## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF TEX AS N o. A P - 75, 794
K O SO U L C H A N TH A K O U M M A N E , A ppe l l ant
v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON DI RE CT AP P EA L F ROM CAUS E N O. 3 8 0 - 8 1 9 7 2 - 0 7 I N T HE 3 8 0 TH DI S TR I CT COURT CO LLI N CO UNTY
H OL C OM B , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi c h M E YE RS , P RI CE , and W OMACK , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P .J ., c o n c u r r e d w ith th e r e su lt o f p o int o f er ro r th re e a n d o th er w ise join ed th e o p inion o f the C o u rt. J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , and C OCHRAN , JJ . , c onc ur r e d w i t h t he res ul t of poi nt s of

err or s even and ei ght and other w i s e j oi ned t he opi ni on o f the C o u rt.
A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v ic te d in O c to b e r 2 0 0 7 o f c a p ita l m u rd e r. T EX . P EN . C O DE § 19. 0 3 (a)
. B as ed on t he j ur y ’ s ans w er s t o t he s peci al i s s ues s etfor t h i n T exas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 37. 071, s ect i ons 2( b) and 2( e) , t he tr i al j udge s ent ence d appel l antCHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 2

Unless otherw ise indicated, all refe renc es to article s ref er to those in the Te x as Code of 1 Criminal Procedure
. to dea th. A rt . 3 7
. 0 7 1 , § 2 (g). D ir ec t app ea l t o this C o u rtis au tom ati c. A rt . 3 7
. 0 7 1 , § 2 (h). 1 A f ter re v iew in g a p p e llan t’s f if tee n p o in ts o f

e rro r, w e f

in d th e m to b e w ith o u t m e rit. C ons equent l y , w e af

fi r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm entand s ent ence of dea t h.

STATEM ENT O F F AC TS On S a tu r d a y , J u l y 8 , 2 0 0 6 , r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t S a r a h W a l k e rwa s mu r d e r e d i n t h e D. R. H o r t o n m o d e l h o m e w h e r e s h e w o r k e d i n t h e “ C r a i g R a n c h ” s u b d i v i s i o n i n M c K i n n e y, T e x a s. A pp el l ant w as charged w i t h int enti on al l yand kn ow i ng l ycausi ng W al ker’ s de a th
w h i l e i n t h e c o u r s e o f

c o m m i t t i n g o ra t t e m p t i n g t o c o m m i tr o b b e r y. O n the m o rnin g o f Ju ly8 , W alke r’s ex -hu sb an d , R a n d y T ate, w en t t o W alke r’s
re sid e n c e in F risc o , T e x a s. W a lk e r p lan n e d to w o rk a t th e m o d e l h o m e th a t d a y , so T a te p icke d u p t hei rs on ear l yt hatm or ni ng. W hi l e Tat e w as atW al ker ’ s r es i dence , W al ker
s how ed hi m a new R ol ex w at ch t hat s he s ai d s he had pur chas ed the pr evi ous day
. L at ert hat
m or ni ng, W al kerw entt o a B ank of A m erica i n Fr i s co. St i l l phot ogr aphs t aken f r om t he b a n k s ur ve i l l a n c e v i d e o s h o we d W a l k e rwe a r i n g a wa t c h a n d a r i n g a ta r o u n d 1 1 : 4 5 a . m. W al ker ’ s cous i n, J es s i ca A l l en, t es t i fi ed thatW al ker oft en w or e ornat e r i ngs and a Tag H euer
w a tc h th a t s h e h a d o w n e d f o r s e v e ra l yea rs . A not herr eal es t at e age nt , M ami e Sharpl es s , r ece i ved a ph o ne ca l l at9: 40 a. m . t hat
m or ni ng fr om a m an w ho i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as “C han Lee. ” The m an t ol d Sharpl es s t hathe found herphone number i n a K el l erW i l li am s ad v er t i s ement and thathe w ant ed t o l ook atCHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 3

a t ow n hous e s he had l i s t ed i n t he C r ai g R anch s ubdi vi s i on. H e s ai d t hat he had j us tm oved f ro m N o rth C a ro lin a to th e D a llas a re a , th a t h e h a d g ra d u a ted f ro m th e U n iv e rsityo f

N o rth C ar ol i na at C har l ot t e, and t hat he w or ked forT exas I ns t rum ent s . H e s ai d t hathe w as cal l i ng fr om a phone boot h at t he 7- E l even atM i dw ayand Par k and thathe w as s t ay i ng i n R oom 245
a t th e “ In T o w n S u ites .” W h e n S h a rp les s a sk e d h im f o r a c o n tac t n u m b e r, h e sa id th a t h e d id
no thav e a cel l ph on e. T he p ho ne “cu toff ” befo re theircon versat i on end ed, so S harpl ess t r i e d t o r e a c h h i m b yc a l l i n g h i s h o t e l
. S h a rp l e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a ts h e “ c a l l e d t wo I n T o wn Sui t es , and one di dn’ thave a [R oom ] 2 4 5, t he otherone di d, buti tj us thad a r ecor di ng on it.” Sharpl es s arr i ved t o s how t he t ow n hous e betw een 11: 3 0 a.m . and noon, and s he br oughtherhus band, N el s on V i ll av icen ci o, w i t h her
. A s t heys ati n t hei rcarand w ai t ed, t heys aw a man dr i ve byi n a w hi t e For d M us t ang and pa r k acr os s fr om a D
. R
. H or t on m odel h o m e d o w n th e stre e t. T h e yo b se rv e d th e m a n g e tti n g o u t o f th e M u sta n g a n d sta rtin g to
cr os s t he str ee t. T h ey d rove ove rt o t he man and as ked hi m i f he w as “C han Lee, ” and he
r epl i ed, “N o. ” Sharpl es s des cr i bed hi m as a muscul arm an of A s i an des cent , about5' 4" or 5' 5" t al l , w i t h a “buz z cut . ” She made an i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of appe l l ant as t he m an s he
s a w th a t d a y , b u t e x p la in e d th a t h e w a s th in n e r w ith lo n g e r h a ira t th e tim e o f tr ia l. A s Sharpl es s and V i l l avi cenc i o dr ove aw ay , t heynot i ced thatt he M us t ang had Texas l i cens e pl at es . W hen V i l l avi cenc i o dr ove t o t he end of t he bl ock, tur ned ar ound, and dr ove back , t he M ust ang w as no long er there. H e t hen drove b ack to t he tow n h ou se so Sh arpl essCHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 4

coul d s how i tt o anotherpot ent i al buy er . A s V i l l avi cenc i o l ooked outt he bedr oom w i ndow
w h il e S h arp less sh o w ed the to w n h o u se, he o b serv ed W alke r arri v e in h er P o rsch e B o x ster. W al ker par ked her car acr os s t he s t r eet fr om t he D
. R
. H or t on m odel hom e and w enti ns i de. A tt hatpoi nt , V i l l avi cenc i o al s o s aw a w h it e M us t ang parked on the s t r eeti n fr ontof t he
m odel hom e. Sharpl es s t hen fi ni s hed show i ng t he t ow n hous e and t heyl eftbetw een 12: 30 and 1: 00 p. m . A s t heyl eftt he s ubdi vi s i on, Sharpl es s al s o not i ced a w hi t e M us t ang parked i n fr ontof t he model hom e. A t about 12: 30 p. m . , W al ker cal l ed her cous i n, J es s i ca A l l en. A l l en t es t i fi ed that W al kerw as “i n a r eal l y good m ood” duri ng t hei r br i ef t el ephone conver s at i on. T heyt al ked f o r a b o u t 1 5 m in u te s , th e n W a lk e r “ s a id s o m e o n e h a d w a lk e d in a n d s h e ’d c a ll [ A lle n ] b a c k .” At a p p r o x i ma t e l y1 : 1 0 p . m. , An dyLi l l i s t o n a n d h i s wi f e c a me t o l o o k a tt h e D. R. H or t on m odel hom e. W hen t heyent er ed t he m odel hom e, L i l l i s t on t houghtt hati tappea r ed t o have be en “r ans acke d. ” H e obs er ved a l ar ge pool of bl ood i n t he di ni ng r oom , w her e the
s al es des k w as l ocat ed. H e fol l ow ed a t r ai l of bl ood i nt o t he ki t chen, w her e he s aw W al ker ly ing fa ce- up on t he fl oor , w i t h t he upperhal f of he rbodycover ed i n bl ood. L i l l i s t on di r ect ed hi s w i fe t o cal l 9- 1- 1, and t heyexi t ed the model hom e. L i l l i s t on r an i nt o t he s t r eet and fl agged dow n a vehi cl e forhel p. H e br i efl y w ent back i ns i de the model hom e t o chec k on W al ker , buts he di d notdi s pl ayanys i gns of l ife. L il li ston t hen w entback out s i de and
w ai t ed foremer gencyper s onnel t o arr i ve. W hen T exas R anger A
. P. D avi ds on arr i ved att he model hom e, he not i ced s i gns ofCHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 5

a s t ruggl e i n t he di ni ng r oom . T he des k w as cr ooked, t he des k chai rw as outof pl ace , a pl ant
s ta n d w a s k n o c k e d o v e r , a n d a p o tte d p la n t w a s o n th e f lo o r. A p a iro f

w o m e n ’s s h o e s , a br oken hai rcl i p, and a br oken ea r r i ng w er e al s o on the flo o r. T h ere w as a tr ai l of bl ood l eadi ng fr om t he di ni ng r oom i nt o t he ki t chen. W al ker ’ s bodyw as on t he ki t chen f l oor , and i tappea r ed t hats he had m u lt iple stab w ounds
. D avi ds on opi ned thatW al kerhad bee n dr agged byherfee tfr om t he di ni ng r oom t o t he kit ch en bec aus e the l ong s ki r ts he w as
w e a ri n g w a s ro lle d u p to h e r w a is tlin e . M c K in n e yp o lice o f

f ice r P e te C o p in d isc o v e re d a b lo o d yf in g e rp rin t o n th e d e a d b o lt l ock on t he fr ont door of t he model hom e; how ever , he t es t i fi ed thatt her e w er e “notenough i ndi v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o ra p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n . ” Cop i n f

u r t h e ro b s e r v e d w hat appea r ed t o be bl ood on t he pl ants t and, on t he ce r ami c t i l e i n t he entr yw ay , on t he w al l next t o the e dg e of t he w i nd ow besi de t he front do or, and on t he pu l l cord for t he w i nd ow bli nd s. I tal s o appea r ed t hat t her e had been bl ood i n t he ki t chen s i nk t hathad bee n w as hed ordi l ut ed
w i t h w at er . C opi n col l ect ed bl oo d sw ab s and otherevi dence fr om t he s cene forfur t her te s tin g . W hen W al ker ’ s bodyw as di s cover ed, s he w as no l ongerw ear i ng t he w at ch and r i ng t hats he had be en s how n w ear i ng ear l i eron t he bank s ur vei l l ance vi deo. W hen the pol i ce
s ear ched W al ker ’ s r es i dence aft erherdeath, t heyfound herT ag H eu er w at ch. T he pol i ce
never l ocat ed her R ol ex w at ch, but t hey di d fi nd t he box and the r ece i ptfort he R ol ex w at ch in h e r r e s id e n c e .CHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 6

W illia m R o h r, t h e C o llin C o u n ty M e d ic a l E x a m i n e rw h o p e r f o r m e d W a l k e r ’ s a u t o p s y, t es t i fi ed tha t W al kers us t ai ned s ever al bl untfor ce i nj ur i es t o herhead. H e opi ned thatt he b lu n t f o rc e in ju rie s w e re th e r e su lt o f “ se v e ra l b lo w s,” a n d th a t th e yw e re c o n sis ten t w ith W alke r b eing s t ruck i n t he fa ce a nd head w i t h t he pl ants t and i n t he model hom e. W al ker h a d mu l t i p l e b ru i s e s o n h e rf a c e a n d h e a d , a b r o k e n n o s e , a n d f r a c tu r e d t e e t h
. S h e h a d s o me defe ns i ve w ounds , inclu d ing an exc i s ed w ound on herl eftar m and a br oken fi ngernai l on herr i ghthand. She s uffe r ed a t ot al of 33 s t ab w ounds , 10 of w hi ch pene t r at ed vi t al or gans
a n d b lo o d v e ss e ls. R o h r t e stif ied th a t a n y o n e o f th o se 1 0 w o u n d s c o u ld h a v e b e e n “ p re tty
m u ch im m ed iat ely fat al
. ” W al keral s o had a bi t e mar k on t he bac k of herneck thatR ohr opi ned w as i nfl i ct ed “a tornearherdeath. ” R ohrt es t i fi ed thathe pr es er ved thi s evi dence by
u s in g a s c a lp e l to e x c is e th e b ite m a rk a n d s u rr o u n d in g a re a . DNA a n a l y s i s l i n k e d a p p e l l a n tt o e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e c r i me s c e n e . Ap p e l l a n t ’ s DNA pr ofi l e w as cons i s t ent w i t h t he D N A obt ai ned fr om W al ker ’ s fi ngernai l s , t he w i ndow bl i nd pul l cor d s, the d ea d b o l tl ock and f ace pl at e, and s om e of the s w abs t aken f r om t he l i vi ng
r o o m , k i t c h e n , a n d e n t r yw a y o f t h e m o d e l h o m e . T h e D N A a n a l ys tt e s t i f i e d t h a to n l y a

“ p a r t i a l p r o f

i l e ” wa s o b t a i n e d f

r o m a s wa b t a k e n f

r o m th e k i t c h e n s i n k b e c a u s e t h e DNA extr act ed fr om t hats w ab “w as of l ow qual i t yand degr aded qua l i t y . ” H ow ev er, t he s etof genet i c ma r k e r s t h a ts h e was a b l e t o d e t e c ti n t h e p a r t i a l p r o f i l e “ c o r r e s p o n d e d wi t h t he g e n e tic m a rk e rs o b s e rv e d in th e D N A p ro f ile o f [ a p p e lla n t] .” A f ter re c e iv in g th e re su lts o f th e D N A a n a ly sis , p o lice a rre ste d a p p e lla n t at h isCHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 7

apart m enton Sept ember 5, 2006. T exas R anger D avi ds on t es t i fi ed thatappel l antow ned a
w hit e F o rd M us t ang and thathi s apart m entw as l ocat ed thr ee mi l es aw ayfr om t he pay phones atM i dw ayand Par k. D avi ds on s poke t o appel l ant ’ s s i s t er , w ho i nfor m ed hi m t hat
a p p el l ant had at t end ed school i n N ort h C arol i na and t hat he had m ov ed fr om C harl ott e to D al l as i n F ebruary20 06
. D avidson d et erm i ned t hat appell ant had fil l ed o ut a l ease app l i cat i on atan ap artm ent com plex near t he InT ow n S uit es on T ri nityM i l l s. D avidson als o di s cover ed t hat appel l ant ’ s bank acc ount w as over dr aw n by $82. 27 on t he day b ef o re W al ker ’ s m ur der
. D avi ds on t es t i fi ed t hatappel l antw as m us cul arand had a s haved he ad at th e tim e o f

h is a r r e s t. O f

f ice r C o p in , w h o late r p h o to g ra p h e d a p p e llan t to d o c u m e n t h is appea r ance , t es t i fi ed t hat he observed w hat appea r ed t o be som e heal ed cut s or s cr at ches on app el l ant’ s hand s and f

i ng ers . A ppel l a n twas t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e M c Ki n n e yPo l i c e Dep a r t me n t , whe r e h e was i nt er vi ew ed byO ffi cerR andal l N or t on. A ppel l antatfi r s tdeni ed eve rbei n g i n M cK i nney i n hi s w hi t e M us t ang. U pon fur t herques t i oni ng, he s t at ed thathi s carhad br oken dow n at “a model hous e, ” thathe knocke d on t he door but no one ans w er ed, t hathe t ook “l i ke thr ee
orfour s t eps ” i ns i de and as ked i f any one w as hom e but no one w as t her e, and thathe s poke t o a man and a w om an i n a gr een orbl ue “Corol l a or C amry ” as he l eft
. N ext , he admi t t ed t hat he w ent t o the ki t chen si nk for a dri nk of w at er, bu tsai d thathe “d i dn ’tkn ow ho w t o u se th e f a u c e t b e c a u se th e h o t w a ter c a m e o u t,” s o h e le f t. H e a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e h a d “ o ld cut s ” on hi s hands “fr om w or k, ” so i t w as pos s i bl e t hathe coul d have be en bl eedi ng w henCHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 8

h e wa s i n s i d e t h e mo d e l h o me . He a l s o a c k n o wl e d g e d t h a th e h a d s o l d s o me o f h i s o wn pr oper t yforcas h ata paw n s hop on G r eenvi l l e A venue, i ncl udi ng a t ape de ck, a dr i l l , and an i nexpens i ve K enneth C ol e w at ch. For ens i c dent i s t r ycons ul t antB r entH ut s on e x a mi n ed appe l l antand made i m pr es s i ons of hi s t eeth. H ut s on compar ed appel l ant ’ s t eeth t o t he bi t e m ar k on W al ker ’ s neck a nd found enough s i m i l ar i t i es thathe w as “unabl e t o excl ude [a ppel l ant ] fr om t hatpopul at i on of in d iv id u a ls th a t co u ld h a v e in f lic te d th is in

ju ry .” H u tso n c o n c lu d e d “ w ith in re a so n a b le d en tal ce rt aintyb ey o n d a d o u b t” th at ap p ell an t w as re sp o n sible fo r t h e b it e m ark o n W alke r’s neck. S UFF I CI ENCY OF THE EVI DENCE In p o in t o f

e rro r f o u r, ap p e llan t ar g u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e is le g a llyin su f f icie n t to
s uppor t hi s convi ct i on. I n eval uat i ng t he l egal s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence , w e mustvi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he ver di ct and det er m i ne w hetheranyr at i onal t r i er
o f f a c t co u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e o f f e n se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. See J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 443 U
. S. 307, 319 ( 1979)
. T he J acks on s t andar d of r evi ew gi ves ful l pl ayt o t he j ur y ’ s r es pons i bi l i t y t o fai r l yr es ol ve conf l i ct s i n t he evi dence , t o w ei gh t he
e v id e n c e , a n d to d ra w re a s o n a b le in f e re n c e s f r o m th e e v id e n c e . T

h r e a d g ill v . S ta te , 146 S
. W
. 3 d 6 5 4 , 6 6 3 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). A p p ell an t con tend s tha t th e S tat e f ail e d to p rov e the u n d erly ing o ff en se o f ro b b ery beca us e W al ker ’ s w at ch and r i ng w er e never r ecove r ed and t her e w as no ot herpr oper t yt akenCHANTHAKOUMMANE

