### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 02 22 -C R

______________________________ QUI NCY L AJ AMES NEL SON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 202nd Judi cial District Court

Bow ie County , Texas Trial Court No. 08F 0535-202

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 29.03 (Ve rnon 2003). 1 The fr iend was pr eviously tried and c onvicted for

her r ole in the ag g ravated robbe ry . 2 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Qu inc y L a Jame s N e lso n w a s convic te d by a B ow ie County jur y of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

wi th

a deadly wea

pon and sentenc ed to forty y ear s' imprisonment in the Tex as De partment of Criminal 1 Justi c e –Ins tit

uti on a l D ivi sio n. Ne lso n a pp e a ls, c la imi ngthe tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in su bmi tti ngc e rt a in photogr aphs to the jury

and fur ther c laiming that he di d not voluntarily waive his rig hts before submitt ing to a

custodial interrog ation (a r ecor ding of which was shown to the j ury ). W e af firm the jud g me nt. I. BACK GR OUND AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY On Se pte mbe r 1 1, 20 07 , N e lso n, arm e d w itha pist ol, e nte re d Sh e lby ' s E xx on statio n w ith a fr iend, with robbery

on their minds. The two enter ed the station throug h the g ara g e bay doors and 2 proceed ed to the of

fi c e in t he statio n' s g ara g e ba

y are a . H a vin g e nc ounte re d n o o ne a t th is p oin t, Ne lso n s a t do wn

a t th e de sk

and wa ite d f or a vic timto ap pe ar. Th e lon g -t ime g ara g e mana g e r, B ill y Phily aw, e ntere d the s tation throug h the front door and was tol d by another employ ee that there w ere some people in the back that he thought mig ht need a n inspection sticker f

or an a utomobile. Phi ly aw walked out to the office in the g ara g e bay are a, whe re he encounte red N elson, who wa s seated in a chair in the office with his back to Phily aw. Phily aw a sked Ne lson if he nee ded an inspe ction. At that point, Nelson pulled a blac k stocking mask over his fa ce, g rabbe d Phily aw with one hand, andRefer ring to an orbital floor f

rac ture. See htt

p:/ /e me dic ine .me ds c a

pe .c om/

. 3 3 pointed the g un at him. Nelson pushed Phily aw into a dark corne r, dema nded money , and thre atene d to s ho ot P hil y aw sho uld Phi ly aw not c omp ly wi th the de mand

. Whe n Ph ily aw r e pli e d th a t he did not ha v e an y mo n e y , N e ls o n h it h im in th e f a c e w it h a b lo w th a t c a

u s e d Ph il y aw to late r re quire surg ery for repa ir of a blowout fr actur e. After having struck Phily aw, Ne lson and his friend f led the 3

scene , wher eupon Ph i l y aw co n t acte d the police. Shortly there afte r, Ne lson and his friend we re appre hended a

nd taken to jail. Kimberly Weaver , a dete ctive with the Tex arka na, Tex as, P olice Department, was assig ned the investig ation of the Shelby Ex x on robber

y . Weaver , afte r advising Nelson of his rights pursua nt to Article 38.22, Section 2(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Proc edure , conducte d a video re corde d custodial interrog ation of hi m on the day of the robbe ry . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.22, § 2(a) (Ve rnon 2005). At trial, Nelson objected to the introduction of the video rec ording of t h e custodial interrog ation. He did not challeng e the fac t that Weaver had advise d him of his rights but, rather,

ma int a ine d th a t he did

no t un de rs tand

his ri g hts a

nd , th e re fo re , c ou ld not have wa ive d th os e ri g hts

. Af te r h a vin g c on du c te d a he ari ng ou tsi de the pr e se nc e of the jur y on the iss ue of

the a dmi ssi bil ity of the re corde d interview, the trial court dictated its finding s of fact and c onclusions of law into the

rec ord, as f

ollows: (1) Weaver

advised Ne lson of his rights an d Ne l s o n acknow ledg ed that he understood ea ch of those rig hts; (2) therea fter, when Nelson was requested to sign a wr itten waiver4

of his rig hts, he hesitated, indicating that he mig ht not understand ea ch of his rig hts; (3) Weaver and

ano the r o ff

ic e r w ho wa s p re se nt a

t th e int e rr og a tio n a sk e d N e lson repea te dly wh a t he fa ile d to compre hend, and r epea

ted some of the waiver s he was reque sted to make; (4) Nelson then a ppear ed to move his he ad in a consensua l g esture and there afte r initialed e ach waiver of his r ights that was provided to him and si g ned the doc ument, "Q . Nelson" ; (5) Ne lson understood his rig hts; and (6) Ne lson ga

