### NUM BER 13-06- 0064 6-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
EL LIL IA N JU D RA M OS, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 37 0t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y co nv ic ted a ppel lan t, El li li an Jud Ramos (“ El li li an” ), of the offense of traff ic ki ng of pers ons, a s econd -d eg re e felony

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 20A.02 ( Ver non Su pp. 2008)

. The ju ry

as ses sed puni shmentat four y ears’ impr is onment a nd a $10,000 fine, and
re commended sus pendi ng the sent ence and pl aci ng El li li an on communi ty su per v is ion for four y ears. In re nder ing i ts jud g ment of co nv ic ti on and sent ence, the tr ial co urt ac cept ed the j ur y ’s recommendat ion

. In ni ne i ss ues on appe al, El li lian c o n te n d s t hat: (1 ) the2

ev ide nce is l eg all y

and factual ly

insuffici ent; ( 2) the cour t erred bydeny ing Ell il ian ’s moti on for instructe d v erdict; (3) v arious violations resulte d f rom the trial court’s fa ilure to instruct the j ur y that it must unanimous ly agree on the spec ificact or acts Ell il ian co mmitt ed; a nd (4 ) the t ri al co ur

t er re d by

fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y thati t mus t una nimous ly ag re e on
w he th er E l l i l i an a c te d as p r i nc i pa l o r p ar ty

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On S eptember 22, 2005, a g ra nd jur y ind ic ted E ll il ian and her hus band, Juan Car los Ramos ( “J uan” ), for t he offenses o f traffick ing F lor ida lma Fl ores Sal es and M ar ia de J esus Batres. Se e id. Bo th E ll il ian and Juan ple aded “ not g uil ty ” and proceed ed to g ether to a tr ial by j ur y . A . Th e St at e’s E v id ence 1. S ale s’ s T est im ony Sal es, a Guatemal an cit iz en, t est ified thati n Aug ust2004, sh e and Batres cross ed illegally f rom Gu ate ma la into Mex ico and t hen t rav eled t o Matam oros to f ind w ork. W hile in Matam oros, Sa les w orked a s a co mp anio n and hou sekee per for Juan ’s moth er, Maria Ran g el Tri sta n. Tri sta n told Sal es that she had c hil dren l iv ing i n the U nit ed St ates and that if her children “gave [Sa les] the opp ortun ity ,” Sales sho uld go to the United St ate s to w ork for th em. Sal es tes ti fied th at i n Oc tober or Nov ember

of 2005, she met J uan and El li li an w hen th ey c am e to v i s i t Tr i s ta n. D ur i ng t he i r v i s i t, “ [t ]h ey

t ol d [Sale s ] th ati f [ s he ] w as t o c om e
w i t h t h e m t o [ t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ] , t h e y w o u l d p a y [ h e r] $ 1 2 5 p e r w e ek for cl eani ng , . . . c ooki ng , and ca ri ng for t he k ids .” Sal es tol d Juan and El li li an th at s he di d not hav e “ a n y d o c u me n t s ” t o a l l o w h e r t o c ro s s i n t o o r w o r k i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a n d tha t Batres w as als o i nterest ed i n w or ki ng i n the U nit ed St ates

. Juan and El li li an to ld her thatA “co y ote” i s “a pe rso n w ho sm ug gl es i l l eg al i m m i gra nts i nto t he U ni t ed S t ates for a fee

. ” U ni t ed 1 S ta te s v . H e rn a n d e z-B a u tis ta , 29 3 F

. 3d 84 5, 85 0 (5th C i r. 20 02 ).

Sal es f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat Juan and El l i l i an a l so off er ed t o pay an a ddi t i onal $25 0 t o cr oss Bat r es, 2 an d th a t B a tres co ul d w ork for El l i l i an ' s m othe r, D ora D e L eo n (“D ora ”) , as a c are gi ver t o D ora ' s m othe r, M ari na D e A l ejan dro (" M ari na " ). 3 they w oul d pay

a “ coy ote” $250 to cross Sal es int o the Uni ted Stat es, and that once in the

1 United State s, Sales “w ould be ab le to w ork it of f .” Sale s accep ted the of fer. Juan told 2 Sal es “t hat s oon he w oul d c all [her ] ov er the phone t o ma ke the ar ra ng ements , and that they w oul d c ro ss [Sa les and Batres] ov er .” S a le s t e s t if ie d t h a tJu a n ca ll e d h e r o n e d a y, t h o u gh sh e wa s n o ts u r e o f t h e d a y, and t old her

that “e v er

ythi ng w as tak en c are of.” O n N ov ember 12, 2004, tw o men pi ck ed up Sal es and Ba tres and drov e to the bus stat ion in Matamoros. The men par ked the c ar at th e stat ion an d w alked a long t he riv er with Sales an d Bat res until the y reache d a place sui tabl e for cross ing

. One man sw am across w it h Sal es and Ba tres. U pon reachi ng the Un it e d Sta tes , t hey

trav ele d by

foot to a “ phar macy

or a g as sta ti on” w here the man telep hon ed Juan

. Ju an “q uickly ” arriv ed in a “Subu rban ” w ith Ellilian’s brothe r, Hector De Al eja ndro ( “H ect or”)