-- 9

fr om t he cr i m e sce ne. H ow ever , di r ectevi dence l i nki ng appel l antt o t he mi s s i ng w at ch and ri n g w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to e s ta b lis h h is g u ilt. S e e G u e v a r a v . S ta te , 152 S. W
. 3d 45, 49 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2004)
. T he j ur y w as per m i t t ed t o m ake r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om t he evi dence p re s e n te d a t tr ia l. J

a c k s o n , 443 U
. S. at 318- 19. C i r cumst ant i al evi dence i s as pr obat i ve as di r ectevi dence i n es t abl i s hi n g the gui l tof an a ct or , and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence al one ca n b e s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h g u ilt. G u e v a r a , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 9
. T he evi dence s how ed thatW al kerpur chas ed a ne w R ol ex w at ch the daybefor e s he
w as m u rde red. A bank s ur vei l l ance vi deo s how ed W al kerw ear i ng a w at ch and a r i ng at
ar ound 11: 45 a. m . on t he day s he w as m ur der ed. She w as no l ongerw ear i ng t he w at ch and
r i ng w hen her body w as di s cover ed l es s t han tw o hour s l at er . Pol i ce l at erdi s cover ed a box and r ece i pt for W al ker ’ s R ol ex w at ch at her r es i dence , but t he w at ch i t s el f w as neverfound. B ank r ecor ds s how ed th atappel l ant ’ s bank ac countw as over dr aw n by$82. 27 on t he day b e f o re W a lk e r’s m u rd e r. In h is s tate m e n t to p o lice , ap p e llan t sa id th a t h e h a d re c e n tly paw ned som e personal propert y for cash and that his cel l ph on e had been “cut off” b ecause he “f el l behi nd on bi l l s and s tuff. ” A paw n s hop r ece i pt d ated Ju ly 2 6 , 2006, confi r m ed appel l ant ’ s s t at ement t hathe had pa w ned hi s K enneth C ol e w at ch. In su p po rtof h i s ar gu m ent, app el l ant ci t es He r r in v . S ta te , 1 2 5 S. W
. 3 d 4 3 6 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2002) , a ca s e i n w hi ch t hi s C our thel d t hatt he evi dence w as l egal l yi ns uffi ci ent t o s uppor t H err i n’ s convi ct i on for m ur der i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng r obberyorat t empt ed
r obbery . I n t hatcas e, t he vi ct i m ’s w all et di s appea r ed af t ert he murde rand ther e w as noCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 10

We further

note that def

ense c ounsel said in his openingstatement to the jury at the 2 guilt/i nnocenc e stag e: “B ut [ appellant] did go into a mode l home, and that’s where Sarah Walker was. And hewanted to rob her, a nd it didn’t go the right wa y , and he killed he r.” e v id e n c e d ir e c tly lin k in g H e rr in t o t h e m i s s i n g w a lle t. I d. at442. T her e w as no evi dence t hatH err i n knew t he vi ct i m had any m oney i n hi s w al l et ort hatH err i n even kne w w het her t he vi ct i m had hi s w al l etw i t h hi m . A nd t he evi dence s how ed t hatH err i n “had a bal ance of
over$13, 000 i n hi s bank ac count , s ugges t i ng t hathe di d notneed money
. ” I d. T he He rr in
c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m th e i n s t a n tc a s e . T h e wat c h a n d r i n g t h a tWa l k e rwa s s h o wn
w ear i ng on t he bank s ur vei l l ance vi deo w oul d have be en cl ear l y vi s i bl e t o appel l ant . A nd t he evi dence s how ed t hat appel l ant ’ s bank account w as over dr aw n on t he daybefor e W al ker
w as m ur der ed. I n cont r as tt o He r r in , the e v iden ce in the instan t case w as su ch that the ju ry coul d r eason ab ly inf

ert hatappel l antm ur der ed W al keri n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng or at t empt i ng t o comm i tr obber y . T he evi dence , vi ew ed in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he 2 ju ry ’s v e rd ict, w a s le g a llysu f f icie n t to su p p o rt a p p e llan t’s c o n v ictio n . P o in t o f e rro r f o u r is
overrul ed. DENI AL OF CONTI NUA NCE I n poi nt of err ort hr ee, appel l antcont ends t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed byr efus i ng t o gr ant hi s r eques t ed cont i nuance w hen he w as r e- i ndi ct ed pr i ort o tr ia l
. W hen appe l l antw as
or i gi nal l yi ndi ct ed fort he i ns t antoffe ns e on Sept ember 21, 2006, t he i ndi ct m ent al l eged that
a p p e llan t: i nt ent i onal l yand know i ngl y caus e[d] the dea t h of Sar ah W al ker , an i ndi vi dual h e re in a f te r c a lle d d e c e a s e d , b

y s ta b b in g a n d c u ttin g d e c e a s e d w ith a kn ife , aCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 11

d e a d ly w e a

p o n , w hi l e t he def

endantw as i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i n g or a tte m p tin g to c o m m it th e o f f e n s e o f ro b b e ry o f

d e c e a s e d [ .] ( emphasi s added)
. T he St at e fi l ed not i ce of i nt entt o s eek the dea t h penal t yon O ct ober27, 2006. T he tr i al w as s chedul ed t o comm ence on A ugus t 31, 2007. O n A ugus t 21, 2007, t he g ra n d ju ryre tu rn e d a n o th e r in d ictm e n t, th is tim e a lleg in g th a t ap p e llan t: in ten tio n a lly a n d k n o w in g lyc a u se [ d ] th e d e a th o f S a ra h W a lk e r, an in d iv id u a l, h e re in a f te r c a lle d d e c e a s e d , b

y s ta b b in ga n d

c u ttin gd e c e a s e d

w ith a kn ife , a d e a d ly w e a

p o n , a n d b y sta b b in ga n d

c u tti n gd e c e a se d

w ith a n o b

jec t, a d e a d ly w eapon, w hos e exac t nat ur e and i dent i t y is unknow n t o the gr and j ur ors , and b y s tr ik in g d e c e a s e d w ith a p la n t s ta n d , a d e a d ly w e a

p o n , w hi l e the def

endant w as i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng orat t empt i ng t o comm i tt he off ens e of ro b b e ry o f

d e c e a s e d [ .] ( emphasi s added)
. A ppel l antfi l ed a “ m ot i on t o quas h t he i ndi ct m en t o ri n t he al t ernat i ve fi r s tm o ti o n fo r c ont i nuance ” on A ugus t27, 2007. A hear i ng w as hel d on t he mot i on t he f o llo w in g d a y . A ppel lant arg u ed i n hi s m ot i on and att he hea r i ng t hathe w as s urpr i s ed byt he new al l egat i ons t hatappel l antcaus ed W al ker ’ s death bys t abbi ng and cutt ing herw i t h an
u n k n o w n o b

jec t an d strik in g h e r w ith a p lan t s ta n d
. H e a rg u e d th a t h e w a s p re p a re d to defe nd onl yagai ns tt he form eral l egat i on t hat appel l ant caus ed W al ker ’ s death bys t abbi ng and cutt i ng her w ith a kn i fe. H e cl ai m ed thathe h ad b een p rovi ded w i t h “n o report s” i ndi cat i ng t hatdeath w as caus ed byan unknow n obj ectora pl ants t and. H e compl ai ned that t en day s w as notenough t i m e forhi m t o pr epar e a de fens e t o t he new al l egat i ons , and he
as ked the courtfora 90- daycont i nuance t o al l ow hi m t o do s o. T he p rosecut or r espon ded as fol l ow s:CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 12

Ar tic le28 .1 0( a) p ro vid e s: 3 After notice to the def

endant, a matter of f

orm or substancein an indictment or inf or matio n ma

y beame nd e d at any

tim e be fo rethedatethetria l on theme ri ts commence s. On the re quest of the de fenda nt, the court shall allow the de fenda nt not less than 10 days, or a shorte r period if reque sted by the def endant, to re spond to the amende d indictment or information. I w oul d poi ntoutt o t he C our t t hat w e have not change d t he mannerand m eans , w e’ ve s i m pl yadded tw o al t ernat i ve mannerand means i n t hi s cas e. I w o u ld also p o int o u t that co u n sel h as ha d a co p y o f t h e a u top syrep o rt now form ont hs
. I n t he aut ops yr epor tD r . R ohrcl ear l ys t at es t hatbl untfor ces [s i c] t r auma w as i nfl i ct ed t o the v ict im , t o herhead a nd t o herfac e, t hat e v id e n c e h a s b e e n k n o w n to th e D e f e n d a n t f o r so m e tim e n o w , b u t I a lso sta te fort he r ecor d, t hatC ouns el has know n form ont hs t hatno w eapon w as ever found th at c o u ld be l i nked t o t hi s par t i cul aroffe ns e, no kni fe w as ever r ecove r ed at t he s cene or anyot herl ocat i on, t hatfac thas been know n now for m o n th s to th e D e f

e n d a n t. T he r e- i ndi ct m entdi d notr es ul t fr om anynew l ydi s cover ed evi dence , in a n yn e w re p o rts, a n yn e w f in d in g s. I do n ’t a n ticip a te a n ya d d iti o n a l re p o rts ordi s coveryw i l l be gener at ed becaus e of t hi s r e- i ndi ct m enti n t hi s par t i cul ar cas e. W i t h r egar d t o C ouns el ’ s fi nal ar gum entaboutt hi s bei ng i nappr opr i at e, t hi s i s a dea th cas e, butt o m yknow l edge, t he s ame C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e appl i es i n t hi s cas e thatappl i es i n al l cr i m i nal cas es i n t he St at e of T exas . T h e S tat e of Texas has a r i ghtt o s eek a r e- i ndi ct m entand the D efe ndanthas 10 day s i n w hi ch t o pr epar e fort r i al
. [ ] T hi s i s nota new cas e, 3 t hi s i s nota new t r i al , t hi s i s not s om e new al l egat i on, t hi s i s s i m pl ya cha nge i n t he mannerand means , an addi t i onal m annerand m eans . H e’ s had a p p ro p ri a te tim e to p re p a re f o r t ri a l. I n r es pons e t o t r i al cour tques t i oni ng, t he pr os ecut oral s o s t at ed that “ther e i s no new d i s c o v e r y ” a n d t h a t“ e v e r y t h i n g t h e De f e n d a n ta l r e a d yh a s , h a s h a d a n o p p o r tu n i t yt o r e v i e w, t o couns el w i t h expert s about , t hat ’ s w hat ’ s goi ng to rem ain in t hi s cas e. ” The pr os ecut orCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 13

added that“[t ] her e ar e notgoi ng t o be anynew r epor t s fr om D r . R ohr , fr om m edical exami ner s , fr om expert s oranybody [. ] ” A tt he conc l us i on of t he hea r i ng, t he tr i al cour tt hen gr ant ed the mot i on for
c o n t i n u a n c e i n a “ l i mi t e d way , ” b y mov i n g j u r y s e l e c t i o n f r o m Au g u s t 3 1 t o Se p t e mbe r 7. A ppel l ant fi l ed anot her m ot i on r eques t i ng the t r i al cour tt o quas h t he i ndi ct m entort o gr ant hi m a mot i on forcont i nuance on Sept ember 7. T he t r i al cour t deni ed t he m ot i on pr i ort o t he b eg inn ing o f j u ry selec ti o n that sam e da y . T h e tri al on the m erit s co m m en ce d a m o n th later, on O ct ober8, 2007. G r ant i ng or d eny i ng a mot i on forcont i nuance i s w i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of t he tr ial co u rt . W

r ig h t v . S ta te , 2 8 S .W .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). In o rd e r to
e sta b lish a n a b u se o f th e trial co u rt’s d isc re tio n , an a p p e llan t m u st s h o w th a t th e d e n ial o f h is
m o tio n re s u lte d in a c tu a l p re ju d ic e . I d. A ppel l ant does notar gue, m uch l es s es t abl i s h, t hathe s uffe r ed anys peci fi c pr ej udi ce
ar i s i ng fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o gr ant hi m t he 90- daycont i nuance he r eques t ed. A nd th e re c o rd d o e s n o t su p p o rt h is ba re a lleg a tio n o f su rp rise . T h e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t th e S tate pr ovi ded the bul k of i t s di s covery t o appel l ant byM ay2007. T he aut ops yr epor t , i n w hi ch D r . R ohropi ned thatW al ker“di ed as a r es ul tof m ul t i pl e s harp for ce i nj ur i es , s t r angul at i on
a n d b lu n t h e a d in

ju ry ,” w a s p ro v id e d to a p p e llan t a s e a rly a s M a rc h 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 . A s th e S tate poi nt ed outatt he hea r i ng, appel l anthad know n for s ever al m ont hs t hatW al kerhad s uffe r ed bl untfor ce tr auma and t hatt he murde rw ea p o n h ad neverbeen f ound. A ppel l anthadCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 14

s u f f i c i e n tn o t i c e a n d t i me t o p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e . Abs e n ta s h o wi n g o f a c tu a l p r e

j u d i c e , we decl i ne t o hol d t hatt he tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng to g ran t ap pel l antt he addi t i onal t i m e t hathe r eques t ed. Poi ntof err ort hr ee i s overrul ed. SECURI TY M EASU RES I n p o int o f er r ort w o, appel l antar gues t hatenhanc ed court r oom s ecur i t ym eas ur es vi ol at ed hi s co n sti tut i onal r i ght s . H e compl ai ns t hathe w as s hackl ed i n t he pr es ence of pr os pect i ve j ur or s . H e fur t her al l eges t hat “the s hackl i ng of [hi s ] l egs w as compounded by t he pr es ence of an i nor di nat e amount of uni for m ed deput i es s ur r oundi ng hi m dur i ng t he t r i al
. ” P rio r to tr ia l, a p p e llan t f iled a w ritten m o tio n re q u e stin g th a t h e n o t b e sh a c k led in publ i c. A tt he hea r i ng on pr etr i al m ot i ons , t he fol l ow i ng excha nge occ ur r ed:

[D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : L et [’ ] s , s ee, t he next m ot i on, J udge i s att ab N o . 1 1 M o tio n to P re c lu d e M r. C h a n th a k o u m m a n e f r o m B e in g S h a c k led in Publ i c. I th in k th e m o tio n sp e a k s f o r itse lf. B a sic a lly[ w h a t] w e ’re a sk in g is t h a ta ta ny t i me t ha t - - a n d b y“ i n p u b l i c ” wh a tI ’ m r e f e r r i n g t o i s a n yt i me w her e he maybe s een by any j ur or s or pot ent i al j ur or s t hat m ay s i ton t he ca s e. T H E C O U R T : O kay , anyt hi ng fr om t he s t at e? [ P R O S E C U T O R ]: W el l , i t w ou l d be m y un derst and i ng t hat anytim e h e ’s m o v in g f

r o m th e h o ld o v e r to th e c o u n se l tab le th e ju ryw o u ld n o t b e in h e re ; is th a t co rre c t? T H E C O U R T : Y es. [PR O S E C U T O R ] : M yunder s t andi ng w oul d be thathe’ d be s hackl ed perhaps handcuf

fed, but he w oul d be s eat ed behi nd t he couns el t abl e and thatCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 15

th e sh a c k les a n d re stra in ts w o u ld n o t b e v isib le to th e ju ry , co rre c t? T H E C O U R T : R i ght
. N ot t he j ur ybutt her e maybe peopl e outi n t he audi ence t hatcoul d s ee hi m butt hat i s t he publ i c. B ut y ou’ r e j us tt al ki ng about th e ju ry , rig h t? [ D e f e n se c o u n se l], y o u ’re ju st ta lk in g a b o u t th e ju ry n o t se e in g h im in shackles? [D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : W el l , I j us t - - y es , I m ean I t hi nk t hat ’ s w hat t he l aw r equi r es . B ut I t hi nk, J udge, w e’ r e as ki ng fors om e extr a pr eca ut i ons b e m a d e th a t at a n ytim e th a t h e ’s b ro u g h t in a n d o u t o f th e c o u rtro o m th a t it be done a tl east w it h the appear ance t hathe’ s noti n cus t odyforpurpos es of t he j ur or s bel i evi ng t hatatt hatpar t i cul art i m e. T H E C O U R T : A l r i ght , t hat ’ s gr ant ed. P rio r to th e sta rt o f

ju ryse lec tio n , d e f

e n se c o u n se l a g a in re q u e ste d th e trial c o u rt “ to
re m o v e a n ya n d a ll res tra in ts,” sta tin g in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

B a sic a llym yu n d e rsta n d in g is, Ju d g e , th e d e f e n d a n t h a s le g re stra in ts o n a t th is tim e , an d I w o u ld n o te f o r th e re c o rd th a t h e ’s se a ted b e h in d th e tab le t hat i s d r a p e d i n a t a b l e c l o t h t h a t g o e s t o t h e f l o o r a n d t h a t i t wou l d appea r that fro m an yb o d ysit ti n g in f ron t of h im that theyw o u ld n o t be a w are that h e’s s hackl ed. H ow ever , o urconce r n i s t hathe’ s goi ng t o be the foc us of at t ent i on t hr oughoutt he pr ocee di ngs and thats om eone w ho’ s s hack led at t he l egs cannothel p buthave thei r m o v em en ts r es t r i ct ed i n s om e w ayand r es t r ai ned i n s o m e w a y.
* * * I t ’ s m y under s t andi ng t hat he w i l l be s eat ed atcouns el t abl e once w e get in to th e c o u rtro o m in a p o sitio n w h e re , w h e th e r o r n o t th e ju ryc a n se e h im r es t r ai ned behi nd counsel tabl e ornot , . . . hi s fr eedom t o m ove aboutt he c o u r t r o o m a n d c o mmu n i c a t e wi t h c o u n s e l wi l l b e o b s t ru c t e d a n d n o tt h e s a me as i f s om eone w as notr es t r ai ned.CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 16

D ef en se c o u n sel also a rgu ed that the S tat e ha d fa il ed to m ak e a sho w ing that sh ac k les w ere
n ec essa ry . T h e pro sec u tor resp o n d ed that the sh ac k les w ere n ec essa ry , g iv e n a p p e ll an t’ s pr i orhi s t or yof vi ol entoffe ns es and the fa ctt hathe w oul d be s eat ed i n cl os e pr oxi m i t yt o a
sw i ng i ng do or t ha t c ou l d e na bl e hi m t o qu i c kl y e xi t t he c ou r t r oo m. The pr os e c ut oral so po i nted out that “[n]o prospect i ve jur or w i l l be a b le to se e t he shac kles on his ank l es” beca us e “t he cour t r oom s ar e si tuat ed i n s uch a w ay t hatt he def endant ’ s l eg w i l l be cove r ed atal l t i m es. ” T he tr i al cou rtrul ed as fo l l ow s:

T H E C O U R T : O kay
. A l ri gh t , no w , he p res entl yhas shack l es on h is a n k les , o n h is le g s; is th a t co rre c t? [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: Y es, si r. T H E C O U R T : N o cu ffs? [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: T h at’s co rrect, Y o u r H o n o r. THE COURT: Ok a y , t h e n t h a t ’ s t h e wa yI ’ m g o i n g t o k e e p h i m. [D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : So our m ot i ons ar e deni ed? T H E C O U R T : M o tio n d enied w ith re g a rd to leg sh a c k les . G ra n ted w ith re g a rd to h a n d c u f

f s . L at erdur i ng t he j ur y s el ect i on pr oces s , defe ns e couns el r e- ur ged the mat t erout s i de t he pr es ence of t he veni r e pane l
. D efe ns e couns el s t at ed:

Y ourH onor , ourconce rn i s t hatas fr om t he C our tl ooki ng outt o t he veni r e t o y ourfar l eft , w hat I ’ d cal l t he fi r s t gr oup of chai r s l ooki ng fr om t he l eftt o t he r i ght , t he fi r s t and s econd r ow s of t hat gr oup, i f t heyl ook t o t hei rl eft are abl e t o see M r. C han t hak ou m m ane’s l egs. I t ’ s m ybel i ef a nd I’ve tr ied i tout . I ’ ve s atovert her e and l ookedCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 17

a c ro ss . Y o u ’re a b le to se e h is leg s. Y o u ’re a b le to se e th a t th e re ’s a re stra in t, a nd i n pa r t i c ul a r t he ki nd of r e s t r a i nt he r e , i t ’ s no t a met a l c ha i n r e s t r a i nt . So it’s c lea r f

o r th e re c o rd , it ’s m o re o f lik e a n y lo n f

a b ric o r a lm o st l ik e a c lo th r es t r ai ntand i thas par tof - - i tal m os t looks l i ke a f l atr ope thatext ends out a n d f a lls u p o n th e f

lo o r a n d th a t’s n o tice a b le a s w e ll. It ’s especi al l yno t i ceable, t oo , Judg e, t o thi s fi rs trow w hich i s al m ost i n l i ne w i t h couns el t abl e. T he tr i al cou rt res po nd ed, “W e’r e no tgo i ng t o seat anybo dyov er i n thatsect i on . ” D efen se
couns el s t at ed t hat “i n t he fi r s t gr oup of a hundr ed t o t he C our t ’ s l eftpeopl e have occupi ed th o se c h a irs in th e se f

irst tw o ro w s.” D e f

e n se c o u n se l o p in e d th a t “a n yo p tio n o r p o ss ib ili ty t h a t[ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] we r e o b s c u r i n g o ro b s t ru c t i n g t h e j u r o r s ’ v i e w wa s g o n e wh e n we
w ere up before y ou at t he bench
. ” T he tri al cou rt den i ed defen se cou nsel ’s request s t o q uash t he p anel, t o recei ve a co nti nu ance, and t o rem ov e t he restrai nts . D efe ns e couns el obj ect ed and m oved for a mi s t r i al once mor e dur i ng j ur ys el ect i on. O ut s i de the pr es ence of t he veni r e pane l , defe ns e couns el obj ect ed for t he fi r s t t i m e t hatt he pr es ence of “f

ouruni for m ed de p u ty s her i ffs ” i n t he court r oom w as an exc es s i ve,
u n n e c e ss a ry , an d u n c o n stitu tio n a l “s h o w o f f o rc e .” D e f

e n se c o u n se l ar g u e d th a t “th is p rese n ce o f law en fo rce m en t i s b asica ll ysen d ing the m es s a g e to th e juro rs t h at M r. C hant h a k o u mma n e i s a d a n g e rn o w an d t h a th e ’ l l b e a f u tu r e d a n g e r . ” Def

e n s e c o u n s el agai n obj ect ed t o t he us e of l eg r es t r ai nt s and s t at ed, “W e bel i eve i t ’ s al s o verypos s i bl [e] and l i kel y[t hatpr os pect i ve j ur or s ] can s ee the l eg r es t r ai nt s . ” The St at e r es ponded:

J udge, i n r egar ds t o t hei r -- to t he r ecor d t heym ade r egar di ng t he d e f e n d a n t’s leg re stra in ts, I’m sittin g a b o u t eig h t f e e t aw a yf

ro m th e d e f

e n d a n t. I have [ not ] y etbeen a bl e t o s ee hi s l eg r es t r ai nt s . I ’ ve not been abl e t o hearCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 18

t h e m. I t hi nk bas ed upon t he w ayt he court r oom i s s etup and he’ s on t he fa r si de o f any j uror t hat w ou l d co m e t hroug h the cou rtroom and si ti n the w i t ness s t a n d t h a ti t ’ s i mp o s s i b l e f o r- - a n d h e k e e p s h i s l e g s s e tu p a t t h e t a b l e . He keeps hi s l egs under neath t he des k w hi ch the des k i s a thr ee si ded desk so y ou can’ ts ee i texcept from t he bac k, and ther e’ s no i ndi cat i on t hatanybodyhas se e n th o se leg re stra in ts, a n d I d o n ’t b e liev e th e w a yh e ’s s itt in g a n yb o d yw ill s ee th o se l eg r es t r ai nt s as l ong as he cont i nues s i t t i ng as he has done s o far t hroug ho ut the p astfew day s. T h e trial c o u rt th e n o v e rru led a p p e llan t’s o b jec tio n s a n d d e n ied h is re q u e st f o r a m istria l. T he har m a defe ndant s uffe r s w hen t he j ur y s ees hi m i n handcuf fs or s hackl es i s t he in f ri n g e m e n t o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l p re s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e . L o n g v . S ta te , 823 S. W
. 2d 259, 282 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1991)
. A l l eff or t s s houl d be t aken t o pr eventt he j ur yfr om s eei ng t he defe ndanti n s hackl es , exce ptw hen ther e has been a show i ng of exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s
o r a m a n if

e s t n e e d f

o r s u c h re s tr a in t. Id

. It is w ith in th e d isc re tio n o f th e trial ju d g e a s to
w h e th e r a d e f

e n d a n t s h a ll b e tr ie d in s h a c k le s . I d. ; C o o k s v . S ta te , 844 S
. W
. 2 d 6 9 7 , 722 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1992)
. E ven i f an abus e of di s cr et i on exi s t s , r ever s al m aynotbe r equi r ed if s u c h a b u s e w a s h a rm le s s . I d. Ab s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e j u r y a c tu a l l y s a w t h e s h a c k l e s , we
w ill n o t c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n h a rm e d
. C o o k s , 8 4 4 S .W .2 d a t 7 2 3
. E ven i f w e as s um e w i t houtdeci di ng t hat t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on, appel l ant i s notabl e t o demonst r at e harm . D efe ns e couns el acknow l edged thatappel l antw as “s eat ed behi nd t he t abl e t hati s dr aped i n a t abl e cl ot h t hatg o es to the fl oor , ” and that“anybody
s i t t i ng i n fr ontof hi m . . . w oul d notbe aw ar e that he’ s s hackl ed. ” T he pr os ecut ors t at ed t hat no pr os pect i ve j ur orcoul d s ee the s hackl es beca us e the court r oom w as “s i tuated in such aCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 19

w ayt hatt he def

endant ’ s l eg w i l l be cove r ed atal l ti m es. ” D efe ns e couns el bel i eved that
s om e pr os pect i ve j ur or s i n t he fi r s tand s econd r ow s m i ghthave be en abl e t o vi ew t he
s hackl es . T he pr os ecut orr es ponded that w as “i m pos s i bl e” beca us e appel l antw as s eat ed at “a thr ee s i ded des k s o y ou can’ t s ee i t exce pt fr om t he back. ” T he pr os ecut oral s o poi nt ed
ou tt hat “there’ s no indi cat i on t hat anybo dyhas se e n those l eg restrai nts , ” and defe nse
c o u n se l f a iled to re f

u te th a t as se rtio n . B o th p a rties o f f e re d th e ir o p in io n s o n th e v isib ili ty
o f th e sh a c k les , b u t w ith o u t e v id e n c e th a t th e ju ry a c tu a lly sa w th e sh a c k les , n o r e v e r s ib le
e rr o r e x is ts . See i d. W e n e x t tu rn to a p p e llan t’s c o m p lain t ab o u t th e p re se n c e o f f o u r u n if o rm e d d e p u ty
s her i ffs i n t he court r oom . T he pr es ence of guar ds i s n o t “as i nher ent l ypr ej udi ci al as
s hackl i n g . ” S te r lin gv . S ta te , 830 S. W
. 2d 114, 118 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1992)
. Si nce the p re s e n c e o f

g u a rd s is n o t in h e re n tly p re ju d ic ia l, a p p e lla n t m u s t s h o w a c tu a l p r e j u d ic e . I d. H er e, t he tr i al cour tnot ed thatt he fourguar ds ati ssu e w er e l ocat ed ar ound “the per i m et er of t he court r oom , ” w i t h “[t ] w o overon t he .
. . nor t h w al l and one on t he sout h w al l and one
on t he east w al l
. ” T he record do es no trefl ectany t hing other than t he locat i on of the gu ards. T her e w as no s how i ng t hat t hei r pr es ence w as cons pi cuous , confus i ng, or di s t r act i ng t o t he p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro rs . Id

. A b se n t a sh o w in g o f a c tu a l p re ju d ice , w e h o ld th a t th e trial c o u rt d id
n o t e rr in o v e rr u lin g a p p e lla n t’ s o b je c tio n s . Id

. Poi ntof err ort w o i s overrul ed. VOI R DI RE I n poi ntof err orone, appel l antcompl ai ns about“the tr i al cour t ’ s r emar ks t o t heCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 20

gen era l v eni r e w hi ch pr ej udi ced hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rt r i al
. ” A ppel l antas s er t s t hatt he tr i al
cour t ’ s comm ent s s ubj ect ed hi m t o cruel and unus ual puni s hm entand depr i ved hi m of due p roc ess, e ffe ct i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , and the pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e, i n vi ol at i on of t he S i xth, E i gh t h, and F ou rt eenth A m end m ents t o the U nit ed S tate s C on st i tuti on . H e al so al l eges t hathe w as depr i ved of due cour s e of l aw i n vi ol at i on of t he Texas C ons t i tut i on. A t th e b e g in n in g o f th e ju ry se lec tio n p ro c e ss , J u d g e Q u a yP a rk e r in tro d u c e d h im se lf t o t he veni r e, expl ai ned thathe w as a vi s i t i ng j ud g e w h o w as ass i s t i ng J udge C har l es S a n d o v a l in a p p e llan t’s tria l, an d b rie f ly d isc u ss e d h is h isto ry a s a p ro se c u to r a n d ju d g e in W es tT exas . J udge P ar ker t hen i nt r oduced t he pros ecut or s and defens e couns el , s t at i ng as foll ow s: [PA R K E R ] : I t ’ s m y pr i vi l ege t o i nt r oduce y ou t o y our el ect ed di s t r i ct a tto rn e y , Ju d g e Jo h n R o a c h
. . . Ju d g e R o a c h is a v e ryd istin g u ish e d ju rist in hi s ow n r i ght
. Som e of y ou pr obabl yknow t hatnotonl yi s he s er vi ng now as y ourdi s t r i ct at t or ney , but pr i or t o t hat he w as t he pr es i di ng j udge of t he 199 th D i s t r i ctC our t her e i n C ol l i n C ount y for qui t e a num ber of y ear s . A nd al s o I t hi nk, J udge R oach, w er en’ t y ou a j us t i ce on the courtof appe al s i n D al l as for s om e t i m e? [R O A C H ]: Y es, si r. [PA R K E R ] : So he ’ s had a very di s t i ngui s hed car eer . N ot onl y t hatbut Judg e R oach rai ses hi s ki ds ri gh t . T hey ’r e al l l aw y ers . In f a c t, he h as a daught erand a s on t hat ar e both at t or ney s and hi s s on j us tr ece nt l yw as el ect ed t o t he 196 D i s t r i ct C our t her e i n C ol l i n C ount y as i t s j udge, and he t ook offi ce

th J anuary1 of t hi s y earand j us thas r eal l yhad a good t i m e and r eal l ydoi ng a g o o d j o b i n t h e 2 9 6
. S o we ’ r e g l a d t o h a v e J ud ge Roac h u p t h e r e . Bu tmy th f a v o r i t e Ro a c h th a t ’ s a l a wy e r , J u d g e , i s y o u rd a u g h t e r - i n - l a w. [R O A C H ] : Y es , s i r , I ’ m s ur e. [PA R K E R ] : J ohn J r . ’ s w i fe Laur a. She i s a del i ght. I a lw ay s l ookCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 21

f o rw a rd to h a v in g h e r in c o u rt. O k a y , sitti n g n e x t to Ju d g e R o a c h th e re is h is v e rya b le f irst a ss ista n t, G re g D a v is
. [D A V I S] : G ood m or ni ng. [ P A R K E R ]: G re g is a v e rya c c o m p lish e d -- e x c u se m e , G re g . I’ll c a ll y o u M r. D a vis
. I’ l l be a li t t l e m ore form al
. I’ m fam i l i ar w i t h h i m becau se w e’ ve tr i ed a l otof ca s es t ogether
. I n fac t , w e tr i ed a mur der cas e j us tabout th re e w e e k s a g o ; w a sn ’t it? [D A V IS ]: Y es, si r. [P A R K E R ]: Y o u ’l l f

in d that h e’s a v ery , v eryp rof essio n al an d v ery g o o d p r o s e c u t o r . I a l wa y s e n j o yt r y i n g c a s e s wi t h h i m. S e a ted [ a t] th e c o u n se l tab le to m ylef t o v e r h e re a n d n o w y o u r rig h t, i s M r. S t eve M i ears . [M I E A R S] : M or ni ng, l adi es and gent l emen. T H E V E N I R E PA N E L : G ood m or ni ng. [ P A R K E R ]: M r. M iea rs a n d I ha v e a lso tried c a se s to g e th e r, an d h e w ill be l ead c ouns el i n t hi s case , an d t hen s eat ed att he end of t he t abl e and as s i s t i ng M r . M i ear s i s M r . K ei t h G or e. [G O R E ] : G ood m or ni ng. T H E V E N I R E PA N E L : G ood m or ni ng. [P A R K E R ]: A v eryfin e y o u n g crim inal d ef en se law y er. I n fa ct, M r. G o re a n d M r. D av is an d I all tr ied th at m u rde r ca se to g ethe r. Y o u d id a v ery fi ne j ob, K ei t h. A ppel l antdi d notobj ectt o t he tr i al cour t ’ s comm ent s att he t i m e theyw er e made. T h re e d a y s late r, h e f

iled “ D e f

e n d a n t’s O b

jec tio n s to th e C o u rt’s V o ir D ire , M o ti o n toCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 22

I ns t ructt he J ur y t o D i s r egar d, M ot i on forM i s t r i al , ori n t he A l t ernat i ve M ot i on t o Q uas h t he J ur yP an el. ” Ju dge Par kerrul ed on the mot i on t hats ame day , pr i ort o t he comm ence m ent of i ndi vi dual voi rdi r e. Par kerexpl ai ned: I j u s ti n t r o d u c e d J o h n R o a c h a s J u d g e J o h n R o a c h t h e e l e c t e d d i s t r i c ta t t o r n e y, and then I j us tgave them a br i ef b ac k gr ound of hi s j udi ci al car eer . . . . A nd t hatw as i t . A nd I di d r emar k t hat hi s fami l yhas l aw y er s and thathi s s on had r ece nt l ybeen el ect ed t o t he 296 and w as s er vi ng as t he di s t r i ct j udge fort he th 296
. th T h e S tat e re sp o n d ed that the c o m m en ts atissue w ere m ere ly “f ac tual stat em en ts w ith reg ard to introd u cti o n o f th e p arti es to the p an el. ” Ju d g e P ark er the n o v erru led a p p ell an t’ s obj ect i on s and d enied hi s m oti on s. R ul e 33. 1 of t he Texas R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e provi des t hata t i m el yobj ect i on is r equi r ed t o pr es er ve err orforappea l
. C i t i ng B lu e v . S ta te , 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d 1 2 9 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 2000) , appel l ant ar gues t hat a cont empora neous obj ect i on w as not r equi r ed here. In B lu e , t he tri al c o u r tt ol d the j ur yt hatt he def endantw as cons i der i ng ent er i ng i nt o a pl ea
a g re e m e n t a n d th a t th e tr ia l co u rt w o u ld h a v e p re f e rr e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t p le a d g u ilty. I

d. at130. A pl ur al i t yof t he C our thel d t hatt he tr i al j udge’ s comm ent s , “w hi ch t ai nt ed appel l ant ’ s pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e i n fr ontof t he veni r e, w er e funda m ent al err orof
cons t i tut i onal di m ens i on and r equi r ed no obj ect i on. ” Id

. a t 1 3 2 . E v e n if w e w e re b o u n d to f o llo w th a t p lu ra lityo p in io n , Ju d g e P a rk e r’s c o m m e n ts i n th is ca se d o n o t rise to th a t lev e l. S e e J a s p e rv . S ta te , 6 1 S
. W
. 3 d 4 1 3 , 4 2 0 -21 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 )(ho lding that tr ial co u rt ’s i nt er j ect i on t o corr ect defe ns e counse l ’ s m i s s t at ement and hi s i r r i t at i on w i t h defe ns e couns elCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 23

di d notr i s e t o s u ch leve l a s t o bearon pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e orvi t i at e i m par t i al i t yof ju ry ); s e e a ls o B r u m it v . S ta te , 206 S. W
. 3d 639, 644- 45 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2006) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al cour t ’ s comm ent s expr es s i ng di s s at i s fac t i on w i t h a s ent ence t he def endant had r ece i ved i n a pr i orcas e di d not r efl ect par t i al i t y of t he t r i al cour t or t hata pr edet er m i ned s ent ence w as i m po sed). Iti s com m on for ven i rem em bers t o b e in tro d u c ed to prosecut ors and d efen se
c o u n se l d u rin g v o ir d ire e x a m in a tio n (a lth o u g h n o t n e c e ss a rilyto th is d e g r e e ) , ju st a s it is
comm on t o as k veni r emem ber s i f t hey know any of t he att or ney s i nvol ved i n t he ca s e. H er e, J udge Par kercompl i m ent ed bot h t he pr os ecut or s and de fe n s e couns el w hen he i nt r oduced t hem t o t he j ur y . A nd hi s r efe r ence t o t he di s t r i ctat t or neyas “J udge J ohn R oach” di d notgo
s o far as t o t ai nt t he pre s um pt i on of i nnocenc e. A cont empora neous obj ect i on w as r equi r ed to p re s e rv e e rr o r, a n d a p p e lla n t f a ile d to m a k e o n e . T EX . R . A PP . P. 33. 1. Poi ntof err orone i s overrul ed. I n poi nt s of err orni ne and t en, appel l antcompl ai ns t he tr i al cour t err oneous l ygr ant ed th e S ta te ’ s c h a llen g e s f o r c a u se to v e n ire m e m b e rs W ill iam M ich a e l M a n ia a n d R o b e rto C ar l os D el acruz. H e as s er t s t hat t hei r ans w er s dur i ng voi rdi r e ques t i oni ng s how ed thatt hey coul d be fa i rand i m par t i al and t hatt heyw oul d not hol d t he St at e t o a hi ghers t andar d t han p ro o f b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T he St at e m ay chal l enge a veni r emem ber for caus e i f he or s he has a bi as orpr ej udi ce agai ns t an y p h ase o f t he l aw upon w hi ch the St at e i s ent i t l ed t o r el yforconvi ct i on or p u n ish m e n t. A rt. 3 5 .1 6 (b )(3 ). W e re v iew a trial co u rt’s ru lin g o n a c h a llen g e f o r c a u se w ithCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 24

cons i der abl e def

er ence beca us e t he tr i al cour ti s i n t he bes t p o sit ion t o eval uat e a
v e n ir e m e m b e r’ s d e m e a n o r a n d re s p o n s e s . Fe ldm a n v . S ta te , 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); C o lb u r n v . S ta te , 96 6 S. W
. 2d 51 1, 51 7 ( T ex. C ri m . A pp . 19 98 ). W e w i l l rever se
a trial c o u rt’s r u lin g o n a c h a llen g e f o r c a u se o n lyif

a c lea r a b u se o f d is c r e ti o n is e v id e n t. I d. W h en a v en ir em em b er’s an sw ers a re v ac il lat ing , u n c lear, o r co n tr ad ict o ry , w e a cc o rd p a rt ic u la r d e f

e re n c e to th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n . Id

. W h en the pr os ecut ori ni t i al l yas ked veni r emem berM ani a how he fe l tabout p a rticip a tin g o n th e ju rya n d p o ss ib lyre tu rn in g a v e rd ict th a t w o u ld re su lt in th e d e a th penal t y , M ani a s t at ed:

A s far as m yvi ew s on t he dea t h penal t ygo, I do nothave a pr obl em w i t h ours oci etyhavi ng a dea t h penal t ypers e. I have a pr obl em w i t h t he w ay it h a s b e e n im p o se d a n d u til ize d in th e p a st. E ss e n tially b e in g u s e d a g a in st, l ar gel yagai ns tpeopl e of c ol orand of pe opl e w ho ar e p o or ; w her eas , w hi t es a n d w e a l t h i e rp e o p l e w e r e s o m e w h a tp r o t e c t e d f r o m t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y. I w as di s turbed byw hathas gone on i n D al l as C ount y w i t h al l t he convi ct i ons bei ng over tur ned. H ow ever , t he ac tual d eath penal t y , i f appl i ed fai r l yand appr opr i at el y , I d o nothave a pr obl em w i t h, and I w oul d nothave a p r o b l e m w i t h s i g n i n g t h a tp a p e ri f I f e l tt h a tt h e e v i d e n c e b e y ond a r eas onabl e doubtconvi ct ed thatper s on. T h e p ro se c u to r th e n q u e stio n e d M a n ia a b o u t h is a b ili tyto a d h e re to th e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubts t andar d:

Q . In th e S tate o f

T e x a s th e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f in a ll c r im in a l ca se s is b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T h a t m e a n s th a t if y o u w e n t in to tra f f ic c o u rt a n d y o u p led n o t g u iltyth e c ityw o u ld h a v e to f in d y o u g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T hat ’ s t hei rbur den of pr oof.CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 25 I t ’ s t he s ame t hi ng i n a mi s demeanorcas e; i t ’ s t he s ame t hi ng i n a fel onycas e, and i t ’ s t he s ame t hi ng i n a dea t h penal t ycas e. T her e ar e s om e peopl e thats ayt hat ’ s fi ne. I can l i ve w i t h t hat
. T hen t her e ar e ot herpeopl e w ho s ay b ec au se thi s i s t he ul t i m at e puni s hm ent , y ou know , w her e w e’ r e goi ng t o t ake a per s on’ s l i fe thatt heyfee l t hatbur den of pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubts houl d be hi gheri n t hi s par t i cul arcas e. A n d so m e juro rs say , li sten , if y o u p rov e h is gu il t bey o n d all d o u b t, I’m fi n e , b e c a u s e I d o n ’ t wan t a n y l i n g e r i n g d o u b t s . I wan t z e r o d o u b t s w hen I w a lk o u t k n o w in g th a t if h e ’s g o in g to b e e x e c u ted th e re a re n o d o u b ts a t all. O ther p eo p le sayb ey o n d a re aso n ab le d o u b t i s h igh en o u g h
. If it ’s good enough i n t he othercas e, i t ’ s good enough i n t he dea t h penal t ycas e. I n t hi s par t i cul arcas e i s bey ond a r eas onab le doubtgoi ng t o be good e n o u g h in a d e a th p e n a ltyc a se , d o c to r, o r i n y o u r h e a rt o f h e a rts d o y o u re a lly think that th e s ta te is go ing to h av e to p rov e this ca se to a h igh er stan d ard b e f o re y o u p e rso n a lly c o u ld tak e th a t f irst step to w a rd s im p o s in g a d e a th sen tenc e a g ains t [ap p ell an t] ? A
. I w o u ld h av e to s ayh o n estl ythat itp rob ab lyw o u ld f all so m ew h ere b e tw e e n th o se tw o . It w o u ld p ro b a b lyb e a lit tle b it h ig h e r th a n re a so n a b le d o u b ta n d a l i t t l e b i tl o w e rt h a n c e r t a i n t y. Q
. D o yo u t h i n k t h a t ’ s b e c a u s e o f w h a t h a p p e n e d i n D a l l a s C o u n t y, s om e of t he re vel at i ons i n ot her cas es about i nnocent peopl e bei ng exoner at ed orj us tt he gr avi t yof t he dec i s i on byi t s el f? A . I th in k th a t it ’s m o stlyth e g ra v ity o f th e d e c isio n b y itse lf. I w o u ld s ay t hat w hat has happene d i n D al l as C ount y and i n ot her pl ac es re i nfor ces th a t. I w o u ld a lso sa yth a t I re c o g n ize th a t ju st l ik e m e d icin e [ ,] law is im p e rf e c t an d w e a re a ll i m p e rf e c t, an d to e x p e c t th e law to g e t itrig h t a hundr ed per cent o f the t i m e i s as unr eal i s t i c as i n m edi ci ne ori n anyot her h u m an en d ea v o r. D efe ns e couns el and M ani a next had the fol l ow i ng excha nge r egar di ng t he bur den ofCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 26

pr oof: Q . T h e law sa y s th a t -- I m e a n , it ’s e v e n g o t to b e p ro v e n n o t ju st by i f t her e’ s a r eas onabl e doubt y ou vot e not for t he s t at e, but t hey ’ ve gott o pr ove it b e y o n d a n yre a so n a b le d o u b t. So I gues s t he ques t i on - - and thi s i s s om ethi ng t he J udge di dn’ tgo over w i t h y ou or I t hi nk he di d, actual l y s ay t hi s . T hat t hat l evel o f p roof b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b tc a n m e a n w h a t e v e ryo u w a n ti tt o m e a n . O k a y. So y ourl evel o f co m fo r t abl enes s w i t h w hatt hatconce pti s m aybe di ffe r entfr om s om ebodyel s e’ s . W hen y ou s ay , w el l , I ’ m s or t of bet w een the hundr ed per centand bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , y ou y our s el f have t he pow er a n d th e rig h t to ra ise it u p w h e re v e r y o u w a n t it, so lo n g a s it’s n o t b e y o n d a ll d o u b t. Y ou fol l ow m e t her e? A
. Y es, si r. Q
. O kay
. So does t hatki nd of puti ti n a l i t t l e bi tbet t erper s pect i ve as to w h a t -- in a d e a th p e n a ltyc a se if th e yh a v e to p ro v e it b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt , y ou don’ thave a nypr oblem w i t h t hatbei ng t he s t andar d of pr oof for y ou? A
. N o. Q
. O kay
. A nd es peci al l y i f t he Judge i ns t ruct s y ou t hatt hat ’ s t he l aw th e n y o u w o u ld f

o llo w th e law , rig h t? A
. Y es. T h e p rose cu tor t h en rev isi ted th e b u rde n o f p roo f top ic w ith M an ia o n fu rt h er v o ird ir e exami nat i on: Q
. W hen I t al ked w i t h y ou ear l i erand I as ked y ou ques t i ons aboutw hat it w o u ld re a llytak e f

o r y o u in th is p a rticu la r c a se f o r th e sta te to p ro v e th e ir c a se , y o u sta ted to m e it w o u ld tak e so m e th in g m o re th a n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t an d so m e th in g a lit tle le ss th a n a b so lu te c e rta in ty ; d o y o u re c a ll th a t?CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 27 A
. Y es, si r. Q
. D o yo u s t i l l f

e e l t h a tw a y? A
. Y es, si r. Q . I m e a n , y o u k n o w y o u rse lf a n d y o u k n o w w h a t’s in y o u r h e a rt and y ou know how y ou t rul y fee l about t hes e cas es and aboutt he gr avi t yand th a t’s h o w y o u h o n e stlyf e e l; i sn ’t it? A . T h a t’s c o rre c t. Q
. W i t ho ut put t i ng anyw ords i n y ou r m ou t h that’ s y ou r t rue feel i ng s? A
. Y es, si r. Fi nal l y , defe ns e couns el ques t i oned M ani a once m or e abouthi s t hought s on t he bur den of pr oof:

Q . [L ]e t m e m a k e s u re th a t y o u u n d e rsto o d w h a t I w a s s a y in g . . . is t hatpr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtcan mean w haty ou w anti tt o m ean. A . I u n d e rsta n d th a t.

* * * Q
. [A ] r e y ou abl e t o s ayt hatI under s t and w hatpr oof bey ond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b ti s a n d f o rm e i tc a n m e a n a l m o s ta c e r t a i n t y? A
. F o rc a p i t a l m u r d e ri tw o u l d m e a n a l m o s ta c e r t a i n t y.

* * * Q
. A r e y ou abl e t o s ayy es , I can f ol l ow t he l aw , and i f t he J udge i ns t ruct s m e that t hat ’ s t he l aw , t hen I ’ m okay w i t h t he l aw . I agr ee w i t h t he l aw . Pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt can m ean al m os t a cer t ai nt yt o m e, and th a t’s w h a t th e y ’re g o in g to h a v e to sh o w it b yo th e rw ise I’m n o t g o in g to v o te f o r it. So ar e y ou abl e t o say that y eah, I can hol d t he s t at e t o a bur den ofCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 28

p ro o f th a t’s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t b e c a u se to m e it m e a n s a lm o st a c e r t a i n t y? A
. Y es, si r. Q
. So w hen the ques t i on’s a s ked, w el l , does s om ethi ng have t o be pr oved t o y ou bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , if y ou under s t and ordo y ou under s t and thatbey ond a r eas onabl e doubtcan be anyw her e y ou w ant i tt o be. I tcan be as hi gh as y ou w anti tt o be as lon g as i t ’ s notas hi gh as G od a l m i g h t y w o u l d k n o w a h u n d r e d p e r c e n tc e r t a i n t y. A
. I under s t and w haty ou’ r e s ay i ng.

