C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
SERGI O CARRI L L O, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 00 11 -C R

Appea l from the 243rd District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 20050D02763)

O P I N I O N Serg io Carrillo appea ls his conviction for ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon. He
wa s se nte nc e d to 22 y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. We a ff ir m. Appellant wa s convicted of assaultingMr. Danie l Salas with a knife in the e arly morning of January

1, 2005. Mr. Salas wa s cele bratingthe new year with his friends, Mr. Edg ar Mor eno and Mr. Guiller

mo Portil lo, at the California B ar in El Paso. Appe llant and his twin brother, Juan Carrill o, we re a lso patr on s o f t he ba r t hat ni g ht. Mr . Sa la s, Mr . M or e no , a nd Mr . Po rt ill o
arr ived at the ba

r ar ound 12:30 a.m. Sometime later, Mr. More no left his companions to use the restroom. When he c ame out of the restroom some of the bar patrons we re f

ighting . When Mr. Moreno ma de his way to the front door, he saw Mr. Sala s beingchase d down the stree t by two men. Althoug h Mr. Moreno did not know their names at the time, he re cog nized the two
me n b e c a us e he ha d s e e n th e m in

oth e r l oc a l ba

rs , a nd by the fa c t th at th e y

we re ide nti c a l tw ins
. Mr. Salas testified that he ran a way from the two men a fter the fig hting be g an bec ause he
saw one of the brothe rs re ach into his pocke t as if to pull out a weapon. A fter r unning a block-2-

down the stree t, Mr. Salas was tac kled to the g round. The two me n beg an kickingand punching him. At one point, as he wa s curled up on the g round, Mr. Salas f elt his body

become very

“hot.” Minutes later, he felt a se vere pain in his back a nd rea liz ed he w as blee ding f rom a lar g e punctur e wound. Afte r the attacker s left him in the street, Mr. Salas trie d to ge t away from the sc ene. H e
so lic ite d h e lp f

ro m a pe de str ian, wh o c a lle d e me rg e nc y me dic a l se rv ic e s. Mr. Moreno w itnessed the attac k. When he appr oache d the twins and Mr. Salas, one of the attac kers turne d and bra ndished a knife . Takingthe knife a s a threat, Mr. Moreno wa lked away fro m t he s cene t owa rd h is car. W hen he gotto hi s car , M r. M oren o fo un d M r. P ort il lo . By the time the two men g ot back to the location where Mr. Salas wa s beate n, emer g ency medical service s were alre ady

on the sce ne. The police also arr ived on the sce ne and be g an askingMr. Moreno what he ha d seen that night. In the meantime, other El Paso Poli ce D epar

tment office rs sec ured the bar. The y found the bar owner , a fe w member s of staff and a pa ir of identica l twin men inside the bar. The office rs aske d all the individuals in the bar to move outside and c onducted a pat-down se arc h of
eac h person. The office rs did not find any wea pons on the individuals, but did not ice that one of the twin brother’ s had blood on his clothing. Seve ral minutes later , a patr ol car car rying Mr. Moreno a

rrived f or an on- the-sce ne identification. The offic er in the patrol car shined a spot light on ea ch of the individuals who had bee n inside the bar in turn, a s the offic er’ s outside stood them up and moved them f orwa rd for Mr. Moreno to se e. Mr. More no identified Appe llant and his br oth e r a s th e ind ivi du a ls who atta c ke d M r. Sa la s. Af te r h e wa s r e le a se d f

ro m th e ho sp ita l, Mr. Salas also identified A ppellant and his brother

as his attacke rs. Mr. Salas’ ide ntifications
we re via a po lic e ph oto lin e up fo r e a c h s us pe c t.Appellant’s twin brothe r, Juan Carrillo, was tried a nd convicted by

the same jury . J uan 1 Carrillo also appe aled his convic tion. Se e Car ril lo v . S tate , 0 8- 07 -0 00 13 -C R ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so Marc h 26, 2009, no pet. h.). -3- Appellant and his brothe r we re taken into custody following Mr. Moreno’ s identification. Appellant’s c ase w as tried to a jur y , and he w as convic ted of a g g ravated assault. On appe al, he 1
ra ise s f our i ssu e s. In I ssu e On e , h e c ha lle ng e s th e tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l of his mot ion

