# 120-(S

detition for Discretionary Review To the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
June 5, 2015 Hon. Ricardo P. Rodriguez Carlos Eduardo Ortegon Hidalgo county District Attorney Attorney at Law 100 N. Closner 6521 l\I
. 10th St., Ste . F Edinburg, TX 7B539 McAllen, TX 7B50Au„„ ' . „ „ , Hen. Oscar Rene Flares Hon. Luis A. Gonzalez „J_J_ . , ,,., , 4.. Attorney at Law Hidalgo County Courthouse -i-^nn Cn ltll 1 n+h o„D 

## Assistant District Attorney l^V Tl TMJn 100 N. Closner Edinburg, TX 7B539 

# RECEIVED IN Nereyda Morales Martinez COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

# ttiTM.i;: suit.n JUN 132015 Edinburg, TX 78539
Re: Cause No. 13-12-00603-CR Tr.Ct.No. CR-003-11-E Style: Ricardo Munoz Sanchez AKA Ricardo Alonso Sanchez \l . The State of Texas Enclosed please find Appellant's petition for discretionary review, filed by the Appellant. 

# GINAL

Ab§IAeosta,Cierk

Sincerely,

trial court judge:3udge Duan Ramon Partida , 275th District Court, Hidalgo County Hon. Laura Hinojosa, District Clerk Hon. 0. Rolando Olvera Dr., Presiding Judge, 5th Administrative Judicial RegionTable of Contents Identity of Parties and Counsel i Tablenof Contents ii Index of Authorities iii
Notes as to the Form of Citation iv Statement Regarding Oral Argument v Statement of the Case... vi Statement of Procedural.History vii Grounds for Review viii Argument: One a) Miscontrued Case Law 1 Argument b) Court departed from course of law. 1,2 Argument c) Misconstrued Case Law...... 2,3 Argument Two (Admision of prejudice evidence) 3 Prayer for Relief • ^ Appendix 5

liIndex of Authorities

Statutes Section 7.01 O'Connor's Texas Criminal Codes Plus(2012-13) . . .1 Section 7.02 O'Connor's Texas Criminal Codes Plus(2012-13) . . .1
Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 403 3
Cases Ethridge , 795 S.W.2d 596, 598... 1 Gordon v. State, 735 S.U.2d 510, 517 (Tex. App. -Houston).... 3 Hooper v. State, 214 S.U.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). .2 State v. Mehler, 153 S.bJ.3d 435, 440 (Tex, Crim. App. 2005). .3 Torres v. State, 794 S. Id. 2d 596, 598 (Tex. App. -Bast in.', 1990). 1

inNotes as to form of Citation A) Citation to testimony in the Reporter's Record will be to volume number, Reporter's Record, then the page number(s), e.g. 2RR11 refers to volume 2 of the Reporter's Record, pg.11 B) Reference to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals Memorandum Opini on will be to the page number, e.g. 13th C. App. Opinion pg.21

IVStatement Regarding Oral Argument

Appellant Sanchez is not requesting oral argument at this timeTo the Honorable Justices of the jjoiiirtnofi 1Br£miinalofip£pai9i s ; Appellant,Ricardo Munoz Sanchez, files this petition for discretionary review requesting that it be considered and granted
Statement of the Case Appelant was indicted in count one with the offense of capital murder. (2RR11) Appellant pleaded 'Not Guilty'. A jury found Appei llant guilty of capital murder, as charged in the indictment, (33RRB0)and was assessed the automatic punishment of LIFE impris onment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice without the possibility of parole .(33RR89) Appellant apealed and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed. Appellant now, timely files petition for discretionary review.

VIStatement of Procedural History IJJumber 1 3-1 2-00603-CR trial Cause No. CR-003-11-E Ricardo Munoz Sanchez A/K/A Ricardo Alonso Sanchez,
The State of Texas Appellant , Appellee 

### On May 14, 2015, The Thirteen Court of Appeals having considered the cause on appeal, concluded that the judgement of the trial court shoiiild be AFFIRMED. No motion for rehearing was filed in this case.

VllGrounds for Review 1) The evidence is insufficient to show that Appellant Sanchez, either as a principal, a party, or a co-conspirator, inten tionally and knowingly caused the death of Reyes Garcia, Jr., by shooting him with a firearm while committing or attempting to commit the offense of robbery and/or burglary of a building a)",Gourt misconstrued case law; Torres v. State, 794 S.U.2d 596, 598(Tex. App. -Austin 1990)(13th C. App. Opinion j pg.23. b) Court of Appeals departed from the accepted and usual
course of law: (13th C. App. Opinion pg.2 3) c) Court misconstrued case law: Ethridg.e, 795 5.Id.2d. at 2B5. Gordon v. State, 735 S.ld.2d. 510, 517(Tex. App.- Houston) (13th C. App. Opinion pg. 24) 2) Admission of State's Exhibit 8,was unfairly prejudice towards Appellant Sanchez. (27RR56-66)

/ v 1 1 1Argument

Ground No . 1

1) Insufficiency of evidence as for Sections 7 .01 &_ 7.02 0 ' Connorj£ Texas Criminal Codes Plus (201 2-1 3) a) Appellant disagrees that his concern for the blood being found in the vehicle could have been taken as a

' conscioasEiess rdf T:,giliilt ' by the jury.(13th C.A. Opinion pg.23) (Citing Torres v. State, 794 S.W.2d. 596, 598 Tex. App.-Aus tin 1990) Appellant was aware of his blood being in the vehicle,(See State's Ehibit 45,Trnscript/ Translation of recorded phone call from Hidalgo County pp. 7-8) and Laurie Aleman, testified of the incident that led to the blood getting on the vehicle .(31RR64-65) It was only logical that Appellant showed concern, since evidence established that prior to the call, Appellant had recently been interviewed by police regar ding Garcia's murder. (13th C.App. Opinion pg 8.) Therfo^ re, the Court erred in referring to Torres v. Sate, 794 5.Id.2d. 596-598 as an authority, and judgement is not supported by case law. b) The Court of Appeals departed from the accepted and usu al course of law by concluding that,"The combined force of the citied evidence lead to a reasonable inference that Appellant left the blood in:: the vehicle at the time that the crime occured ." (See 13th C. App. Opinion pg.23) Referring to Hooper, 214 S.ld.3d. 15,("under the testof Jackson, we permit juries to draw multiple reasonable inferences as long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial") At trial there was no evidence presented for the jury to make a reasonable inference that the Appellant left the blood in the vehicle during the course of the crime. In the contrary, Investigator Ochoa, testified, "...as far as his right hand, a figurine that was broken when the suspects crossed over the fence in order to gain entrance into the property ..."(13th C. App. Opinion pg. 21) Indicating that the cut occured during the entry of the property. If that was so, there would of been apparent blood found inside Garcia's home. Something Id. Technician, Cecilia Avila, did not find . (29RR76-90 ) Evidence was contrary to the courts findings, c) Appellant believes it was irrevelant for the Court to :;:. cite Ethridge, 795 S.W.2d at:2B5; Gordon v. State, 735 ' S.ld.2d. 510, 517 (Tex. App.-Houston 1987) providing that "appellant demonstrated a guilty mind by attempting to destroy incriminating evidence ," when referring to the phone call Appellant made to Coco about the 'toys' . (1"i3th C... App. Opinion pg. 24) There was no evidence to show the "toys" was reffered to incriminating evidence, 'nor was there any evidence to prove that the weapons they found on Coco, had a connection with the Appellant. There was no testimony by Coco to connect the weapons found on him to the Appellant. Therfore, the citingwas irrevelant and the evidence failed to prove that the Appellant participated in the execution of the home invasion by soliciting, encouraging, directing, aiding
or attempingto aid another person in commiting the crime in this case.(Tex. Penal Code Ann. §7 .02(a )(2 ).)