. Sal es and Ba tres g ot int o Juan’ s v ehi cl e w hil e Juan tal ked to the man that had helped them c ro ss . Juan dropped S ale s o ff , w it h onl y the cl othes thatsh e w as
w ea r i ng , ath i s h om e i n M i s s i on , Tex as , an d th en he an d H ec to r drov e Ba tres t o th e ho me of Ellili an’s m oth er, Dora De Leo n (“Dora”), in McAllen, T exas. Sal es tes ti fied th at as so on as sh e entered Juan and El li li an’ s home, s he “ sta rt ed
w or ki ng ” by

w ashi ng di shes and tak ing cl othes out of the dry er . Addi ti onal ly , s he te sti fied that w hil e s he w or ked for J uan and El li li an, she w or ked sev en day s a w eek for tw enty to tw enty -tw o hours p er

day

. Sal es thoug ht t hat s he w oul d hav e to w or k for tw o w eeks to pay El li li an and Juan back

for c ro ss ing her ; how ev er , Sa les tes ti fied that after compl eti ng her f irst w eek’s w ork, Ellilian told Sa les tha t she would have to w ork at least one y ear be foreSal es t est i f i ed t hat “ chi ngot ear t e” m eans t o wor k har d un der sl av e- l i k e con di t i ons. 3
4 she w oul d be pai d “ becau se not e v en i n one y ear w ould [ Sales] pay

her off for h av ing [Sal es] broug ht ac ro ss .” Sa les tol d El li li an th at s he had come t o Te xas t o p ro vi de her chi ldren w it h a “ bette r future. ” El li li an respon ded by tel li ng Sal es that she had c ome to “c hin g otear

te.” Sal es test ified that “[f]rom that w eek forw ard,” Ell il ian told her thatif she 3 “d idn ’tdo w hat [she] neede d to do atthe house and sto p as ki ng for h er sa lar y ,” El li li an
w oul d r epo rt S a l e s t o t h e p o l i c e o r “ I mm i g ra t i o n , ” a n d S a l e s w o u l d b e s e n t b a c kto Guate mala. Al thoug h Sal es tes ti fied that El li li an treated her poor ly , she tes ti fied th at J uan
w as “v er y ni ce to [ her

] al l the t ime, ” and t hat h e ev e n b ro ug ht S ale s t he c lot hes that she had lef t at T ristan’s hom e in Matam oros. Sal es tes ti fied th at tw o to three w eeks after sh e beg an w or ki ng for J uan and El li li an, the y took he r to w ork at Pap pasito ’s, an ad ult da y care ce n t e r ru n by Ell ilian’s sister, Hay dee Es trada. At Pappas it o’s , Sales saw Batres , w ho w as car ing for Mar ina

. One d ay at P appas it o’s , Sa les met M ar ia Val lad ares, anot her w or ker

. As Sal es and Va ll adares cl eaned o ut an i ce maker , Sa les q uie tl y as ked Val lad ares if sh e wou ld “ h e lp [her and Batres] to g et ou t of there” bec ause they w ere “ su ff er ing a l ot” and “b ein g deni ed food.” How ev er , the conv ersat ion abruptl y ended w hen eithe r El li li an or Es trada ent ered th e room and as ked Sal es and Va ll adares w hat t hey w ere tal ki ng about

. One day in ear ly Janua ry 2005, Ma ri na, acc ompani ed by Bat re s, spentthe nig ht at Ellilian’s hom e. T he next d ay, Dora conf ronte d Bat res a nd told her tha t if sh e did no t take proper ca re of Ma ri na, B atres w as “g oin g to g o s traig ht t o j a il” a n d “ from there [t o] Immig ra ti on.” Sales i nter v ened, sta ti ng thatsh e “ w as si ck and ti re d of bei ng threatened .” El li li an to ld Sal es to be q uie t; how ev er , Sa les retor ted, “Y es, but y ou th re aten me jus t asSal es t est i fi ed tha t up unt i l t hi s poi nt , she had onl y bee n pa i d $2 00 b y El l i l i an a nd h ad n ot bee n 4 com pensat ed b y Pappasi t o’ s.

T h e n o te r e q u e s te d h e l p a n d p ro v i d e d a te l e p h o n e n u m b e r fo r V a l l a d a re s to c a l l to c o m m u n i c a te 5 wi t h Bat r es. 5 m uch . . . .” Ellil ian th en to ld Sales th at she w as going to be sentback to Mata mo ros. Sal es re spond ed th at s he w oul d “ prefer t o g o to Ma tamoros and not suffer,” and that she
w ant ed E ll il ia n to pay her the m one y thatshe ha d ea rned

. Af ter the argumen t, Dora 4
s u g g e s t e d t h a tb o t h S a l e s a nd Batr es li v e a n d w o r ki n h e r h o me . S a l e s a n d B a t r e s l e ft
w it h Dora, but Ell il ian refused to allo w Sales to tak e anyclot hes other than the ones that she w as w ear ing

. Soon a fter mov ing to Dora’s , Sa les g av e a n ote t o J ose Mu noz , a man Batres had bef riende d at Pa pp a s it o ’s. Sales testif ied th at Muno zdeliv ered the no te to Vallada res. 5 Val lad ares cont act ed Bat re s a nd a rra n g ed to hel p Sal es and Ba tres “e sc ape.” At10:0 0 p.m . tha t evening, Sales an d Bat res snuck ou t of a bed room w indo w

and metVallada res’s daug hter , w ho w as w ait ing for t hem i n a c ar par ked near