* * * Q . S o c a n y o u f

o llo w th e law th a t sa ys th a t . . . th e yh a v e to p ro v e it bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbut t hat ’ s i t . I f t hey ’ ve m et t hat bur den I can f ol l ow t h a tl a w? A
. Y es. F o llo w in g M a n ia ’ s te s ti m o n y, th e p r o s e c u to rc h a ll e n g e d h im f o rc a u s e b e c a u s e M a n ia
w oul d ho l d t h e St a t e t o a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f t h a n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . T he p ro se c u to r sta ted th a t M a n ia “ v a c ill a ted w ith [ d e f e n se c o u n se l] a f

ter b e in g led d o w n th e p a th
w ith s e v e ra l le a d in g q u e s tio n s a n d s u g g e s tio n s a b o u t w h a t m a yb e re a s o n a b le d o u b t o r n o t.” H o w e v e r, th e p ro se c u to r p o in ted o u t th a t w h e n h e a sk e d M a n ia “ stra ig h t o u t” if h e w o u ld
r equi r e the St at e “t o pr ove t hi s cas e t o a hi gherl evel , ” M ani a r es ponded i n t he af fi r m at i ve. T he t r i al cour tgr ant ed t he pr os ecut or ’ s chal l enge f orcaus e overdefe ns e couns el ’ s obj ect i on. A ppel l antar gues on appea l t hatM ani a “c l ear l ys t at ed” he w oul d fol l ow t he l aw and
a p p lyth e c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd . W e d isa g re e . M a n ia to ld th e p r o se c u to r th a t h e w o u ld
re q u ire m o re th a n p ro o f b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t in a d e a th p e n a ltyc a se , g iv e n “ th e g ra v ityCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 29

of t he deci s i on” and “w hat has happene d i n D al l as C ount y ” w i t h r egar d t o convi ct i ons bei ng
over tur ned i n t he pas t . B ut he al s o acknow l edged t hat he coul d fol l ow t he l aw w hen he w as q u esti o n ed b yd ef

en se c o u n sel. In th e c ase o f a v a c illati n g p rosp ec ti v e juro r, w e a cc o rd p a rt ic u la r d e f

e re n c e to th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n . Fe ldm a n , 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 4 ; C o lb u r n , 966 S. W
. 2d at 517. I n l i ght of M ani a’ s confl i ct i ng ans w er s , w e cannot s ay t hat i ti s evi dentt hat th e tr ia l c o u rt c l e a rl ya b u s e d its d is c re tio n in g ra n tin g th e S ta te ’s c h a lle n g e f o r c a u s e . See i d. P o in t o f

e rr o r n in e is o v e rr u le d
. W e nexttur n t o t he voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on of veni r emem berD el acruz. W hen t he pr os ecut ori ni t i al l yques t i oned D el acruz r egar di ng t he St at e’ s bur den of pr oof, D el acruz st at ed as fo l l ow s:

Q
. S o m e p eo p l e w i l l s ay , y ou know w hat , i f i t ’ s a dea t h cas e, i f t he stat e is see k ing the d ea th p en alt y , then I w o u ld req u ir e ju s t a li tt le bit m o re t han bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt han I w oul d i n a bur gl arycas e ora dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed ora s peedi ng cas e. Som e peopl e w i l l s ay , y ou know , beca us e of t he fi nal i t yof t he dec i s i on i n t hi s cas e, y ou j us tneed thatl i t t l e extr a. I s t hats om ethi ng t haty ou s ubs cr i be t o? A
. Y eah, I w oul d t hi nk s o. I m ean, s om ethi ng as bi g as death, I m ean I t hi nk y ou have t o pr ove y ourcas e a l i t t l e bi t m or e t han, y ou know , us havi ng lik e so m e d o u b ts a b o u t it
. Q
. O reven be y ond -
- I m ean the s t andar d i s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt butbeca us e i t ’ s a dea t h cas e y ou’ ve gott o have thatl i t t l e extr a. A
. Y eah, I fee l l i ke y ’ al l s houl d be pr ovi ng i tj us ta l i t t l e bi tm or e.

* * *CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 30 Q . Y o u ’v e h e a rd b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t? A
. I ’ ve hea r d that. I d o n’ tful l yunder s t and i t . Y ou know , I m ean I know i t ’ s l i ke s om ethi ng t hatm aybe l i ke y ’ al l d o n ’ thave a l l t he r eas ons of w hyhe di d i tbutm aybe s om e of t he r eas ons but l i ke a s hadow of a doubtand a ll th a t I’v e n e v e r h e a rd o f it. Q
. O k ay . B utbeca us e of the s er i ous nes s of t hi s offe ns e, y ou fee l w e’v e g o t t o p rov e it-- A
. Y eah, y eah. Q . -- a lit tle b it m o re th a n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t? A
. Y eah, beca us e i t ’ s i nvol vi ng s om ebodyel s e’ s l i fe.

* * * Q
. E ar l i ery ou s ai d y ou’ d hol d t he st at e t o a l i t t l e bi t hi gherbur den than b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t; i s th a t rig h t? A
. Y es. Q
. T el l m e abo ut w hyt hat i s. A
. W h yI w o u ld h o ld y o u to h igh er? Q
. A higher burden. Th e l aw say s that w e hav e t o p rove ou r cas e b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t, an d w h en w e talke d e a rl ier y o u said that y o u ’d h o ld u s to a b it o f

a h ig h e r b u rd e n . W h yw a s th a t? A
. Ju st be ca u se, I m ea n , if y o u ’re g o ing to take so m eo n e’s [ sic] else’s life , I m e a n , the n I th in k y o u sh o u ld p ro v e e v e ry th in g th a t th e y ’v e d o n e to comm i tt hatcr i m e. Q
. B y a c e r t a i n t y? A
. Y eah. Q
. O k a y.CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 31 A. L i k e - - n o te x a c t l yb u t , y o u k n o w. D ef en se co u n sel an d D elac ruz then h ad the f o ll o w ing ex ch an g e re g ard ing the S tat e’s bur den of pr oof:

Q
. I m ean, I g u es s I j us tneed t o m ake s ur e y ou under s t and thatt hey onl yhave t o pr ove s om ethi ng bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt o y ou. W oul d y ou hol d t hem t o t hatbur den of pr oof? A
. Y es , I w oul d. Q . A n d ju st b e c a u se it’s a d e a th p e n a ltyc a se , I m e a n , y e a h , the q u a lity of evi dence m aybe di ffe r entbut t he st andar d of proof i s t he s ame bey ond any re a so n a b le d o u b t. I m e a n , y o u ’re n o t g o in g to re q u ire th e m to p ro v e it b e y o n d a ll d o u b t, rig h t? A . N o , the re ’s n o w a yth e yc o u ld d o th a t. Q . O k a y . S o y o u w o u ld h a v e th e m ju st p ro v e it b e y o n d a n yre a so n a b le d o u b t, ri g h t? A
. Y eah. Q
. Y ou w oul d m ake them fol l ow t he l aw . T he J udge w oul d t el l y ou t he l aw t hatr equi r es t hem t o pr ove i t bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and that ’ s t he o n lysta n d a rd y o u w o u ld h o ld th e m to , rig h t? A
. W ell , y ea h
. I m ea n , I g u ess y o u k n o w w ith all -- li k e y o u said , it ’s t he max of r eas onabl e doubt
. I m ean, i f t hat ’ s t hat
- - y ou know , i f t hat ’ s t hat lit tle b it m o re , I m e a n lik e m a x im u m re a so n a b le d o u b t. Q
. B ey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , okay
. A nd I d o n ’t w antt o putw or ds in y o u r m o u th a n d lea d y o u d o w n so m e ro a d
. If y o u ’re g o in g to h o ld th e m to p ro v e so m e th in g b e y o n d a ll d o u b t th e n y o u ’re ju st n o t a g o o d ju ro r f o r th is cas e. A
. Y eah. I m ean, I kn ow t heycann ot pr ov e i tbey on d all do ub t.CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 32

B e c a u se lik e y o u sa id , I’d h a v e to b e a w itn e ss o r so m e th in g lik e th a t. Q . B u t y o u ’ll m a k e th e m p ro v e it b e y o n d a ll rea so n a b le d o u b t? A
. Y es. F oll ow i ng D el acruz’s t est i m on y , t he p rosecut or ch al l eng ed h i m for cause be cause “he’ d hol d t he s t at e t o a hi gherbur den of pr oof [than] bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” The pr os ecut oradded: “H e t al ked abouti tduri n g m y v o ir d ir e w i t h hi m . I n fac t , he us ed a
c e rta in tya n d e v e n d u rin g [ d e f e n se c o u n se l’s q u e stio n in g ] h e e v e n m a d e th e c o m m e n t a little b itm o re w h en d iscu ssing rea so n ab le do u b t. ” T h e tria l co u rtg ran ted th e p rose cu tor’s chal l enge f

orcaus e overdefe ns e couns el ’ s obj ect i on. L i ke veni r emem ber M ani a, D el acruz gave contr adi ct or yr es pons es w hen ques t i oned aboutt he bur den of pr oof by t he pr os ecut or and defe ns e couns el
. H e fi r s tt ol d t he pr os ecut or t hathe w oul d r equi r e m or e t han pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubti n a dea t h penal t ycas e, but h e later t o ld d ef

en se c o u n sel t h at he w o u ld f o ll o w the law
. W e d e fe r t o the tri al co u rt ’s d e c isio n to g ra n t th e S tate ’s c h a ll e n g e f o r c a u se to D e lac ru z b e c a u se th e trial c o u rt w a s in th e b e s t p o s itio n to e v a lu a te h is d e m e a n o r a n d re s p o n s e s . F e l dm a n , 71 S. W
. 3d at744; C o lb u r n , 9 6 6 S
. W
. 2 d at 51 7
. T h ere w as n o clea r ab u s e o f d isc reti o n in the tr ial co u rt ’s
ru lin g . P o in t o f

e rr o r t e n is o v e rr u le d
.

LESSE R I N CL U D ED O FFEN SE In h is f if th p o in t o f

e rro r, ap p e llan t co m p lain s tha t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in re f u sin g to in stru c t th e ju ryo n th e les se r in c lu d e d o f f e n se o f m u rd e r. W e u se a tw o -p ro n g e d tes t toCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 33

det er m i ne w hethera def endanti s ent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on on a l es s eri ncl uded off ens e. R ous s eau v. St at e, 855 S. W
. 2d 666, 673 ( T ex. C ri m . A p p. 1993)
. T he fi r s ts t ep i n our
a n a ly sis is to d e ter m in e if th e les se r o f

f e n se is in c lu d e d w ith in th e p r o o f n e c e ss a ryto
e s ta b lis h th e o f

f e n s e c h a rg e d
. Id

. T he fi r s tpr ong of t he t es t i s s at i s fi ed her e bec aus e murde r is a le s s e r i n c lu d e d o f

f e n s e o f c a p ita l m u rd e r. Fe ldm a n , 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 0
. T h e se c o n d ste p re q u ire s an e v a lu a tio n o f th e e v id e n c e to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re is
s om e evi dence t hat w oul d per m i ta j ur yr at i onal l yt o fi nd t hatt he def endanti s gui l t yonl yof th e le s s e r o f

f e n s e . Mo o r e v . S ta te , 9 6 9 S .W .2 d 4 , 8 (T e x . C rim
. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); R o u s s e a u , 855 S .W .2 d a t 6 7 2
. In o th e r w o rd s, th e re m u st b e so m e e v id e n c e f ro m w h ich a ju ryc o u ld
r at i onal l yacqui tt he def endantof t he gr eat eroffe ns e w h il e co n v i ct i ng hi m of t he l es s er in c lu d e d o f

f e n s e . Mo o r e , 969 S. W
. 2d at 8. I n m aki ng t hi s deci s i on, t he courteval uat es t he
e v id e n c e in th e c o n tex t o f th e e n ti r e r e c o rd , b u t d o e s n o t co n sid e r w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e is
c re d ib le , c o n tr o v e rt e d , o r i n c o n f lic t w ith o th e r e v id e n c e . H a ll v . S ta te , 158 S. W
. 3d 470, 473 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). A ppel l antclaim s t hatt he j ur ycoul d r at i onal l yhave f ound “thatt he ki l l i ng of t he d e c e a se d w a s n o t c o m m itt e d in th e c o u rse o f c o m m itt in g ro b b e ry ” b e c a u se “ th e re is s im p ly
n o ev iden ce that A p p ell an t ac q u ir ed an y o f t h e de ce ase d ’s p rop erty . ” W e disag ree . A s pr evi ous l ys t at ed, di r ectevi dence l i nki ng appel l antt o t he mi s s i ng w at ch and r i ng w as not
re q u ir e d
. S e e G u e v a r a , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 4 9
. A p p e llan t to ld p o lice th a t h e o n lya ttem p ted to g et a d ri n k o f w ater inside a m o d e l h o m e w h ere n o o n e e lse w as p rese n t; h o w ev er,CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 34

appel l ant ’ s ow n s t at ement t hathe comm i t t ed no cr im e is n o tadequa t e t o r ai s e the i s s ue of
a le s s e r i n c lu d e d o f

f e n s e . B ig n a ll v . S ta te , 8 8 7 S
. W
. 2 d 2 1 , 2 3 -24 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). T he onl yevi dence of m ot i ve w as t he S t at e’ s t heoryof r obbery . T he evi dence s how ed t hat W al kerpur chas ed an e xpens i ve new w at ch t he day befor e she w as m ur der ed, t hats he w as
w ear i ng a w at ch and r i ng w hen s he w entt o a bank on the days he w as m ur der ed, and thats he
w as no l ongerw ear i ng t hes e i t ems w hen herbodyw as found l es s t han tw o hour s l at er . B ank
r ecor ds es t abl i s hed thatappel l ant ’ s bank ac countw as o v erdr aw n on t he daybefor e the
m u rd e r. T h e e v id e n c e d id n o t p e rm it th e ju ryto ra tio n a llyf in d th a t ap p e llan t w a s g u iltyo n ly of m ur der
. T her efor e, t he t r i al cour t di d not erri n r efus i ng t o i ns t ructt he j ur yon t he l es s er i ncl uded off

ens e of murde r . Poi ntof err orfi ve i s overrul ed.

