CAUSE NO. 13-14-00173-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG, TEXAS

OMAR MONTEMAYOR, Appellant

v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 197th Judicial District Court

of Cameron County, Texas Trial Court Cause Number 2013-DCR-00137-C

STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF

Luis V. Saenz Cameron County District Attorney René B. González Assistant District Attorney 964 East Harrison Street, 4th Floor Brownsville, Texas 78520 Phone: (956) 544-0849 Fax:(956) 544-0869 Attorneys for the State of Texas ACCEPTED 13-14-00173-cr THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 3/23/2015 1:53:17 PM DORIAN RAMIREZ

CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S

Tab le of C on te nt s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
In de x o f Aut ho rit ie s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii i Sal ut at io n.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Su m m ary of th e Arg um en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Firs t Is su e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Seco nd Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Thi rd Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Fou rth Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Fift h Is su e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Six th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Sev en th , Eig ht h a nd Tent h Is su e.
. . . . . . 21
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Nin th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Elev en th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Twelft h Is su e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Thi rte en th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Fou rte en th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Fift een th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

- i

-St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Six te en th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

St at e’s Res po ns e to App el la nt ’s Sev en te en th Iss ue
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Prayer.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Cert ifi cat e o f Co m

pl ia nc e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Cert ifi cat e o f Serv ic e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

- i i

-INDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es Alva ra do v. St at e , 91 2 S .W .2d 19 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 95 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 23 , 38 And er so n v . St at e , 63 3 S .W .2d 85 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . [Pan el Op.] 19 82 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 And er so n v . St at e , 71 7 S .W .2d 62 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Ang le to n v . St at e , 97 1 S .W .2d 65 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Arev al o v . St at e , 94 3 S .W .2d 88 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 97 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Ash v. St at e , 42 0 S .W .2d 70 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 67 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 Avil a v . St at e , 18 S.W .3d 73 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- San Ant on io 20 00 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Ban ks v. St at e , 29 S.W .3d 64 2 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 20 00 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . 39 Beck , 92 2 S .W .2d 18 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 96 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Beta nc ou rt

v. St at e , 65 7 S .W .2d 45 1 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 83 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . 31 Big na ll v. St at e , 88 7 S .W .2d 21 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 94 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

- i i i

-Brew er

v. St at e , 57 2 S .W .2d 71 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . [Pan el Op.] 19 78 ).

. . . . . . . . . . 30 , 32 , 34
Bri gg s v. S ta te , 78 9 S .W .2d 91 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 90 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bro ok s v. S ta te , 99 0 S .W .2d 27 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Ch amb er la in v. St at e , 99 8 S .W .2d 23 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 , 34 Cl ar k v. S ta te , 36 5 S .W .3d 33 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 12 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Co ok v. St at e , 61 1 S .W .2d 83 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 81 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 , 23 , 38
De La Gar

za v. St at e , 65 0 S .W .2d 87 0 (Te x. Ap p.-- San Ant on io 19 83 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . 37 Delg ad o v . St at e , 23 5 S .W .3d 24 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Dra ke v. S ta te , 65 Tex. Cr im . 28 2, 1 43 S.W . 11 57 (19 12 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Ear le y v. S ta te , 85 5 S .W .2d 26 0 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 93 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Edw ar ds v. St at e , 55 1 S .W .2d 73 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 77 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Feld man v. St at e , 71 S.W .3d 73 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

- i v -Fiel di ng

v. St at e , 71 9 S .W .2d 36 1 (Tex . App .--Dal la s 1 98 6, p et . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Flo re s v. S ta te , 87 1 S .W .2d 71 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
For es t v. S ta te , 98 9 S .W .2d 36 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fra nk li n v . St at e , 12 S.W .3d 47 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 00 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Gag no n v . Sca rp el li , 41 1 U.S. 7 78 (19 73 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Gar ci a v . St at e , 20 1 S .W .3d 69 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 06 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Gar ne r v. S ta te , 84 8 S .W .2d 79 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 93 , no writ ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 19
Gar ne r v. S ta te , 93 9 S .W .2d 80 2 (Te x. Ap p.-- Ft . W or th 19 97 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Gha hr ema ni v. St at e , No. 1 4– 06 –0 07 29 –C R, 20 07 W L 31 46 72 3 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] Oct. 3 0, 2 00 7, p et . ref’d) (m em . op ., no t d es ig na te d fo r pu bl ic at io n)

. . . . . 27
Gos s v. S ta te , 82 6 S .W .2d 16 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 92 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 , 29 Hal l v. S ta te , 22 5 S .W .3d 52 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Heg ar v. St at e , 11 S.W .3d 29 0 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 19 99 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . 8

- v -Hop

pe rw oo d v . St at e , 39 Tex.C rim. 15 , 44 S.W . 84 1 (1 89 8)

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Ja cks on v. St at e , 11 5 S .W .3d 32 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Dall as 20 03 ), .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Ja cks on v. St at e , 96 8 S .W .2d 49 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 1 99 8, p et . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Jen ki ns v. St at e , 91 2 S .W .2d 79 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 , 28
Jo hn so n v . St at e , 96 7 S .W .2d 41 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 98 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Jo ne s v. S ta te , 98 2 S .W .2d 38 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 98 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Kemp v. St at e , 84 6 S .W .2d 28 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 92 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
La gr on e v. S ta te , 94 2 S .W .2d 60 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 97 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
La nk st on v. St at e , 82 7 S .W .2d 90 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 92 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
McDo na ld

v. St at e , 17 9 S .W .3d 57 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Med el li n v . St at e , 61 7 S .W .2d 22 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . [Pan el Op.] 19 81 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 , 20
Mes ti za v. St at e , 92 3 S .W .2d 72 0 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 96 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . 32

- v i

-Miz el l v. S ta te ,

11 9 S .W .3d 80 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Mon tg ome ry v. St at e , 81 0 S .W .2d 37 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 90 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Mon to ya v. St at e , 43 S.W .3d 56 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 20 01 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Moo ne v. St at e , 72 8 S .W .2d 92 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 19 87 , no writ ).

. . . . . . 19
Mor al es v. St at e , 32 S.W .3d 86 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 00 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Mor en o v . St at e , 90 0 S .W .2d 35 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 1 99 5, n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Mor ri so n v . St at e , 84 5 S .W .2d 88 2 n . 10 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 92 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Mun oz v. St at e , 48 5 S .W .2d 78 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 72 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Mut z v. S ta te , 86 2 S .W .2d 24 (Tex . App .--Be au m on t 1 99 3, p et . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Pen a , 71 S.W .3d 33 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Peto v. St at e , 51 S.W .3d 32 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 20 01 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . . 25
Pon ce v. S ta te , 68 S.W .3d 71 8 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Di st .] 20 01 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . 9

- v i i

-Pon de

xt er v. St at e , 94 2 S .W .2d 57 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 96 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 , 19
Rac ha l v. S ta te , 91 7 S .W .2d 79 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 96 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Rese nd ez v. St at e , 16 0 S .W .3d 18 1 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 20 05 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . 32 Rich ar ds on v. St at e , 86 5 S .W .2d 94 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Rob er ts v. St at e , 22 0 S .W .3d 52 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Rou ss ea u v . St at e , 85 5 S .W .2d 66 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Sa nd ov al v. St at e , 40 9 S .W .3d 25 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- Aus ti n 2 01 3, n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sc al es v. St at e , 38 0 S .W .3d 78 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 12 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 , 7
Se id el , 39 S.W .3d 22 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Sh aw v. St at e , 32 9 S .W .3d 64 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 20 10 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . 28 Sh ug ar s v. S ta te , 81 4 S .W .2d 89 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Aus ti n 1 99 1, n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 22
Si lv a v . St at e , 63 5 S .W .2d 77 5 (Tex . App .--Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 82 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . 30

- v i i i

-Si lv a v . St at e ,

98 9 S .W .2d 64 (Tex . App .--San Ant on io 19 98 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Smi th v. St at e , 45 0 S .W .2d 92 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 70 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Sn eed v. St at e , 20 9 S .W .3d 78 2 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 2 00 6, p et . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 9
St at e ex r el . Cur ry v. Gra y , 59 9 S .W .2d 63 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 80 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
St at e ex r el . Van ce v. Ha tt en , 60 0 S .W .2d 82 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 80 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
St at e v. Har dy , 96 3 S .W .2d 51 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 97 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
St on e v. S ta te , 79 4 S .W .2d 86 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- El Pas o 1 99 0, n o wri t).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Ta yl or v. St at e , 26 8 S .W .3d 57 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 08 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Th oma s v. S ta te , 72 3 S .W .2d 69 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Th oma s v. S ta te , 88 6 S .W .2d 38 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 19 94 , pet . ref’d).

. . . . . . 37
Tu rn er v. St at e , 80 5 S .W .2d 42 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 91 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Vil la rr ea l v. S ta te , 59 0 S .W .2d 93 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 79 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

- i x -W

ag ne r v. S ta te , 68 7 S .W .2d 30 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
W hi te he ad v. St at e , 43 7 S .W .3d 54 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 2 01 4, p et . ref’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
W il so n v . St at e , 71 S.W .3d 34 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Sta tute s Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 33 .01 1( b)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6
Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 38 .05

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 38 .36

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Tex . Pen al Co de §1 2.3 1..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Rule s Tex . R. App . P. 33 .1.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Tex . R. App . P. 33 .1(a ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Tex . R. App . P. 33 .1(a )(1 )(A).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 , 26
Tex . R. App . P. 38 .1(i ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pa ss im
Tex . R. App . P. 44 .2(b ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 1 5, 2 9
Tex . R. Evi d. 1 03 (a).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Tex . R. Evi d. 1 03 (a)( 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Tex . R. Evi d. 5 09 (b ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

- x -Tex . R. Evi d. 6 02

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 21

Tex . R. Evi d. 7 05 (b ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 , 28
Tex . R. Evi d. 7 05 (c).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Tex . R. Evi d. 9 01

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 , 20

- x i

-CAUSE NO. 13 -1 4- 00 17 3- CR

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS
THI RTEENT H J UDICI AL DIS TRI CT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRIS TI - EDINB URG, TEXAS

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ OMAR MONTE MAYOR, Appel la nt

v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ STATE ’S APPELLAT E BRI EF

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TO TH E HO NORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW , App el le e, th e STATE OF TEXAS , b y an d th ro ug h th e Cam ero n Co un ty Dis tri ct Att or ne y , th e Hon or a b l e Lu i s V. Saen z, an d, pu rs ua nt to
Ru le 38 .2 of th e Tex as Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e, fil es th is , it s App el la te Bri ef in th e ab ov e-s tyled an d -n um be red cau se of act io n, an d in su pp or t th ereo f, wou ld sh ow th is Hon or ab le Co ur t as fol lo ws: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT App el la nt rai se s se ve nt een is su es on ap pe al

. In hi s fir st is su e on ap pe al , App el la nt arg ue s th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in im pr op erl y rel eas in g a juro r fro m se rv ic e

State’s B rief Pag e 1an d rep la ci ng hi m wit h an al te rn at e ju ro r. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th e tri al

co ur t d id no t err in di sm is si ng th e juro r fro m ser vi ce as he ha d b eco m e d is qu al ifi ed

or un ab le to se rv e; or , i n th e al te rn at iv e, ev en if th e tri al co ur t di d err in di sm is si ng

sa id juro r, no ha rm res ul te d to App el la nt

. In hi s seco nd is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in fai li ng to ex cl ud e or li m it ev id en ce of ex tra ne ou s of fen se s

or ba d act s. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el l a n t h as fai le d to sp eci fy whe re in th e reco rd th e erro r oc cu rred , an d fu rth er, a tri al co u r t i s n o t req ui red to
p r o v i d e , su a sp on te , a li m it in g in st ru ct io n. In hi s th ird is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai n s th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in fai li ng to gr an t a m is tri al u p o n t he in tro du ct io n of

ex tra ne ou s ch arac te r ev id en ce. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th e tri al co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to gr an t a m is tri al

. In hi s fo ur th is su e, App el la nt

co m pl ai ns th a t t he 91 1 au di o reco rd in g was im pr op erl y ad m it te d in to ev id en ce, th ereb y res ul ti ng in rev ers ib le erro r. The St at e res po nd s by a s s e r t i n g t ha t th e 91 1

au di o reco rd in g was pr op erl y ad m it te d in to ev id en ce. In h i s fif th is su e, App el la nt

co m pl ai ns th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be se t as id e be cau se th e tri al co ur t al lo wed th e in tro du ct io n of cert ai n ph ot og rap hs wit ho ut al lo w i n g A pp el la nt to vo ir di re th e
sp on so r i n g wit ne ss as to th e au th en ti ci ty of th e ph ot os
. The St at e res po nd s by

as se rti ng th at th e tri al co ur t di d no t err in refu si ng App el la nt ’s req ue st to vo ir di re th e

s p o n s or in g wit ne ss to th e au th en ti ci ty of th e ph ot og rap hs

. In hi s si xt h is su e,

State’s B rief Pag e 2App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at St at e’s Exh ib it 9 was im pr op erl y ad m it te d in to ev id en ce, be ca us e th e pr op er ch ai n of cu st od y was no t es ta bl is he d. The St at e res po nd s by

as se rti ng th at sa id ex hi bi t was pr op erl y ad m it te d in to ev id en ce. In hi s se ve nt h, ei gh th

an d te nt h is su es , App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be se t as id e be cau se th e tr i a l c o u r t al lo wed th e in tro du ct io n of bl oo d swa bs an d bu ccal swa bs wit ho ut al lo win g Ap pe ll an t to vo ir di re the sp on so rin g witn es s as to th e au th en ti ci ty of sa id

swa bs

. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th e tri al di d no t err in de nyin g App el la nt th e op po rtu ni ty to vo ir di re sa id wit ne ss
. In hi s ni nt h is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou l d be se t as id e be cau se th e tri al co ur t im pr op erl y al lo wed th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce whi ch was no t co m pl et e. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el la nt ’s co m

pl ai nt is no t at al l cl ear fro m th e arg um en t an d th e r e c or d. In hi s el ev en th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in al lo win g a sp eech
pa th ol og is t to t e s t i f

y a s to a pr iv il eg ed co m m un ic at io n. The St at e res po nd s by

as se rti ng th at th ere is no pr iv il eg e pr ot ect in g th e co m m un ic at io ns be twee n App el la nt

an d th e wit ne ss he rei n. In hi s twel fth is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t

erre d in no t al lo win g App el la nt to co nd uc t a vo ir di re ex am i n a t i o n of two ex pe rt wit ne ss es
. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el la nt ha s fai le d to pr es erv e th is is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. In hi s th irt een th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al jud ge co m

m en te d on th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce an d co nv ey ed he r op in io n of th e cas e

State’s B rief Pag e 3to th e jury. The Sta te res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t t he tri al co ur t d id no t co m m en t on th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce no r di d th e tri al jud ge co nv ey he r op in io n of t h e c a se to th e jury. In hi s fou rte en th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tr ia l cou rt’s ass is ti ng
t h e S ta te , by su gg es ti ng pr ed ic at es fo r th e su bm is si on of ev id en ce, ha d su ffi ci en t

cu m ul at iv e effe ct to de pr iv e App el la n t of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. The St at e

res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el la nt ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e ho w no n- erro rs can in th ei r cu m ul at iv e effe ct cau se erro r. In hi s fif te en th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erre d by fai li ng to pr ov id e th e jury wit h a le ss er in cl ud ed ch arg e on th e of fen se of ag gr av at ed as sa ul t. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el la nt was no t

en ti tl ed to th e le ss er in cl ud ed ch arg e. In hi s si xt een th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e St at e co m

m it te d r e v e r s ib le erro r by m ak in g im pr op er co m

m en ts du rin g cl os in g

a rg um en t. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at it is no t at al l cl ear wha t A p p e l l a n t is ta lk i n g ab ou t. In hi s se ve nt een th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t

erre d in re-s en te nc in g hi m aft er he had al read y be en se nt en ced

. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th e tri al co ur t was wit hi n it s au th or it y to pr on ou nc e a le ga l se nt en ce, aft er th e co ur t ha d pr ev io us ly pr on ou nc ed a se nt en ce th at was no t au th or iz ed by la w.

State’s B rief Pag e 4ARGUMENT & AUTHO RIT IE S

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Fir st Is su e In hi s fir st is su e on ap pe al , Ap p e ll an t arg ue s th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in
im pr op erl y rel eas in g a juro r fro m se rv ic e an d rep la ci ng hi m wit h an al te rn at e juro r. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th e tri al co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng th e juro r fro m

se rv ic e as he ha d be co m e di sq ua li fie d or un ab le to se rv e; or , in th e al te rn at iv e, ev en if t he tri al co ur t d id err i n d is m is si ng sai d ju ro r, no ha rm res ul te d t o Ap pe ll an t. The tri al co ur t ha s di sc ret io n to de te rm in e whe th er a juro r ha s be co m e di sa bl ed

an d to se at an al te rn at e juro r. Sc al es v. St at e , 38 0 S.W .3d 78 0, 78 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 12 ). In de ci di ng to rem ov e a juro r, th e tri al co ur t m us t m ak e a fin di ng , su ffi ci en tl y

su pp or te d by th e reco rd , th at th e juro r was di sq ua li fie d or un ab le to pe rfo rm t he du ti es of a juro r. Id .; se e Tex

. Co de Cri m
. Pro c. art

. 33 .01 1( b)

. Thi s Co ur t m ay no t

su bs ti tu te it s own jud gm en t fo r th at of th e tri al co ur t. In st ead , th is Co ur t is to as se ss

w h e t he r, aft er vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e tri al co ur t ’s

ru li ng , th e ru li ng was arb it rary or un reas on ab le

. Sc al es , 3 8 0 S

. W. 3 d at 78 4. The

ru li ng mu s t be up he ld if it is wit hi n th e “ zo ne of reas on ab le di sa gr eem en t.” Id

. Abs en t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, n o re ve rs ib le erro r wil l b e fo un d. Id

. The reco rd de m on st rat es , an d th eref or e, th is Cour t sh ou ld pr es um e th at th e tri al

co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t t he juro r in qu es ti on was u na bl e o r di sq ua li fie d t o p erfo rm hi s

State’s B rief Pag e 5du ti es un de r A r t i c l e 3 3 .01 1( b) of th e Tex as Co de of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e. Se e Tex

.

Co de Cri m
. Pro c. art

. 33 .01 1( b)

. Arti cl e 33

. 0 1 1 ( b ) o f th e Tex as Co de of Cri m in al
Pro ced ur e st at es th at , be fo re a jury ren de rs a ve rd ic t reg ard in g a de fen da nt ’s gu il t or in no cen ce, al te rn at e juro rs “ sh al l rep la ce juro rs who

... b eco m e or are fo un d to be

un ab le o r d i s q u al ifi ed to pe rfo rm th ei r du ti es
... .” Tex

. Co de Cri m
. Pro c. art

. 33 .01 1( b)

. Alt ho ug h th e st at ut e do es no t de fin e “ un ab le to pe rfo rm ,” ap pe ll at e co ur ts ha ve co nc lu de d th at “ un ab le ” as us ed in Arti cl e 33 .01 1 is in di st in gu is ha bl e f ro m

“ di sa bl ed ” as us ed in Arti cl e 3 6

. 2 9

. S ee Sc al es , 38 0 S.W .3d at 78 3; Sa nd ov al v. St at e , 40 9 S.W .3d 2 5 9 , 27 9 (Tex

. App .--Au st in 20 13 , no pe t.); Sn eed v. St at e , 20 9
S.W .3d 78 2, 78 6 (Tex

. App .--Tex ark an a 20 06 , pe t. ref ’d ) ( “o ne m us t st rai n to

reco gn iz e real di ffer en ces in th e mea n i n g o f th e two wor ds in th is co nt ex t” ). The
te rm “ di sa bi li ty,” as ut il iz ed in Arti cl e 36 .29 , ha s be en in te rp ret ed to req ui re th at th e juro r is su ffer in g fro m a “ ‘physic al il ln es s, m en ta l co nd it io n, or em ot io na l st at e th at

wou ld hi nd er or in hi bi t th e juro r fro m pe rfo rm in g hi s or he r du ti es as a juro r,’ or th at th e juro r [is ] su ffer i n g f

ro m a co nd it io n th at in hi bi t[s ] hi m fro m ‘full y an d fai rly
pe rfo rm i n g t h e f

un ct io ns of a juro r.’” Sc al es , 38 0 S.W .3d at 78 3. To su pp or t it s de ci si on th at a juro r is di sa bl ed , th e tri al co ur t m us t m ak e a fin d i n g, su ffi ci en tl y

su pp or te d by th e reco rd , th at th e juro r was di sq ua li fie d or un ab le to pe rfo rm th e du ti es of a juro r. Id

. The tri al co ur t m ay no t di sm is s a juro r fo r reas on s rel at ed to th at

State’s B rief Pag e 6juro r’s ev al ua ti on of th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce. Id

. at 78 3; se e al so W hi te he ad
v. St at e , 43 7 S .W .3d 54 7, 5 54 -5 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 2 01 4, p et . ref’d). The tri al co ur t ha s a gr eat de al of di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g if on e is bi as ed or
pr ejud ic ed fo r or ag ai ns t a de fen da nt

. Nor m al ly, th is is su e is pr es en te d whe n th e tri al

co ur t fai ls to gr an t a ch al l e n g e f o r cau se aft er a ve ni rep ers on ha s pr es en te d so m e in fo rm at io n th at co ul d be co ns id ered as m or e fav or ab le to on e si de th an th e ot he r, bu t ha s no t cl earl y st at ed th at he or sh e is bi as ed

. In th e pr es en t cas e, th e pa rti es di d no t ha ve th e op po rtu ni ty to qu es ti on th e di sm is se d juro r, as th is is su e was br ou gh t to th e tri al co ur t’s at te nt io n a fte r th e jury sel ect io n p ro ces s was co m pl et ed . Never th el es s,

ev en if bi as or pr ejud ic e was no t es ta bl is he d as a m at te r of la w he rei n, th e tri al co ur t
st il l ret ai ne d di sc ret io n to de te rm in e whe th er bi as or pr ejud ic e act ua ll y ex is ts to su ch

a de gr ee t h a t t h e juro r is di sq ua li fie d. And er so n v. St at e , 63 3 S.W .2d 85 1, 85 3- 54 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. [Pan el Op.] 19 82 ). In And er so n , a ve ni rep ers on an swe red th at sh e kn ew th e pr os ecu ti ng wit ne ss es an d in it ia ll y st at ed th at sh e co ul d se rv e fai rly. Late r, sh e ad m it te d th at it “ wou ld be di ffi cu lt ” an d “ kn owi ng th em I wou ld be m or e bi as ed .” Id

. at 85 4. The de fen da nt arg ue d th es e st at em en ts sh owe d th at th is ve ni rep ers on was bi as ed an d t he co ur t er red in fai li ng to ex cu se he r. Id . at 8 53

. Here, th e juro r to ld th e tri al co ur t th at he di sc ov ered th at App el la nt ’s si st er is

a c o - w o r k er an d a go od fri en d. The juro r fu rth er st at ed th at App el la nt ’s si st er

State’s B rief Pag e 7co ach es hi s da u g ht er an d st ep -d au gh te r in gym na st ic s. (R.R. Vol

. 8, pp
. 14 -1 5)

. Bas ed on th e fri en ds hi p, a n d th e le ve l of in te rco nn ect ed ne ss of th e juro r wit h App el la nt ’s si st er, th ere is at le as t so m e ev id en ce fo r th e tri al co ur t to ha ve co nc lu de d th e juro r was bi as ed as a m at te r of law.
Fu rth er, th ere is no co ns ti tu ti on al imp ed im en t in a pr oc ed ur e al lo win g th e
rep la cem en t of on e fu ll y qu al ifi ed juro r wit h an ot he r, ev en wit ho ut th e es ta bl is hm en t th at th e fir st i s p hysic al ly di sa bl ed or ev en un ab le to se rv e. Thi s is an is su e th at
reg ul arl y oc cu rs in co ur tro om s acro ss th e St at e of Tex as
. W he n juro rs are su m m on ed
to se rv e, th ey co m e in to an en vi ro nm en t th at is fo rei gn an d in ti m id at in g to m an y . It is no t un co m

m on , pa rti cu la rly in sm al le r co un ti es , fo r a juro r to reco gn iz e so m eo ne in vo lv ed in th e cas e aft er he or sh e se es th at pe rs on (aft er be in g se at ed on th e jury).
Se e Fra nk

li n v. St at e , 12 S.W .3d 47 3 (Tex. Cri m
. App

. 20 00 ). Add it io na ll y , fam il y

em erg en ci es oc cu r, as well as a m y ria d of ev en ts , th at m ay in f a c t i n te rru pt jury

se rv ic e. W it h th at sa id , ev en were th is Co ur t to fin d th at th e t r i a l co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ex cu si ng th e juro r, sa id erro r is no t rev ers ab le

. To em bo dy a

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, th e tri al co ur t’s error wou ld ha ve to pr od uc e a bi as ed jury. Neit he r th e Uni te d St at es no r th e Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on pr es cri be s th e m an ne r in whi ch juri es are se le ct ed

. Se e Heg ar v. St at e , 11 S.W .3d 29 0, 29 5 (Tex

. App .--Ho us to n [1 st

State’s B rief Pag e 8Dis t.] 1 99 9, no pe t.). Thi s erro r i n v o l v es th e ap pl ic at io n of a st at ut or y sc he m e an d

is a no nc on st it ut io na l erro r. Pon ce v. St at e , 68 S.W .3d 71 8, 72 2 (Tex

. App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Dis t.] 20 01 , pe t. ref’d)

. Ru le 44 .2(b ) of th e Tex as Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e
pr ov id es th at an y no nc on st it ut io na l erro r, de fect , irr eg ul ari ty, or va ria nc e th at do es

no t affe ct su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s m us t be di sr eg ard ed

. Tex

. R. App

. P. 44 .2(b ). The reco rd he re d oe s n ot sh ow an y

tai nt fro m

th e su bs ti tu te d ju ro r. The juro r was su bjec te d t o th e sa m e se le ct io n pr oc es s, was pr op erl y swo rn , an d he ard al l of th e ev id en ce. In an

an al og ou s si tu at io n, if th e tri al co ur t erro ne ou sl y gr an ts a ch al le ng e fo r cau se fo r th e St at e, rev ers al o n l y o c cu rs if th e de fen da nt sh ows th at he or sh e was de pr iv ed of a la wfu ll y co ns ti tu te d jury. Feld man v. St at e , 71 S.W .3d 73 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 02 );
Jo ne s v. St at e , 98 2 S.W .2d 38 6, 39 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 98 ). App el la nt h a s n ot sh own th at he was de pr iv ed of a la wfu ll y co ns ti tu te d jury or th at an y of hi s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s ha ve be en affe c t e d

. Th eref or e, in acco rd an ce wit h Ru le 44 .2(b ),

sa id erro r, if an y , sh ou ld be di sr eg ard ed

. Tex

. R. App

. P. 44 .2(b ); se e al so Sn eed , 20 9
S.W .3d at 7 88

. Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s firs t i ss ue sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Seco nd

Is su e In hi s se co nd is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in fai li ng to

State’s B rief Pag e 9ex cl ud e or li m it ev id en ce of ex tra ne ou s of fen se s or ba d act s. The St at e res po nd s by

as se rti ng th at App el la nt ha s fai le d to sp eci fy whe re in th e reco rd th e erro r oc cu rred ,

an d fu rth er, a tri al co ur t is no t req ui red to pr ov id e, su a sp on te , a li m it in g in st ru ct io n. App el la nt co m

pl ai ns th at t h e t r i al co ur t im pr op erl y fai le d to ex cl ud e or li m it
cert ai n ev id en ce of ex tra ne ou s of fen se s or ba d act s; ho wev er, App el la nt ha s no t in di cat ed whe re in th e reco rd th is al le ge d erro r is fo un d. The St at e as se rts th at A pp el la nt ha s no t co m

pl ie d wit h Ru le 38 .1(i ) of th e Tex as Ru le s of A p p e l l a t e P r o c ed ur e by fai li ng to st at e co nc is el y th e fact s rel at in g to is su e two , su pp or te d b y

reco rd refe ren ces , an d by fai li ng to st at e cl earl y an d co n c i s e ly th e arg um en t wit h ci ta ti on s t o t he reco rd

. Se e Tex. R. Ap p. P. 3 8.1 (i) (“ The bri ef m us t co nt ai n a cl ear

an d co nc is e arg um en t f o r th e co nt en ti on s m ad e, wit h ap pr op ria te ci ta ti on s to

au th or it ie s an d to th e reco rd .”); se e al so Rob er ts v. St at e , 22 0 S.W .3d 52 1, 52 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 07 ) (“ A pa rty ha s an ob li ga ti on to m ak e ap pr op ria t e c i t a ti on s to th e

reco rd in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t. If th e no te s [r el at in g t o a pa rti cu la r wit ne ss ] are in th e reco rd , ap pe ll an t ha s fai le d to in cl ud e th e pr op er reco rd refe ren ces
. If, as se em s

m or e li ke ly, th e no te s ar e no t in th e reco rd , th en ap pe ll an t pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed

erro r by fai li ng to in cl ud e a m at te r in th e reco rd ne ces sa ry to ev al ua te hi s cl ai m .”); Alva ra do v. St at e , 91 2 S.W .2d 19 9, 21 0 (Tex

. C r i m. A p p. 19 95 ) (“ As an ap pe ll at e

co ur t, it is no t ou r ta sk to po re thr ou gh hu nd red s of pag es of reco rd in an at te m pt to

State’s B rief Pag e 10v e r i f

y a n ap pe ll an t’s cl ai m s.”) ; Co ok v. St at e , 6 11 S.W .2d 83 , 8 7 (Tex . C rim. Ap p
. 19 81 ) (“ Thi s co ur t wit h i t s t r e mend ou s cas el oa d sh ou ld no t be ex pe ct ed to le af th ro ug h a vo lu m in ou s reco rd ho pi ng to fin d t he m at te r rai se d b y ap pe ll an t and th en
sp ecu la te whet he r it is th at pa rt o f th e rec or d t o wh ic h a pp el la nt ha d re fere nc e.”). Alt ern at iv el y , sh ou ld th is Co ur t de te rm in e th at App el la nt ha s ad eq ua te ly br ie fed hi s co m

pl ai nt co nc ern in g ev id en c e o f e xt ran eo us ba d act s, th en th e St at e

wou ld res po nd by as se rti ng th at th e la w do es no t req ui re th e tri al co ur t to pr ov id e, su a
sp on te , a li m it in g in st ru ct io n at th e gu il t-i nn oc en ce st ag e of tri al

. The C o u r t of Cri m in al App eal s ha s pr ev io us ly he ld th at , if a de fen da nt do es no t req ue st a li m it in g in st ru ct io n un de r Ru le 10 5 at th e ti m e th at ev id en ce is ad m it te d, th en th e tri al jud ge ha s n o ob li ga ti on to li m it th e u se of t ha t ev id en ce l at er i n t he jury ch arg e. Delg ad o

v. St at e , 23 5 S.W .3d 24 4, 25 1 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 07 ). Bu t ev en whe n a p a r t y
pr op erl y req ue st s a li m it in g in st ru ct io n at th e ti m e th e ev id en ce is fir st o f f e red , th e tri al jud ge ne ed no t gi ve an in st ru ct io n on th e bu rd en of p r o o f a t th at ti m e. Id

. In st ead , a tri al co ur t m

us t p r o v i d e a li m it in g in st ru ct io n co nc ern in g th e us e of

ex tra ne ou s of

fen se ev id en ce in th e gu il t-s ta ge jury ch arg e o n l y i f t he de fen da nt
req ue st ed a li m it in g i ns tru ct io n a t t he ti m e th e ev id en ce was fir st ad m it te d. Id

. In li gh t of th e fo reg oi ng au th or it y , th is C o u r t s h ou ld ov erru le App el la nt ’s

se co nd is su e whi ch co m

pl ai ns of th e t r i a l co ur t’s fai lu re to su a sp on te li m it th e us e

State’s B rief Pag e 11of

ex tra ne ou s o ffen se ev id en ce.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Thir d I

ss ue In hi s th ird is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in fai li ng to
gr an t a m is tri al up on th e in tro du ct io n of ex tra ne ou s ch arac te r ev id en ce. The S t a t e

res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th e tri al co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to
gr an t a m is tri al

. Arti cl e 3 8.3 6( a) s ta te s:

“ In al l pr os ecu ti on s fo r m ur de r, th e st at e or th e de fen da n t s h a l l be pe rm it te d to of

fer te st im on y a s t o a ll rel ev an t fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e ki ll in g a nd th e p rev io us rel at io ns hi p e xi st in g be twee n th e accu se d an d th e de ceas ed , to ge th er wit h al l rel e v an t fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces go in g to sh ow th e co nd it io n of th e m in d of th e accu se d at th e ti m e o f th e o ffen se .”
Tex

. Co de Cri m
. Pro c. art

. 38 .36

. The na tu re of th e rel at io ns hi p - su ch as whe th er th e vi ct im an d th e accu se d were fri en ds , were co -wo rk er s , w e r e m arri ed , es tra ng ed ,

se pa rat ed , or di vo rci ng - is cl earl y ad m is si bl e un de r th is Arti cl e. Fu rth e r , in so m e si tu at io ns , pr io r act s of vi ol en ce be twee n th e vi ct im an d th e accu se d m ay be of fere d
to il lu st rat e th e na tu re of th e rel at io ns hi p. Gar ci a v. St at e , 20 1 S.W .3d 69 5, 70 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 06 ). The ev id en ce whi ch is th e su bjec t of App el la nt ’s se co nd is su e was ad m is si bl e un de r art ic le 38 .36 , as it il lu st rat ed th e na tu re of th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n

State’s B rief Pag e 12App el la nt an d th e vi ct im of th e m ur de r. Acco rd in g l y, th e tri al co ur t di d no t err in ad m it ti ng th is ev id en ce. In th e pr es en t cas e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e St at e qu e s t i o n ed Sara h
W i ll ia m s co nc ern in g th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n App el la nt an d vi ct im Sara h
Mo nt em ay or
. Sp eci fic al ly, W il li am s was as ke d if App el la nt was ab us iv e to Sara h
Mo nt em ay or
. It is well es ta bl is he d th at te st im on y refe rri ng to or im pl y in g ex tra ne ou s of fen se s can be ren de red ha rm le ss by an in st ru ct io n to di sr eg ard un le ss it is so cl earl y

c a l c u l at ed to in fla m e th e m in ds of th e jury an d is of su ch a na tu re as to su gg es t t h e im po ss ib il it y of wit hd rawi ng th e ha rm fu l im pr es si on fro m th e jury’ s m in d. Kemp v. St at e , 84 6 S.W .2d 28 9, 30 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 92 ). Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld co nc lu de th at th e wit ne ss ’s un em

be ll is he d st at em en ts co nc ern in g th e na tu re of th e rel at io ns hi p b et ween th e vi ct im an d App el la nt was no t so in fla m m at or y as to un de r mi n e t h e effi cacy of an in st ru ct io n to di s r e g ard , ha d on e be en req ue st ed

. Bec au se th e erro r

co ul d ha ve be en cu red by an in st ru ct io n to di sr eg ard ha d on e be en req ue st ed , th e tri al

co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Ap pe ll an t’s m ot io n fo r m is tri al

. The refo re, Ap pe ll an t’s t hi rd is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Fo ur th Is su e In hi s fo ur th is su e, App el la nt co mp l a i n s t ha t th e 91 1 au di o reco rd in g was

State’s B rief Pag e 13im

pr op erl y ad m it te d in to ev id en ce, th ereb y res ul ti n g i n rev ers ib le erro r. The St at e

res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th e 91 1 au di o rec or di ng was pr op erl y ad m it te d in to

ev id en ce. App el la nt arg ue s th at th is is su e is go ve rn ed by Edw ar ds v. St at e , 55 1 S.W .2d
73 1, 73 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 77 ). Th e C o u r t o f Cri m in al App eal s, in Ang le to n v. St at e , 97 1 S.W .2d 65 , 68 -6 9 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 98 ), ov erru le d th e ho ld in g se t fo rth
in Edw ar ds , an d no te d th at th e a d mi s s i o n of au di o reco rd in gs is no w go ve rn ed by
Ru le 90 1 o f th e Tex as Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. Ru le 90 1( a) is en ti tl ed , “ Gen eral pr ov is io n” , a nd st at es : “ The req ui rem en t of

au th en ti cat io n or ide nt ifi cat io n as a c on di ti on pr eced en t to ad m is si bi li ty is sa ti sf ie d by evi de nc e su

ff ic ie nt to su

pp or t a fi nd in g th at th e mat te r in qu es ti on is wh at it s
pr op o n en t cl ai ms .” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. Fu rth erm or e, Ru le 90 1( b) , en ti tl ed

“ Ill us tra ti on s.”, pr ov id es : “ By wa y of il lu st ra ti on on ly , an d no t by wa y of li mit at io n , th e fo ll owi ng are ex am

pl es of au th en ti cat io n or id en ti fic at io n co nf or m in g wit h th e
req ui rem en ts o f th is ru le :.. .” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. It is cl ear th at th e “ il lu st rat io n”

co nt ai ne d in (b )(5 ) of Ru le 90 1 (wh ic h al lo ws reco rd in gs to be au th en ti cat ed by vo ic e id en ti fic at io n) is no t to be gi ve n ta li sm an ic po we r
. Rea d co rrec tl y , il lu st rat io ns

co nt ai ne d un de r 90 1( b) are by no m ean s ex cl us iv e of th e m et ho ds of pr oo f su ffi ci en t
to a u t h e n t i c a t e or id en ti fy th e types of ev id en ce to whi ch th ey refe r. The y are

State’s B rief Pag e 14il lu st rat io ns on ly, an d no t li m it at io ns
. Se e Mut z v
. St at e , 86 2 S.W .2d 24 , 29 (Tex

. App .--Be au m on t 1 99 3, p et . ref’d).
In th e pr e s e n t c a s e , th e wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at th e 91 1 au di o was an accu rat e

reco rd i n g o f h er co nv ers at io n wit h th e 91 1 op erat or
. (R.R. Vol . 9 , p . 6 2)

. In ot he r

wor ds , th e wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at it was wha t it pu rp or te d to be

. Fu rth er, th e au di o was

au th en ti cat ed by a bu si ne ss reco rd s affi da vi t, whi ch refl ect ed th at th e reco rd in g was

m ad e in th e no rm al co ur se of bu si ne ss o f t h e Ci ty of Bro wns vi ll e. The refo re, th e

au di o was ad m is si bl e un de r th e bu si ne ss reco rd ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay ru le , un de r Te xa s Ru le of Evi de nc e 90 1. Se e Mon to ya v. St at e , 43 S.W .3d 56 8, 57 0- 7 1 ( Te x . App .--Waco 2 00 1, n o p et .) (h ol di ng th at a 91 1 tap e was pr op erl y au th en ti cat ed an d ad m is si bl e whe n th e cu st od ia n te st ifi ed th at th e ta pe was m ad e in th e or di na ry co ur se of bu si ne ss an d was m ad e at or n ear t he ti m e o f th e ev en t re co rd ed ).
F u r t h e r, ev en as su m in g th at th e 91 1 au di o was im pr op erl y ad m it te d be cau s e it co nt ai ne d he ars ay , th is Co ur t sh ou ld ne ve rth el es s fin d th at it is no t rev ers ib le erro r. Th e erro ne ou s ad m is si on of he ars ay is no n- co ns ti tu ti on al erro r. Jo hn so n v. St at e , 96 7 S.W .2d 41 0, 41 7 (Tex

. Cri m. App

. 19 98 ). Thi s Co ur t m us t di sr eg ard

no n- co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs tha t do not af fe ct a cr im ina l de fen da nt ’s “ su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.”
Se e Tex

. R. App

. P. 44 .2(b ). Und er th is st an da rd , an erro r is rev ers ib le on ly whe n it ha d a su bs ta nt ia l an d in

juri ou s ef fect or i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.

State’s B rief Pag e 15Ta

yl or v. St at e , 26 8 S.W .3d 57 1, 59 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 08 ). Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld no t

ov ert ur n a co nv ic ti on if th e Co ur t ha s fai r as su ran ce fro m an ex a mi n a t i o n of th e

reco rd as a who le th at th e erro r di d no t in flu en ce th e jury, or ha d bu t sl ig ht effe ct

. Id

. Add it io na ll y , erro ne ou s ad m is si on of e vi de nc e is no t re ve rs ib le erro r if t he same or

s i mi l a r f a c ts are pr ov ed by ot he r pr op erl y ad m it te d ev id en ce. Bro ok s v. St at e , 99 0
S.W .2d 27 8, 28 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 99 ); And er so n v. St at e , 71 7 S.W .2d 62 2, 62 7 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 ).
In th e pr es en t cas e, th e sp on so rin g wit ne ss al so te st ifi ed as to wha t sh e to ld th e 91 1 op erat or at th e ti m e th at sh e cal le d. (R.R. Vol

. 9, p. 57 )

. Th e r e f o re, th e
st at em en ts co nt ai ne d on th e 91 1 au di o were al so ad m it te d in to ev id en ce th ro ug h th e
te st im on y of wit ne ss Sara h W il li am s. Acco rd in gl y , th e erro r he rei n, if an y , is no t

rev ers ib le , and App el la nt ’s fou rth is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Fif th Is su e In hi s fift h is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at hi s con vi ct io n sh ou ld be se t asi de be cau se th e tri al co ur t al lo wed th e in tro du c t i o n o f cert ai n ph ot og rap hs wit ho ut al lo win g App el la nt to vo ir di re th e sp on so rin g wit ne ss as to t h e a u t h e n ti ci ty of th e ph ot os
. The S t a t e r e s p o n ds by as se rti ng th at th e tri al co ur t di d no t err in refu si ng App el l a n t ’s req ue st to vo ir di re th e sp on so rin g wit ne ss to th e au th en ti ci ty of th e

State’s B rief Pag e 16ph ot og rap hs

.

App e l l a n t f

ai ls to ci te to an y le ga l au th or it y to su pp or t hi s arg um en t th at th e tri al co ur t erred in fai li ng to all ow Ap pe ll an t t o t ak e th e sp on so rin g witn es s on vo ir di re. Acco rd in gl y , th is is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d as it is in ad eq ua te ly br ie fed

. Tex

. R. App . P. 38 .1(i ). Alt ern at iv el y , th e St at e ack no wled ge s th at al l te st im on y m us t be ba se d on th e
pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of th e wit ne ss . Tex. R. Evi d. 6 02 . W he n t he re i s so m e reas on
to do ub t whet he r th e wit ne ss po ss es se s t he req ui si te pe rs on al kn owl ed ge , it m ay be
ap pr op ria te fo r th e co ur t to affo rd th e op po si ng pa rty a ch an ce to ta ke th e wit ne ss on

vo ir di re. Bu t it is ne it he r reas on ab le no r pr act ic al to pe rm it su ch vo ir di re whe n th ere is no ap pa ren t reas on fo r do ub ti ng th at th e wit ne ss is te st ifyin g fro m pe rs on al
kn owl ed ge
. Sh ug ar

s v. St at e , 81 4 S.W .2d 89 7, 89 8 (Tex

. App .--Au st in 19 91 , no
pe t.).
In th e in st an t cau se , c o un se l di d no t ob ject th at th e wit ne ss la ck ed pe rs on al
kn owl ed ge n o r d i d h e s ta te an y ba si s fo r do ub ti ng th at th e wit ne ss ha d pe rs on al
kn owl ed ge
. App el la nt ’s br ie f do es no t refe r th is Co ur t to an y th in g in th e reco rd th at

su gg es ts a wan t of pe rs on al kn owl ed ge . Th e tr ia l co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ov erru li ng th e ap pa ren tl y ba se le ss req ue st to vo ir d ire th e wit ne ss
. Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s fift h i ss ue sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

State’s B rief Pag e 17St

at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Six th Is su e In hi s s ix th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at St at e’s Exh ib it 9 was im pr op erl y ad m it te d in to ev id en ce, be cau se th e pr op er ch ai n of cu st od y was no t es ta bl is he d. The
St at e res po nd s b y

ass ert in g t ha t s ai d e xh ib it was p ro pe rly adm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e. The ad m is si on of ev id en ce i s a m at te r wit hi n t he di sc ret io n of th e tri al co ur t. Se e Mon tg ome ry v. St at e , 81 0 S.W .2d 37 2, 37 8 (Tex. Cr im . App . 19 90 )(o pi ni on on

r e h ’g )

. Acco rd in gl y , th e tri al co ur t’s ad m is si on of ev id en ce is rev ie wed un de r a n ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd

. Se e id

. at 3 7 9

– 8 0

. A s lo ng as th e tri al co ur t’s ru li ng

was wit hi n th e “ zo ne of reas on ab le di sa gr eem en t,” th ere is no ab us e of di sc ret io n an d th e tri al co ur t’s ru li ng wil l be up he ld

. Se e Rac ha l v. St at e , 91 7 S.W .2d 79 9, 80 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 96 ); Mon tg ome ry , 81 0 S.W .2d at 39 1. The tri al jud ge do es no t ab us e hi s di sc ret io n whe n he ad m it s ev id en ce ba se d on th e be li e f th at a reas on ab le juro r

co ul d fin d th at th e ev id en ce ha s be en au th en ti cat ed or id e n t i f i ed

. Se e Pon de

xt er v. St at e , 94 2 S .W .2d 57 7, 5 86 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 96 ). App el la nt co nt en ds th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng in to ev id en ce a bu ccal

swa b th at was su bm it te d to th e D.P.S. Lab fo r fo ren si c t e s t i n g
. He sp eci fic al ly

co m pl ai ns th at th e St at e fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr op er ch ai n o f cu st od y . Tex as Ru le of Ev id en ce 9 01 go ve rn s au th en ti cat io n. Se e Tex. R. Evi d. 9 01

. As a p r e d i c a t e to ad m is si bi li ty, Ru le 90 1 req ui res a pa rty who of fers an it em in to

State’s B rief Pag e 18ev id e n ce to es ta bl is h to th e tri al jud ge ’s sa ti sf act io n th at th e it em is wha t th e pa rty
rep res en ts it to be

. Se e id

. W he n th e ev id en ce be in g in tro du ced do es no t h av e an y

u n i q u e ch arac te ris ti cs , a ch ai n of cu st od y m ay be req ui red to pr ov e th at th e i t e m
pr es en te d in tri al is th e sa m e on e in vo lv ed in th e ev en ts at is su e. Se e Ja cks on v. St at e , 96 8 S.W .2d 49 5, 50 0 (Tex

. App .--Tex ark an a 19 98 , pe t. ref’d)

. Lik ewis e, to ad m it th e

res ul ts of sc ie nt ifi c te st in g, a pr op er ch ai n of cu st od y m us t be es ta bl is he d. Se e, e.g ., Smi th v. St at e , 45 0 S.W .2d 92 , 94 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 70 ); Gar ne r v. S t a t e , 84 8
S.W .2d 79 9, 80 3 (Tex

. App .--Co r p u s C h r i st i 19 93 , no writ ); Moo ne v. St at e , 72 8
S.W .2d 92 8, 9 30 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Di st .] 19 87 , no writ ). The ch ai n o f cu st od y

is co nc lu si ve ly esta bl is he d i f an of fic er te st ifi es th at he

se iz ed th e it em of ph y si cal ev id e n c e, ta gg ed it , pl aced an id en ti fy in g m ark on it , pl aced it in ev id en ce sto rag e, an d retr ie ve d th e it em for tri al

. La gr on e v. S ta te , 94 2
S

. W .2d 60 2, 61 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 97 ). Si m il arl y , whe n ev id en ce is se nt t o a la bo rat or y fo r an al y si s, to co nc lu si ve ly es ta bl is h th e ch ai n of cu st od y , th e pr op on en t

m us t in tro du ce te st im on y sh owi ng th e la bo rat or y ha nd le d th e ev id en ce th e sa m e way
. Se e Med el li n v. St at e , 61 7 S.W .2d 22 9, 2 3 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. [Pan el Op.] 19 81 ).
Howev er, whe n th e St at e co m pl et es th e ch ai n of cu st od y fro m th e in it ia l co ll ect io n of th e ev id en ce to in si de th e la bo rat or y , m os t qu es ti on s co nc ern in g care an d cu st od y , in cl ud in g ga ps an d m in or th eo ret ic al br each es , go to th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce, no t

State’s B rief Pag e 19it s ad m is si bi li ty. Se e Med el li n , 61 7 S.W .2d at 23 2; Si lv a v. St at e , 98 9 S.W .2d 64 , 68 (Tex

. App .--San Ant on io 19 98 , pe t. ref’d) ; St on e v. St at e , 79 4 S.W .2d 86 8, 87 0 (Tex

. App .--El Pa so 19 90 , no writ ).
Th i s C o u r t ha s be fo re it th e fo ll owi ng ev id en ce co nc ern in g th e ch ai n of

cu st od y of t he App el la nt ’s bu ccal swab : 1) Offi cer Yan es o b t ai ne d a bu ccal swa b fro m th e App el la nt at Vall ey Bap ti st Med ic al Cen te r an d p la ced it in a se al ed en ve lo pe ; 2) Offi cer Yan es su bm it te d th e swa b to th e Tex as Dep art m en t o f Pu bl ic Safe ty lab or at or y

in W es la co ; 3) It was ret rie ve d an d br ou gh t to co u r t by Harl in ge n Po li ce Dep art m en t ev id en ce t ech ni ci an Ric k Vel a. (R.R. Vo l. 1 2, p p. 1 12 -1 16 ).
In th is reg ard , App el la nt es se nt ia ll y as se rts th at th e St at e di d no t pr ov e th e al l th e li nk s in th e ch ai n of cu st od y an d th eref or e th e tri al jud ge ab us ed hi s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e res ul ts of th e an al y si s. Howev er, th e wit ne ss di d te st ify to a co m pl et e ch ai n o f cu st od y , f

ro m in it ia l co ll ect io n to in si de th e la bo rat or y . Furt he r, Ru le 90 1

on ly req ui res a sh owi ng th at sa ti sf ie s th e tri al jud ge th at th e it em in qu es ti on is wha t th e St at e cl ai m s. Se e Tex

. R. Evi d. 90 1; Gar ne r v. St at e , 93 9 S.W .2d 80 2, 80 5 (Tex

. App .--Ft

. W or th 19 97 , pe t. r e f ’d )

. Acco rd in gl y , th is Co ur t sh ou ld co nc lu de th e in fo rm at io n el ic it ed fro m th e St at e was su ffi ci en t fo r th e tri al jud ge to ha ve fo un d th at th e it em s th e St at e’s ex pe rt r e l i e d u p on in dr awin g hi s co nc lu si on s ab ou t th e DNA

State’s B rief Pag e 20ev id en ce were w h a t t he y pu rp or te d th em to be

. Se e Avil a v. St at e , 18 S.W .3d 73 6,

73 9- 40 (Tex

. App .--San Ant on io 20 00 , no pe t.). Bec au se th ere is n o a b u se of di sc ret io n, t hi s C ou rt s ho ul d o ve rru le App el la nt ’s si xt h i ss ue
.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Seve nt

h, Ei gh th an d Ten th Is su es In hi s se ve nt h, ei gh th an d te nt h is su es , App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be se t as id e be cau se th e tri al co ur t a l l owe d th e in tro du ct io n of bl oo d swa bs

an d bu ccal swa bs wit ho ut al lo win g App el la nt to vo ir di re th e sp on so rin g wit ne ss as
to th e au th en ti ci ty of sa id swa bs

. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th e tri al di d no t err i n d en y in g Ap pe ll an t t he op po rtu ni ty to v oi r di re s ai d wi tn es s. App el la nt fai ls t o c i t e to an y le ga l au th or it y to su pp or t hi s arg um en t th at th e tri al co ur t er red in fai li ng to all ow Ap pe ll an t to ta ke th e sp on so rin g witn es s on vo ir di re. Acco rd in gl y , th is is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d as it is in ad eq ua te ly br ie fed

. Tex

. R. App . P. 38 .1(i ). Alt ern at iv el y , th e St at e ack no wled ge s th at al l te st im on y m us t be ba se d on th e
pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of th e wit ne ss . Tex . R. Evi d. 6 02 . W he n t he re i s s om e rea so n
to do ub t whet he r th e wit ne ss po ss es se s th e req ui si te pe rs on al kn owl ed ge , it m ay be
ap pr op ria te fo r th e co ur t to affo rd th e op po si ng pa rty a ch an ce to ta ke th e wit ne ss on

vo ir di re. Bu t it is ne it he r reas on ab le no r pr act ic al to pe rm it su ch vo ir di re whe n th ere

State’s B rief Pag e 21is no ap pa ren t reas on fo r do ub ti ng th at th e wit ne ss is te st ifyin g fro m pe rs on al

kn owl ed ge
. Sh ug ar

s v. St at e , 81 4 S.W .2d 89 7, 89 8 (Tex

. App .--Au st in 19 91 , no
pe t.).
In th e in st an t cau se , co un se l di d no t ob ject th at th e w i tn es s la ck ed pe rs on al
kn owl ed ge no r di d he st at e an y ba si s f o r d o u b t i ng th at th e wit ne ss ha d pe rs on al
kn owl ed ge
. App el la nt ’s br ie f do es no t refe r th is Co ur t to an y th in g in th e reco rd th at

su gg es ts a wan t of pe rs on al kn owl ed ge
. The tri al co ur t di d n ot ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ov erru li ng th e ap pa ren tl y ba se le ss req ue st to vo ir d ire th e wit ne ss
. Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s se ve nth , ei ght h, an d te nth is su es sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Nint

h Is su e In hi s ni nt h is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be se t as id e be cau se th e tri al co ur t im pr op erl y al lo wed th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce whi ch was no t

co m pl et e. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el l a nt ’s co m pl ai nt is no t at al l cl ear f ro m th e arg um en t an d t he reco rd

. App el la nt co m

pl ai ns th at at th e ti m e th e St at e of fere d tex t m es sa ge s, t he tri al

co ur t di d no t al lo w in to ev id en ce ad di ti on al te xt m es sa ge s un de r th e ru le of op ti on al

co m pl et en es s; ho wev er, App el la nt ha s no t in di cat ed whe re in th e reco rd th is al le ge d

erro r is fo un d. The S t a t e as se rts th at App el la nt ha s no t co m pl ie d wit h Ru le 38 .1(i )

State’s B rief Pag e 22of th e Tex as R u l e s of App el la te Pro ced ur e by fai li ng to st at e co nc is el y th e fact s

rel at in g to is su e two , s up po rte d by r e c o rd refe ren ces , a nd by fa il in g to st at e cl earl y

an d co nc is el y th e arg um en t wit h ci ta ti on s to th e reco rd

. Se e Tex

. R. App

. P. 38 .1(i ) (“ The br ie f m

us t co nt ai n a cl ear an d co nc is e arg um en t fo r th e co nt en ti on s m ad e, wit h
ap pr op ria te ci ta ti on s to au th or it ie s an d to th e reco rd .”) ; se e al so Alva ra do , 91 2
S.W .2d at 21 0 (“ As an ap pe ll at e co ur t, it is no t ou r ta sk to po re th ro ug h hu nd red s of
pa ge s of reco rd in an at te m pt to ve rif y an ap pe ll an t's cl ai m s.”) ; Co ok , 61 1 S.W .2d at 87 (“ Thi s co ur t wit h it s tre m en do us cas el oa d sh ou ld no t be ex pe ct ed to le af th ro ug h

a vo lu m in ou s reco rd ho pi ng to fin d th e m at te r rai se d by ap pe ll an t an d th en sp ecu la te whe th er i t i s t ha t p art of t he reco rd to whi ch ap pe ll an t h ad refe ren ce.”)

. Alt ern at iv el y , th e St at e no te s th at at th e ti m e th e St at e of fere d th e reco rd of th e
te xt mes s a g es in to ev id en ce, App el la nt ’s co un se l was al lo wed to ta ke th e St at e’s wit ne ss on vo ir di re, and th en ob jecte d to th e ad m is si on of th e ev id en ce pu rs ua nt to
Ru le 10 7, arg ui ng th at al l te xt m es sa ge s sh ou ld be of fere d. The tri al co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on , bu t no te d th at sh e wou ld co ns id er th e ad m is si on of th e res t of th e te xt

m es sa ge s at a la te r ti m e. (R.R. Vol

. 11 , pp
. 22 0- 24 ). App el la nt di d in de ed reca ll th e St at e’s sp on so rin g wit ne ss an d di d m ov e to ad m it th e m is si ng te xt m es sa ge s, an d sa id

m es sa ge s were ad m it te d by th e tri al co ur t, wit ho ut ob jecti on
. (R.R. Vol

. 14 , p. 17 ).
Acco rd in gl y , th e “ m is si ng ” te xt m es sa ge s wer e, in fact , con si de red by the jury, an d

State’s B rief Pag e 23th ey

are a p art of t he ap pe ll at e rec or d h erei n. (R .R. Vol . 18 , DX 2).
Bec au se th e tri al co ur t di d ad m it th e te xt m es sa ge s of fere d by App el la nt , th ere is no th in g t o rev ie w on ap pe al

. The refo re, App el la nt ’s ni nt h is su e sh ou ld be

ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Ele vent

h Is su e In hi s el ev en th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in al lo win g

a sp eech pa th ol og is t to te st ify as to a pr iv il eg ed co m m un ic at io n. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th ere is no pr iv il eg e pr ot ect in g th e co m m un ic at io ns be twee n App el la nt an d t he wit ne ss he rei n. In th e pr es en t cas e , th e St at e cal le d sp eech pa th ol og is t Lori e Ann W at so n to
te st ify co nc ern in g cert ai n co m m un ic at io ns m ad e by App el la nt to Ms

. W at so n. App el la nt ob

jecte d on th e gr ou nd s th at th es e co m m un ic at io ns were pr iv il eg ed un de r th e ph y si ci an -p at ie nt pr iv il eg e. (R.R. Vol

. 12 , p. 25 1)

. The tri al co ur t ov err ul ed App el la nt ’s ob

jecti on an d a ll owe d t he sp eech pa th ol og is t t o t es ti fy

. App el la nt ur ge s th at th e p h ys i c i a n -p at ie nt pr iv il eg e was vi ol at ed

. The re is , ho wev er, no ph y si ci an -p at ie nt pr iv il eg e in Tex as cri m in al pr oc eed in gs ex cep t un de r li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces no t he re ap pl ic ab le

. Se e Tex

. R. Evi d. 50 9( b)

. Se e al so St at e

v. Har dy , 96 3 S.W .2d 51 6, 52 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 97 ); Rich ar ds on v. St at e , 8 6 5

State’s B rief Pag e 24S.W .2d 94 9, 95 3 n. 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 93 ); Peto v. St at e , 51 S

. W. 3 d 3 2 6, 32 7

(Tex

. App .--Ho us to n [1 st Dis t.] 20 01 , pe t. ref’d)

. Thu s, th ere is no ph y si ci an -p at ie nt
pr iv il eg e in Tex as cri m in al cas es up on whi ch App el la nt m ay rel y t o s up po rt hi s

co nt en ti on on ap pe al

. App el la nt fu rth er arg ue s th at th e te st im on y of th e s p e ech pa th ol og is t sh ou ld ha ve be en ex cl ud ed be cau se App el la nt was ne ve r gi ve n hi s Mi ran da warn in gs pr io r
to co m m un ic at in g with he r. Howev er, A pp el la nt di d no t ob ject in th e tr ia l co ur t on th es e g ro un ds

. To pr es erv e erro r fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, th e Tex as Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e
req ui re th at th e reco rd sh ow th at th e ob jecti on “ st at ed th e gr ou nd s fo r th e ru li ng th at th e co m pl ai ni ng pa rty so ug ht fro m th e tri al co ur t wit h su ffi ci en t sp eci fic it y to m ak e th e tri al co ur t aware of th e co m pl ai nt , un le ss th e sp eci fic gr ou nd s were ap pa ren t fro m th e co nt ex t.” Te x . R. App

. P. 33 .1(a )(1 )(A). The po in t of erro r on ap pe al m us t

co m po rt wit h th e ob

jecti on m ad e at tri al

. Cl ar k v. St at e , 36 5 S.W .3d 33 3, 33 9 (Tex

. Cri m . App . 20 12 ); Th oma s v. S ta te , 72 3 S .W .2d 69 6, 70 0 (Tex . C rim. App . 1 98 6)

. The refo re, if a pa rty fai ls to pr op erl y ob ject at tri al , ev en co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs can be fo rfei te d. Bri

gg s v. S ta te , 78 9 S .W .2d 91 8, 9 24 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 90 ).
Bec au se th es e gr ou nd s on ap pe al do no t co m po rt wit h th e o bjec ti on m ad e at tri al , th es e gr ou n d s w e r e no t pr es erv ed fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Acco rd in gl y ,
State’s B rief Pag e 25App el la nt ’s ele ve nt h i ss ue sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Twel

fth Is su e In hi s twel fth is su e, App el l a n t c o m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in no t al lo win g App el la nt to co nd uc t a vo ir di re ex am in at io n of two ex pe rt wit ne ss es
. The
St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App e l l a n t h a s fai le d to pr es erv e th is is su e fo r
ap pe ll at e rev ie w. To p r e s e r ve erro r fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, th e reco rd m us t sh ow th at th e pa rt y

m ad e a sp eci fic ob

jecti on on th e reco rd an d rece iv ed an ad ve rs e ru l i n g on th at ob jecti on
. Se e Tex. R. Ap p. P. 33 .1(a ); Tu rn er v. St at e , 80 5 S.W .2d 42 3, 43 1 (Tex. Cri m
. App

. 19 91 ). To m ak e a s p e c i f ic ob jecti on , a pa rty m

us t “ le t th e tri al jud ge kn ow wha t he wan ts , why he th in ks hi m se lf en ti tl ed to it , an d

... do so cl earl y en ou gh fo r th e jud ge to un de rs ta nd hi m at a ti m e whe n th e tri al co ur t is i n a pro pe r po si ti on
to do so m et hi ng ab ou t it .” La nk st on v. St at e , 82 7 S.W .2d 90 7, 90 9 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 92 ). Not wit hs ta nd in g a pa rty’ s fa il ur e to m ak e a s pe ci fic ob jecti on , erro r wil l b e
pr es erv ed if a sp eci fic ob

jecti on was ap pa ren t fro m th e co nt ex t. Se e Tex

. R. App

. P.
33 .1(a )(1 )(A); se e a ls o Tex. R. Ev id . 10 3( a)(1 ).
A pa rty in a cri m in al cas e ha s a pr o c ed ur al rig ht to vo ir di re an ex pe rt un de r Ru le 70 5( b) of th e Tex as Ru le s of Evi de nc e. Und er th is ru le , a tri al co ur t m us t gr an t

State’s B rief Pag e 26a pa rty’ s “ req ue st to co nd uc t a vo ir di re ex am in at io n di rect ed to th e un de rlyin g fact s

or da ta up on whi ch th e op in io n is ba se d,” an d th is ex am in at io n is co nd uc te d ou ts id e th e pr es en c e o f t h e ju ry
. Tex . R . Ev id . 7 05 (b ). The pu rp os e of th is ex am in at io n is
two fo ld : (1 ) it al lo ws th e de fen da nt to de te rm in e th e f o u n d at io n of th e ex pe rt’s
op in io n wit ho ut th e fear of el ic it in g in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce in th e jury's pr es en ce, an d (2 ) it m ay su pp ly th e d efen da nt wit h “ su ffi ci en t am m un it io n to m ak e a ti m el y ob jecti on to th e ex pe rt’s te st i m on y on th e gr ou nd th at it la ck s a su ffi ci en t ba si s fo r ad m is si bi li ty.” Gos s v. St at e , 82 6 S.W .2d 16 2, 16 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 92 ); se e al so Tex

. R. Evi d. 70 5( c) (“ If th e co ur t de te rm in es th at th e un de rlyin g fact s or da ta do no t
pr ov id e a su ffi ci en t ba si s fo r th e ex pe rt’s op in io n un de r Ru le 70 2 or 70 3, th e op in io n is in ad m is si bl e.”). A p art y ’s a rg um en t th at th e tri al c o u rt fai le d to co nd uc t a pr op erl y req ue st ed
Ru le 70 5( b) he ari ng is a di st in ct arg um en t fro m on e ch al le ng in g th e qu al ifi cat io ns of

an ex pe rt. S e e J

e nk in s v. St at e , 91 2 S.W .2d 79 3, 81 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 93 ); se e al so Gha hr ema ni v. St at e , No. 14 –0 6– 00 72 9– CR, 20 07 W L 31 46 72 3, at *5 , *8 (Tex

. App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Dis t. ] O c t. 30 , 2 00 7, pe t. ref’d) (m em . o p., no t de si gn at ed fo r
pu bl ic at io n) (ad dr es si ng se pa rat el y th e is su es of whe th er th e ex pe rt was qu al ifi ed an d whe th er th e co ur t im

pr op erl y de ni ed ap pe ll an t’s req ue st fo r a Ru le 70 5( b) he ari ng ). Thu s, an ob

jecti on ba se d on an ex pe rt’s l ack of q ua li fic at io ns do es no t p res erv e fo r

State’s B rief Pag e 27ou r rev ie w th e is su e of whe th er th e co ur t erre d in de nyin g a pr op er req ue st fo r a Ru le

70 5( b) he ari ng
. Jen ki ns , 91 2 S.W .2d at 81 4; Sh aw v. St at e , 32 9 S.W .3d 64 5, 65 5- 56 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Di st .] 20 10 , pet . ref’d).
In th e pr es en t cas e, whi le th e S t a t e’s pa th ol og is t Dr. Eli zab et h Mi ll er was
te st ifyin g, App el la nt ob

jecte d an d co m

pl ai ne d th at sh e was no t qu al ifi ed to te st ify as

an ex pe rt in ba ll is ti cs or am m un it io n. (R.R. Vol

. 13 , pp
. 30 , 37 -3 8, 45 -4 6)

. Howev er,

no whe re in th es e se ct io ns of th e reco r d ( w h i ch App el la nt ci te s in hi s br ie f) do es App el la nt req ue st a Ru le 70 5( b) he ari ng ; an d th eref or e, App el la nt ha s no t pr es erv ed th is is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Jen ki ns , 91 2 S.W .2d at 8 1 4

. M o r e ov er, whi le th e St at e’s ex pe rt wit ne ss on gu n res id ue was te st ifyin g, App el la nt o b je c te d to th e wit ne ss ’s te st im on y co nc ern in g cert ai n ex hi bi ts , bu t di d no t st at e t he ba si s of hi s ob je c t i o n
. ( R

. R

. Vol

. 11 , 11 0)

. App el la nt th en as ke d to vo ir di re th e wit ne ss , ap pa ren tl y to qu es ti on hi m co nc ern in g th e ex hi bi ts

. Sai d req ue st was de ni ed

. (R.R. Vol

. 11 , 11 0)

. At no ti m e di d App el la nt “ req ue st to co nd uc t a vo ir di re ex am in at io n di rect ed to th e un de rlyin g fact s or da ta up on whi ch th e op in io n is ba se d,” ou ts id e th e
pr es en ce of th e jury. Tex

. R. Evi d. 70 5( b)

. Th e r e f o r e , th is Co ur t sh ou ld fin d th at App el la nt ha s fai le d to p r e s e r v e h i s req ue st to vo ir di re sa id wit ne ss un de r Ru le
70 5( b)

. Ass um in g, ho wev er, th at th e tri al co ur t di d err in de nyin g App el la nt ’s vo ir di re

State’s B rief Pag e 28req ue st , th is Co ur t m us t th en de te rm in e whe th e r th e erro r was “ so ha rm fu l as to
req u i r e r e v e r sa l.” Gos s v. St at e , 82 6 S.W .2d 16 2, 16 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 92 ).
Bec au se th e erro r is no t co ns ti tu ti on al , th is Co ur t s ho ul d on ly rev ers e if it affe ct ed App el la nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s; ot he rwis e, th e erro r m us t be di sr eg ard ed

. Tex

. R. App

. P. 44 .2(b ); Tex

. R. Evi d. 10 3 (a). In m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n, th is Co ur t sh ou ld

co ns id er th e en ti re reco rd to de ci de whe th er t h e e rro r ha d a su bs ta nt ia l or in juri ou s effe ct on th e ve rd ic t of gu il t. Mor al es v. St at e , 32 S.W .3d 86 2, 86 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 00 ). W he re th e rev ie win g co ur t ha s fai r as su ran ce th at th e erro r di d no t in flu en ce th e jury or ha d bu t a sl ig ht effe ct , th e co nv ic ti on wil l st an d. Id .; McDo na ld v. St at e , 17 9 S .W .3d 57 1, 5 78 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 05 ).
In th e p res en t ca se , Ap pe ll an t ha s fa il ed to m ak e an y arg um en t as to ho w th e

erro r (if an y ) ha d a su bs ta nt ia l or inju rio us effe ct on th e ve rd ic t of gui lt

. The refo re, th is Co ur t sh ou ld fin d th at App el la nt ha s fai le d to ad eq ua te ly br ie f th is is su e of ha rm
. Tex . R. App . P. 38 .1(i ).
Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s twel fth is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Thir te ent

h Is su e o n Ap

pe al
In hi s th irt een th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al jud ge co m m en te d on
t h e w e i g ht of th e ev id en ce an d co nv ey ed he r op in io n of th e cas e to th e jury. The

State’s B rief Pag e 29St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at th e tri al co ur t di d no t co m m en t on th e weig ht of th e

ev id en ce n or di d t he tri al jud ge co nv ey he r op in io n o f th e cas e to th e jury.
Due pr oc es s req ui res a ne ut ral an d de ta ch ed he ari ng bo dy or of fic er. Gag no n

v. Sc ar pe ll i , 41 1 U.S. 77 8, 78 6 (1 97 3)

. The Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on req ui res no le ss
. Ear le y v. St at e , 85 5 S.W .2d 26 0, 26 2 (Tex

. App .--Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 93 ), pe t. di sm ’d,
im pr ov id en tl y gr an te d, 87 2 S.W .2d 75 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 94 ). Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld
pr es um e th e tri al co ur t was ne ut ral an d de ta ch ed ab se nt a cl ear sh ow i n g to th e

co nt rary. Se e id .; Fiel di ng v. St at e , 7 19 S.W .2d 36 1, 36 6 (Tex . App .--Dal la s 1 98 6,
pe t. ref’d)

. Tri a l co ur ts ha ve th e rig ht to m an ag e th e tri al , in cl ud in g th e or de r of
pr oo f. Si lv a v. St at e , 63 5 S.W .2d 77 5, 77 8 (Tex

. A p p
. - - C o r p us Ch ris ti 19 82 , pe t. ref’d)

. W he n co ur ts as k wit ne ss es qu es ti on s du rin g ju r y tri al s, th ey m us t av oi d

co nv ey in g th ei r op in io n on th e fact s to th e jury an d be co mi n g an ad vo cat e fo r a
pa rti cu la r po si ti on
. Mor en o v. St at e , 9 0 0 S.W .2d 35 7, 35 9 (Tex

. App .--Tex ark an a 19 95 , no pe t.).
A tri al jud ge is pe rm it te d to qu es ti on a wit ne ss whe n se ek in g in fo rm at io n on ly,
to c l a rif y a po in t, or to ge t th e wit ne ss to rep eat so m et hi ng th at th e jud ge co ul d no t he ar. Se e Brew er v. St at e , 57 2 S.W .2d 71 9, 72 1 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. [Pan el Op.] 19 78 ); Ash v. St at e , 42 0 S.W .2d 70 3, 70 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 67 ); Hop pe rw oo d v. St at e , 39
Tex .Cri m
. 15 , 44 S.W

. 84 1, 84 2 (1 89 8)

. The re are two da ng ers whe n th e jud ge go es

State’s B rief Pag e 30be y on d t hi s perm is si bl e q ue st io ni ng : (1 ) th e jud ge m ay so m eh ow co nv ey

hi s o r he r
op in io n of th e cas e to th e jury an d ul ti m at el y in flu en ce th e jury’ s de ci si on ( Mor ri so n

v. St at e , 84 5 S.W .2d 88 2, 88 6 n. 10 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 92 )); an d (2 ) th e jud ge in th e zeal of hi s or he r act iv e pa rti ci pa ti on m ay be co m e an ad vo cat e in th e ad ve rs ari al
p r o c e s s a n d lo se th e ne ut ral an d de ta ch ed ro le req ui red fo r th e fact fin de r an d th e jud ge
. The re are nu m ero us Tex as cas es de al in g wit h th e fir st da ng er. Mun oz v. St at e , 48 5 S.W .2d 78 2, 78 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 72 ); Ash , 42 0 S.W .2d at 70 5; Dra ke v. S ta te , 65 Tex

. Cri m
. 28 2, 14 3 S.W

. 11 57 , 11 58 (1 91 2) ; Beta nc ou rt v. St a t e , 6 5 7
S.W .2d 45 1 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 83 , pet . ref’d). App el la nt co m

pl ai ns in hi s br ie f ab ou t two in s t a n c es in whi ch th e tri al co ur t

m ad e co m

m en ts fro m th e be nc h. (R.R. Vol

. 13 , pp
. 67 , 75 -7 6)

. App el la nt cl ai m s th at th es e co m m en ts vi ol at e art ic le 38 .05 , whi ch read s in pa rt, “ th e jud ge sh al l no t

... m ak e

an y rem ark cal cu la te d to co nv ey to th e jury hi s op in io n of th e cas e.” Tex

. Co de Cri m
. Pro c. art . 3 8.0 5. The tri al reco rd de m on st rat e s App el la nt ’s c ou ns el fai le d to ob ject
sp eci fic al ly to th es e co m

m en ts , in co nn ect io n wit h th e fir st in ci de nt

. (R.R. Vol

. 13 , p. 67 ). In or de r to pr e s e rv e an erro r fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, a pa rty m us t m ak e an ob jecti on to th e co ur t an d th e co ur t m us t ex pl ic it ly or im

pl ic it ly m ak e an ad ve rs e

ru li ng or refu se to ru le on th at ob jecti on
. Tex . R . Ap p. P. 33 .1 ; se e Flo re s v. St at e ,
State’s B rief Pag e 3187 1 S.W .2d 71 4, 72 3 ( Te x . Cri m
. App

. 19 93 ). Thu s, App el la nt ha s waiv ed th is

co m pl ai nt by no t sta ti ng hi s ob jecti on wit h s pe ci fic it y

an d p res erv in g i t for app eal

. Se e Rese nd

ez v. St at e , 16 0 S.W .3d 18 1, 18 9- 90 (Tex

. App .--Co rp us Ch ris ti 20 05 , no
pe t.) (h ol di ng th at wit ho ut a sp eci fic ob jecti on , a de fen da nt waiv es hi s co m pl ai nt th at

a jud ge ha s co nv ey ed hi s op in io n ab ou t th e cas e to th e jury); se e al so Mes ti za v. St at e , 92 3 S .W .2d 72 0, 7 24 (Tex . Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 96 , n o p et .) (“ [a] tim el y pro pe r ob jecti on is ne ces sa ry to pr es e r v e e r r or co nc ern in g a tri al jud ge ’s co m m en t” ).
Fu rth er, it is cl ear fro m th e r e c o r d th at th e co m m en ts m ad e in co nn ect io n wit h th e

se co nd in ci de nt do no t vi ol at e th is se ct io n of th e co de of cri m in al pr oc ed ur e, as th ey do n ot co nv ey th e jud ge ’s op in io n ab ou t th e cas e. (R.R. Vol

. 13 , pp
. 75 -7 6)

. The
qu es ti on ask ed by the tri al jud ge was m erel y see ki ng cla rif

ic at io n a s t o wh et he r th e wit n e s s ’s t rai ni ng or ed uc at io n qu al ifi ed he r to an swe r a qu es ti on ab ou t gu ns ho t

wou nd s an d t he tra

jecto ry of s uc h wou nd s. (R.R. Vol. 1 3, p p. 7 5- 76 ). Thi s t y pe of
qu es ti on in g is pe rm is si bl e, as th e jud ge was m erel y se ek in g in fo rm at io n o n l y , or cl ari fic at io n of he r tra in in g, or to ge t th e wit ne ss to rep eat a su m m ary of he r tra in in g, whi ch th e jud ge di d n ot he ar. Brew er , 57 2 S .W .2d at 7 21 ; Ash , 42 0 S.W .2d at 70 5.
Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s th irt een th is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

State’s B rief Pag e 32St

at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Fo ur te ent

h Is su e In hi s fo ur te en th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t’s as si st in g th e St at e, by su gg es ti ng pr ed ic at es fo r th e su bm is si on of ev id en c e , h a d su ffi ci en t

cu m ul at iv e effe ct to de pr iv e App el la nt of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. The S t a te

res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el la nt ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e ho w no n- erro rs can in th ei r cu m ul at iv e eff

ect cau se erro r. Alt ho ug h App el la nt do es no t sp eci fy th e in ci de nt s whi ch are th e b a s i s o f hi s

co m pl ai nt in is su e fo ur te en , th e St at e wou ld as su m e th at App el la nt co m pl ai ns of th e

sa m e in ci de nt s wh ic h a re t he ba si s o f is su e th irt een
. (R.R. Vol. 13 , pp . 67 , 75 -7 6)

. App el la nt co m

pl ai ns th at th e cu m

ul at iv e effe ct of th es e in ci de nt s co ns ti tu te erro r. In

su pp or t of th is is su e, App el la nt ci te s two cas es , W il so n v. St at e , 71 S.W .3d 34 6 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 02 ), an d Ch amb er la in v. St at e , 9 9 8 S.W .2d 23 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 99 ). Neit he r of th es e cas e s s u p p o rt th e rel ie f th at App el la nt se ek s th ro ug h th is is su e. The Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s in W il so n no te d th at “ in or de r to pr es erv e erro r fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, th e co m pl ai ni ng pa rty m

us t m ak e a sp eci fic ob

jecti on an d ob ta in

a ru li ng on th e ob

jecti on .” W

il so n , 71 S.W .3d at 34 9. As pr ev io us ly no te d, App el la nt fai le d t o o bjec t t o t he fir st in ci de nt . (R.R. Vol . 13 , pp . 67 ).
Fu rth er, th e Co ur t in Ch amb er la in st at ed th at it is co nc ei va bl e th at a nu m be r of erro rs m ay

be fou nd ha rm fu l i n t he ir c um ul at iv e eff

ect ; h owe ve r, th e Co ur t went

State’s B rief Pag e 33on to st at e, “ we are aware of no au th or it y ho l d i n g th at no n- erro rs m ay in th ei r

cu m u l a t iv e effe ct cau se erro r.” Ch amb er la in , 99 8 S.W .2d at 23 8. As pr ev io us ly

no te d, th e co m

m en ts m ad e by th e tri al jud ge in co nn ect io n with th e se co nd in ci de nt do no t vi ol at e th is se ct io n of th e co de of cri m in al pr oc ed ur e, as th ey do no t co nv ey th e jud ge ’s op in io n ab ou t th e cas e. (R.R. Vol

. 13 , pp
. 75 -7 6)

. The qu es ti on as ke d by th e tr ia l ju dg e was m erel y se ek in g cl ari fic at io n as to whe th er th e wit ne ss ’s tra in in g

or ed uc at io n qu al ifi ed he r to an swe r a qu es ti on ab ou t gu ns ho t wou n d s a n d th e
tra jecto ry of su ch wou nd s. (R.R. Vol

. 13 , pp
. 75 -7 6)

. Thi s type of qu es ti on in g is
pe rm is si bl e, as th e jud ge was m erel y se ek in g in fo rm at io n on ly, or cl ari fic at io n of he r
tra in in g, or to ge t th e wit ne ss to rep eat a su m m ary of he r tra in in g, whi ch th e jud ge di d

no t he ar. Brew er , 57 2 S.W .2d at 72 1; Ash , 42 0 S.W .2d at 70 5. Acco rd in gl y , th e

cu m ul at iv e effe ct of th is no n- erro r can no t cau se erro r. Ch amb er la in , 99 8 S.W .2d at 23 8.
Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s fou rte en th is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Fif te ent h Is su e In hi s fift een th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e tri al co ur t erred by fai li ng
to pr ov id e th e jury wit h a le ss er in cl ud ed ch arg e on th e of fen se of ag gr av at ed as sa ul t. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng th at App el la nt was no t en ti tl ed to th e le ss er in cl ud ed

State’s B rief Pag e 34ch arg e.

In de te rm in in g whe th er a de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to a ch arg e on a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se , th e Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s se t fo rth a two -s te p tes t in Hal l v. St at e , 22 5
S.W .3d 52 4, 53 5- 36 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 07 ). The fir s t s t e p in th e le ss er-i nc lu de d- of

fen se an al y si s, de te rm in in g whe th er an of fen se is a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of th e al le ge d of

fen se , is a qu e s t i o n o f la w. It do es no t de pe nd on th e

ev id en ce to be pr od uc ed at th e tri al

. It m ay be , an d to pr ov id e no ti ce to th e de fen da nt

m us t be , cap ab le of be in g pe rfo rm ed be fo re tri al by co m pa rin g th e el e ment s of th e of fen se as th ey are al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t or in fo rm at io n wit h th e el em en ts of th e
po te nt ia l l es se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se
. Id

. The se co nd st ep in th e an al y si s sh ou ld as k whe th er th ere is ev id en ce th at

su pp or ts gi vi ng th e in st ru ct io n to th e jury. “ A de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to an in st ru ct io n

on a le ss er-i nc lu de d of

fen se whe re th e pr oo f fo r th e of fen se c h a r g e d in cl ud es th e
pr oo f ne ces sa ry to es ta bl is h th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se a n d th ere is so m e ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at wou ld pe rm it a jury rat io na ll y to fin d th at if th e de fen da nt is gu il ty, he is gu il ty on ly of th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se .” Big na ll v. St at e , 88 7 S.W .2d 21 , 23 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 94 ) ( ci ti ng Rou ss ea u v. St at e , 85 5 S.W .2d 66 6, 67 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. App . 1 99 3)

. In th i s s t e p o f th e an al y si s, an y th in g m or e th an a sc in ti ll a of ev id en ce

m ay be su ffi ci en t to en ti tl e a de fen da nt to a le ss er ch arg e. Big na ll , 88 7 S.W .2d at 23

.
State’s B rief Pag e 35In ot he r wor ds , th e ev id en ce m us t es ta bl is h th e le s se r-i nc lu de d of fen se as “ a va li d,
rat io na l al te rn at iv e to th e ch arg ed of fen se .” For es t v. St at e , 98 9 S.W .2d 36 5, 36 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 99 ) ( qu ot in g Arev al o v. St at e , 94 3 S.W .2d 88 7, 88 9 (Tex

. Cri m
. App . 1 99 7, ov er ru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s Gre y v. St at e , 2 98 S.W .3d 64 4 (Tex . C rim. App . 20 09 )).
W it ho ut co nc ed in g th at th e fir st st ep of th is two -s te p te st , th e St at e wou ld no te th at App el la nt ha s no t ci te d to an y whe re in th e reco rd th at wou ld de m on st rat e th at th e jury he ard so m e ev id en ce th at w o u l d h a v e pe rm it te d a rat io na l jury to fin d th at if App el la nt was g ui lt y , he was gu il ty on ly of t he les se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se
. Alt ern at iv el y , th e St at e wou ld arg ue th at App el la nt pr es en te d ev id en ce th at he bl ack ed ou t an d ha d no t reco ll ect io n of ha vi ng m ur de red th e two vi ct im s. (R.R. Vol

. 14 , pp
. 80 -8 2)

. App el la nt arg ue s th at ba se d on th is ev id e nc e a jury co ul d ha ve

co nc lu de d t h a t he di d no t ha ve th e in te nt to ki ll th e vi ct im s, bu t rat he r on ly in jure th em
. (R.R. Vol

. 15 , pp
. 5- 6)

. The St at e res po nd s by no ti ng th at th e Tex as Co ur t of Cri m in al Ap p e a l s h a s he ld th at a de fen da nt ’s “ la ck of no rm al im pu ls e co nt ro l is si m pl y no t a ci rcu m st an ce reco gn iz ed by th e Leg is la tu re to d i m in is h th e cri m in al

res po ns ib il it y o f a n accu se d or red uc e hi s cri m e to a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se .”
W ag ne r v. St at e , 6 87 S.W .2d 30 3, 31 2 (Tex . C rim. App . 1 98 4) (o p. on reh ’g). It is cl ear th at th ere is no “ di m in is he d cap aci ty” de fen se to de feat th e el em en t of men s re a

State’s B rief Pag e 36du rin g th e gu il t-i nn oc en ce ph as e of tri al

. Id .; Ja cks on v. St at e , 11 5 S.W .3d 32 6, 33 0

(Tex

. App .--Dal la s 20 03 ), af f’d , 16 0 S.W .3d 56 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 05 ); Th oma s v. St at e , 88 6 S.W .2d 38 8, 39 1 (Tex

. App .--Ho us to n [1 st Dis t.] 19 94 , pe t. ref’d) ; De La
G ar za v. St at e , 65 0 S.W .2d 87 0, 87 6 (Tex

. App .--San Ant on io 19 83 , pe t. ref’d)

. Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h th at he was en ti tl ed to a ch arg e on th e le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se of a gg rav at ed ass au lt

. App el la nt ’s fift een th is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Six te ent

h Is su e In hi s si xt een th is su e, App el la nt co m pl ai ns th at th e St at e co m

m it te d rev ers ib le

erro r by m ak in g im

pr op er co m

m en ts du rin g cl os in g arg um en t. The St at e res po nd s by ass ert in g t ha t i t i s n ot at a ll cle ar wh at App el la nt is tal ki ng ab ou t. App el la nt co m

pl ai ns of cert ai n st at em en ts m ad e by co un se l fo r th e St at e du rin g cl os in g arg um en t. Sp eci fic al l y, A p p el la nt al le ge s th at co un se l fo r th e St at e m ad e refe ren ce t o t he App el la nt be in g away fo r th ree a nd on e-h al f y ears , and th at he was he lp ed by hi s fam il y . (Ap pe ll an t’s Bri ef, p
. 67 ). App el la nt arg ue s th at th es e

s t a t e ment s are a co m

m en t on App el la nt ’s fai lu re to te st ify or of fer ev id en c e
. (Ap pe ll an t’s Bri ef, p. 68 ). It is no t at al l cl ear w h a t A p p e l l an t m ean s by th es e

a r g u ment s, be cau se App el la nt di d te st ify! (R.R. Vol

. 14 , pp
. 58 -1 53 ). Fu rth e r ,
State’s B rief Pag e 37App el la nt m ak es refe ren ce to th es e st at em en ts su pp os ed ly m ad e by th e St at e du rin g

cl os in g arg um en t; ho wev er, App el la nt pr ov id e reco rd ci te s whi ch a r e t o v oi r di re
p r o c e e d in gs
. (See App el la nt ’s Bri ef, p. 67 -6 8, ci ti ng R.R. Vol

. 7, pp
. 66 , 7 6 )

. W it ho ut th e pr op er ci ta ti on to th e reco rd , it is im po ss ib le to de te rm in e th e co nt ex t of th es e st at em en ts , an d th eref or e, it is im

po ss ib le to de te rm in e whe th er App el la nt ’s

co m pl ai nt ha s an y m eri t. Bec au se App el la nt ha s fai le d to in cl ud e pr op er reco rd ci te s, th is is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d. Tex

. R. App

. P. 3 8

. 1 ( i ) ( “Th e br ie f m us t co nt ai n a cl ear an d co nc is e arg um en t fo r th e co nt en ti on s m ad e, wit h ap pr op ria te ci ta ti on s to

au th or it ie s an d to th e reco rd .”); se e al so Alva ra do , 91 2 S.W .2d at 21 0 ( “As an
ap pe ll at e co ur t, it is no t ou r ta sk t o p o r e t h r o u gh hu nd red s of pa ge s of reco rd in an
at te m pt to ve rif y an ap pe ll an t's cl ai m s.”) ; Co ok , 61 1 S.W .2d at 87 (“ Thi s co ur t wit h it s tre m en do us cas el oa d sh ou ld no t be ex pe ct ed to le af th ro ug h a vo lu m in ou s reco rd ho pi ng to fin d th e m at te r rai se d by ap pe ll an t an d th en sp ecu la te whe th er it is th at pa rt of th e rec or d t o wh ic h a pp el la nt ha d re fere nc e.”).
Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s si xt een th is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Seve nt

eent h Is su e In hi s se ve nt een th is su e, App el la nt co mp l a i n s t ha t th e tri al co ur t erre d in rese nt en ci ng hi m aft er he ha d al read y be en se nt en ced

. The St at e res po nd s by as se rti ng

State’s B rief Pag e 38th at th e tri al co ur t w as wit hi n it s au th or it y to pr on ou nc e a le ga l se nt en ce, aft er th e

co ur t h ad pre vi ou sl y

pro no un ced a se nt en ce t ha t was no t au th or iz ed by law.
A s en te nc e th at is ou ts id e th e m ax im um or m in im

um ran ge of p u n is hm en t is

un au th or iz ed by la w an d th eref or e il le ga l. Ex pa rt e Pen a , 71 S.W .3d 33 6 n. 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 02 ) (“ [a] ‘voi d’ or ‘ill eg al ’ se nt en ce is o ne th at is no t au th or iz ed by la w”); Ex pa rt e Se id el , 39 S.W .3d 22 1, 22 5 n. 4 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 01 ) (“ th is Co ur t ha s lo ng he ld th at a se nt en ce is vo id whe n th e pu ni sh m en t is un au th or iz ed ”); Ex pa rt e Beck , 92 2 S.W .2d 18 1, 18 2 (Tex. Crim

. App

. 19 96 ). A de fen da nt m ay ob ta in rel ie f fro m an un au th or iz ed se nt en ce on di rect ap pe al or by a writ of ha be as co rp us
. Se e Ex
pa rt e Pen a , 71 S.W .3d at 33 7 n. 4, 33 8. Trad it io na l l y, t h e St at e co ul d se ek

m an da m us rel ie f to rect ify an il le ga l or un au th or iz ed se nt en ce. Se e St at e ex re l.
Van c e v
. H

a t te n , 6 00 S.W .2d 82 8, 83 1 (Tex . C rim. App . 1 98 0) ; St at e ex re l. Cu rr y

v. Gra y , 59 9 S.W .2d 63 0, 63 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 80 ). In th es e in st an ces , th e St at e

co ul d ev en se ek a res en te nc in g by fi li ng a m ot io n to reo pe n pu ni sh m en t i n t he tri al

co ur t, lo ng aft er th at co ur t ha d lo st pl en ary juri sd ic ti on ov er th e cas e. Se e Vil la rr ea l

v. St at e , 59 0 S.W .2d 93 8, 93 8- 39 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 79 ); Ban ks v. St at e , 29 S.W .3d
64 2, 6 45 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4t h Di st .] 20 00 , pet . ref’d) (h ol di ng th at Sta te was

en ti tl ed to fil e a m ot io n fo r res e n t e n c i n g in tri al co ur t be cau se de fen da nt ’s o rig in al

se nt en ce w a s “i ll eg al an d vo id ”). The re ha s ne ve r be en an y th in g in Tex as la w t ha t

State’s B rief Pag e 39pr ev en te d an y co ur t w i t h juri sd ic ti on ov er a cri m in al cas e fro m no ti ci ng an d

co rrec ti ng an il le ga l se nt en ce. Miz el l v. St at e , 11 9 S.W .3d 80 4, 80 6 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 03 ).
In th e pr es en t cas e, App el la nt was fo un d gu il ty of th e of fen se of cap it al m

ur de r

an d was in it ia ll y se nt en ced to a li fe se nt en ce. (R.R. Vol

. 15 , p. 64 ). The Tex as Pen al
Co de req ui res th at App el la nt be se nt en ced to a li fe se nt en ce, wit ho ut th e po ss ib il it y of pa ro le

. Tex

. Pen al Co de §1 2.3 1. On Feb ru ary 24 , 20 14 , te n da y s aft er App el la nt ’s

se nt en ce was in it ia ll y pr on o u n c e d in op en co ur t, App el la nt was br ou gh t ba ck in to

co ur t an d th e tri al jud ge cl ari fie d th at App el la nt was se n t e n c e d t o a li fe se nt en ce,

w it ho ut pa ro le

. (R.R. Vol

. 16 , p. 4)

. In li gh t of th e fo reg oi ng au th or it ie s, t h e t r i a l

co ur t di d no t err in br in gi ng Ap p e l l a n t b a c k to pr on ou nc e th e se nt en ce req ui red by la w. Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt ’s sev en te en th is su e sh ou ld be ov erru le d.

PRAYER
WH EREFORE , PREMIS ES CONSI DERED , th e St at e of Tex as pr ay s th at th is Co ur t will ov erru le App el la nt ’s is su es on ap pe al , and affi rm bo th th e jud gm en t of co nv ic ti on an d t he sen te nc e h erei n.

State’s B rief Pag e 40Res pe ct fu ll y Su bm it te d,
LUI S V. SAENZ Camero n Cou nty Dis tri ct Atto rney 96 4 Eas t Har ris on Str eet , 4t h F lo or Bro wns vi ll e, Tex as 78 52 0 Ph on e: (95 6) 54 4- 08 49 Fax : (9 56 ) 54 4- 08 69

By : /s / Ren é B. Gon zá le z René B. G on zá le z Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y St at e Bar No. 0 81 31 38 0 rg on zal ez1 @c o.c am ero n.t x.u s Atto rney s fo r the Sta te o f Tex as

CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE
I cert ify t ha t th is d o cu m en t co nt ai ns 9,5 46 wor ds (ex cl ud in g th e co ve r, ta bl e of co nt en ts an d ta bl e of au th or it ie s)

. The bo dy te xt is in 14 po in t fo nt , an d th e fo ot no te tex t i s i n 1 2 p oi nt fon t.

/s / Ren é B. Gon zá le z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

State’s B rief Pag e 41CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

I cert i f y t h a t a co py o f th e fo reg oi ng St at e’s App el la te Bri ef was e-m ai le d to
Mr. Alfr ed o Pad il la , Att or ne y at Law, 77 7 East Harri so n St reet , Bro wns vi ll e, Tex as 78 52 0, at ap ad 13 04 78 @a ol .co m on th e 2 3t h d ay of M arch , 20 15

.

/s / Ren é B. Gon zá le

z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

State’s B rief Pag e 42