### NUM BER 13-06- 0053 8-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
IN THE M A

TTER OF D .A .A ., A

CHILD
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 75t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas

Sittin g as a J uv en ile C ou rt. 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s D. A.A. , a juv eni le, appeal s his conv icti on for burg lar y of a bui ldi ng . See T EX . P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 30.02( a) (3 ) (V er non 2003)

. The tr ial jud g e pla ced D. A.A. on p ro bati on atthe Gul f Coas t Trades Cen ter unti l his eig hteent h bir thday and ordered him to pa y rest it uti on. On ap pea l, D.A.A. argues tha t (1) th e trial co urt imp rope rly conside red acco mp lice w itness tes ti mo n y , w h i c h w a s n o tc o r ro b o ra t e d ; ( 2 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n a l l o w i n g t h e h e a rs ay tes ti mony

of Bedel ia Lopez ; and ( 3) the ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s up po rt th e v erdi c t. W e affi r m.T h e re c o rd n e v e r m a k e s i t c l e a r w h o C h ris i s o r w h e th e r h e i s a m i n o r o r a n a d u l t. 1 2 I. B A CKGRO UND On M arch 22, 2 005, Off ic er Al ber to P once re spond ed to a re por t of the burg lar

y of
a ho us e ow ne d by

J er r y P erezi n W es l ac o, Tex as . Th e ho us e w as u no c c up i ed a t th e ti me buthad recently been renovated and w as un der con tract for sale. T he int erior of the ho use suffered extens iv e damag e: almos t ev er y w all w as broken throug h, do ors w ere broken and tak en off their

hi ng es, m ir ro rs w ere brok en, a w ind ow w as bro ken, and there w as w ri ti ng on so me of

the walls. W hile w riting his report of the incide nt, Of

f icer Ponce receiv ed a pho ne ca ll from his f ia n c é , B e d e li a L o p e z, in fo rm in g h im t h a tsh e h a d so m e in fo rm a t io n re ga rd in g a b u rg la ry. Lopeztol d Officer

Ponc e tha t G .L., a fiv e- y ear-o ld nei g hbor w it h w hose mother Lopezw as frie nds, had come t o Lopez ’s house af ter sc hool , v er

y ups et, cr

y ing , and as ki ng w hether a boyhi s a g e c o u l d g o t o j a i l

. L o p e z t o l d G

. L

. t h a t s h e w o u l d t a k e c a re o f i tbyca ll ing Off ic er Ponc e. Lopezca ll ed Officer Ponc e, w ho w as unav ail abl e becau se he w as w ri ti ng th e po l i c e rep or

t. L op ezt ol d G. L. t ha t Offi cer P once co uld n ott al kt o hi m a t th att i me beca use h e w as w orking. G.L. said he already knew Of f icer Ponce w as w orking becau se he h ad se en h im investigating the scene at Perez’s house . G.L. to ld Lop ez t hathe, his brother D .A.A ., and a frie nd named “C hr is ” had g one into the house. G.L. ex pla ine d tha t 1 D .A .A

. an d C hr i s h ad “ me s s ed u p th e w al l s ,” a nd h i s o th er b rot he r D .A

. w as s i c ka t ho me at t he ti me. Perez subseque ntly had the ho use rep aired. He ma de freque nt tri ps to th e ho use after the b urg lar

y to ensure itw as safe. Perezal so ins tal led a s ecur ity al ar m to d eter

any3

future burg lar ies

. The same day the ala rm w as ins tal led , i t w as setoff w hen s omeone t ri ed to en ter the house

. W hen Perezand the poli ce arr iv ed at the proper ty , he saw

D .A.A ., w ho commented to Perezthat w hen he heard the ala rm, he ra n aw ay from t he hous e. Perez foun d this com me nt to be quite susp icious. Af ter a lengthy inv estiga t io n , i nclud ing multiple e f forts by investig ato rs to conta ct D. A.A. ’s mother

to br ing i n D .A.A . bec ause he w as a s uspect i n the burg lar y , D .A.A . w as final ly broug ht t o the st ati on to be c harg ed w it h the cr ime. D .A.A . w as charg ed w it h b u rgla ry of

a h a b it a ti o n on Fe b ru a ry 16 , 2 0 0 6 . Ho wever, o n A p r il 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , t h is c h a rge was c h a n ged to th e le ss e r in clu d e d of fe n se of bu rgla ry of

a b u ild in g. D. A.A. w aiv ed hi s r ig ht t o a jur y tri al. Therefore, the tri al ju dg e of the Hi dal g o C ounty Juv eni le Cou rtacted a s t he s ole fact fin der i n a bench tr ial

. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 1.13 (V er non 200 5) ; see als o Aldr idg e v . St ate , 48 2 S. W .2 d 17 1, 1 74 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 197 2). At t ri al and ov er the obj ect ion of D. A.A. ’s att or ney , t he j udg e al low ed th e tes ti mony of Lopez , reci ti ng G. L.’ s s tatement , t o be admitted. G.L .’ s a ct u a l tes ti mony w as v ag ue, cont ra dicted L opez ’s reci tati on, a nd s eemed to contradi ct it sel f as w ell

. W hil e G. L. t est ified tha t he did not rem em ber m uch o f w hathap pen ed in th e hou se, he state d tha t it was only he, h is othe r brother

D .A., and his brother ’s fri end C hr is w ho ent ered Perez ’s hous e and that D. A.A. w as not p re sentat the t ime of the c ri me. G .L. lat er tes ti fied th at D .A.A . w as prese nt atthe ho use, but G.L . did no t s e e D

. A

. A

. G.L. stat ed th at he mere ly hea rd D.A.A. ’s v oice te lling D.A. an d Chris to leave the ho use. Fi nally, G.L. testif ied th at he did in fact s ee D .A.A . presenti n the hous e butthatD .A.A . di d not damage the h ouse. G .L. also te stif ied th at th e de struction o f Perez’s hou se sho w n in the ev iden ce w as mu ch w orseSee T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 5 1 .0 1 (2 )( B ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ) (n o ti n g th a t th e J u v e n i l e J u s ti c e C o d e i s to 2 be i nt er pr et ed i n a m annerw hi ch r em ov es, “whe r e appr opr i at e, t he t ai nt of cr i m i nal i t y f r om chi l dr en co m m i t t i ng c e rta i n u n l a w fu l a c ts

. . . .”; s e e a lso 29 T HO M AS S. M OR GA N & H A RO L D C. G AI T HER , J R ., T EX AS P RA CT I CE : J UVEN I LE L A W A ND P RAC T I CE § 21 8 ( 1999) ( not i ng t hat a j uv eni l e m us t pl ead “ t r ue” or“ not t r ue” i n an adj udi cat i on h ear i ng a s opp osed t o “ gui l t y ” or“ not gui l t y ” beca use “ ‘ gui l t y ’ has a cr i m i nal conn ot at i on, whi ch i s proh i bi t ed

. ”)

. 4 tha n the “li ttle ho les” he saw in the w alls w hen h e w as in the h ouse . How ever, G.L. also te s t i fi e d t h a ti tm u s th a v e b e e n D

. A

. a n d C h r i s w h o d e s t ro y e d t h e i n s i d e o f t h e h o u se, eit her before or

after the ti me G.L . w as presentat the h ouse. After the b ench tr ial , t he trial co urt ent ered a jud g ment of “ tr ue” to the o ffense of 2 burg lar y of a bui ldi ng . The tr ial courtfound that D.A .A. w as in need of rehabi li tati on, p lac ed him on probati on atthe Gul f Coas t Trades Ce nter until his eig hteent h bi rt hday , and ordered pay ment of rest it uti on i n the amount of $15,000. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. W HE TH E R G.L .’ S S TA TE MENT T O B E D E L IA L OPE Z WA S S U B JECT TO TH E ACCOMP LI CE W I TN ESS R ULE In hi s first is sue, D .A.A . arg ues that, bec ause G.L. sh oul d be con sidered an
acc ompli ce to t he c ri me, G. L.’ s st a tement to Lo pezi mpli cat ing D .A.A . i s s ubj ectto the
acc ompli ce w it ness r ule and must be c or ro borated by addi ti onal ev ide nce. A . LawGo v ern in g Accom pl ice Wi tn esses Und er the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , a defendant cannot be c onv icted o f a crime ba sed so lely

on the testim ony of

an acco mp lice unless th at te stimo n y is “corroborat ed b y

othe r ev iden ce ten d in g t o c o nne ct the defend antw ith the of fense com mitt ed. ” T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 38 .14 (Vernon 200 5). “An accom plice par ti ci pates w it h a defendant before, duri ng , or after the c ommis si on of a c ri me and a cts
w ith the required cu lp a b le me nta l state. ” Par edes v. State , 1 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 4). Th ere must ex ist suf f icient evidence to conn ect th e alleged acco mp lice5

to the o f fense a s a “blame w orthy participan t.” Cocke v. State , 2 0 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2 0 0 6 )

. I n o t h e r w o rd s , t h e a c c o mp l i c e ’ s p a rt i c i p a t i o n m u s ti n c l u d e an aff ir mati v e act t hat fur

thered or

promoted t he c ommis si on o f t h e o ffense for w hic h the
a c c u s e d i s charg ed. Par edes , 129 S.W .3d a t 536

. Me re presenc e at the s cene of the offense is not suffici ent to make an ind iv idu al an acc ompli ce. Cocke , 201 S.W .3d a t 748

. “A w it ness may

be a n ac compl ic e as a ma tt e r of law or as a matter

of fact; t he evidence i n t h e c a s e d e t ermin es w hatjury instruction , if

any, need s to be giv en. ” Id. at 747. If the ev ide nce cl ear ly sh ow s t hat “ the w it ness has been, or co uld hav e been, i ndi cte d for th e s ame offense” as the acc used, then the w it ness i s a n ac compl ic e as a matter of law

. Id. The re is then no nee d to lea v e to the fact find er any i nstruct ion de f ining the term “accom plice.” Id. at 748 . “If, howev er, the parties present conf licting or unclea r ev iden ce as to w hether

a w it ness i s a n ac compl ic e, t he [factf ind er] mus t first deter mine w hether the
w itness is an a ccom plice as a m atte r of fact.” Id. ; Bl

ake v. State , 971 S.W .2d 4 51, 4 55 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. The tr ial co urt i s u nder no o b li g ati on to g iv e the fact fin der “ an acc ompli ce- w it ness i nst ru cti on w hen t he ev ide nce is cl ear thatthe w it ness i s n eit her an accom plice as a m atte r of law nor as a ma tter of

fact.” Id. B. Discus sion If a juv enile is und er the m inimu m age requireme nt for a c ri m e , t h en th e juvenile
canno t be hel d cr imi nal ly re spons ibl e for his act ion s. Alber ty v. State , 250 S.W .3d 1 15, 118 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ; see T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 8.0 7(a) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). “[ U] nle ss the juv eni le cour t w aiv e[s ] j ur is dicti on and cer ti fie[s ] [a j uv eni le] for c ri minal prosec uti on as an a dul t,” w it h l imi ted e x cept ion s not appl ic abl e here, a j uv eni le canno t be held respon sible for crimes “com mitt ed wh il e he is under the age of 15.” Al ber ty, 2506

S.W .3d a t 118 ; see T EX . P EN AL C O D E A NN . § 8.0 7( a)

. The Tex as Fami ly C ode g ra nts
ex cl usi v e and or ig ina l jur is dicti on to the juv eni le cour t ov er an i ndi v idu al cons ide re d a “c hil d” at the ti me of the offense. T EX . F AM . C OD E § 51. 04(a ) ( Verno n 20 08). A “child” is defined a s a person w ho i s t en y ears o r old er and u n d e r se ven te en y ears o f age

. T EX . F AM . C OD E § 51. 02( 2) (A ) (V er non 200 8)

. Atth e tim e of

th e of fe n se , G .L . was f ive yea r s o ld , whi ch is b e lo w th e age re q uirem ents to be c las si fied as a “ chi ld” w it hin the Stat e’s j uv eni le cour t j ur is dicti on. W it hout jur is dicti on ov er G .L., a j uv eni le cour

t c oul d notw aiv e j ur is dicti on ov er G. L. an d
cer ti fy him for tr ial as an adul t; therefore it is not poss ibl e for the S tate to c onv ict G .L. of the
same o r les ser

i nclu d e d o ffense as the d efendant. See Al ber ty, 250 S.W .3d a t 118

. Beca use the e v ide nce is cl ear thatG. L. c oul d notbe a n accompl ic e as a matter of law or fact due to his age, the tr ial co urt, as the s ole fact fin der , w as under no o bli g ati on to dec ide
w hether G. L. w as an ac compl ic e w it ness . Cocke , 201 S.W .3d a t 748

. For the foreg oing reason , G .L. canno t be cons ide re d an acc ompli ce to D .A.A

. Therefore, hi s sta tement and t est imony are notsu bje ct to t he ac compl ic e w it ness r ule and do notreq uire the su ppor t of co rroborati ng ev ide nce. W e ov er ru le D. A.A. ’s first is sue. III . W HE TH E R L OPEZ ’ S T ESTI M ON Y WA S P R OPER LY A D M I TTED UN D ER TH E E XCI TED

U TTER A N C E E XCEPT I ON TO TH E H EA R SAY R ULE In his second is sue, D.A.A . arg ues that Lopez ’s reci tati on of a s tatementmade by G.L. sh oul d nothav e been admitted b y the tr ial co urt bec a u se i t doe s n ot s ati sfythe
ex ci ted u tterance ex cept ion to the h earsay r ule

. A . A pp licab le L aw Hea rs ay i s “ a s tatement , ot her

than o n e m a d e by

the decl arant w hil e tes ti fyi ng at7

the trial or hea ring, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the ma tter asserted. ” T EX . R. E V ID . 801 (d ). “ Hea rs ay i s not admis si ble ex cept as prov ide d by st atute ” or

by the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. Id. at R. 802 . One such ex cept ion is an excited utt eran ce, w hich is “a sta tement re lat ing to a sta rt li ng ev ent or condi ti on made w hil e the decl arant w as under the stress of e x citem entca used b y

t he event or co nditio n.” Id. at R. 803( 2)

. The ide a behi nd the e x ci ted u tterance ex cept ion i s t hat “ w hen a man i s in the i nst ant g ri p of v iol ent e moti on, ex ci temen t o r p ain , he ordin ar il y l oses the capac ity

for reflect ion nec ess ar y to the fabricat ion of

a falseh ood a nd the ’truth w ill com e ou t.’” Zul ian i v. State , 97 S.W .3d 5 89, 5 9 5 ( T e x. Crim

. Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) (qu o ti n g Evan s v . St ate , 480 S. W .2d 3 87, 3 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 197 2)). A tr ial co urt has di sc re ti on to allow the admis si on of an ou t- of-cou rtst atement if the
cour t bel iev es the sta tement w as made under one of t he ex cept ion s to the hearsay r ule

. Id. (cit in g Lawton v

. St ate , 913 S.W .2d 5 42, 5 53 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ). An appel la te
cour t w il l “rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s d eci si on to admi t ev ide nce over o bjecti on unde r an abuse -o f-di sc re ti on s tand a rd a n d wil l not rev erse that deci si on abs ent a cl ear abus e of discretion .” Mc Car

ty v. State , 2 5 7 S. W .3 d 23 8 , 2 3 9 ( T e x. Crim

. Ap p . 2 0 0 8 ) (ci ti n g Zul ian i , 97 S. W

. 3 d a t5 9 5 )

. “ A n a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n o c c u rs ‘ o n l y w h e n t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d e c is ion
w as so cl ear ly

w ro ng as to li e out si de th at z one w it hin w hic h reason abl e person s mi g ht disagree.’” Zul

ian i , 9 7 S. W .3 d at59 5 (quo ti n g Can tu v . St ate , 8 4 2 S

. W

. 2 d 6 6 7 , 6 8 2 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 2)). B. A nal ysis D. A.A. arg ues that G.L. ’s st atement to Lo pezca nnot be c onsi dered an ex ci ted utterance becau se G.L. made t his st atement day s after t he c ri me occ ur re d; t herefore, he8

coul d not hav e been under the stress of ex ci tement caus ed by w it ness ing the sta rtli ng ev ent. 1. G.L.’s Emotional State During His Statement D.A. A. a rgues that G.L. w as not d ominat ed by emoti on and fear s temming from all eg edl y w it ness ing the cr ime. The k ey dete rmi nati on i n dec idi ng w hether a s tatement maybe c onsi dered an ex ci ted u tterance is “‘w hether the decl arant w as sti ll domi nated by the e moti ons, ex cit ement, fear, or pai n of the ev ent’ or co ndi ti on atthe ti me of the state me nt.” Id. a t 5 9 6 (quo ti n g Mc Far lan d v . St ate , 845 S.W .2d 8 24, 8 46 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) , over