ve no indication at the time that he signe d the waiver that he did not understand that he wa s waiving the rig hts which had be en explained to him. During her inve stigation of the incident, W eave r t ook a photogra ph that depicted the injury to Phil y aw' s ey e and a

photogr aph of Phily aw on the da te of the r obbery

depicti n g P h i l y aw lying down beingox y g enate d. These e x hibits were a dmitted into e v i d en ce o ver N elson' s objection pursuant to Rule 403 of the Te x as Rules of Evidenc e. II. ISSU ES P RE SEN TED On appe al, Nelson urg es two points of err or: (1) he maintains that the trial cour t committed

err or by permitting the two photogr aphs into evidence ; and (2) he complains that the trial cour t erre d in i ts f ind ing that Ne lso n und e rs too d h is r ig hts and that he kn ow ing ly , in te lli g e ntl y , a nd vo lun tari ly waived those rig hts when he c onsented to the intervie w in which he inc ulpated himself in the cr ime.T EX . R. E V ID . 403. 4 5 III . AN AL YSI S OF P OIN TS OF ER RO R A. The P hot og r aphs Nelson asse rts that the trial cour t erre d in admitting two, spec ific photog raphs into evidenc e on the basis that the probative value of these photog raphs wa s substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of unfair pr ejudice. The a dmissibi lity of a photogr aph is within the sound discretion of the 4 trial court. Pa re de

s v . S tat e , 129 S.W .3d 530, 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 4 ). S o long a s the trial court' s ruling on the admission of evidence lies within the z one of r easona ble disag ree ment, its ruling will not be reve rsed. Mo ntgom e ry v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 391–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh' g ); se e Mi tc he ll v . S tat e , 931 S.W .2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (plurality opinion). Ru le 40 3 o f t

he Te xas R

ule s o f E vid e nc e g ov e rn s th e a dmi ssi bil ity of the a lle g e dly inf lammator y ph oto g ra ph s. Rul e 40 3 p ro vid e s th a t: Al tho ug h r e le va

nt, e vid e nc e may be e xclu de d if its p ro bativ e va lue is s ub sta nti a lly outweig hed by the dang er of unfair prejudice , confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury , or by considerations of undue delay , or needless prese ntation of cumulative evidenc e. T EX . R. E V ID . 4 0 3. Fa ctors to be c onsidered in de termining whether the probative value of

the photogr aphs is substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice to Ne lson include: the number of exhibi ts of fer ed, their g ruesomene ss, the ir detail, their size, whether the y are bla c k a

nd wh ite or c olo r, wh e the r the y are c los e -u p . . . [an d] th e a va ila

bil ity of other me ans of pr oof and the circ umstances unique to e ach individual ca se. Lon g v . S tat e , 823 S.W .2d 259, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).Th is t e sti mony wa s n ot m e t w ithany

ob je c tio n a nd wa s r e le va

nt ( e ve n th ou g h a ssa

ult wi th 5 bodily injury was not an element of t his offe nse) because it imparted to the jury information essential to unde rstanding the context and circ umstances of events which leg ally are blended a

nd interwove n. Cam ac ho v . S

tat e , 864 S.W .2d 524, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 6 Both photog raphs a

re c olor, 4" x 6" de pictions of Phily aw' s fac e. Th e fi rst photogr aph depicts a pur

ple bruised are a around Phily aw' s rig ht ey e. The second photog raph de picts Phil y aw resting with closed ey es with an oxy g en tube having be en plac ed in his nose. B oth photogr aphs ar e taken f rom a close view point. Whil e the photogr aphs are cer tainly prejudicia l to Nelson, they do nothing more than depict Phily aw' s condition a fter he was struc k by Nelson; while g raphic , they are not gr uesome in any

respe ct. " ' [U] nfair pr ejudice' ref ers to ' an undue te ndency

to sug g est dec ision

on an i mp rop er ba si s, com mo nl y , t ho ugh n ot neces sar il y an em ot io nal on e.'" E

r az o v . Stat e , 144 S

. W

. 3 d 4 8 7 , 5 0 1

– 0 2 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Ro ge rs v . S tat e , 9 9 1 S. W. 2 d

2 6 3 , 2 6 6 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1999)). All testimony and evide nce w ill be preju d icial to one par ty or the other . See J oin e r v . S tat e , 825 S.W .2d 701, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). I t is onl y wh en t here is a clea r dis pa ri ty be tw e e n th e de g re e of

pr e jud ic e of the of

fe re d ev ide nc e and

its pr ob a tiv e va lue that Ru le 403 is applicable. J

on es v . S tat e , 944 S.W .2d 642, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We find no such disparity here

