NO. 07-07 -012 9-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER5, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ KH AM PH ETH B OU NK HO UN , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 29 7 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; TH NO. 097 850 9D; HON. EVERET T Y OUNG, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Khampheth Bounk houn ap peal s h is co nvict io n for murder by co ntendi ng i n four is sues thatthe ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

insuffici ent to sust ain i t, the t ri al cour t er re d i n ad mi tt i ng tw o ph ot og rap hs of th e v i c ti m, and the tr i al co ur t s ho ul d ha v e g ran te d hi m a mis tr ial w hen t he prosec utor co mmented on his ri g ht not to tes ti fy. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.2

Issue s 1 and

2 - Legal an d Factu al Suff iciency Standa rd

of Rev iew T he sta nda rds b y

w hich w e revi ew the legal and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence
are found i n Jacks on v

. Vi rgini a, 443 U .S. 307, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) and W ats on v . St ate, 204 S.W .3d 404 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 6). W e refer the p arties to th ose cas es. App lication o f Stan dard Appel lan t arg ues that there w as “mas s c onfusio n” i n the par ki ng lo t whe re the murde r occ ur re d and that no ev ide nce cl ear ly es tabl is hed hi m as the o ne w h o s h ot V y “J ul i e ” N g u y e n . Y e t , o n e w i t n e s s t e s t i fi e d t h a t i mm e d i a t e l y a ft e r h e a r i n g a g u n shot , s he
saw ap pe l l an t po i nt i ng a bl ac k ob j ec t th at s he be l i ev ed to be a g un . An ot he r w itness tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t i nformed her thathe had shot Jul ie. A thi rd w it ness st ated that he had g iv en appe ll ant a h a n d gun l ike t hat u sed to c ommit the murder

. Fi nal ly , after the
s ho ot i ng , ev i de nc e i l l us trat ed t ha t ap pe l l an t fl ed the st at e to the C arol i na s . Th i s i s s om e ev ide nce upon w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld co ncl ude, bey ond reason abl e d oubt, that appel lan t fired th e bul letthatki ll ed J uli e. That v ar iou s of the w it ness es mayhav e had g ru dg es or may hav e i nit ial ly

l ied to the pol ic e rais ed i ss ues of credi bil ity . Nev erthel ess , i t w as for th e j ur y to re sol v e tho se is sues and det er mine the w eig ht to be acc orded the pros ecut or ’s w it ness es. Ma rgra ves v. Sta te, 34 S. W .3d 9 12, 9 19 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. So, thes e c ircums tanc es, w hen c ompared to t he ent ire record, do not under mine our confidence in the verdict. In sum, w e find the
ev ide nce both leg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he v erdict.3

Iss ue 3 - Adm is si

on of Photogr aphs I n h is t h ir d is s u e , a p p e ll a n tc o m p la in s a b o u tt h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n t o a d m ittwo photog ra phs ov er

his Rul e 403 obj ect ion

. Both photog ra phs show ed th e g unsho t w ound to t he head of the v ic ti m. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Standa rd

of Rev iew W hether the tr ial co urt er re d i n ov er ru li ng a R ule 403 obj ectio n d e p ends upon whether i t abu sed it s d is creti on, i. e. w h e t h e r t h e d e c i s i o n fe l l o u t s i d e the z one of
re asona ble di sag re ement. R ayf or d v . St ate, 125 S.W .3d 5 21, 5 29 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 3). Next, a phot og ra ph i s g enerall y admis si ble if v er bal tes ti mony about the matter depi cte d in the p hotos i s a d m issibl e. Par edes v. State, 129 S. W .3d 5 30, 5 39 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004)

. So too may

phot og ra phs of a murd er v ic ti m be admi ss ibl e to show the manner

and
means of death, ev en if they m erely corroborate other

ki nds of ev ide nce. Mo re no v . St ate, 1 S. W .3d 8 46, 8 57 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999, pet. ref’d)

. Fi nal ly , t hat a rele v ant picture may

be g ru esome a lo ne i s n ot ne ces sar il y j ust ific ati on to ex cl ude i t. Son nier v. State, 913 S. W .2d 5 11, 5 19 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995)

. App lication o f Stan dard The tw o phot os in q uest ion w ere only of the w ound infli cte d on the v ic ti m, not of her body or her face. Thus, they w ere ra ther cl ini cal i n nat ure and re lev ant t o her manner of death. F urther more, the medic al e xam in er des cr ibe d i n one of the phot os the “ key hol e” patte rn that occ urs w hen a bul let str ik es the sk ull

