as cons i s t ent , and thattw o of theL ancon - Pag e 13

The followingis Detec tive Cantu’s testimony reg ardinghis arrival on the scene : 1 [The State] : Okay . And what ha ppened–what were your obser vations when you g ot there to the house ?

[C antu ]: T h ethr e ein div id u a ls th at w e r eth e r e , o n ew a s H e c to r D o min gu e z, Fernando Soliz, and Daniel Diaz. Danie l Diaz, Iwant to say was in shock. Hewas just standing there . F e rn ando So liz w a s sc re amin gthat th eba by –th eba by wa s sh ot. Hewa s sh ot. Itrie d to calm him down. Hec tor Diaz [s ic] was excited, you know. He w as–I couldn’t under stand. They were all talkingat the sametime.

[Th eState ]: Di d you

a sk him at any –did you a sk him any qu e sti on s? [C antu]: Iasked him what happene d and he said that he g ot shot at, and then said–Itold him– * * *

[C antu]: Itold him, W ho did this t o you? Who shot ? And he said Fer nando L ancon. * * *

[The State]: When you showed lineups to the witnesses howwas F erna ndo L ancon identified? [C antu]: He was identified–H ector Domingue z knew Fernando L ancon. Okay . He alre ady knew who hewas, a

nd– * * * [C antu]: S o he knew

who was at the scene , and he mentioned at the ti m e wh en I arrive d th at F e rn ando L anc on wa s th eon ewh o s ho t at him. w itn e ss e s a d m itt e d th e ir o w n c o m p licityin th e c rim e . H o w e v e r, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls se e m s to h a v e f

a iled to c o n sid e r e v id e n c e th a t su p p o rte d th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. O n e e x a m p le of thi s i s D et ect i ve C antu’ s t es t i m onythatD om i nguez s ai d A ppel l antw as the s hoot er m er e mi nut es aft ert he s hoot i ng. A s a mat t erof l aw , evi dence of thi s s or ti s cons i der ed 1 e s p e c ia lly tru s tw o rt h yg iv e n th e s u rr o u n d in g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . S e e R a b b a n i v . S ta te , 847 S. W . 2d 555, 560 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1992) ( expl ai ni ng thatpr es ents ens e i m pr es s i on s t at ement s ar e cons i der ed exc ept i onal l yr el i abl e bec aus e theyar e s afe fr om err orof m em o ryan d there is l ittl e o r no ti m e f o r a c alcu lat ed m isst atem en t, there fo re, th eyare e x c lu d e d f

ro m th e h e a rs a yru le ).L ancon - Pag e 14

A s w e s ai d befor e, t her e w as no phy s i cal evi dence l i nki ng A ppel l antt o t he cr i m e, and the St at e’ s evi dence boi l ed dow n t o t he t es t i m onyof the w i t nes s es and pol i ce offi cer s . T he evi dence pr es ent ed bythe def ens e al s o cons i s t ed of t es t i m ony , i ncl udi ng A ppel l ant , hi s fami l ym ember s , and hi s co- defe ndant . A l l of thi s w as pr es ent ed t o t he ju rya n d th e ju ryis to d e c id e u p o n th e c re d ib ili tyo f th e tes tim o n y . A s w e e x p lain e d in Stat e v. Johns on , 23 S. W . 3d 1 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2000) , an appe l l at e courtm us tgi ve defe r ence t o a j ur y ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng w hatw ei ghtt o gi ve contr adi ct oryt es t i m oni al evi dence beca us e the dec i s i on i s m os tl i kel ybas ed on an e val uat i on of cr edi bi l i t yand demeanor , w hi ch the j ur yi s i n t he bett erpos i t i on t o j udge. U n d er W at s on , w e furt herexpl ai ned thatther e mustbe an obj ect i ve bas i s i n t he re c o rd in o rd e r to sa yth a t th e g re a t w e ig h t an d p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e c o n tra d icts th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 7 . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls trie s to sa tisf

yth is re q u ir e m e n t w ith th e p ro c la m a tio n th a t D o m in g u e z ’s a n d D ia z ’s te s tim o n yis u n re lia b le . B uti ti s as equal l ypl aus i bl e thatD om i nguez a nd D i az w er e t el l i ng the truth as i ti s they w er e l y i ng w hen theyt es t i fi ed. I ti s forthe j uryt o det erm i ne i f theybel i eve that D om i nguez a nd D i az a r e l y i ng ort el l i ng the truth. N one of the t es t i m onyattr i al defi ni t i vel yfavor s orcontr adi ct s t he j ury ’ s ver di ct , i tal l bear s on cr edi bi l i t y . B eca us e the j u r y i s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f a w i t n e s s ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y, a n d th e w e i g h tt o b e g i v e n th e t e s t i m o n y, it m a yc h o o s e to b e lie v e s o m e te s tim o n ya n d d is b e lie v e o th e r t e s tim o n y . See M ar gr aves v . S ta te , 34 S . W . 3d 91 2, 91 9 (T ex C ri m . A pp . 20 00 ). A decis i on i s not m anifest l yun j ustL ancon - Pag e 15

s ol el ybeca us e the courtof appe al s w oul d have r es ol ved the conf l i ct i ng evi dence i n a d if f e re n t w a y . W

at s on , at417. CO NC L US I ON T he courtof appe al s corr ect l ys t at ed the s t andar d s etfor t h i n W at s on , but i ncorr ect l yappl i ed the s t andar d i n conduct i ng the fa ctual - s uffi ci encyr evi ew . B eca us e the evi dence i n t he ca s e w as l ar gel ybas ed on a de t erm i nat i on of the cr edi bi l i t yof the w itn esse s, an d the c o u rto f a p p ea ls’ fa ctua l- su ff ici en cyrev iew fa il ed to d ef er to the jury ’s v erd ict , w e v ac ate the d ec isi o n o f th e c o u rto f a p p ea ls an d rem an d this cau se f o r th e c o u rt t o conducta fa ctual s uffi ci encyr evi ew i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s opi ni on.

M ey ers , J. D el i ver ed: M ay14, 2008 P ub l i sh