Ground No . 2 2) Appellant disagrees that State's Exhibit 8, (the video record ed surveillance footage of the perpetrators entering the home of Reyes Garcia,;'Jr.) was more :probative than prejudicial. Tex. Rules of Evidence 403(1998'; superseded 2015) ..'(State v. Mehler, 153 S.U.3d. 435, 440(Tx. Crim. App. 2005) Taesewaas
no evidence linking the appellant to the vehicle seen in the video. Inv . Dina Valdez also testified that the license plates

were not visible in the video.(27RR90) The video was irrevel
ant to the appellant, and is proved to have been used as a "scare tactic" when District Attorney, Linda Castillo, stated in her closing argument, "This is what's going on in our streets. "(33RR24-30) Referring to the video and the increasing

rate of home invasions.Prayer for Relief
Appellant Sanchez, prays that the Court of Criminal Appeals considers this petition and grants discretionary review.

Respectfully Submitted,

By: Ricardo Munoz Sanchez T'JO.C.No. 01814573 Bill Clements Unit 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107Appendix
Number 13-12-0D603-CR Court of Appeals Thirteenth District of Texas Corpus Christi- Edinburg RicardoiMunoz Sanchez, Appellant, 

### The State of Texas, Appellee. On Appeal from the 275th Gistrict Court of Hidalgo County, Tx . Memorandum Opinion 

### Before Chief Justice Baldez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice yaldez A jury found appellant, Ricardo Munoz, guilty of capital 

### murder. Appellant received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. By two issues, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court improperly admitted a video into evidence. We Affirm.NUMBER 13-12-00603-CR 

### COURT OF APPEALS 

### THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

RICARDO MUNOZ SANCHEZ A/K/A RICARDO ALONSO SANCHEZ,

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

### On appealfrom the 275th District Court ofHidalgo County, Texas. Appellant,



### Appellee.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before ChiefJustice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria 

### Memorandum Opinion by ChiefJustice Valdez 

### Ajury found appellant, Ricardo Munoz Sanchez, a/k/a Ricardo Alonso Sanchez, 

### guiltyofcapitalmurder. SeeTex. PenalCodeAnn. § 19.03 (West,Westlawthrough 2013 3d C.S.). Appellant received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. By twoissues, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court improperly admitted a video into evidence. We affirm. I. Sufficiency of the Evidence By his firstissue, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for capital murder. Specifically, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient "to show that [he] caused the death of [the victim]" and "to show that [he] 

### solicited, encouraged, directed, aided or attempted to aid or that [he] entered into any 

### agreementwith anyone to committhe offense ofrobbery and/orburglary of a building." A. Standard ofReview and Applicable Law 

### In a sufficiency review, we examine the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the 

### prosecution todetermine whether anyrational factfinder could havefound the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 

### 319 (1979); see Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 898-99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The factfinder is the exclusivejudge of the facts, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight 

### to be given testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. We must resolve any evidentiary inconsistencies in favor ofthe judgment. Id. 

### We measure the legalsufficiency of the evidence by the elements of the offense 

### as defined by a hypothetical^ correctjury charge. Coleman v. State, 131 S.W.3d 303, 

### 314 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004, pet. refd) (citing Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). As charged in this case, the offense ofcapital murder occurred iftheperson "intentionally committed] the murder in the course ofcommitting 

### orattempting to commit... burglary [or] robbery...." SeeTex. PenalCodeAnn. § 19.03. 

### A person commits murder if he "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of anindividual." Id. § 19.02 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). A person commits the offense ofburglary of a habitation if, without the consent ofthe owner, the person enters
a habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault. Id. § 30.02(a)(3); see Reyes v. State, 422 S.W.3d 18, 23-24 (Tex. App.—Waco 2013, pet. 

### ref d). "A person commits [the offense ofrobbery] if, in the course ofcommitting theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, 

### he . . . intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another." Tex. Penal 

### CodeAnn. § 29.02 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S). A person commits a theft if "he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner ofproperty." Id. § 31.03(a) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Appropriation ofproperty is unlawful if it is without the owner's effective consent. Id. § 31.03(b)(1). 

### "Each party to an offense may be charged and convicted with the commission of the offense without alleging that he or she acted as the principal or accomplice." Id. § 

### 7.01(b), (c) (West, Westlaw through 3dC.S.); Hayes v. State, 265 S.W.3d 673, 678-79 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. refd). Underthelaw ofparties, "[a] person is criminally responsible as a party to[capital murder] iftheoffense iscommitted by his own 

### conduct, by the conduct ofanother for which he is criminally responsible, orby both." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.01(a) (West, Westlawthrough 2013 3d C.S.). In addition, a 

### person is criminallyresponsiblefortheconductofanotherforthe offenseofcapital murder if "acting with intent topromote or assist thecommission of[capital murder], he solicits, 

### encourages, directs, aids, orattempts to aid the otherperson to commit [capital murder]." Id. § 7.02(a)(2). When determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support that a defendant participated as a party to a crime, we may consider "events occurring before,during and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to do the prohibited act." King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (quoting Ranson v. State, 920 S.W.2d 

### 288, 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)). Under the law of parties, the defendant does not need 

### to be physically present at the commission of the offense in order for the evidence to be sufficient. See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (observing 

### that the penal code "does notrequire that a partyto the crime be physically present at the commission of the offense") (citing Morrison v. State, 608 S.W.2d 233, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980)). 

