### NUM BER 13-07- 0055 8-CR 

## C OU RT O F A PPEA 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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
JOH NN Y OS CA R VILLA RR EA L, 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 15 6t h D is tr ic t C o u rt

of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza A p p e l l a n t , J o h n n y O s c a r V i l l a r re a l , w a s c h a rg e d b y i n d i c t me n t w i t h o n e c o unt o f murde r and one co unt o f eng ag ing i n org ani z ed c ri minal a ct iv ity . See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN
. §§ 19.02( b) (1 ) (V er non 200 3) , 71. 02( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. The ju ry found app ellantg uilty of

b oth of fense s, and the trial court asse ssed co ncurren t life sente nces inS e c ti o n 1 9 .0 2 o f th e p e n a l c o d e p ro v i d e s g e n e ra l l y th a t a c o n v i c ti o n fo r m u rd e r c o n s ti tu te s a fi rs t- 1 d e g re e fe l o n y . T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19

. 02( c) ( Ver non 2003)

. T he j ur y al so con cl uded t hat app el l ant com m i t t ed t he m ur der as a m em ber of a cr i m i nal st r eet gang and assessed puni shm ent pur suant t o sect i on 71. 02 o ft he p enal code , whi ch pro vi de s t hat i fa def endan t com m i t s orconsp i r es t o com m i t , am ong ot her t hi ngs, m ur deras a m em ber of a cr i m i nal st r eet gang, t he p uni shm ent r ange i s one cat egor y hi ghert han t he m o s t s e r io u s o f f e n s e . Id

. § 71

. 02( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( Ver non Supp. 200 8)

. T her ef or e, app el l ant was sub j ect t o t he p u n i s h m e n t ra n g e fo r c a p i ta l fe l o n i e s . See id. § 12. 31( a) ( Ver non 2003)

. Sect i on 1 2. 31( a) oft he p enal code st at es t hat an i ndi v i dual adj udged gui l t y of a capi t al f el onyi s subj ect t o t he d eat h pe nal t y orl i f e i n pr i son w i th o u t p a ro l e . I d.

A s a llo w e d b y t h e a p p e lla te r u le s , t h e S ta te h a s n o t f ile d a n a p p e lla te b r ie fin r e s p o n s e to a p p e lla n t’s 2 c o n te n ti o n s . S e e S i v e ra n dv . S ta te , 8 9 S

. W

. 3d 2 16, 219 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 2, no pet

. ) ( “ T he T exas Rul es of

Appel l at e Pr ocedur e r equi r e ap pel l ant t o ei t herfi l e a br i efor st at e t hat he no l ongerdesi r es to p r o s e c u te th e a p p e a l. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .8 (b ). H o w e v e r, th e re i s n o c o rr e s p o n d i n g ru l e re q u i rin g th e S ta te to fi l e a b rie f i n re s p o n s e to a p p e l l a n t’ s b rie f.”)

. 2 the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Depa rt ment of Cri minal Justi ce (“ TDC J” ) w it h no fine. 1 By four is sues on a ppeal , app ell ant c ontends that : (1 ) the ev ide nce adduc ed attr ial w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s ust ain his conv icti ons; (2) the tr ial courterred i n deny ing his entrapment d efense; ( 3) the prosec utor eng ag ed in prosec utor ial mis condu ct by as ki ng lead ing q uest ions an d referen cing pre-d ra wn diagrams, con travening the trial court’s instructio ns; an d (4) the trial court erred in adm itting evidence o f his extrane ous o f

fense s. 2 W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On O cto ber

5, 2006, a Bee Cou nty g ra nd j ur

y i ndi cte d appel la n t for murder and eng ag ing in org ani z ed c ri minal acti v ity . See i d. §§ 1 9.02( b) (1 ), 71.0 2( a) (1 ). The i ndi ctment prov ide d tha t: And i t is furth er

present ed i n and to s aid C our t t hat d eadl y

w eapons , t o w it : a g un and a k nife, w as [si c] used or ex hib it ed dur ing the commi ss ion of the aforesa id of

fe n s e a nd th at th e Defend antused or ex hibite d said de adly w eapons or

w as a par

ty to the a foresa id and k new t h a t deadl y w eapons w oul d be used or

ex hib it ed .

. . . Moreover, the ind ictme nt con taine d an enh ance m e n tp aragraph referen cing appe llant’s prev iou s c onv icti on for felony ag g ra v ated ass aul t.B o n h a m re n o u n c e d h i s m e m b e rs h i p i n th e H P L w h i l e i n p ris o n a n d i n i ti a te d th e p ro c e s s to e x tri c a te 3 hi m sel ff r om t he g ang. T he r ecor d cont ai ns t est i m ony t hat once an i ndi v i dual j oi ns t he HP L, he i s a m em ber f orl i f e; anyper son a t t em pt i ng t o l eav e t he g ang woul d be pl aced on a l i st to b e k i l l ed. Sev er al wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat Bonham was “ x- ed o ut , ” or , i n ot herwor ds, pl aced on t he l i st t o be ki l l ed. 3 1. S ta te ’s E v id ence The Stat e c all ed s ev eral w it ness es to opine on the ev ents l eadi ng up t o, du ri ng , and after the murde r of D onal d Bonham. On the ev eni ng of Apri l 17, 2 005, Bonham attended a danc e at the C hic k- a- Saw C lub ( the “ Cl ub” ) in Beev il le, Tex as. Bonham, an ex-member of the H er mandad D e Pi sto leros Lati nos (“ HP L ”) g ang , had recent ly been re lea sed from pr is on, w here he w as ser v ing time for transpo rt ing i ll eg al ali ens. M oll y C ox , a bar

tender 3 at t he C lub , recal led seeing Bonham ar ri v ing at the C lub at around 11 :00 p .m. an d w ear ing
a c ow boy

hat. C ox

remembere d tha t Bo nham appea re d to be i n a h appy mood an d tha t they di sc uss ed Bon ham d o in g s o m e carpe ntr y w or k a t her

hous e. Cox

recal led that Bonham da nced w it h two g ir ls and spok e to someone “ at the end of the pool tabl e.” At the Cl ub’ s c los ing ti me, Bon ham as ked Cox i f h e c o u ld lea v e outthe back door ; s he deni ed h is re qu e s t , st a t in g t h a tt h e b a c kd o o r wa s fo r e m p lo ye e s o n ly. Anothe r patron of the Cl ub, J oann M edel li n, ob ser v ed tha t o n t h e ni g ht of the inc ide nt, sev eral men w oul d oc cas ion all y g o i nto the res troom toge ther

. This appeared odd to M edel li n bec ause “y ou don’ t usual ly see boy s g oin g —men g oin g i nto t he bat hroom at the same time. ” As she wa s l e a v ing the Club, Mede llin heard gunf ire and sa w peo ple
ru nni ng tow ards the back of t he Cl ub. She ob ser v ed a man—Bon ham—fall dow n, an d s he immedi atel y

ran i nsi de th e C lub to cal l for hel p. Me del li n, be ing l ic ensed i n C PR , t hen w ent to s ee i f Bonham needed hel p. As s he w as hel pin g Bonha m, s he obs er v ed a w hit e v an ra pid ly tak e off out of the C lub ’s par ki ng l ot. Rub en M addy Al eman, an admi tted HP L member , t est ified thathe w as conv icted4

of m urde r

a nd o rg an i z ed c r i me for h i s rol e i n th e k i l l i ng o f Bo nh am . Se e gener all y A lem an
v. State , No. 13-0 7-00 49-CR, 200 8 T ex. Ap p. LEXIS 293 8 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi Apr. 24, 2 008, pet. re f’d) (mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Rub en sta ted t hat h e had know n appel lan t s inc e 1 9 8 9 and that appel lan t w as the l eader of the H PL atthe ti me of Bonham’ s murder