D ora’s home. She took Sal es and Batres to V all adares’ s h ouse. Soon after, Sal es and Ba tres re por ted t hei r ex per ien ce to
a represent ati v e of Un it ed Far m W or kers. Late r, they deta il ed th eir

enc ounter

w it h Inv est ig ator

Ted R odr ig uezof the M is si on Pol ic e Dep artment. D ur ing cross -e x aminat ion , Sal es conc eded t hat she w as not ph y si cal ly hel d i n El li li an’ s h ouse; how ev er , s he te sti fied that she w as hel d by

El li li an’ s t hreats of cal li ng the pol ic e. 2. B atr es’ s T est im ony Batres tes ti fied that after cross ing the ri v er , she and Sal es w ere pic ked up by Ju an and H ect or

i n a g ra y

Subur ban. She tes ti fied tha t upon ar ri v ing at Juan’ s h ome, H ect or drov e her in a w hit e v an to Dora ’s home. Batres testi fied th at t he arg ument ar is ing from her ca re of Ma ri na took plac e around Janua ry 1, 2005, and t hat a fter t he arg ument S ale s6

came t o l iv e w it h her

at Dora’s

. Batres addi ti onal ly t e st if ied thatSal es did not hav e any cl othes w it h her

bec ause El li li an “ took

al l of it [si c] from her .” 3. A dditi onal T est im ony Vallad ares test if ied th at she had w orked only one day for Pappa sito’s, and thatw hile at Pa ppa sito’s, Sale s asked for h er h elp. V allada res t estif ied tha t at lun chtim e, Ellilian told her to sit and eat

. Vallad ares noticed Sales an d Bat res “g o to on e side, and . . . put the ir hands behi nd th eir

bac k[s ].” El li li an to ld Val lad ares that Sal es and Batres w ere notg oin g to ea t bec aus e t h e y w e r e g o i n g t o e a t a t h o me . V a l l a d a r e s i n s i s t e d t h a t i f S a l e s and Batres coul d noteat, nei ther w oul d s he. Val lad ares then g av e Sal es and Ba tres her pl ate to sha re, f inished w orking that da y at Pap pasito ’s, and never ag ain retu rned to w ork. Val la d a r e s t e s t i fi e d t h a t s o me t i me l a t e r , M u n o z g a v e h e r “ a l i t t l e p a p e r” w it h a te l ep ho ne n um be r

t ha t s he u s ed t o c on ta c t Ba tres . V al l ad ares t es ti fi ed t ha t at1 0: 00 p .m . one ni g ht, her

daug hter

retr iev ed Sal es and Ba tres from outs ide D ora’s home. Inv est ig ator

R odr ig ueztes ti fied th at S ale s a nd Bat re s fil ed an ini ti al re por t w it h the Mi ss ion Pol ic e on Febr uar y 8, 2005. On Febr uar

y 23, 2005, Sal es and Ba tres came t o the sta ti on and gave i n d iv idu al sta tements to Inv est ig ator R odr ig uez . On A pr il 18, 2005, Inv est ig ator Rod ri g uez spok e to El li li an at Pappas it o’s ; El li li an deni ed k now ing Sal es and Batres. H ow ev er , tw o day s l ater , El li li an phon ed th e pol ic e depar tment and al leg ed th at Sal es had s ex ual ly

as sau lt e d El li li an’ s y oung estso n. El li li an nev er foll ow ed up her compl ain t by

fil ing a proper

st atement w it h the M is si on Pol ic e D epar tment. After the S tate rest ed its case- in- chi ef, El li li an mov ed for a di re cte d v erdict. The tr ial
cour t den ied El li li an’ s mot ion

. B. Th e D ef

ense ’s E v id ence7

1. E ll il ian ’ s T est im ony Ellilian testif ied th at she metSales on Nov em ber 23 , 20 0 4 at T ristan’s hom e in Ma tamoros. Atthi s meetin g , Sales show ed Ell il ian a Cal ifor nia ID

. El li li an ag re ed to pay Sal es $120 pe r w eek to care for her y oung estso n. A few

day s l ater , J uan broug ht S ale s to t hei r home i n M is si on. S a le s a rr iv ed w it h a mes h bag co ntai nin g personal i tems and cl othes

. El li li an as ked Sal es if her tr ip w as okay , and then as ked Sal es to g o to sl eep. E ll il ia n t e s t if ie d t h a ta lt h o u gh S a le s h a d vis it e d P a p p a s it o ’s fo r a Ch ri s t m a s p a rt y, she had nev er

w or ked there. El li li an s tated thatsh e made b iw eekl y w it hdraw als to pay Sal es, and that on J anuar y 4, 2005, Sal es left El li li an’ s re si dence to li v e w it h Dora. Sal es took her cl othes w hen s he mov ed to Dora’s , as w ell as cl othi ng that El li li an had purchas ed for her

. El li li an fu rt h e r te sti fied th at I nv est ig ator R odr ig uezhad not s poken to her at Pappas it o’s on A pr il 18, 2 0 05, a nd th at s he di d notmeet him unti l she w as ar re ste d on June 21, 2 005. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , El li li an deni ed pay ing to ha v e Sal es and Ba tres cross ed i nto t h e Un it e d S t a t e s , t h re a t e n in g o r wi t h h o ld in g m o n e y f ro m S a le s , o r t re a t in g S a le s p o o rl y. El li li an al so tes ti fied th at S ale s h ad “ moles ted” her son, and that Ell il ian did not repor t t he abuse to pol ic e unt il Ju ne 2005 bec ause she did not know Sal es’ s l astname. 2. E str ada’ s T est im ony Est ra da te sti fied th at, as the s ole ow ner of Pappas it o’s , she was the o nly person
w ith au tho rity

t o hire em ployees. Estrada testif ied th at alth ough she had metVallada res, sh e ha d ne ver h ire d he r to w o rk a t Pa p p a sit o ’s. Ad d it io n a lly, Es tr a d a s ta te d th a t a lt h o u gh Batres attend e d P a p pasi to’ s t o c are for Ma ri na, B atres nev er cl eaned o r cook ed. Accordin g to Estra da, no on e coo ked a t Pap pasito ’s becau se the re w as no kitchen an d all8

of the m eals w ere cate red. Estrad a stat ed th at she had metSales ata Pap pasi t o’s Christma s party and thatSales ne v er cooke d or clean ed a t Pap pasito ’s. 3. Munoz ’

s T est im ony Muno ztestif ied th at he metBatres an d Sale s at Pap pasito ’s becau s e h e took his p a re n t s there o nce a w eek for dan ces. Muno ztestif ied th at Ba tres w as his gir lf riend in Janua ry and Febr uar

y of 2005. H e s tated that he had nev er been g iv en a note by

Bat re s or Sal e s . H e fu rt h e r

t e s t i fi e d t h a tB a t r e s t o l d h i m t h a ts h e a n d S a l e s “ h a d g o t t en tog ether

. . . so that theycould acc use [El li li an and Juan] and so that they co uld g et money and .

. . v is a[s ].” Mun o z test ified thatBat re s t old hi m thatsh e w oul d pay hi m if he
cor ro borated her

l ie by sa y ing thatsh e and Sal es w ere abus ed and forced to w or k a t Pappas it o ’s. Afte r M unozrefused to l ie, Sal es threatened to hur t M unozand his so n. Mu nozal so tes ti fied th at sh o rt ly b efore t he tr ial , he had s tar ted w or ki ng for a medi cal suppl y co mpany

ow ned by

El li li an. 4. A dditi onal T est im ony Brenda M arti nez Cas ti ll o tes ti fied th at s he had int ro duced Sal es to Tr is tan o n Oct ober 27, 2004, but t hat s he had met Sal es in Ma tamoros in 1999. Do ra ’s so n , Ch ri s t ia n De L e o n , t e s t if ie d t h a th e wit n e s s e d S a le s a n d B a t re s le a ve h is m o t h e r’ s h o m e in J a n u a ry 20 0 5

. Ho we ve r, in s t e a d o f f le e in g t h ro u g h a wi n d o w, Chr is ti an te sti fied th at he w atc hed as Sales and Batres “w alk ed out throug h the front door .” Rey nal do MunozMar

ti nez , a man w ho reg ula rl y att ended P appas it o’s , t est ified that he had met Bat re s a nd Sal es at P appas it o’s

. He tes ti fied th at B atres w oul d ac company Marina to da nces h oste d by Pappa sito’s, bu t tha t he ne v er s a w B a tres clean or cook. Addi ti onal ly , he tes ti fied that Sal es als o atten ded the d ances , butthathe n ev er obs er v edJ u a n w a s tr ie d o n ly f o r th e o ff e n s e o ftr a ff ic k in g S a le s a n d w a s a c q u itt e d b y th e ju r y. 6
9 h e r cle a n in g or c o o kin g. The ju ry found El li li an g uil ty

of tra f f ick ing Sal es, and acq uitted h er of traff ic ki ng Batres. The jur

y as ses sed puni shmentat four y ears’ i mpri sonmentand a $10, 000 fine, 6 and recomm e n d ed s uspen din g i mposi ti on of the sent ence and pl aci ng El li li an on communi ty

su per v is ion for four

y ears. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed El li li an i n ac cordance w it h the j ur y ’s recommendat ion

. This appeal ens ued.

II. L E GA L A ND F A CTUA L S UF FI CI E NCY In he r firs t and se cond is sues , El li li an c o n te n d s that the e v ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s v erdict. In her

thi rd i ss ue, E ll il ian co ntends that the t ri al cour

t er re d i n deny ing her

moti on for an ins tr uct ed v erdict. Bec ause a moti on for an inst ructed v erdict is a challen ge to the lega l s u f f ic ie n cy of the evidence , w e ad dress thes e i ss ues tog ether

. See Lem oin e v . St ate , 85 S.W .3d 3 85, 3 87 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti 2 0 0 2 , pe t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Ma dden v . St ate , 799 S.W .2d 6 83, 6 86 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) ). A . St and ard s o f Rev iew an d A pp licab le L aw In cond ucting a legal su f f iciency revi ew, w e mu st ask w het her “‘ any ra ti onal tr ier of fact c oul d hav e found the ess enti al ele ments of t he c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt ’— not
w het her ‘ it

believes that t h e e vid ence at the trial establishe d guilt beyond a reaso nab le doubt. ’” L a st er

v. Sta te , 2 7 5 S. W .3 d 51 2 , 5 1 7 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Jacks on
v . Vi r gi nia , 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 ( 1979) ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l) ). A jur y ’s v erdict w il l be uphel d “ unl ess a rati onal f actfinder [w oul d] hav e had re asona ble doubtas to any es sent ial elem ent .” Id. at 517. W e do not reev alu ate the w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the e v ide nce, and10

w e do not subs ti tute our ow n judg ment for

the tr ier of fact. Ki

ng v . St ate , 29 S.W .3d 5 56, 562 ( Tex . C ri m. A p p . 2 000) ( en banc ); Beck hamv. Sta te , 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 1 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, p e t. r e f ’d)

. W e resol v e any i ncons is tenc ies i n the
ev ide nce in fav or

of the j udg ment. Cur

ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 94, 406 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 0). In c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht to de ter mine w hether

the ev ide nce is so w eak that the jur y ’s v erdict s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and ma nifestly unju st or the jury’ s v erdict is against the g reat weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the ev ide nce. W

ats on v . St ate , 2 0 4 S

. W. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4
- 1 5 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 )

. W e
w ill notrev erse the jury ’s v erdict un less w e can sayw ith som e objective basis in the record that the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the e v ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. Id. at 417. Bot h l eg al and factu al suffici ency are meas ured b y t h e elements of the o ff ense as defined b y

a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. See Curry , 30 S.W .3d a t 404 ; Adi v. Sta te , 94 S. W .3d 1 24, 1 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. ref’d)

. Sect ion 20A. 02 of the penal co de prov ide s t hat a person commi ts the o ff ense of traff ic ki ng of persons w hen t hat p erson “k now ing ly traff ic s a nother

person w it h the i ntent
or kn ow led g e tha t t he traff ic ked person w il l eng ag e i n forc ed l abor or se rv ic es. ” T EX . P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 20A.0 2 (a )(1 ). “‘ Traff ic ’ means to t ra nspor t, enti ce, recr uit , har bor , prov ide , or o the rw ise obt ain ano the r pe rson by an y m ean s.” Id. § 20A .01 (2) (Vernon Su pp. 200 8). Sect ion 20 A.0 1 of

the pe nal cod e provides: (1 ) “F or ced lab or

or ser v ic es” m eans la bor

or ser v ic es . . . that are per

formed or prov ide d by

anot her person and obt ain ed th ro ug h an act or ’s : (A ) cau sin g o r threateni ng to caus e bodi ly i nju ry to the p erson [prov idi ng the lab or

or se rv ic es]

. . . ;11 (B ) restrai nin g or

threateni ng to re strain the person [prov idi ng the lab or or se rv ic es]

. . . ; (C ) know ing ly

des troy ing , c oncea li ng , remov ing , c onfisc ati ng , or w it hhol din g from t he person [prov idi ng the lab or or se rv ic es]

. . . the person’ s a ctu al or

pur por ted: (i) gov ernm entrecords; (i i) i denti fyi ng i nformati on; o r (i ii ) p e rs o n a l p ro p e rt y;

. . . (E ) threateni ng to re por t t he person . . . to i m mig ra ti on offici als or other l aw enforc ement offici als

. . . . Id. § 20A. 01( 1)

. Res train means “ to rest ri ct a person’ s mov ements w it hout cons ent, so as to i nter fere s ubst anti all y

w it h the person’ s li ber

ty , bymov ing the person from one pla ce to
ano the r or by

con f in in g t h e pe rson.” Id. § 20.0 1(1) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). Restraint is “w ithou t conse nt” w hen “it is accom plished byforce, intim idatio n, or de cept ion.” Id. The ju ry w as ins tr uct ed th at i t c oul d find El li li an g uil ty under the law of par ti es. I n order to conv ic t El li li a n of

traff ic ki ng of persons under the law of par ti es, the Stat e w as re q uired to prov e tha t, w it h the i ntentto promote or as si st in the o f

f e n se o f traff ic ki ng of persons , El li li an s oli ci ted, encou ra g ed, d irect ed, a ide d, o r a tt empted t o ai d i n the commi ss ion o f the traff ic ki ng of persons . T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 7.02( a) (2 ) (V er non 2003) ; see Hooper

v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9, 14 n .3 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 7). B. Leg al S uf

fi cien cy an d Mo ti on for

an In st ru ct ed Verd ict In he r firs t and thi rd i ss ues, El li li an c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent to s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s v erdict and thatthe tr ial courterred byrefusin g to g ra nt he r moti on for an i nst ru cte d v erdict. El li li an beg ins her l eg al suffici ency

arg ument by

as se rt in g thata12

ra ti onal j ur

y co uld not hav e found her g uil ty under the law of par ti es becau se, by

ac q uitti ng Juan, the jur

y found that t h e e v ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o es tabl is h tha t J uan w as the p ri mary

ac tor

. Mo re ov er , El li li an arg ues that a rati onal juror could not hav e found her g uil ty as the pr inc ipa l becau se t h e ev ide nce present ed attr ial di d notprov e bey ond a
re asona ble doubtthat she committe d the of fense of traff ic ki ng of

humans

. W e di sag re e. T exas Pena l Code section 7 .03 provi des th at “[i]n a pro secut ion in w hich an actor’s
cr imi nal re spons ibi li ty is based on th e c onduc t of anot her , t he ac tor may be c onv ic ted o n proof of commis si on of the off ense and t hat h e w as a par ty to it s c ommis si on, a nd i t i s n o defense

. . . t hat t he person for w hose condu ct the a cto r is cr imi nal ly respon si ble has been acquitted , has not bee n prose cute d or convicted, h as be en co nvicted of a dif feren t of fense or of a dif feren t type or class of of fense , or is i mm une f rom p rosecu tion. ” T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 7.0 3 (Verno n 20 03). T here fore, Jua n’s acquittal, alo ne, doe s not pre v entEllili an’s
conv ic ti on. See Ex par

te T hom pson , 179 S.W .3d 549, 55 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ( noti ng tha t “the acquitta l of

the princip al doe s not pre v entconviction of his accom plice”). El li li an arg ues that Sal es tes ti fied that it w as Juan, and not E ll il ian , w ho: (1 ) off ered Sale s emp loyment ; (2) arranged for a “coy ote ” to cross Sa les; (3) w as con tacte d to “pickup” Sa les once she w as in the U n it e d S t a tes; a nd (4) “picked-up ” Sales in Brow nsvil le shortly aft er she crossed the bo rder. How ever, Sales testif ied as follows: [Sta te]: How

is i t tha tyo u e n ded up—you stop ped w orking fo r M aria Ran g el Tri sta n? [Sal es] : W hil e I w as w or ki ng w it h her , [ Juan] and the l ady , [ El li li an],

came o v er . And t hey offered me w or k, to c ome and w or k for the m he re in the Unite d Sta tes.

. . .13

[Sta te]: W hat—

w hat d id they

tel l y ou? [Sa les]: [Jua n] asked m e if I w ant ed to come w ork w ith the m over here on th is si de. [S ta te ]: Y ou d i dn ’ t as kt he m? [Sal es] : I t alk ed to them w hen t hey tol d me.

. . . [S ta te ]: N ow

y ou s ai d th ey

a s k ed y ou t o c om e w or kfor t he m? [Sa les]: Yes. [Sta te]: W hat d id they w ant y ou to do? [Sal es] : Theytol d me t hat i f I w as to c ome w it h the m to thi s s ide , t hey

w oul d pay

me $125 per

w e e k f or

cl eani ng , t he c ooki ng , and caring fo r the kids. [Sta te]: And how w ere you g oing to get across? [S al es ]: I to l d th em th at I di dn ’ t ha v e an y d oc um en ts

. A nd t he y

t ol d me that w e could tak e c are of itw it h a p oll ero, or co y ote; that they w er e g oin g to pay

$250, and that here, w it h w or k, I w oul d be a b l e t o w o r ki to ff. Sa l es fur th er t es ti fi ed t ha t s he w or k ed tw en ty to tw en ty
- tw o ho urs per d ay a t El l i l i an ’ s h om e from mid -N ov ember

2004 to ea rl y

Ja nuar y 2005, and re cei v ed onl y one $ 2 00 pay ment. Sale s testif ied th at Ellilian threa ten ed to call the police or imm igration if Sale s did not w ork, and to depor

t Sal es to Guate mala. Addi ti onal ly , Sal es and Batres tes ti fied that w hen Sa les lef t Ellilian’s hom e to liv e w ith Dora, Ellilian ref used to allow Sale s to take her clothe s. After re v iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude that any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sen ti a l e lement s o f traffick ing of humans beyond a reason abl e doubt

. Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13. Ac cordin g ly , t he14

ev ide nce is leg all y

suff ic ien t to suppor

t Ell il ian ’s conv ic ti on. El li li an’ s f irst and third i ss ues are ov er ru led

. C. Fact ual Su ff icien cy In he r secon d issue, Ellil ian arg ues the ev iden ce is factu ally insuf f icient to suppo rt the j ur y ’s v erdict. Th e e vide n ce cont ra ry to the v erdict i s b ased pr imar il y on c onfli cti ng
w it ness tes ti mony . First, Castillo’ s t e s t imo ny tha t she m et Sa les in Matam oros in 19 99 d irectly cont radicts Sa les’s testim ony that she had not visi ted Matam oros be fore 20 04. M oreo v er, El li li an present ed ev ide nce that Sal es w as not res train ed—D ora’s son, C hr is ti an, t est ified that Sal es did not lea v e D ora’s hous e by j umping out of a w ind ow , buti nst ead t hat s he ended h er

empl oy ment w hen s he “ w alk ed outthroug h the front door .” Addi ti onal ly , El li li an presen ted e v ide nce that Sal es’ s t est imony reg ardin g w or ki ng at Pappas it o’s w as fabri cat ed. El li lian, Es trada, and M arti neztes ti fied th at al thoug h Sal es atten ded dan ces at P appas it o’s , s he had nev er w or ked there. Est ra da al so tes ti fied th at S a les ’s al leg ed Pappas it o’s co nfidant, Val lad ar es, nev er w or ked at Pappasi to’ s. Further , Es trada t est ified that nei ther Val lad ar es nor Sal es w oul d hav e cook ed at Pappas it o’s bec ause there w as no ki tch en and all of the meal s w ere c atered. Mu noztes ti fied th at B atres and Sa les ac cus ed El li li an of the off ense of tra ff ic ki ng persons i n order t o o b ta in money

and v is as. M unoz further st ated that Batres re q uest ed th at he co rroborate t hei r “l ie, ” and t hat S ale s threatened to har m hi m and his son if he re fused to compl y . Mu nozal so deni ed pas si ng a no te f rom Sa les to Va lladare s. El li li a n t e s t i fi e d t h a ts h e d i d n o tm e e tS a l e s u n t i l l a t e N o v e mb e r 2 0 0 4 , a n d that Sal es show ed her

a v ali d C ali forni a ID

. El li li an deni ed pay ing to cross Sal es int o the15

Uni ted Stat es, threateni ng Sal es, deny ing Sal es pay ment, or treati ng her

poor ly

. El li li an tes ti fied th at, w hil e Sales w or ked in her home, she prov ide d Sal es w it h c lot hes pur chas ed from F ole y ’s , and pay ment of $120 per w eek. Ad dit ion all y , El li li an te sti fied th at S ale s h ad “mol est ed” her

y oung estso n. The ju ry i s t he s ole judg e of

the w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the e v ide nce and i s e nti tl ed to res olv e conflicts in the e v ide nce. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 36.13 (V er non 200 7). W e can notsayt hatt he e v iden ce w as so w eak th at Ellilian’s conviction w as against t h e g r e a t w e i g h t a n d p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o r ma n i fe s t l y unj ust

. See W

ats on , 204 S. W .3d a t 414 -1 5. Therefore, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce w as factual ly su ff ic ien t. El li li an’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III . J U R Y C HA RGE In issue s four thro ugh eight, Ellilian conte nds th at by fa iling to spe cif ically instruct the j ur y thata unanimous ve rd ic t reg ardin g “spec ificacts of condu ct” m ustbe reac hed, (1 ) the t ri al cour

t er re d and the harm to Ell il ian w as eg re g iou s ( is sue 4) ; ( 2) El li li an w as deni ed due proces s ri g hts under the Fi fth and Four teent h Amendments of t he Uni ted Sta tes Con sti tuti on ( is sue 5) ; and ( 3) El li li an w as deni ed a f a ir and i mpart ial tr ial g uaranteed under : (i ) the S ixth A mendment of the Uni ted S tates C onst it uti on ( is sue 6) ; ( ii ) arti cl e V, section 13, an d article I section s 10 an d 1 9 o f t h e T exas Constitut ion (issue 7); an d (iii)
arti cl e 36. 29( a) of the Tex as Cod e of Procedu re ( is sue 8)

. Addi ti onal ly , i n her ni nth i ss ue, Ellilian conte nds th at th e trial court erred by fa iling to instructthe jury tha tit m ust
u n a n im o u s ly d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r s h e a c t e d a s t h e p ri n c ip a l o r a p a rt y. A . St and ard o f Rev iew “O ur first duty

i n anal y z ing a j ur

y -c harg e i ss u e i s to dec ide w hether er ro r ex is ts. ”16

Ngov. Sta te , 175 S.W .3d 7 38, 7 43 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. If error ex is ts, w e the n deter mine w hether

the er ro r har med the defendant. Id. I f the defendant proper ly obj ect ed to th e errone ous jury charge, reversal is required if w e f ind “som e ha rm” to the defend ant ’s ri g hts

. Id. If

t h e d e fe n d a n td i d n o to bj e c t , we m a y o n ly r e ve rs e if t h e re c o rd sh o ws eg re g iou s h ar m. Id. at 743- 44. B. “Spec ific Acts of Con duct” Ellilian conte nds th at s h e wa s d eprived of her rig ht to a una nim ous jury v erdict becau se the j ur

y w as ins tr uct ed th at i t c oul d find El li li an g uil ty of traff ic ki ng Sal es if El li li an (1 ) transpo rt ed, (2 ) enti ced, (3 ) re cr uit ed, or ( 4) othe rw is e obt ain ed Sal es for transpo rtby decep ti on. El li li an contends that each of these “ac ts” consti tute ind ependentcr imes , and that the j ur

y sh oul d hav e been ins tr uct ed th at t hey mustunan im ousl y

ag re e as to the spec ific“ act ” that El li li an c ommitt ed. The Stat e argue s th a t th e offense of tra ff ic ki ng of persons i s a resul t- or ien ted off ense and, therefore, the “ different ty pes of conduc t” l is ted in the charge are notsepa rate of fense s. “B oth Tex as and federal cour ts hav e hel d tha t the j ur

y mustbe u nani mous i n findi ng tha t the defend antcomm itted a specif ic statut orycrime.” Landr ain v. Sta te , 268 S.W .3d 532, 536 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

. Una nimi ty req uires “t hat e ach and ev er y j uror ag re es tha t t h e d e f e n d antcomm itted the sam e, single, specif ic cri min al act.” Ngo , 175 S.W .3d at 745. How ev er , “Tex as cour ts hav e lon g hel d tha t t he St ate may pl ead al ter nate ‘manne r and mea ns’ of

the com mission of the same of fense .” Gonz

ale s v . St ate , 270 S.W .3d 2 82, 2 8 8 (T e x. Ap p .–Am a rill o 20 0 8 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g W il li s v . St ate , 2 9 S

. W

. 7 8 7 , 7 8 8 (T e x. 1 8 9 5 ) ); s e e also Lan drain , 268 S.W .3d a t 535 ( noti ng , “ The ju ry mustag re e tha t t he def end antcomm itted one specif ic cri me . Th at do es no t me an, howev er, tha t the jury must17

unani mousl y

find t hat t he defendant commi tted thatcri me in one spec ificw ay or ev en w it h
one s peci fic a ct. ”)

. “The q uest ion of w hat a j u ry m ustbe u nani mous a bout is dete rmi ned by the legislative inten t of

the ap plicable statu te.” Soto v. State , 2 6 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 5 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 8 , n o pe t. ) (qu o ti n g Santee v. Sta te , 2 4 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 7 (T e x. App.–H o u ston [1s t D is t.] 2007, no p et.) ). Se cti on 20A .02( a) (1 ) prov ide s t hat “ [a] person commi ts [the off ense of t ra ff ic ki ng of pe rs ons] i f the person . . . know ing ly traff ic s a nother person w it h the i ntentor kn ow led g e tha t t he traff ic ked person w il l eng ag e in forced l abor
or se rv ices