P HOTOGRAPHI C EVI DENCE I n point o f err orel even, appel l antar gues t hat“the tr i al cour terr ed i n admi t t i ng an in f lam m a to ryp h o to g ra p h o f a p p e llan t o v e r his tim e lyo b jec tio n w h ich h a d n o c o n n e c tio n to t he off ens e w i t h w hi ch he w as char ged. ” The phot ogr aph ati s s ue i s St at e’ s E xhi bi t75, an i m age thatw as r ecove r ed fr om appel l ant ’ s cel l phone and adm it t ed dur i ng t he gui l t/ i nnocenc e phase of t he tr i al
. T he s m al l col orphot ogr aph depi ct s appel l antfr om t he chi n up, openi ng hi s m out h w i de and a ct i ng as i f he i s goi ng t o bi t e a s m al l w hi t e dog. P rio r to th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e p h o to g ra p h , the p a rties d e b a ted its a d m iss ib ili ty out s i de the pr es ence of t he j ur y . T he pr os ecut or offe r ed the phot ogr aph fort he purpos e of
s how i ng appel l ant ’ s abi l i t yt o open hi s m out h w i de enough t o i nfl i ctt he bi t e mar k found onCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 35

Daubert v. M

errell Dow Pharmace uticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 4 t he vi ct i m , and fort he purpos e of s how i ng appel l ant ’ s appea r ance i n 2006. D efe ns e couns el
r es ponded t hati tw as “pr emat ur e” t o admi t t he phot ogr aph i nt o evi dence befor e the D au bert4 hear i ng on t he admi s s i bi l i t yof bi t e mar k compar i s on evi dence t hat w as sche dul ed t o t ake pl ace t he nextday
. D efe ns e couns el ar gued thatt he phot ogr aph w as notnece s s aryt o s how t hatappel l antcoul d open hi s m out h w i de enough t o i nfl i ct t he bi t e m ar k beca us e thati s s ue coul d be addr es s ed by“anotherw i t nes s w ho i s goi ng t o t es t i fyas t o t he for ens i c dent al
exam. ” D efe ns e couns el al s o as s er t ed tha t the phot ogr aph w as notnece s s aryt o s how appel l ant ’ s appea r ance i n 2006 beca us e i t w as uncl earw hen the phot ogr aph w as t aken a nd t her e w er e otherpi ctur es s how i ng hi s appea r ance att hatt i m e. D efe ns e couns el fur t her
ar gued thatt he phot ogr aph w as notr el evant , and that ev en if w as r el evanti ts houl d be excl uded underR ul e 403 bec aus e i tw as m or e pr ej udi ci al t han pr obat i ve. T h e a d m is s ib ility o f

a p h o to g ra p h is w ith in th e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f th e tr ia l ju d g e . W illia m s v . S ta te , 958 S. W
. 2d 186, 195 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1997)
. T he tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on
m a y b e d istu rb e d o n a p p e a l o n lyw h e n it fa lls o u tsid e th e z o n e o f re a so n a b le d isa g re e m e n t. Y o u n g v . S ta te , 2 8 3 S .W .3 d 8 5 4 , 8 7 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 3 0 S
. C t. 1 0 1 5 (20 0 9 ). R ul e 403 al l ow s fort he exc l us i on of ot herw i s e re l evant evi dence w hen i t s pr obat i ve value “i s sub st anti al l y ou t w ei gh ed by t he dan ger o f un fai r pr ej ud i ce, con fusi on of the i ssues,
orm i s l eadi ng t he j ur y , orbyconsi d era t i ons of undue de l ay , orneedl es s pr es ent at i on ofCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 36

Th e bu lk o f a

pp e lla nt’ s argument i s th at th e a dmi ssi on of theph oto gra

phvio late d Ru le 5 403. Appellant does not c ite Rule 401, and he only briefly mentions Rule 402. T EX . R. E V ID . 401, 402. We will only

addre ss his Rul e 403 claim becauseany thing e lse is inadequate ly briefe d. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1. c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e .” T EX . R . E V ID . 403. R u le 4 0 3 favor s t he admi s s i on of r el evant 5 evi dence and ca r r i es a pr es um pt i on t hatr el evan tevi dence w i l l be more pr obat i ve than p re ju d ic ia l. Wi l l i a ms , 958 S. W
. 2d at 196. “The t er m ‘ pr obat i ve val ue’ r efe r s t o t he i nher ent probati ve fo rce of an i t em of evi den ce-- t hat i s, ho w strongly i t ser ves t o m ake m ore or l ess pr obabl e the exi s t ence o f a fa ctof cons equenc e t o t he l i t i gat i on- - coupl ed w i t h t he pr oponent ’ s need f

ort hati t em of evi dence
. ” C a s e y v . S ta te , 215 S. W
. 3d 8 7 0 , 879 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2007)
. “‘ U nfai rpr ej udi ce’ r efe r s t o a ten d en cy t o s ugges tdeci s i on on an i m pr operbas i s , comm onl y , t hough notnece s s ar i l y , an emot i onal one. ” I d. at880. W het herornotappel l antw as t he per s on w ho m ade the bi t e m ar k on W al ker ’ s neck
w as a fa ct o f co ns equenc e t o t he l i t i gat i on. A ppel l ant ’ s D N A w as found i ns i de the model h o m e a n d a w itn e ss sa w h im n e a r th e c rim e sc e n e , b u t a p p e llan t to ld p o lice th a t h e o n ly br i efl yent er ed the model hom e w hen no one w as t her e and thathe mer el yt r i ed t o getw at er fro m the k itc h e n s ink b ef o re h e lef

t. If a p p ell an t w as li n k ed to the b it e m ark o n W alke r’s neck, t hen i tw oul d di s cr edi thi s ver s i on of eve nt s and hel p t o es t abl i s h h is ide nt i t yas her
m u rd e re r. H o w e v e r, th e p h o to g ra p h o f a p p e llan t a c tin g a s if h e w a s g o in g to b ite a d o g d id not s t r ongl ys er ve t o es t abl i s h t hatappel l antw as t he per s on w ho m ade the bi t e mar k on t he vi ct i m i n t hi s cas e. A nd t he St at e d id n o t n ee d the phot ogr aph i n or dert o m ake thatpoi nt b e c a u se th e S tate la te r c a lled D r. B re n t H u tso n to tes tifyin d e tail re g a rd in g th e f o re n sicCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 37

d e n t a l e x a mi n a t i o n a n d b i t e ma r k c o mpa r i s o n t e c h n i q u e t h a t l e d h i m t o c o n c l u d e t hat
a p p e lla n t b it W a lk e r. T h e S tat e a lso a rgu ed at t ri al t h at E x h ibit7 5 w as n ec essa ryto sh o w ap p ell an t’ s
a p p e a ra n c e in 2 0 0 6 ; h o w e v e r, th e p h o to g ra p h d id n o t stro n g lyse rv e to e sta b lish th a t f a c t, ei t her
. W i t nes s M ami e Sharpl es s t es t i fi ed thatappel l ant l ooked di ffe r entatt he t i m e of the O ct ober2007 t r i al t han he di d w hen s he s aw hi m neart he cr i m e sce n e in Ju ly2006. H ow ever , t her e w as no t es t i m onyr egar di ng w hen Exhi bi t75 w as t aken. A nd t her e w as ot her evi dence , s uch as appel l ant ’ s Sept ember 2006 m ug s hot , w hi ch s how ed thathi s appea r ance
ma t c h e d S h a rp l e s s ’ de s c r i p t i o n o f t h e ma n s h e e n c o u n t e r e d n e a rt h e c r i me s c e n e . I n s u m, E xhi bi t75 had l ow pr obat i ve val ue. T he St at e ar gues i n i t s br i ef t hat E xhi bi t 75 w as notunfai r l ypr ej udi ci al beca us e the ph otograph w as nothi ng m ore t han “an appa rent l y play ful m om ent captured on [app el l ant’ s] cel l
- phone ca m er a. ” H ow ever , i ti s conce i vabl e t hat a j ur or vi ew i ng t he phot ogr aph mi ght t hi nk ot her w i s e. T he phot ogr aph coul d have ha d s om e adver s e eff ect on appel l antbey ond te n d in g to p ro v e th e f

a c t o r is s u e th a t ju s tif

ie d its a d m is s io n in to e v id e n c e . S e e C a s e y , 215 S. W
. 3d at883. T her e w as enough r i s k of unfai r pr ej udi ce t o s ubs t ant i al l y out w ei gh t he l ow p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f

E x h ib it 7 5 ; th u s , th e a d m is s io n o f th e p h o to g ra p h w a s e rr o r. W e n e x t tu rn to th e q u e stio n o f h a rm . R u le 4 4 .2 (b ) o f

th e T e x a s R u les o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re p ro v id e s th a t an y n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r th a t d o e s n o t af f e c t su b sta n tial rig h ts
m u s t b e d is re g a rd e d . T EX . R . A PP . P. 44. 2( b)
. A s ubs t ant i al r i ghti s aff ect ed w hen the err orCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 38

Ap pe lla nt d e vo te s h is e nti rea

pp e llateargument t o Ru le70 2 a nd thefa c tor s se t out in 6 Kelly v. State, 82 4 S. W.2 d 5 68 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 92 ). In o nese ntenc eat th e e nd of his discussion of point of error seve n, he mentions that the trial cour t’s rulingalso violates Rule 403

(continued...) h a d a s u b s ta n tia l a n d in

ju ri o u s e f

f e c t o r in f lu e n c e in d e te rm in in g th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. K i ng v. S ta te , 953 S. W
. 2d 266, 271 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1997)
. T he convi ct i on sh o u ld n o t be
over tur ned i f t he appe l l at e court , aft er exami ni ng t he re cor d as w hol e, has fai r as s ur ance t hat th e e rr o r d id n o t in f

lu e n c e th e ju ry, o r h a d b u t a s lig h t e f f e c t. J o h n s o n v . S ta te , 967 S. W
. 2d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). O urexami nat i on of t he re cor d as a w hol e gi ves us fai r as s ur ance t hatt he admi s s i on of Exhi bi t75 di d nothave a s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff ectori nfl uence i n det er m i ni ng t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . T he phot ogr aph i t s el f w as not par t i cul ar l y offe ns i ve ors hocki ng. A nyeff ect i thad w as m i ni m al , gi ven the s t r ength of ot herevi dence indi cat i ng gui l t , i ncl udi ng an
e y e wi t n e s s wh o s a w a p p e l l a n ta tt h e c r i me s c e n e n e a rt h e t i me o f t h e mu r d e r , a p p e l l a n t ’ s o wn
s t at ement pl aci ng hi m at t he cr i m e s cene , D N A evi dence l i nki ng appel l antt o t he cr i m e s cene and t he vi ct i m , and t es t i m ony of a for ens i c dent al expertl i nki ng appel l antt o t he bi t e mar k. A ppel l antw as nothar m ed byt he admi s s i on of Exhi bi t75. Poi ntof err orel even i s overrul ed. S CI ENT I F I C EVI DENCE I n poi nt s of er r ornum bers even a nd ei ght , appel l antchal l enges t he admi s s i on of t he
s c i e n t i f i c e x p e r tt e s t i mo n yo f

S t a t e ’ s wi t n e s s e s Br e n tHu t s o n a n d St a c yM c Do n a l d
. He
ar gues t hatt he St at e fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat t hei rt es t i m ony
w as s ci ent i fi cal l yr el i abl e underR ul e 702 of the Texas R ul es of Ev idence
. 6CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 39

(...continued) 6 of the Te x as Rules of Evidenc e. In point of error eight, he mere ly “incor porate [s] by

ref erence thea uth oriti e s c ite d in

I ssu e No . 7 .”Hedo e s n ot p ro vid e any a dditi on a l a

rgument o r a

uth ority in su pp or t of his Rul e 40 3 a

rgument. We w illno t a dd re ss h is R ule40 3 a rgument b e c a

us e it i s inadequately

briefe d. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1. R ul e 702 of the T exas R ul es of Evi dence pr ovi des : “I f s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal , orot her
s peci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i s tt he t r i er of fact t o under s t and the evi dence ort o det er m i ne a fa cti n i s s ue, a w i t nes s qual i fi ed as an expe r tbyknow l edge, s ki l l , exper i ence , t r ai ni ng, or educa t i on m ay t es t i fy t her et o i n t he for m of an opi ni on orot herw i s e. ” T EX . R . E V ID . 702. It is a trial c o u rt’s r e sp o n sib ili tyu n d e r R u le 7 0 2 to d e ter m in e w h e th e r p ro f f e re d sc ien tific
e v id e n c e is s u f

f ic ie n tly re lia b le a n d re le v a n t to a s s is t th e ju ry. J a c k s o n v . S ta te , 17 S. W
. 3d 6 6 4 , 6 7 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). A trial c o u rt’s r u lin g o n th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f sc ien tific
e x p e rt te s tim o n y is re v ie w e d u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. W

e a th e r r e d v . S ta te , 15 S
. W
. 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 2 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). T he pr oponentof t he s ci ent i fi c evi dence m ust de m ons t r at e thr ough cl earand
c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e e v id e n c e is in f a c t r e lia b le
. Id

. T he pr oponentof t he evi dence
m u st s a tisf

yth re e c riter ia to d e m o n stra te r e liab ili ty : (1 ) th e u n d e rly in g sc ien ti f ic th e o ryis
v a lid ; (2 ) th e tec h n iq u e a p p ly in g th e th e o ryis v a lid ; an d , (3 ) th e te c h n iq u e w a s p ro p e rly
a p p lie d o n th e o c c a s io n in q u e s tio n . Ke lly v . S ta te , 824 S. W
. 2d 568, 573 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1992)
. O t hernon- excl us i ve fa ct or s t hatcoul d aff ecta tr i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i on of reli ab il ityinclu d e: (1) the ex tent to w h ich th e u n d erly ing scien ti fic th eo ry an d tech n iqu e a re
acc ept ed as v al i d byt he r el evants ci ent i fi c comm uni t y , i f s uch a c om m uni t ycan beCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 40

as c e rt a in e d ; (2 ) t h e q u ali fica ti o n s o f th e e x p ert t esti fy ing ; ( 3 ) t h e e x ist en ce o f li terature
su p p o rtin g o r re

jec tin g th e u n d e rly in g sc ien tific th e o rya n d tec h n iq u e ; (4 ) th e p o ten tial ra te of err orof t he t echni que; ( 5) t he ava i l abi li tyof ot herexpert s t o t es tand eva l uat e t he t echni que; ( 6) t he cl ar i t yw i t h w hi ch the under l y i ng s ci ent i fi c theoryand techni que ca n be expl ai n e d t o t h e c o u r t ; a n d , ( 7 ) t h e e x p e r i e n c e a n d s k i l l o f t h e p e r s o n who a ppl i ed t he te c h n iq u e o n th e o c c a s io n in q u e s tio n . I d. T h e S tat e c all ed D r. B ren t H u tson to te s tif y re g ard ing the re su lt s o f h is bit e m ark anal y sis i n t hi s cas e. B efor e H ut s on t es t i fi ed, t he tr i al cour thel d a hea r i ng out s i de t he pr es ence of t he j ur yt o det er m i ne the r el iabi l i t yof hi s t es t i m ony . H ut s on t es t i fi ed att he hear i ng t hathe w as a l i cens ed dent i s t , t hathe w as t he di r ect or of cl i ni cal fi xed pr os t hodont i cs att he B ay l orC ol l ege of D ent i s t r y , and t hat he had w or ked w i t h t he C ol l i n C ount yM edi cal E x am iner si n ce 1 9 9 5 o r 1 9 9 6
. A t th e re q u est o f C o ll in C o u n tyM ed ical E x am iner D r. R o h r, H ut s on and for ens i c dent al cons ul t antD r . W i l l i am S ch ell exami ned the bi t e mar k on W al ker ’ s neck. I n conduct i ng a for ens i c exami nat i on of t he bi t e m ar k, H ut s on fol l ow ed “The G ui del i nes of t he A m er i can B oar d of For ens i c O dont ol ogy , ” w hi ch he de s cr i bed as “a s er i es
o f ste p s th a t ar e u se d in th e e v a lu a tio n a n d a n a ly sis o f a p a ttern e d in ju ry th a t is su sp e c ted to be a bi t e mar k as faras evi dence col l ect i on, phot ogr aphy , m eas ur ement s , [and] s o for t h and
so o n .” In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e se g u id e lin e s, H u tso n p h o to g ra p h e d a n d m e a su re d th e b ite
m ar k, and then he “ fabr i cat ed a c us t om acry l i c tr ayt o fi tovert he bi t e m ar k ar ea a nd t ook an al gi nat e i m pr es s i on, w hi ch i s a put t y - t ype m at er i al i m pr es s i on us i ng a m oul age t echni que ofCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 41

th e b ite m a rk a re a .” H e th e n “ s e c u re d th a t im p re s s io n in a h u m id o r . . . to re ta in m o is tu re ,” t ook i t t o a facul t y l abor at or y at t he B ay l or C ol l ege of D ent i s t r y , and “made a s t one model of t hati m pr es s i on. ” The purpos e of t he s t one m odel w as “[t ] o captur e anys ubt l e evi dence t hatm i g h t n o t b e appar entbyvi s ual i ns pect i on of t he vi ct i m . ” H ut s on t hen “ha d a mast er epoxym ol d m ade of

[t he] m as t ercas t ” and “ had r efr act or ycas t s pour ed s o t hey w o u ld be avai l abl e t o t he def

ens e. ” H u tso n tes tifie d th a t h e a n d S c h e ll a lso m e t w ith a p p e llan t a t th e C o ll in C o u n ty D e te n tio n C en ter. In a cc o rda n ce w ith “the A m erican B o ard o f F o ren sic O d o n tolog y ’s
r ecomm endat i on fors us pectexami nat i on, ” H ut s on per for m ed a compl et e i nt er i orand
e x ter io r e x a m in a tio n o f a p p e llan t’s m o u th , n o tin g a n yc o n d iti o n s th a t m ig h t af f e c t h is a b ili ty t o b i t e. H uts on t oo k pho t og raphs and “m ade t w o s et s of al ginat e i m press i on s of [ app el l ant’ s] t eeth. ” The purpos e of the i m pr es s i ons w as t o “make m odel s and compl et e the compar i s on
o f th e s u s p e c t’ s d e n titio n to th e p a tte rn e d in ju ry th a t w a s d e t e r m i n e d to b e a b ite m a rk .” H ut s on and Schel l t hen t ook t he i m pr es s i ons t o Schel l ’ s offi ce, w her e they“made s t one
m odel s of t hos e i m pr es s i ons , t hen dupl i cat ed thos e model s and then s ubs equent l ychec ked
o n e s e t o f

p ri s tin e m o d e ls in a s e v id e n c e a t th e C o llin C o u n ty M e d ic a l E x a m in e r’ s O f f ic e .”