. Rub en th en recal led a prev iou s i nci dent w here he was co n vict e d of publ ici ntox ic ati on. In t hat i nci dent, R uben attended a bar f u nct ion w it h appel lan t, and appel lan t di re cte d hi m and an other H PL member

to “t ake care of some busi ness ” outs ide

. Prior to going out side, a ppe ll a n to f fered Ruben a black .25 caliber han dgun; h owev er, Rub en to ld him that he did not need a g un. Subs eq uentl y , a fig ht en sued, and Rub en w as ar re ste d for publ ici ntox ic ati on. As to t he ni g ht i n q uest ion , R uben tes ti fied that he ac compani ed ot hers, inc lud ing his nephew

Jo hn Phi ll ip Al eman, t o a d ance at the Cl ub. Rub en re membered thatthe Cl ub
w as quite crow ded thatev enin g and thatapp ellantatte nde d w ith his w ife and Joe Quin Vi l l ar rea l , am on g o th ers . A pp el l an t l at er a s k ed R ub en i f he w an te d to “ ta k e ou t” B on ha m. Rube n de clined, s o app ellantthen w entto the restroom . Joe Quin and John Phillip
acc ompani ed appe ll ant i n the rest ro om. Rub en als o foll ow ed th e g ro up i nto t he rest ro om and obse rve d a p pellan t try ing to g iv e an old .22 caliber pistol, referred to as the “ugly duck li ng ,” to John Phi ll ip. R uben recog niz ed th is handg un a s Jo e Quin’ s. U pon s eei ng Joh n P h i l l i p a c c e p tt h e g u n fro m a p p e l l a n t , R u b e n t o o ki ta n d g a v e i tb a c kt o a p p e ll ant. Rub en did not w ant John Phi ll ip g etti ng inv olv ed; how ev er , J ohn Ph il li p s ubseq uentl y made
re peat tr ips to the rest ro om to meet w it h appel lan t. As he l eft the C lub , R uben no ti ced that appel lan t, J o e Quin, John Phi ll ip, and Bonham w ere al re ady

fig hti ng . Bonham s creamed outfor R uben t o hel p w hil e appel lan t and J oe Qu in w ere hitti ng him re peatedl y . Rub en th en s aw appel lan t and Jo hn Phi ll ip sta bR uben t est i f i ed t hat app el l ant ’ s wi f e was wai t i ng f or app el l ant i n t he whi t e v an. 4 5 Bonham w it h k niv es. J ohn Ph il li p us ed a hook kni fe to s tab B onham; R uben di d not bel iev e tha t app ell ant’ s k nife w as left atthe sc ene. Rub en int er v ened to hel p Bonham, but Rub en end e d u p g e t t i n g c u to n h i s l i p b y B o n h a m. R u b e n re c a l l e d t h a tB o n h a m w as
w ear ing the cow boy

hat that w as found at t he s cene. R uben t ri ed to hel p Bonh am flee, but th ey t r i pp ed a nd B on ha m fe l l o n to p of R ub en . A s h e w as fal l i ng , J oe Q ui n s ho t Bo nh am . After Rub en pus hed Bo nham off of him, Jo e Qui n s h o t Bo n h a m a s econd ti me. R uben then saw appel lan t r un from t he s cene and g et i nto a w hit e v an. 4 Con trar y to appel lan t’ s all eg ati ons, Rub en deni ed brag g ing abouthi s p arti ci pati on in the murder

of Bonham. Ruben als o denied appel lan t’ s ass erti on that Ruben took i t upo n hims elf to “t ake out” Bonha m w it hout any di re cti on from a ppel lan t. Joe Qu in testif ied th at he participat ed in th e mu rder of Bon ham . Joe Quin w as told by se v era l HP L members t hat a ppel lan t w as the l eader of the H PL i n the Beev il le area. Joe Qui n first met appe ll ant a t a bar becue i n 2005. Sh ortl y there a fte r, J oe Qu in beg an se lli n g ma rih u a n a fo r ap p e lla n t. Joe Qu in so ld th e m a rih u a n a fo r ove r a ye a r eve n th o u gh he sti ll w as not a member of t he HP L. Ev entual ly , J oe Qu in w as made a member of the HP L after

appel lan t and appel lan t’ s b ro ther read him the ru les and re g ula ti ons of the H PL. O n t h e n ight of

Bonh am ’s murde r, Joe Quin state d tha t he went to the Club for a tejan o da n c e . He p la n ned to me et up w ith ap pellan t and othe r HPL mem bers. Once appel lan t ar ri v ed, h e i nst ru cte d J oe Qu in to k eep an ey e on Bonham t o make sure tha t Bonham di d notl eav e. Appel lan t l ater tol d J oe Qu in that “w e had to g et t his g uy [Bo nham], th atw e ha d to t ak e hi m ou t” an d prov i de d J oe Qu i n w i th th e g un u s ed t o s ho otB on ha m. J o e Q u in t e s t if ie d t h a ta p p e ll a n tke p ta ll t h e gu n s fo r t h e HP L m e m b e rs t o e n s u re t h a t“we6

w ere al w ay s ready

for someth ing .” Pr ior to the Cl ub’ s c los ing , J oe Qu in met w it h appel lan t and John Phillip in t he restroom

. Jo e Quin n ote d tha t app ellantf irst instructed John Phillip to t ake Bonham ou t, but J ohn Ph il li p refused to do so. Appel lan t t hen g av e J oe Qu in the .22 cal ibe r pi sto l and told hi m that he “w as next in li ne to sho w [hi s] tr ue c olo rs ” and t hat by tak ing Bonha m out, i t w as his “ ti ck et t o g et al l the w ay i n.” Joe Qui n s ubseq uentl y took the g un from a ppel lan t. Per appel lan t, Joe Qui n w as to first prov oke Bonham t o g et hi m to g o out si de th e C l ub

. Jo e Qu i n to l d Bo nh am t ha t he h ad “ a v er y p ers on al p rob l em a bo uth i m [ Bo nh am ] and thatwe h ave to t ake care of it. ” Bon ham d id notkn ow Joe Quin, b ut he me t Joe Qu in
ou ts i de a few

mi nu te s l at er . O nc e Bo nh am g ot ou ts i de , J oe Qu i n c al l ed hi m ov er to s om e trees that sur ro unded t he C lub

. Sh o rtly thereafter, appel lan t and se v eral other g ang members ca me outs ide and “r ushed ” Bonham. Jo e Qui n not ic ed th at ap pel lan t’ s w ife w ent to po si ti on th e w hit e v an for a q uic k g etaw ay . He als o heard R uben s cream after g etti ng c uta nd s aw

a pp el l an t ho l di ng B on ha m’ s a r m w hi l e others w ere s ta bb i ng B on ha m. A p p e ll a n t t h e n in s t ru c t e d Jo e Q u in “[ t ] o d o [ h is ] jo b

. ” W h il e st a n d in g o ve r B o n h a m ’s b o d y, Joe Qui n s hot B onham tw ic e. Joe Qui n the n s aw appel lan t run tow ards the w hit e v an and tak e off

. Joe Qui n tes ti fied th at he obser v ed that appel lan t had a kni fe t hat nig ht. Appel lan t cal led Jo e Qui n the next day to ask if he “w as okay , if I had been cutor anythi ng , i f I had tal ked to an y body , i f I had s tas hed t he g un, if I w anted to g o int o tow n, i f I w anted to hi de out o r anythi ng .” J oe Qu in w as ev entual ly arrest ed and conv icted for hi s role i n the murder of Bonham. Off ic er Ja son Al v arez , Serg eant Mi ke W il low , and Serg eant Kev in Behr co nduct ed the i nv est ig ati on of the cr ime sc ene. They recov e re d t wo kni v es outs ide the Cl ub: aI t was l at er est abl i shed t hat t he co wboy hat f ound at t he cr i m e scen e be l onged t o Bonha m . 5 Because he had pr ev i ousl y been conv i ct ed of f el ony aggr av at ed a ssaul t , Li eut enant Scot t t est i f i ed 6 th a t a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t p e rm i tte d to p o s s e s s a fi re a rm a t t h e ti m e o f th e i n c i d e n t.