### In our sufficiency review, "direct evidence of the elements of the offense is not 

### required." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence, andjuries are permitted to make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented attrial and in establishing the defendant's guilt. Id. "Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt." Id. "[T]he lack of 

### directevidence isnotdispositive ofthe issueofadefendant's guilt." Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 49. "Each fact need notpoint directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, 

### as long as the cumulative force ofall the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction." Thomas v. State, AAA S.W.3d 4, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 

### Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ethridge v. State, 795 S.W.2d 281, 284-85 (Tex. App.—Houston 1990) pet. dism'd, 812S.W.2d 600(Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (en banc). B. Law ofPartiesIt is undisputed that Reyes Garcia, Jr. died as a result of a gunshot wound after four masked men with guns entered his home on June 23, 2010 and took several of his guns. The State presented evidence through eyewitness testimony that the four men

were involved in a home invasion, Garcia told the men that he did not have any more 

### money, the men beat Garcia, shot him, and when they left the men took four ofGarcia's 

### guns. From this evidence, the jury could have found that the four men committed the offense of burglary by entering the home without the effective consent of the owner and 

### committed a theft bytaking Garcia's guns after shooting him. Moreover, the jury could have concluded that because one ofthe men shot Garcia in the head, he had the specific intent to kill Garcia. Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (en banc) 

### (explaining that "specific intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon, unless in the manner of its use it is reasonably apparentthat death orserious bodilyinjury 

### could notresult") (quoting Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578, 580-81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). 

### The State acknowledges thatit isunknown whoactually pulled thetriggerand shot 

### Garcia but argues that the evidence is sufficient under the law ofparties to show that 

### appellant is guilty ofcapital murder. Appellant claims that the evidence failed to show that appellant caused Garcia's death, that appellant "solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, orattempted toaid" themen who committed theoffense, orthatappellant "entered 

### into any agreement with anyone to commit the offense ofrobbery and/or burglary of a building." 

### First, under the law ofparties, the State was not required to prove that appellant himselfcaused Garcia's death. Instead, the evidence must have been sufficient to showthat although the offense was committed by the conduct ofanother person, appellant was criminally responsible for that person's conduct. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.01(b), (c); 

### Hayes,265 S.W.3d at678-79. To have been criminally responsible for the other person's conduct, appellant must have acted with "intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense by soliciting, encouraging, directing, aiding, or attempting to aid the other person to commit the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2).
C. Pertinent Facts Ricardo Perez Jr., an investigatorwith the Mission Police Department, testified that 

### on June 23, 2010, he responded to a crime scene at a home that had been ransacked 

### and where the body of a shooting victim had been found. Investigator Perez stated that 

### on July 9,2010, appellantandRoxane Hernandezwere arrested fordrug possession and that he observed a police interview ofappellant. According toInvestigator Perez, as part 

### ofhis investigation, heviewed a surveillance video that had been taken on the night of the incident of four masked men arriving at Garcia's home in a black Expedition. 

### Investigator Perez explained that hetried to identify possible suspects who could have been in the surveillance video through "recognition of[their] body posture," the person's "demeanor" when he walked, and the relationship that each suspect had to the other 

### suspects. Based ontheseconsiderations and his experience, InvestigatorPerezbecame 

### suspicious thatappellantwas involved in the crime. Specifically, InvestigatorPerez said, "I said this may be a possible suspectthatwe're talking to because he's associated with 

### that black Expedition and the arrest with Roxanne Hernandez, who is sister to Jeffrey Juarez." Evidence presented attrial shows that thepolice considered Juarez "aperson of interest" inthe crime and eventually arrested him.The trial court admitted into evidence the surveillance video reviewed by Investigator Perez. The video showed fourmasked men carryingweapons exiting a black Expedition on the night of the offense in the victim's neighborhood. Investigator Perez testified, without objection, that after viewing the video, he believed "it is [appellant] that's 

### being the driver that exited the driver side of the Expedition" and that the passenger is 

### Angel Falcon. Evidence shows that Falcon had also been arrested. Investigator Perez stated that the police could notidentify the other two men. The prosecutor asked, "Okay. 

### How do youknow that it's [appellant] in the video?" Investigator Perez replied, When I first came across him, when he was arrested in Pharr, he 

### was brought to our police department. And looking at the surveillance video, when he's walking outfrom the jailcell,in the video yousee the driver as he walks like a cool walk, and he grabs his crotch area. [Appellant] had 

### that coolwalk, grabbing his crotch area. And that's what got my attention 

### right away. So, Istarted,you know, Istarted tobuild that he was a possible suspect and driver. We also found that there was blood on inside the Expedition. And I 

### noticed that he had a healing cut, a little small cut on his hand. I don't 

### rememberifit's the right orleft. And Iknow we photographed itbecause it was of interest to me that he had a cut and that there was blood in the vehicle.
... 

### Based on the observation, my observation of spending a little time 

### with him, talking to him, looking at the video, knowing that there was blood 

### in theExpedition, knowing that he had acut, allthese things, they'rebuilding blocks for me. And the demeanor and posture. And even though he's a 

### maskedindividual, butyou look at the structure, thebody structure, and that led me to believe that he's the driver. He's inpossession ofthat Expedition. Because he has borrowed it from the mother, the mother of the girlfriend. That's what made me believe that it's him. There's no doubt to me it is him. Those are the information that I have that leads me to believe it is him.Evidence was presented that on July 11, 2011, before he was arrested for Garcia's murder, appellant called his girlfriend, Laurie Aleman, from jail.on several occasions and discussed the murder of Garcia.1 During these telephone calls, which were recorded and admitted into evidence, appellant asked Aleman to make "three-way calls" to several people to discuss Garcia's murder.2 Transcripts of the phone calls were also admitted into evidence. Duringone conversation with Aleman, appellant stated, "I need you to do
me some three-ways and I need a, uh—damn it, babe, I'm stressing over this f***ing
cause. [I]t's going to be hard to beat it, babe." Appellant said, "[l]t's going to be hard to 

### beatit. They got myf***ing blood[unintelligible]." Laurie asked, "Isthat the [unintelligible] 

### they used," and appellantreplied, "Yes." While she was testifying, the prosecutor asked Aleman if she could explain what was unintelligible in question she asked Aleman. Aleman clarified that she had asked appellant "about the truck they used." During the 

### call, appellant told Aleman that he anticipated receiving a one-year sentence for one offense that he had committed, presumably the drug offense, but that he was stressed out about another unnamed offense. The evidence established that prior to this call to 

### Aleman, appellant had recently been interviewed bypolice regarding Garcia's murder. Aleman asked appellant, "You are—you really think that's the only thing you're 

### gonna get," and appellant responded, "But Torch is gonna take it. He's gonna take the 

### blame, you know, so I'll beclean. .. . Theonly thing isright now they're not charging me forthat other thing, butIknowtomorrow, hopefully Idon't—but Iknowthey're gonna come

1As previously mentioned, appellant was injail after police arrested him with Hernandez for the drug offense. 2During theconversations, the speakers usedexplicit language. We are unable toremove many oftheexplicit language because doing somay affectthecontextofsomeoftheconversations.
8charge me." During the call, appellant told Aleman that "it's a big ass charge, and then if Iget guiltybabe, forget it, they're going to give me life," and Aleman replied, "But itwasn't 

### you." Appellant said, "I know butbecause it has my blood, I've been in situations like this [unintelligible] Ididn't do shit babe, but because ithas my blood, Idon't know what the
f*** this bitch did." 