. Moreover, a p h o togr aph is g ener ally admissible if verba l testimony about the matter s depicted in the photogr aph is a lso a dmissibl e. Paredes , 1 2 9 S.W .3d at 539. Her e, ther e wa s testimony that when Phily aw indicated he did not have any money , Nelson struck him in the fa ce. 5 We c on c lud e that the ph oto g ra ph s a t iss ue pr e se nte d no da ng e r of un fa ir pr e

jud ic e that su

bs tanti a lly7

outweig hed their pr obative value . The trial c ourt did not abuse its di s cretion in admitt ing the ph oto g ra ph s. B. The Custodi al Interrogat ion Nelson wa s advised of his rig hts pursuant to Article 38.22, Section 2(a) of the Te x as Code of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure , but co nte nd s tha t bec a us e he fa ile d to ful ly

c omp re he nd

or un de rs tand

tho se ri g hts , th e y

c ou ld n ot h a ve be e n w aiv ed. Th eref or e , h e ma int a ins that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in permitting e vidence of the interr og ation to be introduce d. Th e tr ia l c ourt

c on du c te d a

he ari ng ou tsi de the pr e se nc e of the jur y on the mot ion

to s up pr e ss evidenc e of the videotaped interrog ation of Nelson. The he aringincluded the voir dire of Weave r

a s w e ll a s a

vie wi ngof

the dis pu te d v ide o r e c or din g by the tr ia l c ourt . T he c ou rt th e n d ic ta te d it s fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw i nto the re c or d (s umm ari zed a bo ve ), a s r e qu ir e d b y

Ar tic le 38.22, Section 6 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. At a hear ing on the voluntariness of a confe ssion, the trial court is the sole and e x clusive trier

o f f a c tan d j u d g e o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a s w e l l a s t h e w e i g h tt o b e g i v e nt h e i r t e s t i m o n y. Gr e e n v . S

tat e , 9 34 S.W. 2d

92 , 9 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Ge ntr yv . S tat e , 770 S.W .2d 780, 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). As such, an a ppellate c ourt is not at liberty to disturb any

finding which is supported by

the re cord. Gree n , 9 34 S.W. 2d a t 98 . M ixed

qu e sti on s of la

w a nd fa c t are a lso

re vie we d f

or an a bu se of dis c re tio n, if tho se qu e sti on s tur n on an e va luatio n o f w itn e ss c re dib ili tyArticle 38.22, Sec tion 3(a)( 2) of the T exas Code of Criminal Procedure requi r e s th a t a ny oral 6 sta t em en t resulting from custodial interr og ation must contain a wa rning informing the ac cused of his rights unde r Article 38.22, Section 2, and the a ccuse d must knowingly , intelli gen t l y , and voluntarily

waive those rig hts. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.22, § 3(a )(2) (Ve rnon 2005). Ar t i cl e 3 8

. 2 2, Section 2 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure pr ovides that notice of the fo llo wi ngri g hts mus t be pr ov ide d to the a c c us e d p ri or to m a kin g a

state me nt: (1) he has the rig ht to remain silent and not make a ny statement at all and that any state me nt h e make s ma

y be us e d a g a ins t hi m a t hi s tr ia l; (2 ) any

state me nt h e make s ma

y be us e d as ev ide nc e a g a ins t hi m in c ourt ; (3) he has the rig ht to have a la wy er pr esent to advise him prior to a nd d u ri n g an y qu es t i o n i n g;

8 and deme anor. Gu

zm an v . S tat e , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We review de novo

m i x e d qu e s t i o n s o f

l aw an d f a c tn o tf a l l i n g w i t h i nth i s c a t e g o r

y. Id. He re , th e re is n o in dic a tio n in the re c or d th a t the tr ia l c ourt , in its dis c re tio n a s f ind e r o f f a c t, dis be lie ve d We a ve r' s te sti mon y r e g a r d i n g t h e i nt e r r o g a t i o n a n d wh e t h e r N e lso n und e rs too d th e ri g hts he wa s waiving . I n fac t, Weaver' s testimony conce rning the waiver of these rig hts w as not disputed. Fur ther, ther e is no question raised as to the acc urac y or reliability of the video r ecor ding de picting Weaver ' s interrog ation. Be cause the facts surrounding the interrog ation are not in disput e, the matter at issue is a questi o n o f l aw, i.e., w hether Nelson' s statement is admissible under Ar ticle 38.22, Section 3(a) (2). We, theref ore, a pply a de novo r eview. 6(4) if he is unable to e mploy a lawy er, he has the rig ht to have a la wy er appointed to advise him prior to a nd during any

questioning; a

nd (5) he has the rig ht to terminate the intervie w at any time. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.22, § 2 (V ernon 2005)