W i t h r es pe c t t o t he T ex as D ep art m en t of C ri m i na l Ju s t i c e’ s [ “T D C J ”] prog ram for ga ng m em be rs 7 want i ng t o l eav e t he g ang, Li eut enant Scot t not ed t he f ol l owi ng:

T he T D C J off er s a sy st em t o assi st gang m em ber s t o act ual l y separ at e t hem sel v es f r om t he gang. T heyw i l l off ert hem fu nds t o hav e t hei r t at t oos cov er ed and a ssi st t hem i n pr ogr am s to h e l p th e m u n d e rs ta n d w a y s to g e t a w a yfro m th e g a n g c o m m u n i ty a n d s e p a ra te th e m s e l v e s fro m g a n g a c ti v i ti e s . 7 b ro wn-h a n d le d kn ife a n d a sil ver h o o ke d kn ife . T h e y als o fo u n d .2 2 ca lib e r br a ss ca sin gs in the roadw ay

by the Cl ub, a cel l phone, and a cow boy hat. Standa rd pol ic e protoc ol w as 5 follo w ed i n the co ll ect ion of the ev ide nce. Each testi fied that there w as si g nific ant a mounts of blood at t he cr ime sc ene, but no ey ew it ness es came forw ard to de sc ri be th e att ack or to ide ntif y app ellant . Th e knives and th e brass casings w ere sent of f for ana ly sis; howev er, tes ts condu cte d on the i tems w ere i nconc lus iv e. Lie utenantR eag an Sc ott, a n a rco ti cs i nv est ig ator , t est ified thathe a rr iv ed atthe
cr ime sc ene at1:26 a.m. and that he assi ste d in the inv est ig ati on. He furth er tes ti fied th at he had deal t w it h appel lan t on numerous occ asi ons w hen he w as w or ki ng as a pa trolman. Lie utenantScott re cal led an inc ide nt tra nspi ri ng on Febr uar y 19, 2005, w hereby

appel lan t, Rub en, and appell ant’ s w ife, Anne Mar ie Vi ll ar re al, w ere arrest ed atthe loc al Poppy ’s C lub

. Appel lan t w as charg ed w it h pos ses si on of a fire ar m by

a felon; R uben w as charg ed w it h

6 pub lic i nto x ication ; and Anne Marie w as cha rg ed w ith posse ssion of ma rihuan a an d pu blic int ox ic ati on. Appel lan t ag re ed to w or k w it h Li eutenan t Scottas a c onfidenti al infor mant “ to
w ork of f his w ife’s case. ” App ellantassisted Lieut ena nt Sco tt as an informa nt on narcotics
cas es in “N ueces C ounty , M athi s, and i n the Fi v e Poi nts area.” Ap pel lan t ope nly admi tted that he w as an H PL member , and TDC J records did n o t re v eal thatappel lan t had attempt ed to g et ou t of the HP L throug h the pris on sy ste m. Lie utenantScott tes ti fied th at 7Fur t her m or e, t he T D C J m ai nt ai ns a l i st of i ndi v i dual s t hat ar e m ar k ed a s ex- gang m em ber s. I n sear chi ng Joe Q ui n’ s v ehi cl e, l aw enf or cem ent f ound a . 38 ca l i berpi st ol , a st ol en Bene l l i shot gun, 8 a scal e, a box of am m uni t i on, and som e m ar i huana

. Al so f ound i n Joe Q ui n’ s v ehi cl e was a copyof t he r ul es a n d re g u l a ti o n s o f th e H P L

. 8 confide nti al infor mants w ere not immune from the law and that they w oul d be ar re ste d and prosec uted for eng ag ing i n c ri minal acti v it ies

. About thi rty minut es after he had ar ri v ed atthe cr ime sc ene, Lie utenantSc ott cal led app ellanton his cell pho ne to f ind out if app ellant had any informa tion a bou t the murd er. Appel lan t, how ev er , di d notans w er hi s c ell phone, s o L ie utenantSc ott left ap pel lan t a
m e s s a ge . Ap p e ll a n t d id n o tre t u rn L ie u t e n a n tS c o t t ’s p h o n e ca ll u n t il 1 2 : 0 0 p . m . t h a td a y. W hen app e lla n t retur ned Li eutenan t Sc ott’ s p hone c all , he sta ted t hat h e k new w hy Lie utenantSc ott w as cal li ng . Appel lan t admi tted that he w as at the dance that nig ht an d that he had w it ness ed th e as saul t on Bonham. Appel lan t ac cus ed J ohn Ph il li p, R uben, and J oe Qu in— all H PL members— of ki ll ing Bonha m. Lie utenantSc ott then g ot ap pel lan t t o eng ag e i n a re corded t ele phone c onv ersat ion
w it h J oe Qu in. I n thi s c onv ersat ion , J oe Qu in admitted t o s hooti ng Bo n h am. L aw enforc ement s ubseq uentl y co nduct ed a search of Joe Quin ’s hous e and v ehi cl e pursuant to a w ar ra nt an d bas ed on thei r findi ng s, ar re ste d J oe Qu in. Ap pel lan t c all ed Li eutenan t 8 Scott a fewday s lat er

to infor m him of Rub en’ s w hereabouts and sta ted that Rub en w as inj ured dur ing the alt ercat ion w it h Bonh am. R uben w as later ar re ste d, an d at firs t, he deni ed bei ng i nv olv ed i n Bonh am’s ki ll ing

. Lie utenantSc ott, al so a g ang ex per t, tes ti fied that sev eral g ang members i denti fied appel lan t as the lea der

of the H PL i n the Beev il le area atthe ti me Bonham w as murde re d. Lie utenantSc ott als o tes ti fied th at: Acc ordin g to the rul es and str uct ure of the pr is on g ang w hic h folds i nto w henF orm er pri s on g an g i nve s t i ga t or C l em en t e R od ri gu ez t es t i fi ed tha t the H P L h ad a h i era rch y str uc t ure 9 i n th a t t h e y h a d : g e n e r a ls , c a p ta in s a n d

— m a j o r s , c a p ta in s , l ie u te n a n ts [, ] a n d a ll d o w n th e lin e . T h o s e in ra n k i n g p o s i ti o n s w i l l g i v e o u t o rd e rs to l o w e r ra n k i n g m e m b e rs to c a rr y o u t w h a te v e r a c ti v i ty t he y wa nt d on e. . . . [ T ] he y [ l ow err an ki ng m em be r s] c[ ou l d] be di sc i pl i ne d f orn ot

— y ou kno w, f ornot f ol l owi ng t he r ul es. O ne o ft he r ul es i s t o f ol l ow t he o r der s of t he r anki ng st r uct ur e. R od ri gu ez f urt he r t es t i fi ed t ha t i t w ou l d t ak e a m em be r of hi gh rank i n t he H P L t o o rde r t he k i l l i ng of an othe r.

Li sa Har m on Bay l or , a f or ensi c sci ent i st fo r t he T D C J C r i m e Labor at or y i n Cor pus Chr i st i , conf i r m ed 10 D r . R ay Fer nande z ’ s f i ndi ngs, but not ed t hat app el l ant was r ul ed o ut as a con t r i but or t o t he cr i m e due t o a l ack of D N A evi de nc e fo un d a t t he s c en e. O s c ar R i vera , a T ex as R an ge r, l ater ex pl ai ne d t ha t no fi ng erp ri nts w ere obt ai ned f r om t he k ni v es or t he br ass casi ngs b ecause t he kni v es ha d sm udges whi ch cou l d no t be i dent i f i ed and t he b r ass casi ngs g ot t oo h ot dur i ng t he d i schar ge f r om t he g un, whi ch di s s i pa t ed the m oi st ur e of t he f i nger pr i nt r i dge.