ruled on other gr

ounds by Bi nghamv. Sta te , 915 S.W .2d 9, 10 (Tex . C ri m. App. 199 4)). In othe r w or d s , a rev iew ing court mustdete rmine w het her the declaran t’s sta tement w as made “ under su ch ci rc umstan ces as w oul d reas onabl y show that i t resul ted f rom impulse rathe r tha n reaso n and ref lection .” Id. at59 6 (quo ti n g Fowler v. Sta te , 379 S.W .2d 345 , 347 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 64)). Lop ez testif ied th at G.L . w as a f requentv isitor to her ho me and thaton on e such
v is it , after

G. L. saw Off ic er Ponc e inv est ig ati ng Perez ’s proper ty , G.L. w as v er

y ups et. In fact, sh e stat ed that G.L. w as cry ing, shakin g, and mo re upse t tha n she had ev er seen him before. In thi s h eig htened emoti onal st ate, G.L. as ked Lopezi f a boy his ag e c oul d g o to jai l and s ubseq uentl y

co nfessed to he r th a t h e wa s p re sentat Perez ’s proper ty w hen D. A.A. and Chr is ente re d i nto a nd damag e d t h e proper ty

. Gi v en Lope z ’s personal relation ship to f iv e-y ear-old G.L. and her famil iar ity

w it h hi s u sual beh a vi or and
manner is ms, a reason abl e fact finder co uld co ncl ude from Lopez ’s tes ti mony thatG. L. w as domina ted b y

emoti ons and fear

ca used by

w it ness ing the sta rt li ng ev ent w hen he made9

thi s s tatementto Lopez

. 2. Lapse in Time Betw een Ev ent and G.L.’s State ment D. A.A. al so argu e s th at ev en i f G.L. w as domina ted b y emoti ons and fear immedi atel y

after w it ness ing t h e c ri me, th ose emoti ons had s ubsi ded by the ti me G.L

. ma de h is statem entto Lop ez several days af ter the crime. A court m ay consid er the lap se in ti me from the sta rt li ng ev ent t o the st atement to de ci de i f the “ decl arant made an e x ci ted utte rance or a delibe rativ e state me nt.” Vol ks wagen of Am ., Inc . v . R am ir ez , 159 S.W .3d 897, 908 ( Tex . 200 4) ( ci ti n g Tru ck Ins. E xch. v . M ichli ng , 3 6 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 2 , 1 7 4 (T e x. 1963) ). H ow ev er , a lap se in ti me i s n ot di spos it iv e buti s me re ly a f a ctor in cons ide ri ng w hether a s tatementi s a dmis si ble as an e x ci ted u tterance. Zul ian i , 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d at 596. Ex ci ted u tterance sta tements do not need to be made immedi atel y after the sta rt li ng ev ent has occ ur re d. Ins tead, the cour t may rev iew eac h case on its ow n c ircums tanc es w it hout bein g restricted to a “def inite and f ix ed limit of time. ” Tr

uck Ins . Exch. , 364 S.W .2d a t 174

. The record show s that G.L. w as pre sentat Perez ’s proper ty w hen the s tar

tl ing ev ent of the burg lar

y of the bui ldi ng occ ur re d. W hil e G. L.’ s s tatementto Lopezi mpli cat ing D .A.A

. w as ma de se v eral d ay s a fte r t he c r i me o c c ur red , th i s s ta te me ntw as ma de i mme di ately
a f t e r G