to s up pr e ss
e vid e nc e . In I ssu e Tw o, he a sse rt s th at th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y a dmi tti nga

wi tne ss s tate me nt i nto evidenc e over

counsel’s he arsa

y objection. I ssues Thre e and F our cha lleng e the leg al and f actua l sufficie ncy

of the e vidence
. In I ssu e On e , App e lla

nt a rgue s th at th e tr ia l c ou

rt e rr e d b y de nyinghis mot ion

to s up pr e ss
e vid e nc e on

the ba sis that th e ph oto lin e up in whic h M r. Sa la s id e nti fi e d App e lla nt a s o ne of

his
atta c ke rs wa s im

pe rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve . We re vie w a tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin gon

a mot ion to s up pr e ss under a bifurca ted standar d. Am ad

or v . S tate , 221 S.W .3d 666, 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). When review ing a

trial court’ s suppression ruling , we do not eng ag e in our own f actua l review
. Ro me ro v . S

tate , 8 00 S.W. 2d

53 9, 54 3 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ). Th e tr ia l ju dg e se rv e s a s th e so le trier of fac t and judg e of w itness cre dibilit y and the we ight to be g iven their testimony for suppression purposes. W ie dev . S tate , 214 S.W .3d 17, 24-5 (Te x .Crim.App. 2007). When the tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin gtur

ns on qu e sti on s o f h ist or ic a l f

a c t, whe the r o r n ot a

n e va luatio n o f c re dib ili ty and deme anor w as involved, we revie w the rulingfor a n abuse of

discretion and g ive almost total defe renc e to the trial c ourt’s dec ision. See A mador , 221 S.W .3d at 673. Howe ver, when application-of

-law- to-fac t questions do not turn on the credibility and deme anor of

witnesses, we
re vie w the tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g s o n th os e iss ue s de novo
. Amador , 221 S.W .3d at 673. The evidenc e must be viewe d in the light most favor able to the tria l court’s de cision. W iede , 214-4-

S.W .3d at 24. The r

uling will be uphe ld if it is s upported by the re cord, a

nd is corre ct under

any theory of law a pplicable to the c ase r eg ardle ss of the trial cour t’s stated basis. State v. Stev ens , 235 S.W .3d 736, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). A sepa rate photo arra

y was used to identify

eac h of the brothe rs prior to trial. Appe llant argues that bec ause he and his brother are identical twins, once Mr. Salas choose one of the twins fr om t he fi rs t arr ay , th e se c on d a rr ay wa s im pe rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve du e to t

he phy sic a l si mil ari ty betwee n he and his twin. A pre trial photog raphic lineup is impermissibl y sug g estive whe n the identification proc edure s used by the police we re so unne cessa rily sug g estive as to pre sent a ve ry substantial likelihood of misi dentifica tion. Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct . 9 67 , 9 71 , 1 9 L .E d. 2d 12 47 (1 96 8) ; Ba rle

yv . S tate , 906 S.W .2d 27, 32 (Tex.Crim.App. 19 95 ). Sug g e sti ve ne ss m ay be c re ate d b y

the pr oc e dure us e d b y

the po lic e wh e n th e lin e up is prese nted to the witness, or by the content of

the lineup itself. Barley , 9 06 S.W. 2d at 33 . Wh ile imp e rm iss ibl e su g g e sti ve ne ss c on sti tut e s a vio latio n o f d

ue pr oc e ss, su g g e sti ve ne ss o n it s o wn is not unlawful. Id . We must ex amine the totality of the c ircumstance s to determine whe ther the identification wa s reliable so that its i n-trial use doe s not offend the defe ndant’s rig ht to due proce ss of law. Se e id . at 32-3. Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot c ite and

we have be e n una

ble to l oc ate Te xas c a se law h old ingthat in the c a se of

ide nti c a l tw in d e fe nd ants , u se of ph oto arr ay s f

or ide nti fi c atio n o f b oth

de fe nd ants results in a violation of due pr ocess. In this case, the photo a rra y prese nted included photos of other men of