D r . F er nande z descr i bed “ shar p- f or ced i nj ur i es” as “ bl unt
- f or ce i nj ur i es wher e i t ’ s a bl unt sur f ace 11 t ha t i s i m pa c t ed ag ai ns t t he bo dy or hi t t i ng ag ai ns t t he bo dy , an d t he n sh arp forc e i s w he re t he re i s a s ha rp e d g e ty p e w e a p o n th a t i s m a k i n g th e c u ts o r s ta b w o u n d s o n th e b o d y .” 9 t h e y a re o u to f

p ri s o n t o a cr im in a l s t re e tga n g, t h e y a re re qu ir e d t o h a ve a u t h o ri za t io n f ro m co m m a n d a u t h o ri ty t o co m m ita vi o le n ta c t

. T h e y h a ve to—they are tr y ing to prev ent w ars w it h other g ang s, et cetera, so to g o out and hur t s omeone y ou actual ly hav e to hav e per mis si on to do that ex ceptfor the fact if

it’s i n de fense of

y our own person o r a fe llow g ang me mb er. Moreover, Lieute nan t Scottnote d tha t HPL mem bers w ere not perm itted to g o outon the ir own and b eatsome one up an d tha t me mb ers w ould have to discuss a po ten tial assau lt
w ith gang mem bers i n o rd er to ob tain p ermission

. Fi nally, he state d tha t HPL w ould 9
re g ula rl y co nductm e e ti n g s a t app ell ant’ s h ouse and t hat a kn ife w oul d be cons ide re d a deadl y w eapon. Ray F er nandez , M .D ., Nue ces County m edi cal ex aminer , conducted an auto psy on Bonham. He noted that “[t]here w as a total of 14 sha rp -forced inj ur ies w hic h are c ut ty pe
w ounds or

st ab ty pe w ounds ” on Bonham’s body

. Bonham al so had numerous br uis es 10
o n h is b o d y . D r . F e r n a n d e z t e s t if ie d t h a th e re m o ve d two b u ll e t s f ro m B o n h a m ’s b o d y. As a resul t of hi s e x aminat ion , D r. F er nandezdete rmi ned t hat “ [t] he c ause of death w as mult ipl e g unsho t wounds and shar p- forced i nju ri es. ” 1110

Jaim e A lvarado, a c onv icted fel on, t est ified thathe k new appel lan t and that appel la n t w as the l eader of HP L for some p er iod of ti me dati ng bac k t o at lea st 2004. Al v arado obt ain ed c ocai ne from a ppel lan t on sev eral occ asi ons. On one su ch occ asi on, app ellantex presse d tha t he wanted Alv arad o to “take care of”—or, in othe r words, to kill

— Bonham. Al v arado dec li ned t o par ti ci pat e. Al v arado not ed th at i n F ebr uar y 2005, on Super Bow l Sunday , h e a tt e n d ed a par ty at appel lan t’ s h ouse. W hil e the re , app ell ant ag ain as ked Al v arado i f he knew w ho Bon ham w as. Al v arado repl ied “ y eah.” Ap pellant then stat ed that “w e real ly need to take care of hi m [Bonh am].” Sh ortl y thereafter, R uben, als o an atten dee of the par ty , s tated thati t w as ti me for Alv arado to “show

[his ] t ru e c olo rs .” Again, Alvarado de clined to participat e. Alv arad o then testif ied th at ap pellan t regularly
car ri ed a .22 c ali ber

pi sto l on hi s p erson. Al v arado’ s t est imony w as not p ro cured pursuant to a ple a deal

. 2. A pp ellan t’ s Ev id ence Jim Gilder test if ied on app ellant ’s b eha lf

. G ilder st ate d tha t he w as incarcerat ed in the Bee Cou nty j ail w ith Joe Quin, Joh n Phillip, an d Rube n. John Phillip and Ruben told Gi lde r that Joe Qui n w as the s hooter

. John Phi ll ip w as suppose d t o b e the shoot er , but Joe Qui n too k the gun f ro m hi m. J ohn Ph il li p tol d Gi lde r that they w oul d hav e g otten aw ay
w it h the murder

“ if onl y Jo e Qui n had keptq uie t.” G il der al so had a conv ersat ion w it h J oe Quin while he w as cutt ing Joe Q u in ’s hair. Joe Quin ad mitt ed th at he w as the shoo ter; howev er, he a lso not ed t h a ta ppe llant “set up the m urde r.” John Phillip and Ruben also sta ted t o Gi lde r that appel lan t “s et up the murde r. ” Gi lde r als o menti oned that Rub en and Joe Qu in w ere con spiring to g et ap pellan t in troub le for the m urde r. On cross-examina tion, Gilder adm itted tha th e w as “going to cat ch cha in to T DC” becau se of conv icti ons for burg laryof a ha bit ati on and poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed11

subst ance . Gilder then read f rom a state me nt th at he g ave to police regarding his
conv ersat ion s w it h J ohn Ph il li p, R uben, and J oe Qu in: “J ohn Ph il li p Al eman and Rub en Ma ddy Al eman tol d me on the nig ht of the murde r they had been dr ink ing and doi ng co cai ne. Theysa id that they g ot a c all from J ohnny

Vi ll ar re al and he sai d tha t t h e y h a d a meeting at the Chi ck -a -S aw

C lub .”

. . . . “R uben M addy

Al eman c all ed J oe Qu in Vi ll ar re al to c ome ov er and dr ink som e be er beca use h e ha d to ta lk to John Ph il li p A lem an a nd Jo e Quin Vi ll ar re al tog ether

to see if they

are g oin g to be ready

for t he ni g ht.”

. . . . “J oe Qu in Vi ll ar re al show ed up and J ohn Ph il li p Alem a n s aid thathe w as re ady i f Joe Q uin w as re ady

. And Rub en M addy Al eman tol d the m thathe w oul d be there to w atc h ev er ythi ng g o dow n.”

. . . . “Ruben Maddy Alema n told me t hath e w ould h ave got[t en] a w ay w ith it if it w oul d hav e been jus t J ohn Ph il lip A le m a n and Joe Qui n Vi ll ar re al, but he s ai d t h e re w a s t o o m a n y p e o p l e t h a t k n e w a b o u t i t

. J o h n A l e m a n to l d me that he w il l beat the cas e becau se Rub en M addy Al eman i s g oin g to tak e the blam e for him. Joe Quin Villarreal told me that he w as the shoo ter beca use he w as brag g ing sa y ing that John Phil li p Aleman and R uben M addy Al eman jus t w atc hed, but R uben M addy Al eman tol d me t hat h e w as the o ne w ho g av e the g un to Jo e Qui n Vi ll ar re al and al l he had to do w as w atc h as Jo e Qui n Vi ll ar re al and J ohn Ph il li p Al eman di d the j ob.” Appel lan t als o attempt ed to cal l a “M ur ra y Johns on” to tes ti fy on his beha lf , but Johns on dec li ned t o tes ti fy for fear of ret ali ati on. The defense t hen rest ed. II. S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In hi s first is sue, appel lan t arg ues that the ev ide nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti ons w as l eg al l y a nd factu al l y

i ns uffi c i en t. S pe c i fi c al l y , ap pe l l an t arg ue s t ha t th e on l y e v i dence
conne cti ng hi m to t he murder w as obtai ned w it h “co- defendant testi monies ” w hic h w ere not
cor ro borated.12

1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew In c onducti ng a l eg al suffici ency re v iew , w e v iew the re lev ant ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict to determi ne w hether a rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a r e a so n abl e doubt

. Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S. W .3 d 9, 13 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 3 1 8- 19 (1 979) ); Esc am il

la v. State , 143 S .W .3d 8 14, 8 17 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 4). T he trier of fact is the sol e j udg e of the facts, the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, and the w eig h t g iv en to tes ti mony . See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Beck hamv. Sta te , 29 S. W .3d 1 48, 1 51 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, pet. ref'd)