. He als o re ferred to th e size of the
w ound i n hi s t est imony

. Thus, the p ic tures arguably ex pla ine d as pect s o f the medi cal4

ex aminer ’s tes ti mony . Gi v en thi s, w e canno t say the tr ial cour t’ s d eci si on to admi t t hem fell outs ide the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Iss ue 4 - Mo ti

on fo r Mi str ial In hi s l asti ss ue, a ppel lan t arg ues that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on i n fail ing t o g ra n th i s m o t i o n fo r

m i s t r i a l a ft e r

t h e S t a t e c o m m e n t e d o n h i s r i g h tn o tt o t e s t i f y . W e dis ag re e and ov er ru le the i ss ue. Standa rd

of Rev iew W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng under the sta ndard of abus ed di sc re ti on. Archie v. State, 2 2 1 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 9 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 )

. N e xt , a m i s t r i a l i s a n e x tr em e re medy for p re jud ic ial ev ents

. Ex par te Le wis, 21 9 S. W .3d 3 35, 3 51 n .1 33 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2007)

. Con seq uentl y , the deni al of a moti on for mis tr ial co nst it utes er ro r onl y i f the ins tr uct ion to dis re g ard w as ina deq uate to c ure the preju dic ial e f f e ct , i f any , ar is ing from the mi sdeed

. W

il ker son v. State, 881 S.W .2d 321 , 327 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94). Next , i ti s clear thata chan ce of prejudice arising f rom co mm ent s on po st-arrest si len ce may be cured by an i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard. See Waldo v. State, 746 S. W .2d 7 50, 754 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1988) ; Dos sett v. State, 216 S .W .3d 7 , 32 (T ex. App.– San Anto nio 2006, pet. re f’d) ; Ho v. State, 171 S.W .3d 295, 306 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2005, pet. re f’d)

. And, w e presume the j ur y foll ow ed s uch an i nst ru cti on. W esbr ook v. State, 29 S.W .3d 1 03, 1 16 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. App lication o f Stan dard Here, the object iona ble com me nt occu rred w hen the Sta te asked a p olice of f icer if he had an oppo rt uni ty

to tal k to appell ant w hil e trans por ti ng appell ant back

to Tex as from5

North Carolina

. T he of

f icer state d: “No

. . . [w]e attem pte d to i nte rv iew him there a t the jail, but h e req uest ed an attor ney be p re sent , s o w e stopped the int er v iew .” Ap pel lan t obj ect ed to t he s t a t e me n t

. Aft e r t h e o bj e c t i o n w a s s u s t a i n e d , a p p e l l a n t s o u g h t a n i n s t r u c ti on to disregard w hich instruct ion th e trial court gav e. How ever, it ref used to g ra nt th e request for a mis tr ial

. In answ er ing the q uest ion propounded, the off ic er ’s st atement w as somew hat n onre s p o n s ive

. Itwe n tf u rt h e r t h a n t h e sc o p e o f in fo rm a t io n d ir e c t ly s o u gh tb y t h e qu e ry. Mo re ov er , t he tr ial co urt i nst ru cte d the jur y “t o dis re g ard the las t c omment,” the comment
w as not re peated, no re ferenc e w as made to the c omment dur ing cl osi ng arg ument, and the q u a n tum of

ev iden ce de picting app ellant ’s g uilt w as quite high. Under the se ci rc um st a n ce s, w e c oncl ude t hat reason abl e mi nds coul d di sag re e on w hether the ins tr uct ion cu re d any

preju dic e ar is ing from th e o f f ic er ’s st atement. I n s hor t, w e do not hav e before us offensi v e or flag ra ntl y

i mprop er

co nductof th e t ype bey ond c ure. See Pe re z v. Sta te, 1 8 7 S

. W

. 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 2
- 1 3 ( Te x . A p p . –W a c o 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t

. ) ( fi ndi ng an ins tr uct ion to dis re g ard effect iv e w hen t he mista ke w as not repea ted, the sta tement w as no t c a l c u l a t e d t o i n fl a me t h e mi n d s o f t h e j u r y , a n d i t w a s n o t re fe re n c ed i n c los ing argume nt). Th us, th e de cision to de ny mistrial cam e w ithi n t h e zo n e o f reason able dis ag re ement. Hav ing ov er ru led al l of appell ant’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment.

Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.