### In these recorded calls, appellant asked Aleman to call a man referred to as "Coco" and another man referred to as "Edward." Aleman called Edward with appellant on the 

### line. Appellant informed Edward that he was in jail. During the discussion, Edward 

### indicated toappellantthat"itgotall f***ed, bro" and "you are gonna beatthem." Appellant 

### responded, "I know, I'm gonna beat them bro, it's just that it's the, the G ride, they're 

### getting DNA from it and Ihave—." Again, appellant is referencing the DNA evidence found in the truck used in Garcia's murder. Appellant told Edward that "since [he] had 

### gotten into afight, [he] had blood in the truck and now they aregoing to try to f*** me." Appellant said, "F***ing Coco Idon't know what, I'm calling him and he doesn'tanswer, 

### bro. Look buddy, my, my time isrunning out, I'll probably give you a—." Edward asked, "Whatdo you want me to do, bro," and appellant replied: 

### Look, Ineedyou tocall Coco, bro tell him to answerthef***ing phone, look, the toys Ihad alreadytold Coco to bury them, bro, to get one for him—the John Wayne and suddenly [unintelligible] one, one shotty, bro, and the rest 

### tobury them, bro, because, uh, and have them take theserial numbers off ofthem, buddy.
. . . Buddy, if they catch someone with those serial numbers, bro, they're gonna letthem have it, bro.
... I'm telling you. And the Baretta, bro, you have to tear it apart The Baretta you have tomelt it down, bro. 

### Edward then called Coco on his three-way line with appellant on the other line. 

### Appellant informed Coco that his phone time was running out and instructed him to answer his phone when appellant's girlfriend called him. Appellant said, "Hey, my, mychick is going to call you in a while, bro, to, to give you stuff, to see where you can get rid of it." Coco stated, "Yes, I know, Iwant her to know that." Appellant said, "—all right, I need you. Tuerca is getting out in a week. In [a] while my chick is going to call you to 

### give you stuff bro, and get rid ofit wherever you can, bro, all right You know how to do it, bro. Point three, everything bro, everything, everything for, pure profit. Ilove you 

### bro, take care. Hey, the toys, don't give those to the bros. Take the serial numbers off of them and stash them." Coco stated that he would follow appellant's directions. 

### Appellant asked Aleman to call a friend named "Jasmine," later identified as a witness for the State, Jasmine Pauline Gonzalez.3 Aleman complied. Jasmine informed 

### appellantthatJasmine's mother, lateridentified as JessicaGonzalez, had beenarrested. Jasmine informed appellant that "[everybody'staking a lot of shitin here, blaming it on me." She stated that she had already given her statement to the Mission Police 

### Department. Appellant told Jasmine that he "needed her" help and asked herto make another statement to the police. Jasmine replied, "Yeah, butIalready let—I already did 

### my statement. How can Irenew my statement and lie about my statement?" Appellant replied, "Why did you f***ing do a statement? You already knew not to do a statement." Jasmine said, "They—[appellant], thefirst day thatthey came 'cause of thetruck, they were gonna arrest my mom, my grandma for that shit." Appellant reiterated that he "needed" Jasmine's help, and told her that he was not "gonna come out." Jasmine 

### responded, "Well, whatdo Ido now? Now Igo have to go back and lie?" The following colloquy occurred: 

### [Appellant]: No, just tell them that it was—you werejustwith him for like two—you were justwith him for two weeks. 3Forpurposes ofreader ease, we will refertoherby herfirst name, Jasmine.
10Jasmine: Well, you too. Why the hell do you have to also f*** around, [appellant]. [Appellant]: Jasmine, don't do itlike that. Itwasn't even me, itwasn'teven me, hell with that, don't be saying shit like that. Jasmine: Oh. [Appellant]: Ididn't do that f***ing shit. Jasmine: I know you didn't. 

### [Appellant]: Don't do me like that, Jasmine, you know that if I'm f***ing found guiltyfor that shit, I'm notgonna f***ing come out, never. Hey. Jasmine: What? 

### [Appellant]: Ineedyou Jasmine, man,you know that Idon'tf***ing—man, you know Ineed you. Ineed you, Ineed you to be strong. 

### [Appellant]: Everything's gonna be all right. Everything's gonna be all right, but you have to tell them the truth. JasmineJasmine: I know. 

### [Appellant]: You need totell them thatyourguy, would use thetruck too. Jasmine: Iknow, Ialready know, and he did use it. 

### [Appellant]: Jasmine,damn it, Jasmine,Ineedyou morethan ever. Iknow that your mom is in this shit, but you know that if Iget out, 

### Jasmine, Iget out and man, I'll, I'll, I'll oweyou my . . . life, I'll do anything— 

### Jasmine: No [unintelligible] you don't need togive me nothing, Ialready see how it is, I already see how you are, but I'll try to do something, I'll— 

### [Appellant]: Whatdo you mean how Iam? 

### Jasmine: Yes, taking otherf***ing [women] in my truck. No it's cool—

11[Appellant] Who the f*** had other [women]? Jasmine: —everything is cool [unintelligible]." [Appellant]: Hey, they didn't stop me withanother chick.

Jasmine: I'm down with you, I'm down with you, I'll do anything [unintelligible]


### Jasmine: I'm trying to do my ... best, [appellant]. I'm trying. I'm trying. Iwant to go over there, and I'm scared that they're gonna take me in 'cause I'm lying. I'myou know—I don't know what to do. 

### [Appellant]: No, Jasmine. You're notlying. You're justtelling them the truth. Just, look Jasmine, Jasmine, you're mom has— Jasmine you know how to run this shit, all right.



### You know. You just say it crying, start crying, that hey, that 

### you werewith this guy, butyou neverthought nothing ofhim, the guywas, you know from Mexico, and all—all of a sudden he just came back and he gave you the truck [unintelligible] clean and whatever the f*** and he left. 

### Jasmine: And why, and why, why they're giving you that for? 

### [Appellant]: Because, Jasmine, 'causemy DNA is on the f***ing truck. Jasmine: On the truck, but it's like maybe you were—you punched [Aleman] or something. 