. L

. s a w P o n c e a tP e re z’s p ro p e rt y i n ve s t ig a t in g t h e c ri m e . I ti s r e a s o n a b le t o b e li e ve that seei ng Ponc e i nv est ig ati ng the damag e to Perez ’s proper ty w oul d hav e tr ig g ered G. L. to be dom inate d by his em otion s stem min g f rom th e crime. The refore, wh il e G.L .’s state me nt to Lop ez w as ma de se v eral days a f ter the st artling event, it w as still m ade w hile G.L. w as under

the stress of ex ci tement caus ed by the sta rt li ng ev ent a nd domi nated by emoti on and fear t ri g g ered by a s ubseq uent sta rt li ng ev ent rela te d t o the burg lar y of the10

bui ldi ng . See Har

ve y v. Sta te , 123 S.W .3d 6 23, 6 30 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2003, pet. ref ’d). For t h e s e r easo ns, G.L .’s state me nt to Lop ez qualif ies as an e x cited u ttera nce ex cept ion to the h earsay r ule , and the tr ial co urt did n o t a b use it s d is creti on i n al low ing Lopezto re peat G.L. ’s sta tement impl ic ati ng D. A.A. W e ov er ru le D. A.A. ’s sec ond i ss ue.

IV. L E GA L A ND F A CTUA L S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE F i n a l l y , D

. A

. A

. a rg u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p re s e n t e d a t t r i a l w a s n e i t h e r l e g a l l ynor factual ly suff ic ien t to suppor

t the tri al cour

t’ s f ind ing of

“ tr ue” to the o ffense of burg lar y of a bui ldi ng , bec ause the e v ide nce did not pr o v e eac h el ement of the offense bey ond a
re asona ble doubt

. A . St and ard s o f Rev iew In a re v iew

of the l eg al suffici ency o f t he ev ide nce, an a ppel lat e c our t v iews t he evidence in the lig ht most fa v orab le to the v erdict to det ermin e w het her any ration al fact f inde r, conside ring the ev iden ce an d ma king any reaso nab le inferen ces the ref rom, could hav e found the es sent ial el ements of t he offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Hoop er v. State , 2 1 4 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, 318- 19 ( 1979) ; Powell

v. Sta te , 194 S.W .3d 5 03, 5 06 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; Gue vara v. State , 1 5 2 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 , 49 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 4)). W hile w e con sider all ev iden ce present ed attr ial , inc lud ing both di re ct and c ircums tanti al ev ide nce, w e do not reev alu ate the e v ide nce or

su bst it ute o ur

ow n j udg ment i n pl ace of t he fact finder ’s

. See Mosley v. State , 1 4 1 S. W .3 d 81 6 , 8 2 1 (T e x. Ap p .– T e xark a n a 2 0 0 4 , pe t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Ki ng v . St ate , 29 S. W .3d 5 56, 562 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2000) ; Dewber ry v. Sta te , 4 S

. W

. 3 d 7 3 5 , 7 4 0 (T e x.11

Cr im. App. 1 999) ). I nst ead, if w e find that any rati onal fact fin der

co uld hav e found the
essen tial elem ent s of

the crime beyond a rea sona ble do ubt , w e mu st d e f e r t o t h e fact finder ’s j udg ment and aff ir m. See id

. a t 8 2 1 (cit in g Mc Duf f v . St ate , 939 S.W .2d 6 07, 6 14 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7)). Leg al “s uff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce shoul d be measured by the ele ments of the of fense as def ined bythe hypoth etically correct jury charge for the ca se.” Ma li k v . St ate , 953 S. W .2d 2 34, 2 40 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997)

. A pers on is g uil ty of burg lar y of a bui ldi ng if, w it hout th e effect iv e c onsen t of the ow ner , he entered a bui ldi ng or habi tati on and commi tted or attempt ed to commi t a felony , theft, or an as saul t. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 30.02( a) (3 ). H ere, t he St ate arg ued that D. A.A. sat is fied the “ commi tted or att empted t o commi t a felony ” prong by co mmitt ing felony

cr imi nal mis chi ef. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28.03( a) (1 ), ( b) (4 )( A) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. D. A.A. co mmitt ed cr imi nal mis chi ef if, w it hout the effect iv e consentof the ow ner , “he int enti onal ly or k now ing ly

damag e[d] or

des troy [ed] the t ang ibl e proper

ty of the o w ner ,” and “t he am o u nt of pec uni ar y l oss [w as] $1,5 00 or
mo re b ut less tha n $20 ,00 0.” Id