. W e do not
re e va lu a t e t h e we ig h ta n d cr e d ib il it y o f t h e e vid e n c e , n o r d o we su b s t it u t e o u r o wn jud g ment for

the tr ier of fact. Ki

ng v. State , 29 S. W .3d 556 , 562 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00); Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. Ins tead, w e c onsid e r whe th e r the jur y reache d a rati onal deci si on. Beck

ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. In a factual suff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht t o det er mine
w het her the ev iden ce is so weak tha t the ju ry 's verdict seem s clearly w rong and m anifestly unj ustor the jur

y 's v erdict is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S. W .3 d 4 0 4 , 414 -1 5 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. This C our t w il l not
re v erse the jur

y 's v erdict unl ess w e can say w it h some obj ect iv e basi s in the record tha t t he g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. Id. at 41 7. T h e S t a t e is n o tre qu ir e d t o p re s e n td ir e c t e vid e n c e , s u c h a s e ye wit n e s s t e s t im o n y, to es tabl is h g uil t. Se e G u evar a v . St ate , 152 S.W .3d 45, 49 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04). "Ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce is as probati v e as directev ide nce in est abl is hin g the g uil t of the act or , and ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce alo ne c an be suffici ent t o es tabl is h g uil t." Hooper , 21413

S.W .3d a t 13; Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. The l aw does not re q uire tha t eac h fact "poi nt direct ly and ind ependent ly

to the g uil t of

the appel lan t, as long as the cumul ati v e effectof all the inc ri minat ing facts i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t t he c onv icti on." Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13; Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. Both leg al and factu al suffici ency are meas ured by

the ele ments of the offense as defined bya hy pothet ic all y correctj ur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Adi

v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 124, 131 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet.
re f'd). U nder

a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e , a person commi ts murde r if he "int enti onal ly and k now ing ly ca uses the death of an i ndi v idu al" or i ntended to caus e s er iou s bodi ly i nju ry and commi tted an act c lea rl y dang erous to hu man l ife tha t c aused death. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02( b) (1 ). Mo re ov er , a person eng ag es in il leg al org ani z ed c ri minal act iv ity “ if, w it h the i ntentto est abl is h, mai ntai n, o r p arti ci pate in a c ombina ti on or i n the profits of a c ombina ti on or as a member of a cr imi nal st re et g ang , he commi ts or co nspi re s to com mit . . . mu rder . . . .” Id. § 71 .02 (a)(1). 2. Disc ussi on a. The Charge In t his ca se, the jury could co nv ict app ell ant o f murder i f, based on th e ev ide nce, t h e y b e li e ve d b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b tt h a to n o r a b o u tA p ri l 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , in B e e Co u n t y, T exas, eithe r:

. . . JO H N N YOS C A RVI L L A R R E A L , di d th e n an d th e re as a m e mb e r o f a criminal stree t gang to w it: Herma nda d De Pistole ros Latin os, inte ntion ally or k n o w i n g l y , c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f D o n a l d W e s l e y B o n h a m b y s h o o t i n g and sta bbi ng sa id Don ald W esl ey Bonham w it h a kni fe and a fire ar m, as al leg ed in Parag ra ph 1 of Count2 of the Indi ctment ; O R

. . . JO HN NY

OSCAR VI LLAR RE AL, did then and there, w it h the i ntentto14

e s t a b li s h , m a in t a in , o r p a rt ic ip a t e in a co m b in a t io n , in t e n t iona lly or know ingl y, commi t t he offense of murde r by ca usi ng the death o f D o n ald W esl ey B o n h a m b y

s h o o t i n g an d st a b b i n g sa i d D o n a l d W e s l e y Bo n h a m w i t h a k n i fe and a fire ar m, as al leg ed i n Parag ra ph 2 of Count2 of the Indi ctment

. . . . b. T he Accom pl ice-Wit ness R ul e Ar ti cl e 38. 14 of the code of cr imi nal proce dure prov ide s that “[ a] c onv icti on c annot be h ad u pon the t e s t im ony of an acco mp lice unless corrob orate d by other evidence tendi ng to conne ct the defendant w it h the offense commi tted; and the c or ro borati on i s n ot suf f icient if it merely shows the com mission of the of fense .” T E X C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.14 (V er non 200 5) ; see Dr uer y v . St ate , 225 S.W .3d 4 91, 4 98 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. In conducti ng a suffici ency rev iew under the accompl ic e- w it ness rul e, a re v iew ing
cour t mus t el imi nate the acco mpli ce test imony f ro m cons ide ra ti on and then ex amine the
re maini ng por

ti ons of the record to see if there is any ev ide nce that tends to conne ct the
acc used w it h the co mmiss ion of the c ri me. Solom on v . St ate , 4 9 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 1 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (ci ti n g C o o k v . Sta te , 8 5 8 S

. W .2d 467 , 470 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93); Thom pson v. State , 691 S.W .2d 6 27, 6 31 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984) ). The non- acc ompli ce ev ide nce need no t direct ly li nk the d efendant to the cr ime, nor mu st if be suf f icient to esta blish guilt bey ond a reason able dou bt; rath er, the stand ard is onl y thati t hav e a t endency to conne ct the d efendant to the cr ime. Dowth itt v . St ate , 931 S.W .2d 2 44, 2 49 ( Tex . C ri m. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). W hil e the defendant’ s mere presenc e at the
cr ime sc ene i s n ot s uff ic ien t by its elf to cor ro borate a cc ompli ce tes ti mony , ev ide nce of
suc h presenc e, c oupl ed w it h oth er su spi ci ous ci rc umstan ces , may tend to co n n e ct the
acc used to t he offense. Tr evi no v. St ate , 991 S.W .2d 849 , 851 -52 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9). After eli minat ing f ro m c onsi derati on th e tes ti mony of Rub en and Joe Qui n, bo th
accom plices in the murd er of Bonh am , a rev iew

o f t he record rev eals inculpa tory evidence15

w hic h ten ds to l ink

appel lan t with t h e murder of Bonham. M edel li n tes ti fied th at s he obser v ed an odd patter n of sev eral men g oin g to the rest ro om tog ether and a w hit e
v an—t he sa me v an ide ntif ied as ap pellan t ’s g e t away v ehicle—sp eed out of the Club’s par ki ng l ot. Li eutenan t Sc ott tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t admi tted to hi m thathe w as an H PL member and t hat h e w it ness ed th e att ack on B onham. Lie utenantSc ott, a g ang ex per t, als o not ed th at s ev eral HP L members i denti fied a p p e ll ant a s a l eader of the H PL i n the Beev il le area and that acc ordin g to the hierarchy of the HP L, members w ere notal low ed to as saul t another

w it hout per mis si on f ro m hig h rank ed H PL members. Bot h R uben an d Joe Qui n w ere of lo w er rank in the H PL t han app ell ant. Moreover, Gilder, a w itness for the defense , testif ied tha t Joe Quin and Ru ben told him that they

co mmitt ed th e murder

of Bonham, but t hat appel lan t “s et up the murde r. ” In addi ti on, A lv a ra d o , n ot an ac compl ic e to Bonham’ s murder , s tated thatappel lan t had
ex press ed a desi re to hav e Bonham ki ll ed. In fact , Al v arado t est ified thatappel lan t as ked him to c ommit the o ffense. F ina ll y , Al v arado, a reg ula r buy er of coc ain e from ap pel lan t, not ed that appe llant regularly carried a .22 caliber pistol—the same gun used by Joe Qu in to s hoot Bonham— on hi s person at al l ti mes. Bas ed on thi s t est imony , w e c oncl ude t hat there w as suffici ent e v ide nce to c onnect app ell ant w it h the co mmiss ion of the offense. See Solom on , 49 S.W .3d a t 361