### [Appellant]: Iknow, itdid, remember, but Idon't know why they're doing it to me. Jasmine: Your hand was bleeding when the— 

### [Appellant]: Yes, butdo they knowthat? They do notknowthat, Jasmine. Jasmine: That'swhy Isaid, tomy, .. statement, that's whatIwastrying 

### to say, Imentioned [Aleman], Ithought thatit wasthat—that

12you punched her and you—you had a cut and you bleed, and I don't know what. I said that. [Appellant]: But they told me that you guys said that only Idrove the truck.
[Appellant]: Jasmine Ineed you, Jas—that's why Igave you—I knew well that you shouldn't give a . . . statement. Jasmine: No, I didn't know that. For real, I didn't even know what was happening, they were coming to arrest mygrandma. We were at the bar, they came over here, and they were arresting my grandma for—for attempted murder, capital murder, whatever. And my mom, grandma was all scared likethey— they already wanted to arrest her. She was all scared—she was like—No, this is my daughter's truck. So, I came over here, and then they wanted—oh well we need to go in— 

### they—theyhad—I had to go in that day, ifnot they were going to arrest me.


### [Appellant]: Ijust need you to help me out on this on Jasmine. Please, you know ifI'm found guilty on this shit, I'mnever gonna come 

### out you know, and Idon't deserve this shitJasmine—



### Jasmine: I ain't gonna be weak, yo, I'm not being sad, 'cause I'm just 

### going to go back over there and I'm gonna say whatever I gotta . . . say. Iknow, okay.

0 

### [Appellant]: Jasmine, you know that Iwouldn't, Iwould never... do shit like that.


### [Appellant]: But are yougoing to help me out? Jasmine: I'mtrying, [appellant], Iwant to go back— 

### [Appellant]: Jasmine, are you going to help me out? Tell me the truth, 'cause you don't sound too . . . confident.

13Jasmine: Yes, I am [appellant]. [Appellant]: You're gonna let me . . . stay in here or what?
Jasmine: No. [Appellant]: You don't sound too confident, Jasmine. 

### Jasmine: [Appellant], I'm gonna try, I'm gonna try [unintelligible] it's 'cause I don't know how to say it, Idon't know how to say it but— 

### [Appellant]: Look—look Jasmine, this is what you're—Jasmine, this is what you're going to say, likestart crying— Jasmine: I already know— [Appellant]: Start cryingJasmine: That's my boyfriend Felix, Idon't know what— 

### [Appellant]: There you go, start, start, you know, justtell 'em thetruth you know, tell 'em like, that you—you were with him, but you—it 

### was nothing serious you know that, youwould lend it to him, and that your mom didn'tknow, and whatever the f***. Jasmine: See that's why I'm
. . . mad— [Appellant]: Itwas around— Jasmine: Ineeded this, Ineeded this shit... from the beginning to know 

### this shit. It's—that's whyifyou knew something was up, why don't you tell me anything— 

### [Appellant]: Baby, Iwas ... locked up, theywouldn'tletme use thephone. Jasmine: No, Iknow, but like before like— [Appellant]: Nothing was— 

### Jasmine: Why don'tyou tell me this before like, so Icould know, you know what Imean? If anything happens, Iknow what to say inthe beginning. You know— [Appellant]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry—
14Jasmine: I didn't know nothing about this, babe— [Appellant]: I'm sorry. Jasmine: —I don't nothing [Appellant]: Hey. Jasmine: You know, Ididn't know whatto go, whatthe f***ing statement. You know how . . . stupid I am. I didn't even know what the f*** that shit was.
[Appellant]: You're not gonna let me stay in here, right? Jasmine: No, I'm not. 

### [Appellant]: All right. Hey, Jasmine, you know when Icome out, man, I'll owe you guys whatever man, I'll... do whateverfor you guys, 

### you know that Iwill, I'm good, I'm worthit, all right?


### [Appellant]: Wait, wait. Let me talk to you, let me talk to you. Hey, Jasmine, look, they don't know shit, babe, they don't—


### [Appellant]: You know how the . . . showruns. They don'tknow anything. They don't know shit, and, there's not—we—there's nothing jn—there's no way we can help them, why? 'Cause we didn't do shit, all right? Jasmine: All right. 

### [Appellant]: Butyou, Jasmine, ifyou can help out,justtell them thatstuff, what Mitzi told you, but you need to get the story straight. You need to talk to Mitzi, make every—make everything— 

### Jasmine: That's why Itold her, Itold her, I'm—come over here and let me talk to you. Let me talk to you in person.

15[Appellant]: And what did she say? Jasmine: 'Cause Ican't be doing— [Appellant]: She said she could do it. She'll go over there. Jasmine: Yeah Iknow, but right now I'm going to the Mission P.D. [Appellant]: What's more tell . . . Mitzi to take you. Tell Mitzi ifshe could take you.


### [Appellant]: You already, get everything straight, get the address, around, itwas around June 20th, June.15th, June 20th that you were with this guy, you were with him for two weeks, one day he arrived, he came back with the truck real clean and, and he left, he bought you the new clothes, all right? He had a lot of money. Jasmine. Jasmine: All right, I'm listening. 

### [Appellant]: Don't letthem break you. Jasmine. Don'tletthem break you.


### [Appellant]: They're trying to scare you. Why are they—why are they going to take you, they don't got no reason to, but they're gonna. They're gonna, you know. They're gonna scare you like, oh, we this, we know this, we know that, bullshitJasmine. Stick to the mother  ing plan, all right?


### [Appellant]: Hey, I got a family too, all right? Please make your story straight. Talk to Mitzi, get everything straight, allright? Jasmine: All right. 