simil ar a g e, and w ith sim ilar stature , ey es, skin color, a nd hair styles as Appe llant. Appellant’s twin brothe r’s picture was not included in the a rra y with his own photo. I n addition, Appellant does not spec ify and the r ecor d is not clear a s to whether his photo wa s the first or-5-

second ide ntified by

Mr. Salas. Unde r these c ircumstance s, the photo lineup was not impermissibly

sug g estive. Ther efor e, the tria l court did not abuse its discre tion by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress on this gr ound. I ssue One is ove rruled. In I ssue Two, Appe llant contends that the trial c ourt abused its discre tion by admitting portions of Mr. More no’s witness statement into evidenc e over Appellant’s attorney ’s hea rsay and improper

impeachme nt objections. Specifica lly , Appellant ar g ues the State off ere d the
re da c te d w itn e ss s tate me nt f or the so le purp os e of

pla c ingthe c on te nts of

the state me nt i nto evidenc e. The State responds by asser ting that this argument has not bee n proper ly prese rved f

or
our re view. Texas Rule of Evidence 613(a) allows a pa rty to examine a witness conce rningthe witness’s prior wr itten or oral state ment provided that the w itness is “told the contents of such state me nt a

nd the tim e and

pla c e and

the pe rs on

to who m it

wa s ma de
. . ., ” and

that th e wi tne ss has an oppor

tunity to expl ain or de ny

such statement. T EX .R.E V ID . 613(a) . A witness may be impeache d reg ardle ss of which pa rty called him to testify
. SeeT EX .R.E V ID . 607. Howeve r, eve n in case s where a par

ty has laid the prope r pre dicate f or impeac hing its own witness, a dang er
rema ins that the party

may attempt to use a prior

inconsistent statement under the g uise of i mp e a c h e m e n tf

o r th e s o l e p ur

p o s e o f p l a c i n go th e r

w i s e i n a dm i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e th e j ur

y. Se e Mi ra nd

a v . S tate , 8 13 S.W. 2d

72 4, 73 5 ( Te x.Ap p. -- San A nto nio 19 91 , p e t. r e f’ d) . T o avo id such a r esult, the opponent of the e vidence must raise the pre judicial nature of such a

n introduction and objec t to the statement under Rule 403. Se e Cam ac ho v . S tate , 864 S.W .2d 524, 533 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). By the same toke n, a point of er ror whic h does not comport with the objection made a

t trial, prese nts nothing for revie w. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 33 .1 ; W ils on v . S tate , 71-6-

S.W .3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). State’s Exhi bit Seventy -Six contains a c opy of Mr. More no’s witness statement whic h ha s b e e n r e da c te d s o th at on ly the state me nts wh ic h h e c on tr a dic te d at tr ia l are vis ibl e . D e fe ns e
c ouns e l ma de se ve ra l ob

je c tio ns to t

he a dmi ssi on

of the do c ume nt, but di d n ot o bje c t un de r R ule 403, or express any

specific conce rn that the doc ument was be ing introduc ed throug h a “ba ck door” me thod in order to plac e inadmissible evidenc e bef ore the jury . There fore , Appellant’s objections did not preser

ve this issue for re view. I ssue Two is over ruled. I ssues Thre e and F our cha lleng e the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence supporting A

ppellant’s convic tion. Appellant argues the State fa iled to car ry its burden to prove that a kn if e wa s u se d d

ur ingthe atta c k. He a lso argue s th at th e State ’s fa ilure to c onne c t hi m to the cr ime scene with DNA evide nce, a nd the “less than c redible” witness identifications re nder the e vid e nc e ins uf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. In a le g a l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, we mus t c on sid e r a ll o f t he e vid e nc e in a

light m os t favor able to the ve rdict, and de termine whe ther a rea sonable minded juror

could have found the essential ele ments were proven be y ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 31 8- 19 , 9 9 S. Ct. 27 81 , 2 78 8- 89 , 6 1 L .E d. 2d 56 0 ( 19 79 ); Ho op e r v . S

tate , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ). We m us t g ive de fe re nc e to “ the re sp on sib ili ty of the tr ie r o f f