. c. L awo f th e Par

ti es The charg e author iz ed appell ant’ s c onv icti on as a pa rty to the murder

pursuantto
s e c t i o n 7

. 0 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f t h e p e n al code. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 7.0 2( a) (2 ) (V er non 200 3). i. Sec tion 7.02(a )(2) o f t he Texa s Pena l Code Sect ion 7.02 (a )( 2) st ates that : “A person is cr imi nal ly

respon si ble for a n offense by16

the c onduct of anot her

i f . . . acti ng w it h i ntentto promote or ass is t the commi ss ion of the offense, he s oli ci ts, enc ourag es, di re cts , ai ds, or att em pts to aid the other person to
com mi tthe of

fense . . . .” Id. § 7. 02( a) (2 ). Thus , i n order to conv ict app ell ant o f murder under se cti on 7. 02( a) (2 ), the Stat e had to prov e that he aid ed and abe tted Rub en and Joe Qui n w it h respect t o eac h el ement of the offense. W oods v. State , 749 S.W .2d 2 46, 2 48 (Te x . App .–Fo rt W orth 19 88, no pe t.).

ii. L egal an d Fact ual Su ff icien cy o f th e Ev id ence to Su pp or

t a C on v ict io n Un der

Sect io n 7.02( a) (2 ) “Evide nce is su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t a conv icti on unde r the l aw of par ti es w here the act or i s p hy si cal ly

presentat the c ommis si on of the offense, and e n co urag es the
com mission of

t he o f fense eithe r by

w ords or oth er agreeme nt.” Bur din e v . St ate , 719 S. W .2d 3 09, 3 15 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) ; Cor dova v. State , 698 S.W .2d 107 , 111 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1985)

. The ev ide nce must show that , at t h e t im e of

the offense, the par

ti es
w ere acti ng tog ether , eac h cont ri buti ng some par t tow ards the ex ecut ion of thei r common pur pose. Bur

din e , 719 S.W .2d a t 315

. In deter mini ng w hether a de fendant par

ti ci pated in an offense as a pa rty , t he c our t may ex amine the ev ents occ ur ri ng before, dur ing , and after the c ommis si on of the cr ime and may rely on t he defendant’ s a ctions th at s how an understan d in g a n d c ommon des ig n to commi t t he c ri me. Bur din e , 719 S.W .2d a t 315 ; Cordova , 698 S.W .2d a t 111 ; Beier v. Sta te , 687 S.W .2d 2, 4 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 5). The record c ontai ns tes ti mony thatappel lan t, a l eader of the H PL, in st ructed Jo e Qui n and other

HPL members to ki ll Bonham. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 7 .02 (a)(2), 71.02( a) (1 ). J oe Qu in and R uben bo th t est ified that appell ant prov ide d the gun used in the murde r and that appel lan t act iv ely par ti ci pated in Bonham’ s k il li ng . See i d. §§ 1 9.0 2(b)(1), 71.02( a) (1 ). M oreov er , sev eral w it ness es test ified that theysa w appel lan t atthe Cl ub th at17

nig ht, that appel lan t repeated ly ex press ed a desi re to hav e Bonh am ki ll ed, a nd th at appel lan t c onducted a meeti ng to dis cus s h ow they w ere g oin g to ki ll Bonha m. See i d. §§ 7.02( a) (2 ), 19.0 2( b) (1 ), 71.0 2( a) (1 ). There w as als o testi mony prov ide d tha t app ell ant met
w it h J oe Qu in, R uben, and J ohn Ph il li p i n the rest ro om of the C lub and that appel lan t
encou ra g ed th e i ndi v idu als to “t ake care” of Bonham. See i d. § 7.0 2(a)(2). On t he ot her

hand, Gil der

testi fied that R uben an d J oe Qu in commi tted the murder
w it hout appel lan t’ s a ctu al par ti ci pati on and that both Rub en and Joe Qui n c onspi re d to g et appel lan t i n troubl e for the murder

. How ev er , as p rev iou sl y menti oned, Gi lde r admitted tha t bot h Rube n an d Joe Quin told him th at ap pellan t “set up th e mu rder.” The ju ry w as the e x cl usi v e j udg e of the facts prov ed and of the weig ht t o be g iv en to the testi mony . T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.04. Therefore, t he j urors w ere free to acc ept or re

ject any or all of t he w it ness es’ tes ti mony . See D avi la v. State , 147 S.W .3d 5 7 2 , 5 7 5 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 4 , p e t. re f ’d ) (ci ti n g Al var ado v . St ate , 818 S.W .2d 100, 105 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1991, no p et.) ); see als o Lanc on v . St ate , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( “The jur y i s i n the best pos it ion to jud g e the credi bil ity of
a w itness b ecau se it is present to hea r the test imo ny, as oppo sed to a n a p p ellate court
w ho reli es on th e c old record.” ). I n c onv icti ng appel lan t, the j ur y obv iou sl y

ac cept e d the aforementi oned t est imony offered by

the Stat e and re

jected t he te sti mony

off e re d on appel lan t’ s b ehal f. W e mustdefer to t he j ur y ’s dete rmi nati on. See Cl ayton v. St

ate , 235 S.W .3d 772 , 778 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07) (“W hen the reco rd supp orts conf licting inference s,
w e presume that the factfinder resol v ed th e c onfli ct s in fav or of the p ro sec uti on and th e re fo re de fe r to th a t d e te rm in a ti o n .” ) (ci ti n g Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 32 6)

. Base d on the foreg oin g , w e c o n clu d e that the cu mulat iv e forc e of al l the incrimina ting circum stan ce s i s s uf f icient to supp ort app ellant ’s convi ctions for Bon ham ’s18

murde r and eng ag ing i n org ani z ed c ri minal acti v ity . See Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13; see also Gue vara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. M oreov er , t he v erdict i s not ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pre p o n d e ra n ce of

the ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5. App ellant ’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. III . E NT RA P MENT In his seco nd issue , app ellantconte nds th at he “w as en tit led to entrap me nt as a defense as a matter

of law si nce he hel p[ed] l aw

enforc ement ob tai n the sus pect s i n the
mu rder of

Bonh am .” 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew W hen app ell ant rais ed th e defense of entrapment a t t ri al, he h ad th e burden of produci ng ev ide nce to establ is h ev er y element of that defense. See Her nandez v. Sta te , 161 S. W .3d 4 91, 4 97 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. He had to present a pr ima facie cas e tha t: (1 ) he eng ag ed i n the co nductch arg ed; ( 2) bec ause he w as ind uced to do so by a l aw enforcem entagent; (3) w ho used p ersua sion or o the r m ean s; and (4) tho se me ans were li kel y to caus e persons to commi t t he offense. See i d. ; se e al

so T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 8.06( a) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Onc e he made a pr ima facie show ing of each ele ment, the S tate then had t he burden o f pers uasi on to di sprov e ent ra pment be y ond a re asona ble doubt

. See Her nandez , 161 S.W .3 d at 498. A rev iew of the j ur

y ’s reje cti on of an en trapment defense focus es on th e lega l su f fici ency of the e v ide nce. See R esendez v. Sta te , 160 S.W .3d 1 81, 1 88- 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, no p et.)