### [Appellant]: Hey, geteverything straight, butplease,Jasmine, don't letme down, please, Jasmine.

16In a subsequent conversation with Aleman, appellant said, "[B]abe, if my blood wouldn't have gotten there, Imight have made, but they're going to do lab work all over it, they're gonna—" Appellant also stated that he believed that Jasmine and her mother would testify against him. Appellant instructed Aleman to call "Mitzy" and to tell Mitzy "to give [Aleman] information about Jasmine." Appellant said, "tell Mitzy to keep telling Jasmine to please help me, to please help me, to please help me, to keep calling her and 

### telling her please help me for, for them not to bullshit her, that I need her, all right?" Appellanttold Aleman to talk to Jasmine and to tell her that when appellant got out ofjail, "we'll give her a lotof money, and we'll help her outin whatever, tell herplease that Ihave


### a family that ifIget charged with this, I'm nevergoing to come out." Appellant said, Right now I'm going to write to you. Hey, and tell Mitzy that, to, if Jasmine already has a name and where he's from. Tell Jasmine to get 

### her . . . story straight babe, I need Jasmine, baby, I need her babe, you knowshe's the only one that can help me out. Her and her mom, her mom is down for me babe. Just tell her not to . . . for them to be strong, not to let them bullshit her, not to sign no papers—. Attrial, Jasmine testified that she, her mother, and appellant were the only people who drove the vehicle used in Garcia's murder. According to Jasmine, she dated 

### appellant in June of2010. Jasmine statedduring thattime, that she lent the vehicle to
one other man on one occasion, but she was present in the vehicle at the time. At no time did Jasmine lend the vehicle to someone other than appellantwithout being present in the vehicle. Jasmine stated that "sometimes" she lent the vehicle to appellant and did 

### not accompanyhim. Jasmine could notrecall how manytimes she loaned the vehicle to 

### appellant while she was not also in thevehicle. Jasmine testified that on July 9, 2010, appellant was in possession of thevehicle. Jasmine explained thatalthough appellant wasbeing held by thePharr Police Department, she "went looking for him" on that date

17and found the vehicle at appellant's mother's house. According to Jasmine, she observed many police officers at that location. Jasmine testified that when she spoke to appellant on the phone, he asked her to lie "about a guy using her truck." Jasmine acknowledged that she told appellant she would tell the police what appellant asked her to say; however, Jasmine nevertold police what appellant asked her to say because she "had already left a statement." On crossexamination, Jasmine stated that the vehicle belonged to her mother, Jessica Gonzalez. 

### On July 12, 2010, AlejandroMadrigal Jr., a forensic scientist with the Department 

### of Public Safety CrimeLaboratory, assisted the Mission Police Department incollecting evidence from the vehicle used by the suspects during the commission of the offense. The vehicle was a black 2000 Ford Expedition. Madrigal took swabs of what appeared to be blood located on the driver's side area ofthe vehicle for DNAtesting. Madrigal then 

### compared appellant's DNAwith thatfound in thevehicle. Madrigal explained, "The items that we went over and we compared was AM6-A, which was jeans, the Guessjeans, AM

### 7,which were the Dristanjeans, AM-10, which was the swabbing from the steering wheel. And AM-14, which was the driver's side center console." Madrigal stated that "[t]he 

### findings were thatthe DNArecovered from the items were consistentwith theDNAprofile of [appellant]" and appellant "cannot be excluded as a contributor of these profiles." According toMadrigal, "the probability ofselecting anunrelated person as a random who could be the source ofthese profiles [found in the vehicle] is approximately 1 in 36.28 

### quintillion for Caucasians. 1 in 4.230 quintillion for Blacks. And 1 in 2.163 quintillion for Hispanics." Madrigal concluded "[t]hat to a reasonable degree ofscientific certainty, [appellant] is thesource ofthose[blood] stains" found in thevehicle.

18Rolando Mendoza, a Mission Police Department crime scene technician, testified that he executed a search warrant ofa residence located at 207 Camino Real, Apartment 6 on July 13, 2010. Mendoza recovered, among other things, a black tactical shotgun "Remington 870" with serial number "[A]B796139[M]."4 The prosecutor showed Mendoza State's Exhibit No. 15 and asked, "Can you verify ifit is, or is not the same serial number? Mendoza replied, "It is the same one, ma'am." State's Exhibit No. 15 is a receipt of Garcia's purchase of a weapon "REM 870" with serial numberAB796139M. In addition, 

### regarding the gun found bypolice, Adrian Garcia, the victim's brother, stated, "I'm certain one hundred percent that's my brother's weapon." Adrian Garcia explained that the 

### victim's gun was unique because it was custom-made and "it is very rare to see" a gun with the "features" that this particular gun had. Guadalupe Garcia, the victim's other brother, stated that the gun belong to the victim. 

### Sergeant Jody Allen Tittle, a police investigator with the City ofMission police 

### department, testified that he confirmed that theserial numberoftheblack shotgun found at the Camino Real apartment matched a gun purchased byGarcia. SergeantTitle also testified that the vehicle in appellant's possession was the same vehicle used in Garcia's murder. In addition, Sergeant Tittle described State's Exhibit Number 35-B as a size 

### "large" dark brown glove recovered at the crime scene. The prosecutor then asked Sergeant Tittle to observe State's Exhibit Number 70-A, another size large darkbrown 

### glove that SergeantTittle stated matched theglove found at thecrime scene. Sergeant Tittle did not know where State's Exhibit 70-A was discovered. However, Madrigal
4The reporter's record indicates that Mendoza testified thattheserial numberwas "8B796139N." However, Mendoza alsotestified thattheserial numberwasidentical to theserial number listed on State's Exhibit Number 15, which shows the serial number as being AB796139M.
19testified that he found the brown glove identified as State's Exhibit 70-A in the glove compartment of the Expedition. Vicente Ochoa Jr., an investigator with the Mission Police Department, testified that he had been assigned to work on this case on June 25, 2010 and that on July 12, 

### 2010, he began his investigation concerning appellant's recorded phone calls from the 

### countyjail. Investigator Ochoa stated that he listened to nine phone calls and attempted to determine who the phones were registered to and to get "pings" on the GPS location 

### of the phones from the phone service providers. Investigator Ochoa clarified these 

### "pings" would help "locate . . . where these people were at in regards to, since they were 

### possibly getting rid ofevidence." According to Investigator Ochoa, they received a "hit" to one ofthe numbers at the location of "Camino Real, 200 block in San Juan," Texas. 

### InvestigatorOchoa clarified thattwo numbers pinged tothe200 Camino Real area,which included the phone number used by a man referred to as Coco. 

### Based on this information, the police set up a surveillance of the Camino Real 

### area. Investigator Ochoa stated, "In theearly morning we see a male subject come out of the area side of the apartment. We make contactwith him. He identifies himself as 

### Coco. And we gethis correct name as being Juan Briones." InvestigatorOchoa testified thatthey made "the linkthatthesameperson on thephone calls [with appellant] from the 

### jailthatwe got mentioned is aCoco We realize thatit's the same person from there." According to Investigator Ochoa, the police then transported Coco to the police 

### department, and InvestigatorOchoa assisted in the execution ofasearch warrant at207 Camino Real. Investigator Ochoa testified that they found several weapons at this location, which included a "distinctive shotgun" that was located under the bed.