a c t to fa ir ly resolve c onflicts in testimony , to weig h the evidenc e, and to dr aw r easona ble infer ence s from basic fa cts to ultim ate f

acts.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d at 13. In a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we c onsider all the e vidence in a neutra l light. Roberts v. Sta te , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Evidence is factua lly insufficient if: (1) the
e vid e nc e su

pp or tin gthe ve rd ic t is so we ak th at th e ve rd ic t se e ms c le arl y wr on gand

manif e stl y-7-

unjust; or (2) the evide nce suppor ting the ve rdict is outweig hed by the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of c ontrary evidenc e, re nderingthe ver dict clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust. Id . We cannot re verse a convic tion under the “ clea rly wrong ” or “ manifestly

unjust” standards simply beca use, base d on the quantum of e vidence admitted, we would have voted to ac quit. W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). Nor ca n we de clar e that a c onflict in t he e vid e nc e jus tif

ie s a ne w tri a l be c a

us e we dis a g re e wi th t

he jur y ’s re so lut ion

of the c on fl ic t. Id . Ane w tri a l w ill on ly

be g ra nte d whe n th e re vie wi ngc ourt de te rm ine s, on

an o bje c tiv e ba sis , that the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e contr adicts the jury ’s ver dict. Id
. In ad d i t i o n , o ur r ev i ew s h o u l d n o ts u b s t an t i al l y

i n tru d e up o nth e f

ac tfi n d er ’s ro l e a s th e s o l e j u d ge of the we ight a

nd cre dibilit y

g iven to witness testimony
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); se e als o M ar sh all v . S tate , 210 S.W .3d 618, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (fa ctual suff

iciency revie w still requires “due defe renc e” be g iven to the jury ’s deter minations). To establish an a g g ravated assault off ense, the State must prove the def endant intentionally

and knowing ly

or re cklessly

cause d serious bodily

injury to another, or

used or exhibi ted a de adly

wea pon duringthe commission of the assault. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.02 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). When the indictment alleg es a c omplete offe nse on its fac e, the State is bound by

the theory

alleg ed, as is the r eviewingcourt in its sufficienc y analy sis. Rojas v. Sta te , 986 S.W .2d 241, 246 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). In this case, the indictment include d the alleg ation that Appellant committed the ag g ravated assault with a knife . Appellant ar gues that bec ause a knife wa s never

rec overe d, the State failed to satisfy

the terms of the indictment, and the evide nce is insuffic ient. Whil e we ag ree that the State did not produce a knife as evide nce at trial, there is other evidenc e in the-8-

rec ord supportingthe alleg ation that a knife was used in the a ssault. Mr. Moreno testified that he believed his fr iend was the victim of a knife attack, and stated that one of the def endant’ s brandished a

knife whe n he attempted to he lp Mr. Salas. The e merg ency room phy sician who treated Mr. Salas testified that the wound was c onsistent with a knife attac k, or an attack utiliz ing
a “ sh arp ob

je c t” or “ any thi ngwi th a

sh arp e dg e .” Th e jur

y , a s th e so le tr ie r o f w itn e ss c re dib ili ty and we ight to be g iven testimony , could re asonably have de termined ba sed on Mr. More no’s
acc ount and the doctor ’s testimony that a knife was used in the attack. See J ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 7. In addition, Mr. Moreno’ s testimony that he witnessed A

ppellant and his brother

chase and
atta c k M r. Sa la s, a lon gwi th M r. Sa la s’ s o wn ide nti fi c atio n o f t

he tw ins a s h is atta c ke rs , c ou ld have le a d th e jur

y to r e a so na

bly c on c lud e that App e lla

nt c omm itt e d th e of

fe ns e c ha rg e d d e sp ite the lack of

DNA e vidence linking Appe llant to the crime. We conc lude that the re cord, vie wed
e ith e r i n a ne utr a l li g ht o r i n a

light m os t f

avo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t, c on ta ins le g a lly and fa c tua lly sufficie nt evidence to support Appellant’s convic tion for ag g ravated assault. Ac cording ly , we
overr ule I ssues Thre e and F our. Havingoverr

uled all of the issues Appe llant has raise d for r eview, w e af firm the trial
c ourt ’s jud g me nt. Marc h 26, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)