. . . .” T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 20A .02 (a)(1). The refore, we begin our analysis by add ressing w het her the legi slature inten ded to ma ke “transpo rt, ent ice, recruit, ha rbor, prov ide , or

othe rw is e obtai n another person by any means” in sec ti on 20A.01 (2 ) “s eparate ele ments of the offense [of traff ic ki ng of persons ] or under ly ing ‘ br ute fact s [ or means that ]
ma ke up a particula r eleme nt.’” Jef fer son v. State , 189 S.W .3d 3 05, 3 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o ti n g Richar

dson v. United S tates , 526 U .S. 813, 817- 18 ( 1999) ). One o f the “ besti ndi cat ors” of the l eg is lat ure’s int ent i s t he “ focus” or g ra v amen of the o ff ense. H uffm an v . St ate , 267 S.W .3d 902, 907 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2008)

. The Tex as Court of Cri min al App eals ha s state d tha t the “statuto ry ve rb def ining the crimina l act” is g enerall y the cr imi nal act that re q uires a unani mous v erdict. Ngo , 175 S.W .3d a t 745 n.24

. “Traff ic ” is the sta tutor y v er b s et f o rt h i n secti on 20A .02( a)

. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 20A.02 (a )( 1)

. The v er bs setforth i n s ect ion 20A. 01( 2) des cr ibe the m a n n e r in w hic h a person may “t ra ff ic ” another i ndi v idu al. See i

d. § 20A.01 (2 ). The focus of the o ff ense of traf f icking perso ns is on w het h e r a p erson traf f ics w ith an inten t to ef fect th e result spec ified i n the st atute —“ that the t ra ff ic ked person w il l eng ag e i n forc ed lab or or se rv ic es. ”18

Id. § 20 A.02( a) (1 ). Con duct that is cr imi nal iz ed onl y becau se of its resul t req uires int ent
as to t hat resul t and i s, therefore, a resul t- or ien ted o ff ense. Gonz ale s , 270 S.W .3d a t 288

. T here fore, we conclude that , as a ma tter of law , the of fense of traf

f icking of hum ans is a
re sul t- or ien ted o ff ense. Und er a “ re sul t of co nduct ” off ense, “ different ty pes of re sul ts are c onsi dered to be sepa rate of

fense s, but dif

feren t types of

cond uct are n ot.” Huf

fm an , 267 S.W .3d a t 907

. T here is no indicatio n tha t the legi slature inten ded for “transpo rt, entice , recruit, harb or, provide, or othe rw ise obt ain an oth er person byany mean s” to constitu te sep arate offenses. S e e T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 20A.01 (2 ). I nst ead, sec ti on 20A .01( 2) se ts forth alt er nate methods of traff ic ki ng . See i d. Therefore, the tr ial cour t did not er r by

fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y th at t hey

mustunani mousl y

ag re e w hic h of the alt er nate methods El li li an ut il iz ed to traff icSal es. El li li an’ s four th, fifth, si xth, sev enth, and eig hth i ss ues are ov er ru led

. C. Partie s Charge In he r nin th i ss ue, El li li an cont ends that the tr ial cour t er re d by

fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y “thatits v erdict must be unani mous reg ardin g [Ell il ian ’s ] g uil t as a pr inc ipa l or a pa rty .” The ju ry ch arg e prov ide d tha t t he j ur y co uld find E ll il ian g uil ty i f eit her (1) El li li an traff ic ked Sal es w it h the i ntentthat Sales engag e in for ced lab or or ser v ic es, or (2) Juan traff ic ked Sal es w it h the int ent that Sal es eng ag e i n forc ed l abor or se rv ic es, and El li li an promoted
o r a s s ist ed Ju an b y

soliciting, encoura ging , directing, aiding or attem pting to aid Ju an in the c ommis si on of the traff ic ki ng . In rev iew ing a di sj unct iv e j ury charg e, w e first deter mine w hether the appl ic ati on parag ra phs cont ain di ff erent c ri minal ac ts or w hether they

merely i nst ru ct as to di ff erent
m e a ns of commit ti ng a s ing le off ense. Hol for d v . St ate , 177 S.W .3d 454 , 461 (Te x.19

App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 5, pet. re f’d)

. Here, both appl ic ati on parag ra phs cont ain the
cr imi nal ac t of traff ic ki ng w it h the i ntentthatthe traff ic ked ind iv idu al eng ag e i n forc ed l abor
or se rv ic es. The t ri al cour t’ s i nst ru cti on on par

ty li abi li ty prov ide s a n al ter nate method b y
w hic h the j ur

y co uld find t hat E llilia n traff ic ked Sal es; i t doe s n ot s et forth a separate
cr imi nal ac t. See Randal l v. State , 232 S.W .3d 2 85, 2 94 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 07, p et.
re f ’d ) (h old ing thatthe unani mity req uirement w as not v iol ated w here the j ur y w as instructe d tha t it could f ind th e de fend antg uilty of capita l murde r as a principal or as a party). W e conclu de that the trial court did not err by failing to instructthe jury tha t it must unani mousl y

decide that Ell il ian acted eith er as the pr inc ipa l or

a pa rty . See i

d. Elli lian’s nin th i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Ell il ian ’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not P ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 8t h day

of Oct ober , 200 9.