. D. A.A. ac ted “ int enti onal ly , or w it h i ntent , w it h respect t o the n ature of hi s c onduc t or to a resul t of hi s condu ct [i f i t w as] his cons ci ous obj ect iv e or desire to engage in the con ductor cause th e result.” Id . § 6.0 3(a) (Vernon 200 3). In a factual suffici ency re v iew , w e re v iew the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht to de ter mine “w het her the e v iden ce introd uced t o supp ort the verdict [is] so w eak th at th e [fact f inde r’s]
v erdict i s c l e a r l y

w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust[or

] w hether , c onsi der ing co nflicti ng ev ide nce, the [fact finder ’s ] v erdict, thoug h leg all y suffici ent, is nev erthel ess ag ain st the g re at w eig ht
an d prep on de ran c e of th e ev i de nc e.” W ats on v . St ate , 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4 -1 5 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2006)

.12

I n su c h a re vie w, h o we ve r, a re vie win g c o u rtca n n o tsi m p ly s u b s t it u t e it s o wn judgme nt on the facts in place of thatof the fact f inde r’s: [I] t i s n ot en oug h tha t t he appe ll ate c our t har bor a s ubje ct ive lev el of re asona ble doubtto ov ertur n a c onv icti on that is founded on leg all y su ff ic ien t evidence. An ap pellat e cou rt judge cann ot c o n c lu de th at a con v iction is “c lea rl y w ro ng ” or

“ manifest ly

unj ust ” si mply

bec ause, on the q uantum o f e vid e n c e a d m it t e d , h e wo u ld h a ve vo t e d t o a c qu ith a d h e b e e n o n t h e ju ry. Nor can an app ellate court judge de clare tha t a conf lict in the evidence jus ti fies a newtr ial si mply bec ause he di sag re es w it h the j ur y 's resol uti on of that confli ct. Id. at 41 7. For

a re v iew ing courtto order a new tri al base d on a factual i nsuffici ency of the evidence, there m ust be ev iden ce in the record, w hen v iew ed o bjectively , tha t w ill supp ort
a con clusion th at the great weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the evidence contrad icts the fact finder ’s v erdict. Id

. B. Discus sion 1. We ighing Conf licting Tes timony D. A.A. arg ues that ev en i f the c our t c onsi ders L opez ’s reci tati on of G.L .’ s e x ci ted utterance, G. L.’ s o w n tes ti mony sh oul d outw eig h Lopez ’s v ersi on of the ev ents

. The p r i ma r y s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e a tt r i a l c a me fro m G

. L

. a n d L o p e z . G

. L

. ’ s t e s t imony confli cte d w it h both itse lf and his ex ci ted u tterance as re ci ted b y Lopez

. In hi s s tatement to Lo pez , G .L. admitted t hat D .A.A . and C hr is had been i n Pere z’s h o u se, g ot i nto t he hou se w ith a knife , and “messe d up the w all” w hile D.A. w as sick at home

. How ever, w hile much o f G.L.’ s t est imony at tr ial w as that he di d notrem e m b e r wha t happened in the hou se, he testif ied that it w as D.A. w ho was w ith Chris in Perez’ s hou se. Also, G.L . f irst testif ied th at he did notsee D.A.A . in the h ouse but on ly hea rd his v oice w hen D.A.A. to ld D. A. and Chr is to lea v e. He then tes ti fied th at he di d s ee D .A.A . atPerez ’s hous e butthat13

D. A.A. di d notdamag e the hous e hi msel f. G. L . la te r te st if ie d th a t t h e da m a g e t o t h e ho u se as sh o wn in Exh ib it s 1 A t h ro u gh 26Aw as far w orse tha n the “ li t t le h o le s ” he saw in Perez’s hou se, so th e da ma ge must h a ve been c aused by

D .A. and C hr is on a se parate o cc asi on, e it her before or

after the t im e D

. A

. A

. w as prese nt. Also, G.L.’s vag ue a nd co nf using testim ony w as ma de o v er a y ear after the crime occurred . In c o n t ra s t , Lop ez’s testim ony w as ba sed o n G.L .’s sta tement made i mmediat ely after he s aw Ponc e i nv est ig ati ng the sc ene of the cr ime. T h e re c o rd sh o we d e v i d e n c e t h a tse e m e d t o co n t ra d ic tG

