### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00619-CR

Adele Thomas Hartw ig, Appel lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. CR99-322, HO NORABLE JACK H . ROBISO N, JUDGE PRESIDING

A j ury f oun d a ppe l l an t Ad el e Th omasHa rtwi g gu i l ty of capi tal m urder. SeeTe x. Pen. Code An n. § 1 9.03(a

)(2) (W est 199 4). The S tate

h av i n g w ai v ed th e dea th pen al ty, th e di stri ct court sentence d appe l l an t to im pri sonm en t for l i f e. See id. § 12.31(a); Tex . Co de Cr i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 37.071, § 1 (West Supp. 200 1) . Ap pellant co nt ends t he evide nce is leg ally and fact ually insuffi cient to sus t ain the jury ’s verdict, that her m ot ion to suppress ev

ide nce was erroneously

overruled, an

d that ce r t ain pho t og ra phs sho uld no t have been a dmitt ed in evide nce. We will over ru le the se c ont ent ions and a ffi rm t he co nvictio n. Appe llantan

d her h usba nd , Ha rold H artwi g, l

i ve d i n a l og cabi n-style house on about
n i n ety acres i n rural Comal County. The h

ouse burned on the n igh t o f Ma y 4, 19 99 . Ha r o ld Hart wig’s bod y was fo und in t he bed ro om. The me dic al exam in er concl uded that t he ca us e o f his de ath wa s “ asph

y xi a d ueto ca rb on monoxi de poisoni

ng an d sm oke in hal ation an d al so severe b ody2

bur ns with c

harri ng.” Poli ce cal le d to the sce ne o f the fire fou nd ap pellant t ied t o a t re e o n t he pro pert y. She cl

aim ed at t he tim

e that she and her husband had b een att acked by i ntruder s. Appe llant gav e an

ora l s tatement to t he polic e on May 13 in whi ch sh e adm itted st ar t ingthe fi

re whi le her hus ban d sl ept. Appell

ant descri bed h ow she rem

oved the pl

ugs f rom an el ec tri ca l outl et a n d p oured

th e c on ten ts o f si x sh otgu n sh el l s i n to t he sp ace bet wee n t he inner and out er walls . She then pl

aced the wick

fr o m an o il la mp i

n the outlet and l

it i t. The wick b

urned slo wly, an

d sh e stood watch i

n g i t f or s ev eral m i n ute s. She th

en l ef t th e h ou se , “[ s] lo wly, ca lm, peac ef ul .” The wick

event ually ignited t he gunp ow der , a nd t he r esu lting fire d est ro yed t he ho use and kil le d Harold Hartwig. A

ppella nt als o admi

tt ed tyi ng he rsel f to the tree. Appe llantconcedes t hat she was sh ow n t o ha ve st ar t ed t he fire, but ur ges t hat t he Sta te failed t o p ro ve t hat she int ende d t o k ill her husba nd. Appe llantrefers us to evi dence t ha t Ha r o ld Ha r t wig was “a

n ab usi ve, m ean-spi rited i ndi vi du al.” A psycho log ist w ho e xamined ap pellant dia gnosed her as s uf f eri ng f rom b attered-s

pouse sy ndr ome and depress i on. In

her st at ement t o t he police, ap pe llant sa id

th at sh e retu

rned to t he ho use aft er t he fire ha d bee n bur ning for so me time and shoutedat her husba nd fro m ou t side in an a t t empt t o a wak en him. The po lice officer who fou nd app ellant ti ed

to th e tr ee t estified that she said, “I need t o ge t back to the ho use. My husband’s there .” In

determi ni ng the l egal suf fi ci ency of the evi dence t o s upp or t a cr imi

nal co nvictio n, t he que st ion is whe t her , a fte r view ing all the e vidence in the light most favo ra ble to t he ver dict , a ny rational t r ier o f fac t co uld have fo und t he es sent ial elements of t he o ffense beyo nd a rea son ab l e doub t. Jackson v. Virg

inia , 44 3 U. S. 307 , 32 4 (1 979 ); Griffin v. State , 614 S.W.2d 155, 15 8- 59 ( T ex . Cr im.3

App. 198 1) . C ons ider ing app ellant’ s ac t ions a nd t he surroundin g ci rcumstances as des crib ed

in her st at ement to t he po lice , t he jur y co uld r ea so na bly infe rt ha t ap pe llant int en de d t o kill H ar o ld H ar t wig when she start ed the fi

re. Point of error o ne i s overruled. Wh en con duc ti ng a f ac tua l -s uf f i ci en cy rev i ew , th e evi

de nc e i s n ot viewed in the light mostfav orable to the verdict. Instead, all the evi dence is co nsider ed e qua lly

, includ ingt he t est imony of d efense wit nesse s and t he exist ence of a lter nat ivehy pothes es. Orona v

. State , 836 S.W.2d 319, 321 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in

1992, no pet.) . A f

actual-suf fi ci ency review asks wh

ether a neutral rev

ie w of all the e vidence , bo t h for and a gainst t he findingof gui l t, demons trate s th at the p roof

of guil t is so o bvio us ly weak or so great ly

out weighed by contra ry pro of as t o unde rmin e co nfi dence in the jury’s det er minatio n. Johnso n v. State , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2000 ). A v erd ict may be set aside o nly if

a fi ndi ng of gui lt bey ond a reas onab l e doubt is

clearl y wrong and un j ust. Clew

is v. State , 922 S. W.2d 126 , 12 9 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 96) ; Stone v. Sta te , 823 S . W.2 d 37 5, 381 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