. 9 Arti cl e 3 8

. 2 1 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure pr ovides that the statement of a pe rs on a c c us e d o f a c ri me " may be us e d in e vid e nc e a g a ins t him if it a pp e ars that the same wa s f re e ly and vo lu nt ari ly mad e wi th ou t com pu ls io n or persu asi on , und er t he ru les here aft er pr ov id ed. " T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.21 (V ernon 2005)

. I t is we ll established that the voluntariness of such statements is to be eva luated under the "totality of the circ umstances" standard . See D elao v. Sta te , 235 S.W .3d 235, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (re cog nizi ng totality of circ umstances to be

corr ect standa

rd by which to eva luate voluntarin es s o f co nfession g iven by an adult); Creager v. Sta te , 952 S.W .2d 852, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (" [v] oluntariness is decide d by consideringthe totality of the c ircumstance s under whic h the statement wa s obtained" ). The video rec ording of Nelson' s interrog ation beg an at 6:05 p.m. Prior to a ny interrog ation, Weaver rea d Nelson the rig hts require d by Article 38.22. A fter f

irst i n d i cating he mig ht not understand the rig hts read to him, questions wer e aske d by the office rs with r espec t to what Ne lson did not understand, and cer tain of the rig hts w ere rea d ag ain and e x plained to Nelson. Ne lson then appea red to indicate an understandingof those rig hts by nodding his he ad in the af firmative, a

nd then pr oc eeded to pla c e his ini tia ls n e xt to w a ive rs of e a c h o f t he fi ve e nume ra

te d r ig hts se t f

or th i n A rt i c l e 3 8

. 2 2

. N e l s o na l s o p l a c e d h i s i n i t i a l s n e x tt o t h e s t a t e m e n tt h a t : " Y o ukn o w i n g l y,Although N elson did not confess to the r obbery , he cha ng ed his ac count of e vents more than 7 on c e . T his wa s u se d a g a ins t N e lso n w he n We a ve r t e stifi ed th a t it is c omm on

fo r i nd ivi du a ls suspected of

crimes to cha

ng e their story

. 10 intelligently , and voluntarily waive a ny rig hts set o u t i n t his warning ." N elson then sig ned the "War ning of Rights" as witnessed by Weaver

. Ne l s o n does not claim that he w as coe rce d, intimi dated, tric ked, or in any way forc ed into g iving his statement. I n fac t, Weaver ma de it very 7

c le ar t hat N e lso n c ou ld r e ma in s ile nt and th at he cou ld t e rm inate the int e rv ie w. Ne lso n s imp ly claims that bec ause he did not understand his rig hts, t h e t rial cour t erre d in showing the video

rec ording to the jury

and in per

mitti ng ref

ere nce to the r ecor ding a

nd to any statements Nelson made while beingrec orded. We disag ree . Her e, Ne lson placed hi s i n i t i als "Q N" next t o eac h, separ ately numbere d and enume rate d

r i g h th e w a s g i v e n . N e l s o n ' s s i g n e d " W ar n i n g o f R i g h t s " i n d i c a t e s t h a th e " k n o w i n g l y, i n t e l l i g e n t l y, and voluntarily " w aived those rig hts. No one alleg ed that Ne lson is unable to rea d and under stand the Eng lish langua g e; contrarily , the record contains a video rec ording of Nelson rea ding a nd signing the " War n in g o f Ri g h ts
. " N e ls o n n e it h e r c la im s

—

n o r is th e r e e v id e n c e in th e r e c ord—of a ny diminis hed ca

pacity on his part. Fur

ther, there is no showing of leng thy interrog ation or incommunicado inca

rce ration which w ould miti g ate a g ainst a finding of waiver . All of these f actor s

are proper ly

considere d in vie wing the totality of the circ umstances. W alk e r v . S tat e , 501 S.W .2d 91 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 73 ); Ri c ha rd so n v . S tat e , 6 32 S.W. 2d

70 0, 70 3– 04 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1982, no pet.).11

We conclude that when one c onsiders the totality of the c ircumstance s, a mo me nta r y q u e s ti on of whether Nelson fully understood was adequately addre ssed at the time it was posed. T here fore , we deter mine that Nelson did " knowing ly , intelligently , and voluntarily " waive his r ight s u nder Article 38.2 2 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. The State discharg ed its burden a s to an aff irmative wa iver of the privileg e ag ainst self-incr imination, and the court did not e rr in admitting the video re cordingof Ne lson's state ment. IV . CO NC LU SION Be cause we c onclude the tr ial court did not err in admitting ce rtain p h o to graphs into evidenc e depicting Phily aw' s injuries, and fur ther did not err

in admitting Nelson's video rec orded state ment into evidence , we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: October 14, 2009 Date D ecide d: November 10, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh