1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 7 1 .0 2 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 3 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 1 9 .0 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).



## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 06-409- CR
R OL AND O VA S QUE Z AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA L DI STRI CT CO URT NO . 2 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e lla n tR o la n d o V a s q u e za p p e a lsh isc o n v ic t io n sf o re n g a g in g in o rga n i ze d cri m i n a l ac ti v i ty a n d m u rd e r. 2 We a f f i r m. 34 ... A pr i orf el ony co nvi ct i on enh anced bo t h sent ences. 5 ... S eeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 .0 3 (a ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 6 ... W a tso nv. S tate , 2 0 4 S . W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); D ri ch a s v. S tate , 1 7 5 S .W .3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 2 I n t he ea r l y m or ni ng ho ur s ofA ugus t7, 2005 , ap pel l ant , a m em beroft he V ar r i o Nort hs i de st r ee tga ng, s hotan d ki l l ed Jua n Rodr i gue z , a m em beroft he
r i valLo s H om ebo ysga ng. F o llo w in g a t h r e e -d a y ju ry t r ia l, a p p e lla n tw a sf o u n d g u ilt yo fe n g a g in g in or gan i z ed cr i m i nal ac t i vi t y and m ur der . Af t erhe ar i ng a ddi t i ona l ev i den cean d ar gum ent , t he j ury a ss es se d pun i sh m entatt w ent y- f i ve yea r s’ con f i nem entf or e n g a g i n g i n o rg a n i z e d c ri m i n a l a c ti v i ty , a n d l i fe fo r m u rd e r. T h e tri a l c o u rt 4
se nt enc ed app el l anti n a cc or dan cew i t h t he j u ry ’s v e r di ctan d or der ed t he se nt enc est o r un c onc ur r ent l y. 5 I n hi s f i r stand second p oi nt s, a p p e ll antcont ends t he evi dence w as f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci entt o suppo rtt he ver di ct s. W hen de t er m i ni ng f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y , w e re vi ew al l t he evi den cei n a neu t ra l l i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. W e t hen ask w het hert he evi dence 6 suppo rt i ng t he conv i ct i on, al t hou gh l egal l y suf f i ci ent , i s nevert hel ess s o w eak t hatth e fa c t-f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd m ani f es t l y un j us tor w het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y out w ei ghst he evi den ces upport i ng t he7 ... W atson , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 ; Jo hn so nv. S tate , 23 S . W . 3d 1 , 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ).

8 ... W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. 9 ... Id . 10 ... Id . 11 ... Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 ; Cai n v. Sta te , 958 S. W . 2d 404, 407 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). 3 c o n v i c ti o n tha t t h e fac t- fi n d e r’ s d e term i n a ti o n i s m a n i fes tl yu n j u st. To r ever se 7 unde rt he se con d gr ound, w e m us tde t er m i ne, w i t h s om e o bj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he
r ec or d, t hatt he g re a tw ei ghtan d pr epo nde r anc e o fal l t he evi den ce , t hough l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t, co n tr a d i c ts th e v e rdict. 8 I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s fac tu a l l y i n su ffi c i e n t to su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h t h a t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o o v e rtu rn [th e ] c o n v i c ti o n .” W e c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly 9
w r o n g o rm a n if e s t ly u n ju s t s im p ly b e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ry o r b e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju ry ’s re s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin th e evi dence. W e m a y no ts i m pl y s ub s t i t ut e o urj ud gm e ntf ort hef a c t- 10 f i nder ’ s. U nl ess t he r ecor d cl ear l y r eveal s t hata di f f er entr esul ti s appr opr i at e,

11
w e m ustdef ert o t he j ur y’ s d e te r m i nat i on of t he w ei ght t o be gi ven contr adi ct or y te s tim oni al evi dence becau se r esol ut i on of t he confl i ct“oft en12 ... Johnson , 23 S . W . 3d a t8. 13 ... Id. a t9. 14 ... Si m s v. State, 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). 4 t u r n s o n a n e v a lu a t io n o fc r e d ib ilit ya n d d e m e a n o r , a n d t h o s e ju r o r sw e r e in a tte n d a n c e w h e n th e te s ti m o n yw a sd e l i v e re d .” Thus , w e m us tgi ve due 12 def er enc e t o t he f ac t - f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “ part i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i ons c o n c e rn i n g th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e .” 13 W hen r evi ew i ng a f ac t ual
- su f f i ci enc y c hal l e n g e , w e m us tdi sc us s t he e v i d e n c e a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s i sm o s t i m p o rta n t i n a l l e g e d l yu n d e rm i n i n g th e j u ry ’s
v e rdict. In t h is c a s e , a p p e lla n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v id e n c e i s f a c t u a lly

14 i nsuf f i ci entt o suppo rt hi s m ur der convi ct i on because ( 1) no phy si cal evi dence l i nk ed hi m t o the cri m e; ( 2 ) t he t r i al t esti m on y o fD av i d M ata, Je ssi ca R am i r ez, J e s u s D u r a n , a n d M a r kM o n r e a l “ c o n f lic t sw it h e a c h o t h e r , w it h t h e ir st a te m e n t s pr evi ousl y gi ven t o t he pol i ce, and w i t h t he f or ensi c evi dence pr oduc ed att r i al ” ; a n d (3 ) be ca us e M at a, D ur an, an d M onr ea l ha d l eng t hy cr i m i nal r ecor ds. A p e r s o n c o m m it sm u r d e ri f h e e i t h e r(1 ) in t e n t io n a llyo rk n o w in g ly c a u s e s th e d e a th o f a n i n d i v i d u a l ; o r (2 ) i n te n d sto c a u s e s e ri o u sb o d i l yi n j u ry15 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 1 9 .0 2 (b )(1 ), (2 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 16 ... Cai n, 9 5 8 S .W .2 d a t 4 0 7 ; seeTe x. Cod e Cr i m . Pr oc . Ann. a rt . 38. 04 (V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ).

17 ... S ee Jones v. State, 9 8 4S .W .2 d 2 5 4 , 2 5 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). 18 ... S e eSa n tel

l a nv. S ta te, 939 S. W . 2d 155 , 1 6 4 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 7 ) cert. denied, 5 3 5 U .S . 9 8 2 (2 0 0 2 ). 5 and co m m i t s an ac tcl ea r l y da nge r oust o hum an l i f e t ha tca us est he dea t h of a n in d iv id u a l. 15 The j ury i s t he so l e j udgeoft he f ac t s, t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he w i t nes se s and t he w ei ght t o be gi ven t he evi dence. Ther ef or e, t he j ury i s f r ee t o bel i eveor 16 d i sb el i eveal l orpa rtofan y w i t nes s’ s t es t i m ony. A f a c t u a l
- s u f f i c i ency 17 cha l l eng e w i l l notne ce ss ar i l y be su st ai ned s i m pl y be ca us e t he r ec or d c ont ai ns con f l i ct i ng e vi den ceupon w hi ch t he f ac t - f i nde rco ul d ha ve r ea che d a di f f er ent con cl us i on. 18 Th e evi dence show ed t hatappel l antw as a m em ber of a Fort W ort h st r eet g a n g , V a rri o N o rth s i d e (“V N S ” ). J u a n R o d ri g u e za n d D a v i d M a ta w e re m em ber s ofa r i val gan g, t he LosH om ebo ys( “L H B”) . Ani m os i t y be t w ee n t he gang s dat ed back t o 19 93 w hen M at a’ s ol derbr ot her , LH B- gang - m em berG r eg M at a, m ur der ed V N S- gan g- m em berN oah Sot o.6

O n t h e n ig h tR o d r ig u e zw a sk ille d , h e a n d M a t a w e r e s it t in g in h is c a rin t he par ki ng l otout si de Jes si ca Ram i r ez ’ s apa rt m ent . Ap p e l l a n t and Je su s D u ra n w a l k e d b ya n d tri e d to s e e w h o w a si n th e c a r. M a ta k n e w ap p e l l a n t did n o t l i k e h i m b e c a u se h i s b roth e r h a d kil l e d S o to yea r s bef or e. M at a a sk ed Rodr i gue z t o t ak e hi m hom e. Rodr i gue z t ol d hi m not t o w or ry be ca us e Rodr i gue z and ap pel l antw er e b ot h m em ber s ofan ot herga ng and ha d r ec ent l y hung outt oge t her . Rodr i gue zex i t ed t he ca ral onean d s hook han dsw i t h a ppe l l antan d Dur an. The t w o i ns i st ed t hatM at a a l so ex i tt he ca r . M at a d i d s o t o a voi d a ny tro u b l e . A p p e l l a n t a s k e d fo r M a ta ’sn a m e . W h e n M a ta s a i d , “D a v i d M a ta ,” app el l antl i f t ed hi s sh i rt , dr ew a pi st ol , co ck ed i t , put i t bac k i n hi s pan t s, an d as ke d i fhew asG re g M a ta ’s b r ot her . M at a a ck now l edg ed t hathew as , t he sc enebe ca m e t ens e, an d M at a b el i eve d s om et hi ng w oul d ha ppe n. A ppe l l antde m and ed Ram i r ez ’ s ce l l phon e “ bef or e [ he di d] s om et hi ng st upi d. ” M at a h ea r d a ppe l l ants ay i nt o t he phone , “Yea h, he’ s her e r i ghtnow , I gothi m her e r i ght now . ” Rodr i gue zur ged M at a t o l ea ve, i ns i st i ng t hat he cou l d k ee p a ppe l l antan d D ur an f r om doi ng a nyt hi ng. E v e n tu al l y, M at a w entar ound t he apa rt m ent bui l di ng t o use t he r est r oom and di d not com e back.7

R e a liz in g t h a tM a t a h a d g o n e , a p p e lla n t“ s n a p p e d ,” re -d r e w t h e p is t o l, poi nt ed i tat R odr i guez and or der ed hi m i nt o t he car . A ppel l anti nst r uct ed D ur an t o f ol l ow t hem . N ot f arf r om t he apa rt m ent - com pl ex exi t , D ur an sa w ap pel l ant sh oo tR od r i gu ez. Fr om i ns i de her apa rt m ent , Ram i r ezhe ar d gun sh ot s. She ca l l ed app el l ant se ver al t i m es , w ho, w hen hef i nal l y a n s w er ed, t ol d he rt hatheha d s hot R od r i gu ez. S o me t i me l a t e r , a ppel l antt a l k e d t o M a r kM o n r e a l , a n o r i g i n a l VN S
m em beran d Sot o’ s cou si n. Appel l antt ol d M onr ea l t hat he had ki l l ed a f r i end ofG r eg M at a i n a ca r t o ave nge Sot o’ s m ur der . A ppe l l antas ke d i ft he ki l l i ng w oul d pr om ot e h i m i n t he gan g. A tt he hous e w her e a ppe l l ant w as ar r es t ed, pol i ce f ound a Taur uspi st ol
w r app e d i n a bl ue t ow elr es t i ng i n a t r ees t um p. Fo r ens i c t es t i ng l i nke d t he p i s to l to p ro j e c ti l e sa n d c a rtri d g e c a s e s re c o v e re d fro m th e s i te o f R o d ri g u e z ’s ki l l i ng.H avi ng r evi ew ed al l t he evi den ce i n a neu t r all i ght , w e c ann ots ay t hatt he evi dence supp ort i ng app el l ant ’ s m ur derconvi ct i on i s so w eak t hat t he ver di ct se em s cl ea rl y w r ong a nd m ani f es t l y un j us tort hatt he ver di cti s aga i ns tt he19 ... See Johns on , 23 S . W . 3d a t11. 20 ... See W

atson , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4 ; Cle wi s v. S tate , 922 S . W . 2d 126, 1 3 3

– 3 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ).

21 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 7 1 .0 2 (a )(1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 8 gr eat w ei ght and pr epon der ance of t he e v id e n ce. Ther ef or e, w e f i nd t he 19
e v i d e n c e fac tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t. W e over r ul e poi ntone. 20 I n poi ntt w o, ap pel l antcl ai m s th a t t he evi den cei s f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci ent t o sust ai n hi s convi ct i on f orengaging i n or gani zed cr i m i nal act i vi t y because, eve n i fheki l l ed Rodr i gue z , hi s ac t i ons “w er e perf or m ed by [ hi m se l f ] , al one , an d notaspa rtofa com m on sc hem e, or gan i z at i on, or com bi nat i on[ ] t o e st abl i sh , m ai nt ai n orpart i ci pat e as a m em ber of a cr i m i nal st r eetgang. ” H e ar gues t hat “a s i ngl e o f f ens e, co m m i tt ed by a si ngl e ac t or , eve n i fgi ven a gen es i s i n ga ng ac t i vi t y”doe s notco ns t i t ut e e nga gi ng i n or gan i z ed cr i m i nalac t i vi t y. A p e rso n c o m m i ts th e o ffen se o f e n g a g i n g i n o rga n i ze d c ri m i n a l ac ti v i ty i f , w i t h i nt entt o e st abl i sh , m a i n ta i n , orpa rt i ci pat e i n aco m bi nat i on ori n t he p rofi ts o f a c o m b i n a ti o n o r as a m e m b e r o f a cri m i n a l stree t ga n g , h e co m m i ts o r c o n s p i re s to c o m m i t . . . m u rd e r. A c ri m i n a l s tre e t g a n g i sth re e o r m o re 21 p e r s o n s h a v in g a c o m m o n id e n t if y in g s ig n o rs y m b o l o ra n id e n t if ia b le l eader shi p w ho conti nuo usl y orr egul ar l y associ at e i n t he com m i ssi on of cr i m i nal22 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 7 1 .0 1 (d ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 9 act i vi t i es. U nder t he pl ai n l angu age of§ 7 1. 02 ( a) , a per son m ay be conv i ct ed

22
o f e n g a g i n g i n o rg a n i z e d c ri m i n a l a c ti v i tyb yi n d i v i d u a l l yc o m m i ttin g m u rd e r. M or eov er , t he evi den cecl ea r l y e st abl i sh ed t hatap pel l antco m m i t t ed t he o ffen se o f en g a g i n g i n o rga n i ze d cri m i n a l ac ti v i ty. A p p e l l a n t i s a m e m b e r o f a cr i m i nals t r ee tga ng, V N S, oneoft he l ar gerga ngsi n Fo rtW ort h, w i t h t hr eeor m o r e m e m b e r s . V N S h a sa c o m m o n id e n t if y in g s ig n o rs y m b o l a n d id e n t if ia b le l ea der sh i p. I t s m em ber s r egu l ar l y orco nt i nuous l y a ss oci at e i n t he com m i ss i on ofcr i m i nal act i vities, i ncl udi ng assaul t s, dr ug off enses, w eapon s vi ol at i ons, bur gl ar i es, and hom i ci des. A p p e lla n td r e w a p is t o l f r o m h isp a n t s , c o c k e d it , a n d re t u r n e d itt o h is pantsw hen he l ear ned t hatM at a shar ed hi s l astnam e w i t h som eone w ho had ki l l ed a f el l ow gang m em ber i n t he past . W hen app el l antl ear ned t hatM at a w as t he br ot heroft he onew ho ha d k i l l ed h i s fe l l o w ga ng m em ber , t he sc ene bec am e t ens e a nd M at a f ea r ed t hat so m et hi ng w oul d hap pen . A ppe l l antm ade a t el eph oneca l l , t el l i ng s om eon e o n t he ot heren d, “ Yeah, he ’ s her e r i ghtnow , I g o t h i m h e re ri g h t n o w .” W hen M at a l eft at t he i nsi st ence ofRo dr i guez, and appel l antr eal i zed t hat M a t a w a s no tco m i ng ba ck , he “sn ap pe d,” pu l l i ng t he gu n o n R od r i gu ez.23 ... See W atson , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4 ; Cle wis , 922 S. W . 2d a t133– 34. 10 A p p e lla n tin s t r u c t e d D u r a n t o f o llo w h i m , a n d a p p e lla n ta n d R o d r ig u e zle ftin R od r i gu ez’s car. A f t er t r av el i ng a sh ortdi stanc e, ap pe l l an tsho tR od r i gu ez. A ppel l antt ol d M onr eal , a seni organg m em beri n V N S , t hathe had ki l l ed a f r i end of G r eg M at a’ s i n a ca r t o ave nge t he dea t h of M onr ea l ’ s cou si n, Sot o, w hom G r eg M at a h ad ki l l ed yea r s bef or e. Appel l antas ke d M o n re a l i fki l l i ng Rodr i gue zm ea nthe cou l d get hi s “s t r i pes ” i n t he gan g, i . e. , i fheco ul d m ove up i n i t s hi er ar chy . M at a t es t i f i ed t hatRodr i gue zw aski l l ed bec aus e h e w asM at a ’ s f r i end and “because he go t[ M at a] outoft here .” M a ta t est i f i ed t hatappel l antw as a f t e r hi m , w as an gry t ha t R od r i gu ez ha d he l pe d hi m , an d de ci de d t o k ill R o d ri g u e z a fter M a ta l e ft. V i e w i n g a l l th e e v i d e n c e i n a n e u tra l l i g h t, w e c a n n o t s a y th a t th e j u ry ’s ver di cts ee m s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd m ani f es t l y un j us t , nort hati ti s aga i ns tt he g r ea t w ei gh t an d prep on de r an ce of t he ev i de nc e. B ec au se t he ev i de n c e is f ac t ual l y s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n t he j ury’ s ver di ctt hatap pel l anti s gui l t y of eng agi ng i n or gan i z ed cr i m i nalac t i vi t y, w e o ver r ul e p oi ntt w o. 23 I n hi s t hi r d poi nt , appel l ant cl ai m s t hat t he t r i al courter r oneo usl y adm i t t ed e v i d e n c e tha t ap p e l l a n t w a s a m e m b e r of the p ri so n g a n g T a n g o B l a st.24 ... T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .3 6 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). 25 ... Sm ith v. State, 5 S .W .3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); see Bush v. S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.).

26 ... Garci

a v. State, 2 0 1 S .W .3 d 6 9 5 , 7 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ), c ert. deni ed, 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 2 8 9 (2 0 0 7 ). 27 ... Garci

a, 201 S. W . 3d a t703. 11 T e x a sC o d e o fC r im in a l P r o c e d u r e a rt ic le 3 8 .3 6 (a ) p r o v id e st h a tin a ll pr osecut i ons f orm ur der , t he st at e or t he def endan t shal l be per m i t t ed t o of f er t es t i m ony ast o a l l r el eva ntf ac t s and ci r cum st anc ess ur r oundi ng t he ki l l i ng a nd t he pr evi ousr el at i ons hi p e xi st i ng b e tw e e n t he ac cus ed and t he dec ea se d. 24 Thi s pr ovi si on m us tber ea d i n c onj unc t i on w i t h Rul es403 a n d 404 ( b) oft he Tex as R u les ofEvi dence. R e a d i n g th e th re e p ro v i s i o n sto g e th e r, p ri o r- 25
r e la t io n s h ip e v id e n c e is a d m i s s ib le u n le s sit sp r o b a t iv e v a lu e iss u b s t a n t ia lly out w ei ghe d by unf ai r pr ej udi ce , con f us i on oft he i ss ues , m i sl ea di ng oft he j ury, con si der at i onsofundu e d el ay, orne edl es s pr es ent at i on ofcu m ul at i ve evi dence. Fu rt her , t he evi den ceca nnot be adm i t t ed so l el y t o s how t hatt he

26
a c c u s e d a c t e d in c o n f o r m it y w it h h isb a d c h a r a c t e ra n d m u r d e r e d t h e v ic t im . 2728 ... Moses v. State, 1 0 5 S .W .3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 7 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 );

Montgom ery v. State, 1 9 8 S .W .3 d 6 7 , 7 9 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 6 , p e t. re f’d ). 29 ... Moses, 1 0 5 S .W .3 d a t 6 2 7 ; Mont gom ery, 198 S. W . 3d a t79. 12 The a dm i ss i bi l i t y ofev i den cei s w i t hi n t he di sc r et i on of t he t r i alco urtan d
w i l l not be ove rt ur ned abs ent an abu se ofdi sc r et i on. I ft he t r i alco urt ’ s r ul i ng 28
w a s w i th i n th e zo n e o f re a s o n a b l e d i s a g re e m e n t, w e m u s t a ffir m . 29 H e re, ap p e l l a n t ’ s m e m b e rsh i p i n the T a n g o B l a st g a n g w a s re l e v a n t t o t he ci r cum st anc esoft he m ur der . M at a t es t i f i ed t hathew asap pr ehe ns i ve w hen he saw appel la n t b e cause he knew appel l antdi d not l i ke hi m because M at a’ s br ot herha d k i l l ed Sot o, ye ar s bef or e. Rodr i gue zal l aye d M at a’ s f ea r s by exp l ai ni ng t hatap pel l ant and he w er e m em ber s ofTango Bl as tan d t hathean d a p p e l l a n t h a d re c e n tl yh u n g o u t t o g e th e r. R o d ri g u e z ’sa n d a p p e l l a n t’s
m e m b e r s h ip in t h e s a m e g a n g h e lp e d e x p la in R o d r ig u e z ’s b e lie ft h a th e c o u ld ke ep app el l antan d Dur an f r om doi ng a nyt hi ng w hen M at a l eft t he sc ene . The evi dence w as not of f er ed sol el y t o show t hat appel l ant m ur der e d R o d ri guez b e c a u s e h e a c te d i n c o n fo rm i tyw i th h i sb a d c h a ra c te r. H avi ng he l d t he evi den ce to ber el eva ntt o t he ci r cum st anc esoft he
m u r d e r , w e m u s td e t e r m i n e w h e t h e rit sp r o b a t iv e v a lu e w a ss u b s t a n t ia lly30 ... Montgom ery v. State, 810 S . W . 2d 372, 388– 89 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp.

1 9 9 0 )(o p . o n re h ’g ).

31 ... Gi gl i o b i a n c o v. S tate, 2 1 0 S. W . 3d 637, 641– 42 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ). 13 outw ei ghed by t he dang er of unfai rpr ej udi ce. T o m a k e th i sd e te rm i n a ti o n , w e 30
m ustconsi dert he i nher ent p ro b a tiv e f or ce oft he pr of f er ed i t em ofevi dence al ong w i t h t he pr opo nent’ s need f o r th a t evi dence, and bal ance t hese c o n s i d e ra ti o n sa g a i n s t th e fo l l o w i n g fo u r fa c to rsth a t fa v o r e x c l u s i o n : ( 1) a n y ten dency o ft he evi dence t o suggest[ a] deci si on on an i m pr operbasi s, (2 ) a n yte n d e n c yo f th e e v i d e n c e to c o n f u s e o r d i s tra c t th e j u ry f r om t he m ai n i ssues, ( 3) an y t end enc y oft he evi den cet o b e g i v e n undu e w ei ghtby a j ury t hat has not bee n equ i ppe d t o eva l uat e t he pr oba t i ve f or ceof t he evi den ce , an d ( 4) t he l i kel i hoo d t hat pr esent at i on oft he evi dence w i l l consum e an i nor di nat e a m ountoft i m e o r m e re l y r epe atev i den ceal r ea dy adm i t t ed. 31 I n t hi s case, t he pr obati ve f or ce and t he S t at e’ s need t o adm i tevi dence t hatRo d ri g uezan d a ppe l l antw er e m em ber s oft he sa m e g ang out w ei gh t he14

f ac t or s t hatf avo rex cl us i on. Al t hough a def end ant ’ s m em ber sh i p i n a ga ng su ch asTango Bl as t— w hos e m em ber sh i p i s ope n onl y t o pe r so nsw ho ha ve bee n i nca r ce r at ed

— co ul d ha ve a t end enc y t o i nf l uen cea j ury t o c onvi cton t he basi s oft he def endan t ’ s i ncar cer at i on f or a pr i or convi ct i on, any such t enden cy i s m i n i m a l h e re, w h e re th e ev i d e n c e o f gu i l t i s s o co m p e l l i n g . I n ad d i ti o n to hea r i ng e ye- w i t nes s t es t i m ony f r om a per so n w ho s aw ap pel l ants hoot i ng R odr i guez, appel l ant ’ s adm i ssi on t o R am i r ez and M onr eal t hathe shotRo dr i guez w a s be f or e t he j ury. Th e f or c e of t hi s e vi de nc e w a s s t r on g e n o u g h to o v e r c o m e a n yt e n d e n c yt h e ju rym ig h th a v e t o c o n v ic to n t h e b a s iso fh is p r is o n g a n g m e m b e r s h ip . It w a sa ls o u n lik e lyt h a tt h e p r is o n g a n g m e m b e r s h ip
w oul d c onf us e a nd di st r ac tt he j ury, orbegi ven undu e w e i g h t g i v e n t he c o m p e l l i n g ev i d e n c e o f gu i l t. Furt her m or e, t he r ec or d s ho w s t hatt he pr i so n ga ng e vi den cedi d not consum e i nor di nat e t i m e and w as no t re p e t i t i ous. A ppel l ant ’ s t r i al f i r st m e n ti o n e d tha t T a n g o B l a st w a s a p ri so n g a n g i n h e r o p e n i n g sta tem e n t. Ther ea f t er , ove rt he nex tt hr eeda ysoft r i a l a n d 4 4 9 p age s ofr ec or d, t he St at e’ s evi den ceofap pel l ant ’ s m em ber sh i p i n t he gan g a ppe ar s on o n l y f i ve pag es , i ncl udi ng on e d evo t ed t o m i t i gat i ng evi den ce t hat a per so n cou l d j oi n t he gang w hi l e bei ng hel d i n t he coun t y j ai l f ora m i sdem eanorof f ense . N ei t her15

appel l ant ’ s t r i al counsel nort he S t at e m ent i oned t he m em ber shi p i n T ango Bl ast i n clos i n g arg u m e n t. Beca us e t he f ac t or s f avo r i ng e xcl us i on do not su bs t ant i al l y out w ei gh t he pr oba t i ve f or ceoft he evi den cean d t he St at e’ s n e e d f ori t , w e h ol d t hatt he tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n i n a d m i ttin g e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t's
m em ber shi p i n T ango Bl astunderr ul e 40 3. W e over r ul e poi ntt hr ee. H avi ng ov er r ul ed al l of app el l ant ’ s poi nt s, w e a f f i r m t he j udgm entoft he tr i a l co u rt . P E R CU R I AM
PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; H O LM A N an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Se pt e m be r4, 2008