20Investigator Ochoa stated, "One of the weapons was recovered, which was a tactical shotgun, through the investigation we discovered was a weapon that was purchased by the victim at the Armory store in McAllen[, Texas]. Serial number did match up to the weapon that [the victim] purchased." Investigator Ochoa observed a body search ofappellantthat was taken after blood
was found in the vehicle used in the crime. Evidence was presented that appellant resisted the body search and that he "put up a pretty good struggle." During this body 

### search, the police photographed a "healing cut" that appellant had on his hand. 

### Regarding theinvestigation ofappellant'sconnection with theoffense, InvestigatorOchoa said, We're able to determine that there is some items at the crime scene 

### that match up to [appellant], as far as his right hand, a figurine that was broken when the suspects crossed over the fence inorderto gain entry into 

### theproperty, thevehicle being driven by[appellant], and blood found inside the vehicle. 

### On cross-examination by appellant's trial counsel, Investigator Ochoa explained that the victim had a "rod iron fence" with a decorative figurine welded on top, which the 

### police found next to thefence. Investigator Ochoa stated that the vehicle used by the suspectswaslinked toappellantbecause"[h]e's theperson supposed to bedriving it, the vehicle" and that "[i]n the video [appellant] matches the description of the driver." 

### InvestigatorOchoa stated that hebelieved thevideo showed thatthedriverofthevehicle matches appellant "[b]y his body build." Investigator Ochoa testified thatfrom what he 

### "gathered from [Jasmine's mother Jessica], she says that [appellant] had the vehicle" when the crime occurred and that Jessica "told" Investigator Ochoa that appellant "was the one using it."

21D. Analysis Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to,support the jury's finding that he committed the charged offense. However, we disagree with appellant, and we agree with the State that the evidence, as set out below, supports thejury's verdict. During his phone conversations, appellant did not explicitly state that he was 

### discussing Garcia's murder. However, throughoutthese conversations, appellant alluded to facts that the evidence at trial established were connected to Garcia's murder. These 

### facts included appellant's concern: (1) about DNA from his blood that police discovered in the vehicle used by the suspects the day after appellant talked to Aleman; (2) about 

### weapons that were in the possession of a man referred to as "Coco"; and (3) that he would receive a life sentence for the "other thing" that he had not been charged withthat 

### was "abig ass charge."5 From thisevidence, thejury could have reasonablyfound that 

### appellant had knowledge of details of Garcia's murder because he was somehow involved especially given appellant's concern that he would receive a life sentence for Garcia's murder and his concern that his DNA was located in the vehicle used by the 

### assailants and the fact that the police located one of the stolen weapons in Coco's 

### possession basedon appellant's phone call toCoco. See Ethridge, 795 S.W.2d at285 

### (explaining that attempts to conceal ordestroy contraband is sufficientevidence of"guilty knowledge"). Thejurycould have alsotaken into consideration appellant's prediction that 

### the police would find his blood in the vehicle to use against him as an indication that

5We must view the evidence in the light mostfavorable to thejury's verdict; thus, to convict 

### appellant, thejury must have determined that the vehicle appellant used was the same vehicle used to commit theoffense, which is supported by evidence that the vehicle used during thecommission of the offensehadthesamedamagetothesidestepas thevehiclefound in appellant's possession. SeeJackson, 443 U.S. at 319; see also Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 898-99.
22appellant was involved because the police would discover his DNA and link him to crime
scene. See Torres v. State, 794 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no pet.) ("A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is 

### consequently a well[-]acceptedprinciple that any conduct on the part of a person accused of a crime subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he 

### is charged.") (internal quotations omitted) (citing Ray, Texas Practice Vol. 2, Law of 

### Evidence, § 1538, at 242 (1980)). In addition, appellant told Aleman "** **, babe, if my blood wouldn't have gotten there, Imight have made, but they're going to do labwork all 

### overifthey're gonna." From this evidence thejury mayhavefound thatappellantfelt that withoutthe blood evidence the police would not be able tolinkhimto the crime. Moreover, 

### from this, thejury may have inferred thatappellant believed that theblood in thevehicle would somehow inculpate him in Garcia's murder. Thus, viewing the evidencein thelight 

### most favorable to thejury's findings, weconclude that the combined force oftheabovecitiedevidence leads to a reasonable inference that appellant leftthe blood in the vehicle 

### at the time that the crime occurred. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15 (noting that, although 

### the fact-finder is not permitted to reachconclusions based on mere speculation, "direct evidence of the elements of the offense is not required," the fact-finder is "permitted to make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial," and circumstantial 

### evidence "is as probative as directevidence" in establishing guilt and stating, "[u]nderthe Jackson test, wepermitjuries to draw multiple reasonable inferences as long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial").

23The evidence shows that when appellant called Coco, he asked him to dispose of
some "toys" and to ensure that these "toys" lacked serial numbers. The evidence presented at trial established that Coco had possession of one of Garcia's customized rifles. From this evidence, the jury could have reasonably inferred that when appellant mentioned "toys," he was discussing the guns that had been stolen from Garcia's home 

### and that appellant had authority to tell Coco what to do with the weapons. The jury could also have reasonably inferred that appellant wanted Coco to dispose of the weapons 

### because appellant feared that the weapons would be linked to him, and he wanted to 

### destroy any evidence that may have been on those weapons, such as fingerprints, tohide hisinvolvement. In addition, the jurymay have reasonably inferred that appellant wanted 

### to either destroy or conceal the guns because he was involved in Garcia's murder. See 

### Ethridge, 795S.W.2d at285; Gordon v. State, 735S.W.2d 510, 517(Tex. App.—Houston 

### [1st Dist.] 1987), aff'd, 784 S.W.2d 410(Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (providing "that appellant demonstrated a guilty mind by attempting to destroy incriminating evidence"); see also Cueva v. State, 339 S.W.3d 839, 881-82 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, pet. refd) 

### ("Any conduct on thepart ofa person accused ofa crime subsequent to its commission, which indicates a consciousness ofguilt may be received as a circumstance tending to 

### prove that he committed the actwith which he ischarged.") (citations omitted). Moreover, thejury could havereasonably found from this evidence thatappellant 

### had authority to determine how the men dealt with the guns and infer that because 

### appellant took a leadership role in the destruction of the evidence, he must have participated in the execution ofthe home invasion by soliciting, encouraging, directing, 

### aiding, orattempting to aid anotherperson in committing the crime in this case. SeeTex.

24Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2). Thejury could have reasonably found from the evidence that Coco had already disposed of some of the guns taken from Garcia's residence because appellant stated, "I already told Coco to bury [the guns]" and although four guns
were missing from Garcia's home, Coco only had one gun at the Camino Real property. During his conversation with Jasmine, appellant asked her to change her statement to police. And, Jasmine testified that he wanted her to lie about lending her
car to someone else. During the conversation, appellant instructed Jasmine to "just say 

### it crying, start crying" and totell the police that the man isfrom Mexico and "thatall of a sudden he just came back and he gave you the truck . . . clean and whatever the f*** and he left." Appellanttold Jasmine that the police indicated that she said in her statement 

### that she only lent her truck to him and that she needed to go back to the police and tell them that she had lent her truck to another man around the date of Garcia's murder and 

### totell the police that hermom did notknow that she had lentthe truck to someone other than appellant. Jasmine responded that she was angry because she needed this information "from the beginning to know this shit" and asked why appellant had nottold this earlier so that she knew "what to say in the beginning." 