. W hen an entrapment defense i s p re sent ed attr ial , t he fact- finder i s a uthor iz ed to
w eig h the ev ide nce and draw a conc lus ion as to w hether the ev ide nce e st a b lis hes entrapment a s a m a tt e r of factor l aw . Her

nandez , 1 6 1 S. W .3 d at50 0 . In revie wing a jury ’s rejection of

an en trapm entdefense , w e de term ine w het her, view ing the evidence in19

the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the prosec uti on, any ra ti onal tr ier of fact c oul d hav e found the
e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f

t h e c ri m in a l o f

fe n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b ta n d a ls o co u ld h a ve found ag ain st the defendant on the is sue of en trapment bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Id. This rev iew

musttak e i nto a cc ount that the tr ier of fact , not the appell ate c our t, w as free to ac ceptor

reje ct all or

any por ti on of any

w it n e ss ’s te sti mony . Id. In c ases w here the ent rapm entd efense is asserte d, the fact-f inde r m ay disbe liev e som e or all of a w itness’s tes ti mony

ev en w hen t hat t est imony i s u ncont ra dicted. See i d. at 50 1. 2. Disc ussi on Here, appel lan t den ied co mmitt ing any offense, w hic h i s i ncons is tent w it h entrapment. See Nor

man v. Sta te , 588 S.W .2d 3 40, 3 45 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1979) ( “The defense of entrapment i s n ot av ail abl e to a defendant that [d]en ies the commi ss ion of the of fense .”). Moreover, app ellant failed to dem onst rate how law enforcem ent indu ced h im to c ommit the murder

of Bonham. See Her nandez , 161 S.W .3d a t 497 ; see a lso T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 8.0 6( a)

. Appel lan t merely tak e s iss u e wit h the fact th at he prov ide d in fo rm a t io n t o la w e n fo rc e m e n tt h a ta p p a re n t ly c o n t ri b u t e d , in so m e d e g r e e , t o h is o wn undoi ng . Lie utenantSc ott tes ti fied th at co n f id e n ti al infor mants w ere noti mmune from prosec uti on in ex chang e for thei r coope ra ti on. In addi ti on, t he record does not cont ain any moti on fil ed by

appel lan t i n the tr ial cour t spec ific all y seek ing to inc lud e an i nst ru cti on on entrapment i n the jur

y charg e. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) (1 ); see als o Her nandez , 161 S.W .3d a t 498 ( “N or mall y , a defense s uch as entrapment i s a q ues ti o n for the j ur y to d e c i d e b e c a u s e i ti s d e t e r m i n e d l a rg e l y b y w e i g h i n g fa c t s a n d a s s e s s i n g c re d i b i l i t y . ” )

. We therefore ha v e no basi s t o c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d in fa ili ng to inc lud e an entrapment i nst ru cti on i n the j ur y ch arg e. In ad dit ion , app ell ant a ppears t o urg e tha t t he tri al cour t s houl d hav e det er mined20

th a t a p p e llantw as entrapped a s a matte r of law at a pretr ial su ppress ion hear ing

. The
cour t of cr imi nal appeal s n oted the follo w ing w it h re spect to the tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion
o f t h e fa c t u a l i s s u e o f

e n t ra p m e n ta s a m a t t e r o f la w: Our ’s st ate’ s reti cenc e to deci de th e fact ual iss ue of entrapmentby

means of a pretr ial moti on i s i n ac co rd wit h federa l entrapment l aw . See, e.g., Ma thews v. United S tates , 485 U .S. 58[, 63] ( 1988) ( “The q ues ti on of entrapment i s g enerall y one for th e j ur

y , rather than for t h e c our

t.” ); United Sta tes v. Ku rkow

ski , 281 F .3d 6 9 9, 70 1 ( 8th C ir . 200 2) ( “[ T]o sh ow entrapment a s a matte r of law , t he ev ide nce must cl ear ly sh ow the g ov er nment ag ent d ev elo ped t he c ri minal pl an and that the d efendant w as not p re d is pose d to com mit th e crime ind epe nde nt of the governmen t’s act iv it ies .” ); United S tates v. T uck er , 133 F .3d 1 208, 1217 ( 9th C ir . 199 8) (“ To est abl is h [i nduce ment] as a matt er of law , the defendant must poi nt t o undi sput ed ev ide nce maki ng it patentl y clear that [t he g ov er nment i nduce d] a n o t h e rwi s e in n o c e n tp e rs o n . . . t o co m m itt h e il le ga l a c tb y t ri c k e ry, persuas ion , or fraud of a g ov er nment ag ent.” ); United S tates v. Lam pley, 127 F.3d 1 231 , 124 3 (10th Cir. 199 7) (“Entrapm entas a ma tter of law ex ists only w hen t here i s u ndi sput ed ev ide nce w hic h s hows co n cl usi v ely and unmis tak abl y

thatan o ther

w is e i nnoce nt pe rs on w as indu ced to committhe act .” ) (i nter nal q uotat ion s o mitt ed) ; Cor onado v. United S tates , 266 F .2d 7 19, 721 (5th Cir. 1959 ) ( “[E]nt rapm entis a j uryqu e s t io n u nless evidence is so clear and convincing tha t t h e m atte r can be pa ssed o n by the court as a ma tter of law .”). Her nandez , 1 6 1 S. W .3 d a t 4 9 9 n. 1 2 . At t h e pre tr ia l su p p re ss io n he a rin g, a p p e lla n t, th o u gh not s peci fical ly

referenc ing the defense of entrapment , di d notpresentundi sput ed evidence th at con clusiv ely showed tha t the g overnme nti n d u c e d him, a n oth erw ise inn ocent person, to commi t the murde r of Bonham. See i d. Therefore, w e cannot say that the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on i n deny ing appel lan t’ s mot ion for s uppress ion w it h
re spect t o ent ra pment. Ac cordin g ly , app ell ant’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. L E A DI NG Q UE S TI ONS , THE U SA GE OF P RE -D RAWN D I A G R A MS , A ND P RE J UDI CE In hi s thi rd is sue, appel lan t cont ends that the p ro sec utor as ked lea din g q uest ion s ov er the tr ial co urt’ s ins tr uct ion s to re frai n from doi ng so and us ed pre- draw n di ag ra ms for purp oses o the r than d em onst ration . According to app ellan t , t h e se actio ns sub stan tially21

preju dic ed hi s c ase. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew Leadi ng q uest ion s a re que st io n s that sug g estthe desi re d ans w er . See Tinlin v. State , 983 S.W .2d 6 5, 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 1 9 9 8 , pet. re f’d)

. Rul e 611( c) of the T exas Rules o f

E vid ence state s thatleadin g question s may be used on the direct
ex aminat ion of a w it ness as nec ess ar y to dev elo p hi s tes ti m o n y . T EX
. R. E V ID
. 611 (c). Per mitt ing l eadi ng q uest ion s o n di re ct ex aminat ion i s a matte r w it hin the sound di sc re ti on of the tr ial co urt. Wyatt v. State , 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 8 , 2 8 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ; se e Navaj ar
v. State , 496 S.W .2d 6 1, 64 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1973) ; see als o Wise v. State , 223 S.W .3d 548, 558 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2007, pet. re f’d)

. The tr ial co urt doe s n ot abuse it s d is creti on in all ow ing su ch q uest ion s u nle ss appel lan t can s how thathe w as undul y

preju dic ed by
v ir tue of t he q uest ion s. Na vajar , 496 S.W .2d a t 61; W ise , 223 S.W .3d at 558 . More impor tantl y , er ro r in all ow ing l eadi ng q uest ion s s eld om resul ts in re v ersi ble er ro r. See U hl
v. State , 479 S.W .2d 5 5, 57 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1972) ; see als o Mo bli n v. State , No. 07- 07- 0175- CR , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 4613, at *6 (Tex

. App.–A mari ll o June 24, 2008, no pet .) (mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication). 2. Disc ussi on Cou nsel for appel lan t obj ect ed to t he St ate’ s u sag e of le adi ng q uest ion s n umero us ti mes; many

of thes e objec ti o n s were s ust ain ed by the tr ial co urt. In sus tai nin g the obj ect ion s o f appell ant’ s c oun se l, the tr ial co urt i nst ru cte d the Sta te t o notas k l eadi ng q uest ion s. H ow ev er , t he St ate c onti nued t o as k l eadi ng q ues ti ons of its w it ness es on sev eral occ asi ons. On ap peal , app ell ant a rg ues that “t he prosec utor ’s co nti nuanc e to ask l eadi ng question s ev en a f

ter instructio n f rom th e cou rt created substa ntial p reju dice againstT he t r i al cour t di d no t sanct i on t he St at e’ s pr osecut or orhol d he r i n con t em pt f or r epeat edl y aski ng 12 l eadi ng q uest i ons a f t er bei ng i nst r uct ed n ot t o do so. 22 Vi ll ar re al dur ing his tr ial becau se ev ide nce w as bei ng fed t o w it ness es by th e [S ]t a te .” How ev er , app ell ant fai ls to ex pla in ex actlyhow hi s c ase w as subs tanti all y preju dic ed by the S tate’ s l eadi ng q uest ion s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( h) ; see a lso Nav aja r , 496 S.W .2d at 61 ; W ise , 223 S.W .3d a t 558