H u tso n tes tifie d th a t h e u se d th e p h o to g ra p h s a n d im p re ss io n s o f a p p e llan t’s te e th to
cr eat e “c om put erover l ay s . ” H e expl ai ned thathe cr eat ed the co m p u ter o v er l ay s us i ng “A dobe Phot o Shop, ” a pr ogr am i n w hi ch “t he com put ervi a a s er i es of comm ands m akes anCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 42

out l i ne of the t al l erm os tpor t i ons o f t he s us pect ’ s dent i t i on, ” i.e ., “ [ t] h e tip s o f th e te e th .” H u tson then “c o n d u cted an ex am ination o f th e c a s t o f th e im p ression fro m the v ict im ’s pos t er i or lat era l n eck” and “ compar ed over l aycomput eri m ages t hat[he] m ade of t he
s us pect ’ s cas tt o t he p att ern i nj ur yon t he vi ct i m ’ s neck. ” A ft erH ut s on compar ed the comput er o v e r l a y s , “ i t was i n [ h i s ] o p i n i o n wi t h i n d e n t a l c e r t a i n t y , t h a t t h e t e e t h of t he
s u s p e c t w e re re s p o n s ib le f o r th a t p a tte rn e d in

ju ry o n th e p o s te ri o r la te ra l n e c k o f th e v ic tim .” H u tso n p re p a re d a w ritten re p o rt o f h is f in d in g s. H e tes tifie d th a t h e d isc u ss e d h is fi ndi n g s w i t h D r . Schel l , as w el l as D r . Paul a B rum m et tand D r . R ober tW i l l i ams, w ho
s er ved as for ens i c dent al cons ul t ant s t o t he D al l as C o u n t yM edi cal E xami ner ’ s O ffi ce. H uts on t est i fi ed thatno ne o f t hem t oo k an yi ssue w i t h h i s t echn i qu e or hi s conclusi on s. O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , H u tso n a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e w a s n o t ce rtifie d a s a f o re n sic
o d o n to lo g ist b y th e A m e ric a n B o a rd o f F o re n sic O d o n to lo g y . H e a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e d id
n o t co m p a re th e b ite m a rk to d e n tal im p re ss io n s fr o m a n y o th e r pe rso n s b e sid e s a p p e llan t. H e bel i eved “ w i t hi n r eas onabl e dent al cert ai nt ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ” t hatappel l ant
m ade the bi t e mar k, buthe cl ar i fi ed that“r eas onabl e dent al cert ai nt y ” does notm ean “ one hundr ed per cent ” ce r t ai nt y . H e fur t herexpl ai ned:

A n d in th e sc ien tific m e th o d , if y o u ’re g o in g to in tro d u c e v a ria b les to t es tagai ns ty ourhypot hes i s , t he best w ay t o do t hat i s t o have a veryr andom s ampl e. A nd i tw oul d be verydi ffi cul tt o come up w i t h a r efl ect i v e ra ndom s ampl e t o compar e t o t hi s cas e. I n addi t i on t o t hat
. . . I t hi nk ther e ar e ver ys peci fi c cha r act er i s t i cs of th is s u sp e c t’s d e n tit io n a n d th is p a ttern in ju ry th a t it w o u ld b e v e ryd if f icu lt t o come up w i t h a rea so n ab l e popul at i on of compar abl e dent i t i ons fora goodCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 43

s ci ent i fi c ana l y s i s , and t hat ’ s j us tm yopi ni on havi ng done s om e bas i c r es ear ch, s t at i s t i c r es ear ch. H ut s on al s o cl ar i fi ed t hat he m ade t he i m pr es s i on of t he bi t e m ar k befor e D r . R ohrexci s ed i tfr om W al ker ’ s neck. H e l at ercompar ed appe l l ant ’ s m odel t o t he exc i s ed t i s s ue onl y“as
an ac ademi c exe r ci s e” w hen he w as chec ki ng s om e evi dence att he medi cal e x a mi n e r ’ s offi ce
a f t e rt h e a u t o p s y. T he def ens e ca l l ed D r . D avi d R onal d Senn t o t es t i fyatt he hea r i ng. Senn t es t i fi ed t hat h e w a s c e rtifie d b yth e A m e ric a n B o a rd o f F o re n sic O d o n to lo g y , tha t h e tau g h t f o re n sic odont ol ogyatt he U ni ver s i t yof T exas dent al s chool i n San A nt oni o, and thathe had w or ked
a s a c o n s u l t a n tt o t h e Be x a rCo u n t yM e d i c a l Ex a mi n e r . Se nn d i d n o ta c tu a l l yp e r f o r m a dent al exami nat i on of appe l l ant ; he i ns t ead r el i ed on the model s , ph o tog rap h s, and im p ression s tha t H u tson p rov ided to h im
. S en n crit ici ze d o n e o f H u tson ’s bite m ark p h o t o g r a p h s b e c a u s e t h e ru l e r s i n t h e p h o t o g r a p h we r e n o t p e rp e n d i c u l a rt o e a c h o t h e r . He
c riticiz e d R o h r’s e x c isio n o f th e b ite m a rk b e c a u s e R o h r d id n o t atta c h th e e x c ise d sk in to
an ac r y l i c r i ng t o m i ni m i ze s hr i nkage. Senn , h o w ever , acknow l edged that“the w ayt hat [ H u tso n ] d ra w s th e o u tli n e o f th e b iti n g e d g e s o f

th e tee th
. . . se e m s to tallya p p ro p ria te to
m e.” S en n stat ed that h e a lso “ fo ll o w [s] a sim il ar p ath” w h en h e c o n d u cts fo ren sic d en ti stry anal y s i s i n ot hercas es , and thathe cr eat es comput erover l ay s “i n exac tl y the sam e w ay . ” Senn “cr eat e[d] a l i ne- up” w hen compa r i ng appel l ant ’ s t eeth t o t he vi ct i m ’ s bi t e mar k,
a n d h e su g g e ste d th a t H u tso n sh o u ld h a v e d o n e th e sa m e . S e n n tes ti f ie d th a t h e “ w e n t to [ h is ] f ile s a n d s e le c te d a t ra n d o m f o u r o th e r b ite m a rk c a s e s . . . to ta k e th e ir e x e m p la rs . . .CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 44

and t o compa r e t h e m i n t h e ma t t e r o f a l i g n me n t . ” He c o u l d n o t e x c l u d e t h r e e o f t he four
r andom exam pl es fr om havi ng m ade the bi t e m ar k. H e coul d al s o notexcl ude appe l l antfr om havi ng m ade t he bi t e m ark. H e opi ned t hat “thi s bi t e mar k has s uch l ow evi dent i aryval ue th a t an yc o n c lu sio n re latin g to w h o m a yo r m a yn o t h a v e m a d e th is m a rk is o f v e rylit tle for ens i c val ue. ” S enn ult i m at el ycon cl ud ed as fo l l ow s: H ere ar e m ycon cl usi on s abo ut t his case. I bel i eve thatt he inj uryi s a hu ma n b i t e ma r k wi t h r e a s o n a b l e me d i c a l c e r t a i n t y . I d o n ’ tt h i n k a n y one w o u ld q u e stio n it’s a h u m a n b ite m a rk . I als o b e liev e th a t it ’s a h u m a n b ite m ar k w i t h veryl ow evi dent i aryval ue. T he i ndi vi dual m ar ks ar e j us tnotcl ear e n o u g h , an d th e tee th th a t m a d e th e m a re ju st n o t d istin c tiv e e n o u g h to c re a te a patt ern t hati s di s t i nct i ve enough t o al l ow a conc l us i on of t hatm agni tude. T h e re ’s a p rob lem w ith the p h o tog rap h ic t ec h n iqu e. T h e sc ales w ere no tproperl yplaced, so t he re- si zi ng of the ph otograph o f th e in ju ry i s a pr obl em. T her e’ s a pr obl em w i t h t he t i s s ue har ves t i ng t echni que; i t w as n ot pr oper l yfi xed, s o anycompar i s ons t hat w er e m ade usi ng t hatt i s s ue ar e goi ng t o be ques t i onabl e. I t hi nk t her e’ s a pos s i bl e - - a pos s i bi l i t yof expe ct at i on bi as th a t w h e n y o u o n ly h a v e o n e su sp e c t a n d n o lin e u p , a n d y o u r b e n t is to tryto m ake thos e t eeth fi tt hatm ar k, i tcr eat es a probl em. A nd I t hi nk t hatt he P ro se c u tio n ’ s c o n c lu s io n o f r e a s o n a b le m e d ic a l o rd e n ta l o rs c ie n ti f ic c e r ta in ty beca us e of thes e l i m i t at i ons i s s ci ent i fi cal l yuns uppor t abl e. F o llo w in g S e n n ’s te stim o n y , the trial co u rt ru led : “I ’ll fin d th a t D r. H u tso n ’s te stim o n yis in th e n a tu re o f

c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d w e ’l l le t it in .” T he t r i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng H ut s on’ s t es t i m ony . H ut s on fol l ow ed the gui del i nes es t abl i s hed byt he A m er i can Boar d of F o rensi c O dont ol ogyw hen
c o n d u c tin g h is f

o re n sic d e n tal a n a ly sis . S e n n d id n o t d isc re d it H u ts o n ’s b a sic sc ien tific theo ryo r t ec h n iqu e o f b it e m ark co m p arison
. In f ac t, S en n ad m itted th at he “f o ll o w [e d ] aCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 45

s i m i l arpath” and cr eat ed com put er over l ay s “i n exac t l yt he s ame w ay ” w hen he c onduct ed for ens i c dent i s t ry an al y s i s i n ot hercas es . Senn t ook i s s ue w i t h t he w ayt he t echni que w as
a p p lied , b u t H u tso n p o in ted o u t th a t th e th r e e o th e r f o re n sic d e n tal c o n su ltan ts (S c h e ll, B rum m et t , and W i l l i ams) w ho r evi ew ed hi s r epor t h ad no pr obl ems w i t h hi s t echni que or
co n clus ion s. S en n crit ici ze d H u tson fo r fa il ing to c o n d u c t a d en tal “li n e-u p ”; ho w ev er, H u tso n th o u g h t th a t ap p e llan t’s “ d e n tit io n ” a n d th e b it e m a rk h a d su c h “ sp e c if ic char act er i s t i cs ” t hat i t w oul d be “very di ffi cul tt o come up w i t h a r eas onabl e popul at i on of compar abl e denti ti o n s fora good s ci ent i fi c ana l y s i s . ” Senn ques t i oned R ohr ’ s “t i s s ue har ves t i ng t echni q u e,” b u t H ut s on t es t i fi ed thathe made t he bi t e mar k i m pr es s i on before R oh r exci sed it f

ro m W al ker’ s neck. G i ven t hat the tr i al cou rtw as ul t i m at el yi n the best pos i t i on t o eval uat e cr edi bi l i t y of t he exper tw i t nes s es and thei rconfl i ct i ng t es t i m onyatt he h e a ri n g , w e d e f

e r to th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a d m it th e e v id e n c e . S e e G u idr y v . S ta te , 9 S. W
. 3d 133, 143 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1999)
. Poi ntof err ors even i s overrul ed. W e nexttur n t o t he s ci ent i fi c expe r tt es t i m onyof St at e’ s w i tness St acyM cD onal d. T he St at e ca l l ed M cD onal d t o t es t ify reg ardi ng t he r es ul t s of t he D N A anal y s i s . She tes tifie d in a p re trial D au bert hear i ng t hat s he w as t he deputy chi ef of phy s i cal evi dence and th e a c tin g su p e rv iso r f

o r th e f o re n sic b io lo g yu n it at th e S o u th w e ste rn In stitu te o f F o re n sic Sci ence s , al s o know n as “SW I FS. ” She t es t i fi ed t hat s he had obt ai ned a bache l orof s ci ence degr ee i n zool ogyand a Ph. D
. i n genet i cs fr om T exas A & M U ni versi ty , and thats he had conduct ed pos t - doct or al r es ear ch i n D N A anal y s i s . She had w or ked at SW I FS for ove rfourCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 46

y ear s , and pr i ort o t hats he had co n d u cted D N A r es ear ch fort he Feder al B ur eau of In v e stig a tio n (F B I). S h e h a d p u b lish e d a rticle s in th e D N A f ield , an d sh e h a d p re v io u sly t es t i fi ed aboutD N A anal y s i s i n ot her cas es . She t es t i fi ed thatSW I FS w as acc r edi t ed byt he A m er i can Soci ety of C r i m e Lab D i r ect or s and the Texas D epart m entof Publ i c Safe t y . She expl ai ned thati n or der t o m ai nt ai n acc r edi t at i on, SW I FS i s r egul ar l yaudi t ed forcompl i ance in th e irp o lic ie s a n d p ro c e d u re s . R egar di ng hers ci ent i fi c pr oce ss in the i ns t antcas e, M cD onal d t es t i fi ed thats he extr act ed D N A fr om “appr oxi m at el y26 evi dence sampl es and 17 know n s t andar ds
. ” She
e x p l a i n e d t h a tt h e 1 7 k n o wn s t a n d a r d s we r e c o l l e c t e d f r o m i n d i v i d u a l s i n c l u d i n g t h e v i c t i m, ap p ell an t, an o ther p o ssible su sp ec t, an d “[ i] n so m e c ase s th e y w ere ind ividu als t h at w ere
s ubm i t t ed .
. . as an el i m i nat i on s t andar d. ” M cD onal d quant i fi ed t he D N A , ampl i fi ed i t , and “pl ace d i t on a 310 genet i c anal y zer ” t o gener at e pr ofi l es . She expl ai ned t hat t h e “ 3 10 g e n e tic a n a lyze r” w a s a n in s tr u m e n t “ c o m m o n ly u s e d in th e f ie ld o f f o re n s ic S T R te s tin g .” She t hen “l ooked att he pr ofi l es t hat[s he] gotfr om t he evi dent i arys ampl es , l ooked atal l of t he s t andar ds t hathad been s ubm i t t ed t o [her ] i n t hi s par t i cul arcas e, and ei t heri ncl uded or excl uded ea ch of t hos e 17 i ndi vi dual s . ” T hen, “w hen t heyw er e i ncl uded, [s he] pr ovi ded a
s t at i s t i cal w ei ghtfort hatm at ch. ” M cD onal d bel i eved thatsh e appl i ed the t echni que
corr ect l y , and adde d t hat“[he r ] ent i r e ca s e pac ketforthis cas e w as r evi ew ed byanother anal y s ti n [her ] l abor at or yand s i gned off on as bei ng t echni cal l ycorr ect . ” M cD on al d tes t i fi ed thatS W IFS t ypical l y p rov i des st at i st i cs for the “thr ee l argestCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 47

The e videnceat trial showed that appellant wa s of L aotian desc ent. Appellant’ s 7 juvenile cour

t counselor testified that appellant’s pa rents we re immigrants from L aos and that a pp e lla nt w a s b or

n in theUn ite d St ate s. popul at i on gr oups found i n t he s t at e of T exas ”: C auca s i ans , A fr i can- A m er i cans , and H isp a n ics . In th is c a se , M c D o n a ld tried “ to f in d a L a o tian d a tab a se ,” b u t sh e w a s “ u n a b le t o l ocat e one. ” M cD onal d t es t i fi ed: “M yr es ear ch .
. . i ndi cat ed that the C h ine s e and 7 V iet n am ese p o p u lat ion g rou p s w o u ld b e the b est p o p u lat ion g rou p s to loo k at an d co m p are
s om eone of