. L

. ’s t e s t im o n y o r gi ve w eight to Lo pez’s testimo ny. Of f icer Ponce testif ied th at w hile he did notg iv e Lo pez deta ils of the s cene o f the c ri me, Lope zw as abl e to desc ri be th e s cene acc uratel y bas ed on G.L. ’s st atement. Pe re ztes ti fied th at he v is it ed hi s house freq uentl y , both before and after the c ri me, w hic h make s G .L.’ s t est imony of D .A. and Chr is caus ing the damag e at a l ater date unl ik ely

. Al so, aft e r Pe re z h a d his house repai re d, he had an al ar m in sta ll ed. The
a la rm wa s t ri gge re d t h e ve ry a f t e rn o o n i twa s a c t iva t e d

. Up o n a rr ivi n g a tt h e p ro p e rt y, Perezsa w

D.A.A ., w ho commented to Perezthatw hen he heard the al ar m soun d, he ran a wa y. As the ex cl usi v e tr ier of t he facts, the tr ial j udg e det er mined the w eig ht t o be g iv en to ea ch w itness’s te stimo ny an d w as f ree to a cceptor reject any portion of the wi tne sses’ tes ti mony

and ev alu ate t hei r credi bil ity . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.04; Mo sley, 983 S.W .2d a t 254

. Base d on the c onfusio n s temming from G .L.’ s c onf lic ti ng tes ti mony , t he l eng th of ti me thatel apsed from t he ti me the cr ime w as com m it ted a nd G.L. ’ s t e s t i mo n y , a n d t h e c i rc u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c o i n c i d i n g w i t h L o p e z ’ s t e s t i mo ny , a re asona ble fact f ind er

could hav e g iv en more w eig ht t o Lopez ’s reci tati on of G.L .’ s e x ci ted14

u t t e ra n c e o ve r G

. L

. ’s o wn t e s t im o n y. 2. Inferring Intent D. A.A. final ly

arg ues that ev en i f he w as presentat Perez ’s house at the ti me of the offense, the ev ide nce is nei ther leg all y nor factual ly suffici ent to prov e he had the req uis it e in te n t of co m m it ti n g fe lo n y crim in a l m isc h ie f , a ne ce ss a ry ele m e n t t o bu rgla ry of a b u ild in g. W hether D .A.A . had the re q uis it e i ntentto co m m itfelony cr imi nal mis chi ef w as als o a question of

fact for t he trial judge to det ermin e ba sed o n the surround ing ci rcumst ance s. Rob les v. Sta te , 6 6 4 S. W .2 d 91 , 9 4 (T e x. Crim

. A p p . 1 9 8 4 ) (ci ti n g Stear n v . St ate , 571 S.W .2d 177 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 197 8)). “Inte nt ma y b e inferred f rom acts, w ords an d con duct of [the ] accuse d.” Hern a n d e z v. Sta te , 819 S.W .2d 806 , 810 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91). Giv en th at G.L . state d D.A.A

. w as prese nt and “me ssed u p the w all,” it i s reason able for a fact f inde r to infer thatD.A.A. pa rticipate d in a ll o f t h e d estruct ion th at occu rred in Perez ’s home. T he ev ide nce in the re cord s how s t hat t he l ev el of damag e to the i nsi de of the h ouse w as extens iv e and more than coul d be re asona bly attr ibu ted to a mere ac ci dent. D.A.A. ’s involv em ent in the crime, along w ith the lev el of destruct ion in Pe rez ’s house , is suffici ent t o al low

a reason abl e fact finder to infer thatD .A.A . had the re q uis it e i n tent to
c o mm i tfe l o n y

c r i mi n a l m i s c h i e f. Rev iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e hol d tha t t he evidence is such th at a rea sona ble fact f inde r could ha v e foun d the elem ent s of burglary
o f a b u ild ing bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. See S ander s v . St ate , 119 S.W .3d 8 18, 8 20 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. Rev iew ing the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e al so hol d tha t t he
ev ide nce is su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t eac h el ement of the offense of burg lar y of a bui ldi ng15

bey ond a re asona ble doubtand that the fact finder ’s dete rmi nati on i s n ot ag ain st the g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. See W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le D. A.A. ’s final i ss ue. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led D .A.A .’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment o f the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

_________

___ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 6t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.