. In any ev ent, the record does not demonst ra te t hat t he Stat e w as feeding ev ide nce to he r w it ness es; i n st e a d , t he St ate w as merel y tr y ing to d e velop t est imony

as al low ed by

r ule 611( c) of the r ule s o f ev ide nce. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 611 (c). Based on the record before us, w e cann ot say tha t app ellanthas sho w n tha t his

12
cas e w as subs tanti all y preju dic ed by the S tate’ s u sag e of le adi ng q uest ion s. See Navaj ar , 496 S. W .2d a t 61; W

ise , 223 S.W .3d a t 558 ; see als o U hl , 479 S.W .2d a t 57; Moblin , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 613, at * 6. In ad dit ion , t he tr ial co urt al low ed th e State t o us e “ pre- draw [n] dia g ra ms” of the Cl ub to ex pla in the g eog ra phi cal locat ion s of the C lub ’s oc cupan ts at v ar iou s t imes on t he
n ig h to f B o n h a m ’s m u rd e r. T h e d ia gra m s we re a ll o we d fo r d e m o n s t ra t ive p u rp o s e s o n ly; they w ere nei ther offered nor admi tted int o ev ide nce. See M ar key v. Sta te , 996 S.W .2d 226 , 231 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 9, no pet. ) ( not ing th a tt h e t ri al court’s discretion to perm it the use of v isual aids, charts, an d diagram s during trial is w ellest abl is hed) ; see als o Pitr e v . St ate , No. 09- 95- 140- CR , 1997 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 3 883, at **4 -5 ( T e x. Ap p.–Bea umont J uly 23, 1997, no pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for p u b l i c a t i o n ) ( s t a ti ng thatd i a g ra ms c a n b e u s e d fo r d e mo n s t ra t i v e p u r p o s e s t o c l a r i fy tes ti mony ). On ap peal , appell ant c ontends thatthe dia g ra ms c onv ey ed hearsay ev ide nce ov er d e fe n s e co u n s e l o bje c t io n s . Ho we ve r, T e xa s co u rt s h a ve n o tt re a t e d d e m o n s t r a t ive23

e vid e n c e , wh e t h e r i tb e a m a p , m o d e l, d ra win g, ch a rt , o r d ia gra m , a s in a d m is s ib le h e a rs a y. See P ier ce v. State , 777 S.W .2d 3 99, 4 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1989) ; Cl ay v. State , 592 S.W .2d 6 09, 6 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980) ; Ma yfi eld v. Sta te , 8 4 8 S

. W

. 2 d 8 1 6 , 8 1 9 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1993, pet. ref’d) ; see a lso Pitre , 1997 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 3 883, at * 4. Furthe rmore , app ellanthas no t ade quately ex plaine d ho w the dia gram s substa ntially preju dic ed hi s c ase or

w hat hearsay

ev ide nce w as admitted o v er obj ect ion

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( h)

. Appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. V. A P P E LL A NT ’ S E XTR A N EOU S O FFEN SES In hi s four

th is sue, appell ant takes iss ue w it h the admiss ion of Al v arado’ s t est imony that appel lan t w as a dr ug dealer and a gang m ember

. Spec ific all y , app ell ant a ss erts that the adm ission of

Alv arad o’s testim ony constitu ted u n fa irprejudice since “no drug [w as] inv olv ed i n the murder

of Bonham.” 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew The tr ial co urt i s g iv en w ide l ati tude to ad mit or ex cl ude ev ide nce of extraneous offenses . Mo ntgom er

y v . St ate , 810 S.W .2d 372 , 390 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91) (en ba nc); Poole v . St ate , 974 S.W .2d 892 , 897 (Te x . App .–A ustin 1998 , pet . ref ’d). A rev iew ing court
mu s tt h e re fore recognize that th e trial court is in a superior po sition to g auge th e imp act of t h e re l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a n d n o t re v e rs e a t r i a l c o u rt ’ s r u l i n g i f i t i s w i t h i n t h e “ z one of
reaso nab le disagreem ent .” Mo zon v . St ate , 991 S.W .2d 841 , 847 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9); Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 391

. In ba lan ci ng probati v e v alu e and unfair preju dic e under rule 403 of

the rules of evidence, an ap pellat e cou rt presum es tha t the proba tiv e v alue w ill outw eig h any

preju dic ial effect

. Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d at 389; seeT EX
. R. E V ID
. 403. It is therefore the object ing party ’s b urde n to de mo nstrat e tha t the proba tiv e v alue is subs tanti all y

outw eig hed by

the dang er

of unfair preju dic e. Hi

nojosa v. State , 995 S.W .2d24

955, 958 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1999, no p et.) ; Poo le , 974 S.W .2d a t 897

. 2. Disc ussi on Req uis it e for re v iew

of any co mplai nt on appe al is preser v ati on of er ro r. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) ; Blue v

. St ate , 4 1 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 1 ( T e x. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). T o p re s e rve a c omplai nt for

appel lat e re v iew , a par

ty must present a ti mely re q uest , obj ect ion , or moti on to t he tr ial co urt s tati ng t h e speci fic g ro unds for th e des ired r uli ng i f the s peci fic g ro unds
w e re n o t a p p a re n t fro m t h e c o n t ex t. Ad am s v . St ate , 1 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 9 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 5 , no p e t. ) (ci ti n g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) ; Blue , 41 S. W .3d at 131 ). The compl ain ing par

ty mustal so obtai n an adv erse ru li ng on the obj ect ion

. Id. G e n e ra ll y, a par ty 's failu re to t imel y

and spec ific all y

obj ectat tr ial forfeit s a ny er ro r. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1; see Blue , 41 S.W .3d a t 131

. Appel lan t fail ed to obj ectto Al v arado’ s te st imony as to appel lan t’ s a ll eg ed dr ug dea ling; therefore, we conclude thatapp ellantfailed to preserve th at com plaintfor app eal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) (1 ); see als o Blue , 41 S.W .3d at 13 1; Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d at 38 8. On the other hand, appel lan t did obj ect to Al v arado’ s tes ti mony as to w hether appel lan t w as the l eader of the H PL i n 2004, all eg ing that Al v arado di d nothav e personal k n o wle d ge o f

app ellant ’s g ang me mb er statu s. Th e trial court overruled app ellant ’s obj ect ion , and Al v arado t est ified thathe h ad k now led g e tha t app ell ant w as the l eader of the H PL i n the Beev il le area. On appeal , appell ant has n ot ad eq uatel y ex pla ine d how

the probati v e v alu e of Al v arado’ s t est imony as to appel lan t’ s g ang member st atus w as subs tanti all y

outw eig hed by

the dang er

of unfair preju dic e. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(h);
see a lso Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 389 ; Hinojosa , 995 S.W .2d at 958; Poo le , 974 S.W .2d at 897. Fur

ther more, it is noteworthy that other w it ness es— nam e ly, L ieutenant25

Scott, Rub en, a nd J oe Qu in—tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t w as the l eader of the H PL i n the Beev il le area w it hout obj ect ion from app ell ant. T herefore, iti s n ot pa tentl y obv iou s from the record before us t h a t Al varado’ s t est imony as to appel lan t’ s g ang member st atus subs tanti all y

preju dic ed appe l l a n t ’ s c a s e . A c c o rd i n g l y , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s four th i ss ue. VI. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of appell ant’ s i ss ues on appe al, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 15t h day

of Janua ry , 200 9.