i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 48 4- CR Roy A. TU RN ER , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 175th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-7367 Honora ble Mary Roman, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 30, 2008 AFF I RMED A jury found def

endant, Roy

A. Turner , g uilty of ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon and asse ssed punishment at fifty y ear s’ conf

inement. On appe al, def endant c omplains: (1) the evidenc e wa s leg ally

and fa ctually

insufficient to support the c onvict i o n, and (2) the cour t abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of a cts defe ndant committed subsequent to the cha rg ed of fe ns e . We a ff

ir m.04

- 07

- 00 48 4- CR

- 2- LEGAL AND F ACTUAL SUF F ICIENCY De fe nd ant a sse rt s th e e vid e nc e is b oth le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt to su pp or

t hi s conviction for a g g ravated assault. More specific ally , he conte nds that beca use no witness testified that defe ndant was the p er s o n wh o shot the victim, Rus sell Ward, the State did not prove a ll the elements of the offe nse. We reviewthe l eg al s ufficie ncy of t he evidence in the l ight most favor able to the verdict and de te rm ine wh e the r a

ny ratio na l tri er of

fa c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 31 9 ( 19 79 ); Gu e v ara v . S tat e , 152 S.W .3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004 ). W e re v i ew the fa ctual suff iciency of the e vidence by consideringall the evidenc e in a neutra l lig ht a nd reve rsing only

when: (1) the evidenc e supporting the ver dict is so weak that t h e v er d i ct s eems c lear ly wrongand manife stly

unjust, and (2) the supporting e vidence is outwe ighe d by the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the contra

ry evidenc e so as to rende r the ve rdict cle arly wrongand manife stly

unjust. Ro be rts v . S

tat e , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). “A rever sal for factua l insufficienc y cannot oc cur w hen ‘the g reater weig ht and pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e ac tually

favor s conviction.’” Id. (q u o t i n g W ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). The jury , as trier of fact , i s t h e sol e judg e of the
cre dibilit y

of the witnesse s and the we ight to be g iven to the ir testimony ; theref ore, r econc iliation
o f an y conflicts in t he evide nce is within the exclusive province of the jury
. Mo sle yv . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 249, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). A jury is also permitted t o make reasona ble infer ence s fr o m the evidenc e. Id
. a t 2 5 4

- 5 5
. C i r c u m s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e i s a s p r o b a t i v e a s d i r e c t e v i d e n c e in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidenc e ca n be suff icient to establish g uilt. Ho op e r v . S tat e , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).04

- 07

- 00 48 4- CR

- 3- Ward testified that o n t h e d ay o f the shooting , he wa lked out of his apar tment to find someone who w ou ld le n d h im a p h o n e . H e s aw a ma n h e r e c o g n iz e d

– G le n n “ Wa x” M il le r –
e me rg e fr om a

te a l bl ue veh icl e and the y e xch ang e d g re e tin g s. War d th e n s aw d e fe nd ant, wi th wh om h e ha d h a d at le a st two pr ior c on fr on ta tio ns , eme rg e fr om be hin d the c ar. Ea c h s po ke br ie fl y to the other in a ma

nner W ar d an d a wi t ness desc ribed a s confr ontational. I t was at that moment de fe nd a nt r a i s e d a r e v o l v e r an d b e g an s h o o t i n g a t W ar d , w h o tu r n e d an d r an . T w o w i t n e sse s – Ward’s mother a

nd a neig hbor, Da

way ne Hugg ins – also testified t hey saw defenda nt shooting the g un. One b u ll e t s tr

u c k Wa r d in th e b a c k
. D e f

e n d an t j u mp e d

in to M il le r ’ s c ar

an d th e y f le d the
scene . When EMS and police ar rived, Ward descr ibed Miller’s teal blue vehicle, told them whe re Miller lived on Dorie Stree t, and desc ribed defenda nt’s distinctive white patch of ha ir. Fifte en or twenty minutes after

the shoot i n g, S an Antonio Police Depa rtment Off

icer Rene Salas obse rved Miller and defe ndant walk into a house in the 500 block of D orie Stree t. About a minute later, the of fi c e r s a id, the pa ir

e me rg e d f

ro m the ho us e and

he de ta ine d d e fe nd ant. Th e ow ne r o f t he ho us e permitted police to sea

rch only her living room, and police never located the g un. Police broug ht Hug g ins, who saw d ef

en d an t firing the g un, to the Dorie Stree t location wher e def endant wa s detained, a

nd he identified de fend ant as the shooter. Police then transpor ted def endant to the de pa rtme nt’ s h omi c ide un it, wh e re an e vid e nc e te c hn ic ian c on du c te d a g un sh ot r e sid

ue te st o n h im. A fore nsic scientist testified the samples take n fr o m t h e residue test indicated the defe ndant may have disc harg ed a f

irea rm, handled a

discharg ed fire arm, or be en nea r such a firea rm. Ha vin g re vie we d the re c or d, we c on c lud e the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o sustain defe ndant’s convic tion.04

- 07

- 00 48 4- CR

- 4- EX TR AN EOU S OF F EN SES I n his se c on d issu e , de fe nd ant co mpl a ins the c ourt e rr e d w he n it

pe rm itt e d Ward

to g ive his te s ti mo n y d e s c r ib in g tw o thr e a ts d e f e n d an t m a d e a g a in s t h im in Se p te mb e r

2 0 0 5
. D e f

e ndant contends the e vidence was inadmissible bec ause it wa s (1) unfairly prejudicia l unde r Texas Rule of Evidence 403 and (2) prohibited cha rac ter e vidence under Te x as Rule of Evidenc e 404(b)
. At trial, the testimony

established that, while f

ree on bond, defe ndant twice thr eate ned Ward in Septe mber 2005. I n the first incident, Ward said he saw defe ndant in his own vehic l e, telling Ward, “co me h e r e , le t m e ta lk to y o u , le t m e ta lk

to y o uf o r mi n u te
. ” War d

s a id h e b a c k e d

a w ay from def endant’ s vehicle, a

nd defe ndant g ot out of his car a nd told W ard to stay

awa y from de fe nd ant’ s g ir lf

ri e nd and ne ph e w. War d r e po rt e d th e inc ide nt t o p oli c e . In t he se c on d in c ide nt, Ward was wa lking on a sidewalk when defe ndant passed by him in the same car he had been in the day he shot Ward. The c ar ma d e a U-turn and War d ran into a ne arby business. Ward and an employ ee at the business testified defe ndant followed him into the building. The employ ee or dere d defe ndant to leave , and he c omplied. W ar d gav e a s t atement to poli ce a t the business, and the employ ee later identified de fenda nt at trial. Def endan t o b j ected to Ward’s testimony reg ardingthese subseque nt threats. De fenda nt failed, how ever , to object to the s ame evidence offe red by two San Antonio police offic ers a nd the
e mpl oy e e of

the bu sin e ss War d ra

n int o d ur ingthe se c on d in c ide nt. A p art y mus t ob je c t e a c h ti me the inadmissible evidence is offer ed. Lan e v . S tat e , 151 S
. W
. 3 d 1 8 8 , 192-93 (Te x . Crim. App. 20 04 ). “ An

e rr or [if any ] in the a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e is c ur e d wh e re the same e vid e nc e c ome s in elsewhe re w ithout objection.” Id . Be cause defe ndant did not obje ct eac h time the complained- of testimony was off ere d, he has f

ailed to pre serve err or for our re view.04

- 07

- 00 48 4- CR

- 5- CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule de fe nd ant’ s is su e s o n a pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Do no t pu bli sh