L aot i an des cent . ” She t es t i fi ed thatsh e used the FB I ’ s “Pop St at s ” comput er pr ogr am t o gener at e s t at i s t i cs for t he C hi nes e and V i etnamese dat abas es . She t es t i fi ed t hat
o ther labora t or i es us e the s ame m ethod of s t at i s t i cal anal y s i s , and s he bel i eved thatt he t echni que w as cor r ect l yappl i ed i n t hi s cas e. W hen defe ns e couns el ques t i oned her r egar di ng her deci s i on t o us e C hi nes e a nd V i et nam ese dat a ba s e s , M cD on al d tes t i fi ed: “I n som e cases based o n y ou r popu l at i on group s, y ou w on ’t hav e an i nd epen den t subset database f or that part i cular group , so y ou hav e t o u se wha t y o u f

e e l i s t h e mos t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . ” Sh e e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e r r e s e a r c h “ o n t he w eb” i nd i cat ed that “t he C hinese and V i et nam ese po pu l at i on group s m i gh t be the cl osestdatabase t o us e. ” She t es t i fi ed t hat“the FB I has an A s i an dat abas e” thati ncl udes C hi nes e and V i etnamese popul at i on s ubs et s w i t hi n i t . M cD onal d, how ever , chos e t o us e the C hi nes e and V ietn a m e se d a tab a se s in ste a d . S h e a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e u se o f a n y v a lid F B I d a tab a se is “s ci ent i fi cal l yr el i abl e. ” D efe ns e couns el cal l ed C as eyD upont t o t es t i fyatt he hea r i ng. D upontt es t i fi ed thatCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 48

s he had a bache l or s degr ee i n genet i cs fr om T exas A & M U ni ver s i t yand thats he w as empl oy ed as a D N A anal y s tat O r chi d C el l m ark, an acc r edi t ed l abor at or y i n D al l as . A tt he
re q u e st o f

d e f e n se c o u n se l, D u p o n t r e v iew e d th e D N A a n a ly sis c o n d u c ted b yM c D o n a ld in t hi s cas e. D upontt es t i fi ed thatt he s t andar d oper at i ng pr ocedur es forO r chi d C el l m ar k di ffe r fr om SW I FS “i n t hatt he gene r al A s i an s t at i s t i cs are par tof [O r chi d C el l m ar k’ s ] r out i ne cal cul at i ons . ” D u p o n t tes tifie d th a t sh e d isc o v e re d so m e a n o m a lies in M c D o n a ld ’s r e p o rt. W ith
r egar d t o M cD onal d’ s t es t i ng of t he vi ct i m ’s f ing ernai l s ampl e, D upontt es t i fi ed that“one of t he m ar ker s t hat w as det ect ed as a par tof t he ana l y s i s w as noti ncl uded i n t he s t at i s t i cal cal cul at i on. ” W i t h r egar d t o M cD onal d’ s t es t i ng of t he pul l cor d, D upont t es t i fi ed t hatt he l i kel i hood r at i o “appe ar ed bi as ed bec aus e i t w as a non- i nt i m at e s ampl e and di d noti ncl ude th e p o s s ib ility th a t tw o u n k n o w n p e o p le c o u ld h a v e p o te n tia lly c o n tr ib u te d t o th a t s ta in .” D u p o n t cla rif

ied th a t “[ s]o m e lab o ra to rie s d o re p o rt it th a t w a y,” b u t s h e o p in e d th a t “if y ou ’r e go i ng t o p erform a st at i st i cal cal culat i on and give w ei gh t t o [a] po t enti al hypo t hesi s, y o u n e e d to in c lu d e th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t tw o u n k n o w n c o n trib u to rs c o u ld c o n trib u te to a sta in
w h e r e a D N A p ro f

ile w a s o b tain e d .” D u p o n t als o f o u n d a d isc re p a n c yw ith re g a rd to
w hether there w er e 20 or29 genet i c mar ker s det ect ed i n t he s t ai n fr om t he pul l cor ds , and sh e th o u g h t th a t th is w a s a “ typ o g ra p h ica l er ro r.” D u p o n t f u rth e r c riticiz e d M c D o n a ld beca us e “10 out of 26 i t ems of evi dence w er e cons um ed dur i ng anal y s i s . ” She t es t i fi ed that t h e s t a n d a r d o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e a tOr c h i d Ce l l ma r k i s t o “ g e t p e r mi s s i o n t o c o n s u me i f weCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 49

fee l t hat i t ’ s nece s s ary , [and] i f w e can’ t get t hat per m i s s i on, t hen w e w i l l onl yt ake ha l f of t he s ampl e. ” W h e n q u e stio n e d b yth e S tate , D u p o n t tes tifie d th a t sh e “ d id n ’t se e a n y iss u e ” w ith t h e s t a n d a r d o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s a t S WI F S
. S h e a g r e e d t h a tM c Do n a l d c o n d u c t e d t h e DNA
ana ly sis c o rrectl yand t hat herres ult s w ere val i d. S he ag reed t hat i tw as acceptabl e t o u se popul at i on gr oup “s ubs et s ” t o gener at e s t at i s t i cal i nfor m at i on. She acknow l edged thatt he FB I ’ s C hi nes e and V i etnamese dat abas es w er e ac cept abl e. D upontal s o acknow l edged that sh e d id n o t p e rf

o rm a n ya d d iti o n a l ca lcu latio n s o r te stin g a f ter d isc o v e rin g a n o m a li e s in M c D o n a ld ’s r e p o rt. T h e S tate re -c a lled M c D o n a ld w h o a c k n o w led g e d th a t a n “ a llele ” w a s e rro n e o u sly
om it ted d u ri ng t he t es t i ng of t he fi ngernai l s ampl e. Speci fi cal l y , w i t h r egar d t o “the D
- 1- A S5 ma r k e r , ” t h e “ 1 4 a l l e l e ” was o mi t t e d f r o m th e c a l c u l a t i o n s . W i t h r e gar d t o t he
cons um pt i on of evi dence , M cD onal d cl ar i fi ed thatonl yt he “D N A extr act s ” w er e cons um ed. She expl ai ned t hat s he used appr oxi m at el y hal f of each e vi dence s ampl e forD N A extr act i on, and she l eft t he o t her hal f for futur e D N A t est i ng . F oll ow i ng M cD on al d’s t est i m on y , defe nse
c o u n se l re q u e ste d th a t t h e D N A re su lts “ a s a w h o le” b e e x c lu d e d b e c a u se th e “ sc ien tific
r el i abi l i t y ” of the D N A evi dence w as “s us p ec t” i n t hi s cas e. T he tr i al cour tdeni ed the
re q u e st. A pp el l ant ar gu e s o n a p p eal t hat the sci enti fi c t echn i qu e w as unrel i able because “SW I FS di d notfol l ow t hei row n s t andar d oper at i ng pr o ce d ur e byut i l i zi ng a combi nedCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 50

C h in e s e -V ie tn a m e s e d a ta b a s e [ s ic ] a n d a tte m p tin g to a p p ly it to A p p e lla n t w h o is L a o tia n .” H oweve r , t he e vi de nc e do e s no ts up po r tt hi s c l ai m. M c D on a l d t e s t i fi e d tha tt he SW I FS
s t andar d oper at i ng pr ocedur es di d notpr ohi bi tt he us e of an addi t i onal dat abas e asi de fr om t he s t andar d dat abas es us ed for C auca s i an, A fr i can- A m er i can, and H i s pani c popul at i on gr oups . A nd D upontt esti fied t hats he “di dn’ ts ee a nyi s s ue” w i t h t he s t andar d oper at i ng p ro c e d u re s at S W IF S , th a t it w a s ac c e p tab le to u se p o p u latio n g ro u p su b se ts to g e n e r a te stat ist ical i n fo rm ati o n , an d th at t h e F B I’s C h ines e a n d V iet n am ese d atab ase s w ere
acc ept abl e. A ppel l antnextcl ai m s on appea l t hatt he tr i al cour t s houl d have a tl eas texcl uded t he D N A evi dence w i t h r egar d t o t he vi ct i m ’ s fi ngernai l cl ipp ing s b ecaus e D upontfound an “anomal y ” i n M cD onal d’ s t es t i ng o f that par t i cul ars ampl e. D upontpoi nt ed outand M cD on al d ack no w l edg ed thatan all el e w as er roneou sl yom i t t ed from t he calc u lat i on s; how ever , nei t herone t es t i fi ed i f orhow t hi s change d t he t es tr es ul t s . A ppel l antal s o al l eges
o n a p p e a l th a t th e trial co u rt sh o u ld h a v e a t lea st e x c lu d e d th e D N A e v id e n c e w ith re g a rd to t he pul l cor ds beca us e t her e w as a di s cr epanc y i n t he num ber of genet i c m ar ker s det ect ed by M cD onal d. D upontchar act er i zed thi s as a “typogr aphi cal error. ” A gai n, t her e w as no t es t i mon y s h o wi n g i f o r h o w t h i s c h a n g e d t h e t e s t r e s u l t s . Dup o n t d i d n o t p e r f o r m any
a d d iti o n a l tes tin g a f

ter d isc o v e rin g a n o m a lies in M c D o n a ld ’s r e p o rt. A n d D u p o n t u lti m a tely agr eed t hat M cD onal d conduct ed t he D N A anal y s i s corr ect l y and t hat her r es ul t s w er e val i d. T he r e f o r e , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d mi t t h e DN A e vi dence w asCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 51

Th e a pp lic atio n p aragra

phstate d in

pe rtinent p art : 8 Now bea ringin mind the foreg oing instruc tions, if you believe f rom the evidence beyond a re asonabledoubt that on or about Jul y 8, 2006, the def

endant, Kosoul Chanthakoummane, did intentionally causethe death of Sarah Walker , an indivi du a l, h e re ina ft e r c a lle d d e c e a se d .
. . and thede fend ant i ntenti on a lly did (continued...) out s i de the zone of r eas onabl e di s agr eement or an abus e of di s cr et i on. Poi ntof err orei ght i s overrul ed. J UR Y I NS T RU CT I ONS I n poi ntof err ors i x, ap p ell antcompl ai ns t hatt he tr i al cour ti m pr oper l ydefi ned the cul pabl e m ent al s t at es for t he under l y i ng offe ns e of r obbery . T he abs t r act por t i on o f the charge d efi ned the cu l pab l e m ental st at es as fol l ow s:

W ith resp ec t t o the o ff

en se o f c ap it al m u rde r: A p e rso n a c ts in ten tio n a lly , o r w ith in ten t, w ith re sp e c t to a re su lt o f h is c o n d u c t w h e n it i s h is c o n sc io u s o b jec tiv e o r d e sire to c a u se th e re su lt. W i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e o f

f e n s e o f r o b b e r y: A per s on act s i nt ent i onal l y , orw i t h i nt ent , w i t h r es pect t o t he natur e of hi s conductora re s ul tof hi s conductw hen i ti s hi s cons ci ous obj ect i ve or d e sire to e n g a g e in th e c o n d u c t o r c a u se th e re su lt. A p erso n ac ts kn o w ing ly , o r w ith k n o w ledg e, w ith resp ec t to th e n ature o f h is co n d u ct or to c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing h is co n d u ct w h en h e is aw are o f th e n a tu re o f

h is c o n d u c t o r th a t th e c irc u m sta n c e s e x is t. A p e rso n a c ts know i ngl y , orw i t h know l edge, w i t h r es pect t o t he r es ul t of hi s conductw hen h e is a w a re th a t h is c o n d u c t is re a so n a b lyc e rta in to c a u se th e re su lt. T h e d e f in iti o n o f “ in ten tio n a lly ” w ith re g a rd to th e o f f e n se o f c a p ital m u rd e r w a s li m ited to

“ re su lt o f

c o n d u c t” la n g u a g e . T h e d e f in iti o n s o f

“ in ten tio n a lly” a n d “ k n o w in g ly ” w ith 8CHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 52

(...continued) 8 causethe death of dec ease d while the def endant wa s in the courseof committing or atte mptingto c omm it theof fens e of ro bb e ry, you

wi ll f ind thede fend ant guil ty of c a pit a l murd e r a s c ha

rg e d in theindic tme nt. reg ard to the u n d e rl y in g o ff en se o f ro b b eryw ere n o t. A p p ell an t argu es th at t h e tri al co u rt
s houl d have s i m i l ar l yl i m i t ed t he s t atut or y defi ni t i ons of “i nt ent i onal l y ” and “ know i ngl y ” as th e yp e rt a in e d to ro b b e ry b e c a u s e ro b b e ry i s a “ re s u lt o f c o n d u c t” o f

f e n s e . See T EX . P ENAL C ODE§ § 6 .0 3 (a ) a n d (b ). T her e ar e thr ee “ conductel ement s ” w h ich m ay be i nvol ved i n an off ens e: ( 1) t he natur e of the conduc t ; ( 2) t he r es ul tof t he conduc t ; and, ( 3) t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng th e c o n d u c t. C o o k

v . S ta te , 884 S. W
. 2d 485, 487 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1994)
. A n offe ns e may cont ai n anyone orm or e of thes e “conduct el ement s ” w hi ch al one or i n combi nat i on for m t he
over al l behavi or w hi ch t he L egi s l atur e has i nt ended t o cr i m i nal i ze, and i ti s t hes e es s ent i al

“ c o n d u c t e le m e n ts ” to w h ic h a c u lp a b le m e n ta l s ta te m u s t a p p ly. I d. T h u s, th e c u lp a b le
m ent al s t at e def

i ni t i ons i n t he cha r ge mustbe t ai l or ed t o t he conduct el ement s of t he off ens e. Id .; P a tr ic k

v . S ta te , 9 0 6 S
. W
. 2 d 4 8 1 , 4 9 2 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). T he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed t hat“a pe r s on comm i t s r obberyi f, i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng t heftand w i t h i nt entt o obt ai n orm ai nt ai n contr ol of t he pr oper ty , he i nt ent i onal l yor know i ngl y caus es bodi l yi nj ur yt o another
. ” See T EX . P ENALC ODE § 29. 02. T he j ur yw as f u rth e r in stru c ted : “A p e rso n c o m m its th e f t if h e u n la w f

u llya p p ro p ria tes p ro p e rtyw ith i nt entt o depr i ve t he ow ner of pr oper t y . A ppr opr i at i on of pr oper t yi s unl aw ful i f i ti s w i t houtCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 53

t he ow ner ’ s eff

ect i ve cons ent . ” See T EX . P ENALC ODE § 31. 03. T he under l y i ng offe ns e of rob b eryco n sist s o f all three co n d u ct e lem en ts: (1) ca u ses b o d il yinjury(resu lto f c o n d u ct); ( 2) t he r obber yi s comm i t t ed i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng t heft( ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng
c o n d u c t) ; a n d , (3 ) t h e u n la w f u l a p p r o p ri a tio n o f

p ro p e rt y(n a tu re o f

c o n d u c t)
. B ar nes v. S ta te , 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 4 (T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 1 , p e t. ref ’d ); A s h v . S ta te , 930 S. W
. 2d 1 9 2 , 1 9 5 (T ex . A p p . – D all as 1 9 9 6 , n o p et. ). B ec au se a ll three co n d u c t e le m en ts are im p li ca ted b ythe u n d erly ing o ff en se o f ro b b ery , the tri al co u rt p rop erlyinstructed the ju ry on t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i ons of “i nt ent i onal l y ” and “ know i ngl y ” as t heyper t ai n ed t o t hat
o f f e n s e . S e e B a r n e s , 5 6 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 4 . P o in t o f e rr o r s ix is o v e rr u le d
. T E X A S D E A T H P E N A L T Y S C H E ME I n p o i n to f

e r r o rt wel ve , a p p e l l a n ta r g u e s t h a t“ t h e Te x a s d e a t h p e n a l t ys c h e me vi ol at ed [hi s ] r i ght s pur s uantt o t he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the 14 A m en d m en tt o t he th U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ” C i t i ng B u s h v . G o r e , 531 U
. S. 9 8 (20 0 0 ), he ar gues t hatt he death p en alt ysy stem v iolates eq u al pro tecti o n b ec au se p rose cu tors h av e u n fett er ed di s cr et i on t o s eek t he death penal t yand t her e ar e no uni for m s t at ew i de s t andar ds t o gui de them i n t hat d e c is io n . W e h a v e p re v io u s ly re je c te d th is a rg u m e n t in o th e r c a s e s . B u s b y v . S ta te , 253 S .W .3 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 9 S . C t. 62 5 (2 0 0 8 ); Thre adgi l lv. St at e, 1 4 6 S .W .3 d a t 6 7 1 -6 7 2 ; R a y fo r d v . S ta te , 1 2 5 S
. W
. 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 3 -53 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). W e dec l i ne t o r evi s i tt hi s i s s ue her e. Poi ntof err ort w el ve i s overrul ed. I n poi ntof err ort hi r t een, appel l ant cont ends t hatt he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on of m i t i gat i ngCHANTHAKOUMMANE

- - 54

evi dence vi ol at es t he E i ght h and Four t eenth A m endment s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. H e c o m p lain s th a t “[ t]h e in stru c tio n u n c o n stitu tio n a lly n a rro w s th e ju ry ’s d isc re tio n . . . to fac t or s t hatconce r n onl ym or al bl amew or thi nes s . ” See A rt . 3 7 .0 7 1 , § 2 (f )( 4 )
. W e h a v e p re v io u s ly re je c te d th is c la im
. R o b e r ts v . S ta te , 220 S. W
. 3d 521, 534 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); P e r r y v . S ta te , 158 S. W
. 3d 438, 449 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2004)
. Poi nt of err ort hi r t een i s overrul ed. CU M UL AT I VE E RR OR I n poi nt s of err orfour t een a nd fi ft een, appel l antas s er t s t hat“the cumul at i ve ef fec tof t he above
- enumer at ed cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons ” deni ed hi m d u e p roce s s of l aw undert he Fi ft h and F our t eenth A m endment s t o t he U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on and due cour s e of l aw underA r t i cl e I , Sect i on 19, of the Texas C ons t i tut i on. T hi s C our thas r ecogni zed the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a n u mb e r o f e r r o r s ma y b e f o u n d h a r mf

u l i n t h e i r c u mu l a t i v e e f f e c t , b u twe have r ej ect ed ea ch of a ppel l ant ’ s poi nt s of err ori ndi vi dual l y . T her e i s no cumul at i ve ef fec t h e re . S e e W

y a tt v. S ta te , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 8 , 3 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); C h a m b e rla in v . S ta te , 9 9 8 S
. W
. 2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 8 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). P o ints of erro r f o u rt ee n an d fiftee n are
o v e rr u le d
. W e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt.

D el i ver ed A pr i l 28, 2010 D o N ot Pub l i sh