### Appellantclaimed thatifJasmine changed herstatementthat hewould notbekept 

### in jail and stated, "look, they don't know shit.
. . ." Appellant advised Jasmine to "get everything straight" and that she needs to "getthe address, around, itwas around, June 20th, June 15th, June 20th thatyou werewith thisguy, you werewith him for two weeks, 

### one day he arrived, he cameback with thetruck real clean and, and he left, hebought 

### you the new clothes, all right?" From the foregoing evidence thejury could have found that appellant had a consciousness ofguilt dueto his involvement in themurder. See

25Lozano v. State, 359 S.W.3d 790, 814 (Tex. App.—FortWorth 2012, pet. refd) ("Attempts to conceal incriminating evidence, inconsistent statements, and implausible explanations
are also probative of wrongful conduct and are circumstances of guilt.") (citing Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ("In addition, this Court has recently recognized that a fact finder can consider a defendant's untruthful statement (in this case two "implausible" and inconsistent statements by appellant) as affirmative evidence of guilt.")); Cueva,339 S.W.3d at, 882 ("[Attempts totamperwith a witness, and any criminal 

### act designed to reduce the likelihood of prosecution, constitutes evidence of 'consciousness ofguilt' on the part of the defendant.") (citations omitted); see also Garza
v. State, 172 Tex. Crim. 468, 358 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962) (explaining that the efforts of an accused to induce a witness to testify falsely may be shown as indicating a consciousness of guilt). 

### Finally, Investigator Perez gave his opinion that the driver in the video was 

### appellant and thejury observed thatvideo. Investigator Perez based his opinion on the distinctive way that appellant moved and walked. He also testified that all of the circumstantial evidence pointed to appellant's involvement in the crime. 

### Although the majority of the evidence in this case is circumstantial, viewing the evidencein the light mostfavorable to thejury's verdict, we conclude that the cumulative force of allof the surrounding facts and incriminating circumstances is sufficientto support 

### thejury's conclusion thatappellant, acting with intenttopromote orassist thecommission ofthecapital murderofGarcia, solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, orattempted toaid 

### theother person tocommitthe capital murder. See Tex. Penal CodeAnn. § 7.02(a)(2); Thomas, AAA S.W.3d at 8; Winfrey, 393 S.W.3d at768; Ethridge, 795 S.W.2d at 284-85;

26Torres v. State, 141 S.W.3d 645, 662 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, pet. refd) (holding, in a circumstantial-evidence case, that the cumulative force-of all the surrounding facts and incriminating circumstances was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion of guilt); Mashburn v. State, 272 S.W.3d 1,14 (Tex. App.—FortWorth 2008, pet. refd) (explaining that the trier of fact may infer a culpable mental state from the acts, words, and conduct of the accused and may also infer intent fromacts that indicate a consciousness of guilt.). Therefore, we conclude that under the law ofparties, the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction. We overrule appellant's first issue. II. Admission ofVideo 

### By his second issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred byadmitting the surveillance video of the perpetrators entering Garcia's home. Specifically, appellant 

### argues that pursuant to rule of evidence 403, the video "'is highly prejudicial' in that it plays to the prejudices of thejury byusing fear as a tactic to confuse thejury" and that 

### anyprobative value in this evidence was slightatbest." Appellantpoints outthat the men in the video wore masks and claims that "no evidence was adduced that ANY of the persons in the video were identified." We review the trial court's decision to admit evidence for a clear abuse of 

### discretion, and we will not reverse thejudgment if the decision lies within the zone of reasonable disagreement. McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 

### 2008). TexasRule ofEvidence403permits atrial courttoexclude relevantandotherwise admissible evidence "if itsprobative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of 

### unfair prejudice, confusion ofthe issues, ormisleading thejury, orby considerations of undue delay, orneedless presentation ofcumulative evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 403 (1998,

27superseded 2015).6 Admissibility of the evidence is favored under a rule 403 analysis, 

### and "the presumption is that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial." Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). "[Y]he 

### plain language of Rule 403 does not allow a trial court to exclude otherwise relevant evidence when that evidence is merely prejudicial." Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807, 

### 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Under rule 403, the trial court must only exclude evidence that causes "unfair" prejudice, which refers "to relevant evidence's tendency to tempt the 

### jury into finding guilt on grounds apart from proof of the offense charged." State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

### The video's probative value was that it showed thejury the vehicle that was used 

### by the suspects during the commission ofthe crime to aid thejury in its evaluation of whetherthe State proved thatitwas the same vehicle thatappellant possessed. At trial, 

### evidence was presented that the vehicle appellant possessed and that Jasmine had loaned him had damage to the side step thatmatched damage to thevehicle used in the commission of the crime. Thus, the trial court could have determined that the juryneeded
to view the video in order to make this determination. 

### Appellant argues that thevideo was prejudicial because it was used as a "scare tactic" and noevidence was presented that he was presentduring thecommission ofthe offense. However, to find unfair prejudice the video must have had a tendency to tempt 

### thejury into finding guilt on grounds apart from proofofthe offense charged. Mechler,

6The Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court ofCriminal Appeals amended rule 403 tobecome 

### effective on April 1, 2015. It now states, "Thecourtmay exclude relevant evidence ifits probative value is substantiallyoutweighedbyadangerofoneormoreofthefollowing: unfairprejudice, confusingtheissues, misleading thejury, undue delay, orneedlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 403.
28153 S.W.3d at 440. And, although the men in the video wore masks, evidence was presented that the driver of the vehicle had appellant's body type, demeanor, and walk. Moreover, at trial, the victim's son testified in detail about what occurred that night in his home. Those details were likely much more disturbing to the jury than the video which merely shows the vehicle parked in the street and that fourmasked men, some with guns, exited the vehicle. The video also shows that there was damage to the passenger side 

### step which matched damage to the side step on the vehicle appellant possessed. Thus,
we cannot conclude that the video had the tendency to tempt thejury into finding guilt on 

### grounds apart from proof of the offense charged. See Mechler, 153 S.W.3d at 440. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video over appellant's rule 403 objection. We overrule appellant's second issue.
ill. Conclusion We affirm the trial court's judgment. /s/ Roqelio Valdez Rogelio Valdez Chief Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 14th day of May, 2015.

29