1992, pet . ref'd untim

ely fi led). Apply

in g this test to the ev

i den ce b ef ore us , we do n ot fi nd the j ury’ s verdi

ct to be m

anifes tly wrong or unjust. Point of error two is overruled. In her thi rd point of error, appell

ant contends the di strict

co ur t sho uld have granted her m ot ion to suppress ev

ide nce (1) sei

zed by police durin

g a sea rc h of t he bu rne d h o us e t wo da ys after t he fire a nd

(2) f ound b y the a ttorney f or Harold Hartwi

g’s daug hter d uri ng a sea rch of a trai l er. T he mo t io n a lleg ed t ha t t his e vid en ce wa s o bt ain ed in violat ion o f the co nst itu t ions a nd laws of t he Uni ted States a

nd Te xa s. SeeU. S. Co nst . ame nd s. I V, XI V; T ex . Co nst . ar t . I , § 9 ; T ex . Co de Cr im. Proc. Ann. ch. 1 4 (Wes t 1 977 & Sup p. 2 001 ); see also Te x. Code Crim . Pro c. Ann. art. 3 8.23 ( West Su pp . 2 00 1) (e xclu sio nar y ru le) . I n he r b rie f, appella nt does not argue tha

t the Tex asConsti tution4

aff ords her greater prot ection than the Un i ted State s C ons

ti tution nor does she ex

pla in the relev ance of code of cri m i na l procedu re ch apter 14 , whi ch

deal s wi th wa rra ntles s ar re st s. I n re viewing t he dis trictcou rt’ s r ul i n gs , w e def

er to the court ’s f

actual determ

in ations b ut review de novo the co urt ’s appl i cation of the l aw to the f

acts. Guzmanv. State , 955 S.W .2d 85, 8 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1997 ). We wil l f irst address the search of

the burned h

ouse. Duri

ng th i s se arch, the of

f i cers sei zed, am ong oth er th i n gs , the rem

ai n s of th e j un cti on b ox an d l am p w i ck , to ok samples use d by ars on i nv esti gators t o de t er mine t he o r igin of the f i re, an d m ad e a vi de otap e show

i ng the de stru cti on to the prem

i ses . Bef ore conductin

g the sear ch

on May 6, th e p ol i ceobta

i ne d the w ri tten consent of Li nda Wo o d, Ha r o ld

Ha r t wig ’s da ug ht er fr o m a pre vi ousmarr i ag e. W ood w asna

med asexecutor and sole hei

r in Hartwig’s A

ugust 199 7 w i l l . A

ppe l l an t con ten dstha t W ood w asnot

au th ori ze d to co nsent to the sea

r ch , cit ing a c o dic il da t ed Ma r ch 19 98 . I n t ha t do cu men t , Ha r o ld H ar t wig purport ed t o “r ep lac e” Lind a W o o d w it h D o r is W est, appella nt’s daugh

ter from a previ

ous marriage. At the tim e of appel la nt’s trial, both documents ha d b een f i l ed i n pr ob ate court , but no executor had been appoin ted and no di sposition of the estate had bee n m ade. The State arg ue s th at a ppe l l an t ha d n o rea son ab l e e xp ec tati

on of pri vacy in the burned ho us e. T he co nst it ut io na l gu ar an t ee ag ain st un r ea so na ble searches and sei zures applie s onl

y w hen a person has e

xhi bi ted an su bject ive expe ct at ion o f privac y in the plac e se ar ched , a nd tha t ex pe cta ti on is one that society

i s pre pared to recogni

ze a s rea sona

bl e. Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1 967 ) ( Har lan, J. , c onc ur ring) . Ap pellant do es no t add re ss t he ex pe cta ti on of pri vacy is sue i n he r bri ef .5 Al thougha p ers on

nor mal l y has a rea son ab l e e xp ec tati

on of pri vacy in her resi dence, there is no reasonabl

e expectation of

priv acy in premises to whic

h f iref igh ters have b een sum

mone d to exti ngu i sh a f i re. Michigan v. Tyler , 436 U .S. 499, 5 09 (19 78). M oreover , “ [t]h e a f term ath of a fi re often presen

ts exigenci

es thatwil l n ot to le rate t he del

ay ne ces sary to obtai n a warra nt or se cure t he owner’s consen

t t o ins pect f i re-da maged prem i ses . Be ca

us e d eterm

i ni ng the ca us e a nd origi n of a f i re se rve s a c omp el

l i ng p ubl i c i ntere st, the warran

t requi rem en t does n ot appl y i n s uch cas es.” Michigan v. Clif

ford , 464 U.S. 287, 29 3 ( 19 84 ) . So me r ea so na ble ex pe ct at io n o f pr iva cy ma y re main in f i re-da maged prem i ses , however. Cliff

ord , 464 U.S. at 292 -93 ; Tyler , 436 U.S. at 505. Privacy expe ct at ions vary

with the ty

pe of property, amount of dam age, prior and conti

nued us e of t he pr em i se s, an d, i n som e c as es , the ow

n er ’s ef f ortsto secure it against in tru ders. Cliff

ord , 464 U.S. at 292. T he test is o b

j ec ti v e; th e premises may be so da maged that , re gard less of the o wner’s sub j ecti ve ex pectati ons, n o pri vacy i ntere st rem

ai ns . Id . The re cord r ef

l ec ts t ha t t he Ha r t wig house and i ts contents were compl etely destroyed by the fi re. The roo f col

la psed. Outer wal l s rem

ai ne d s tan di ng , but the w i

nd owsan d door s d i d n ot r ema in and there were n

ume rous “bu rn- t hr o ug hs. ” A pp ella nt o bvio us ly did n ot li ve i n the h ouse after t he f i re, an d there i s n

o ev i den ce th at sh e ev er

atte m pte d to retu

rn to the prop erty. The on

l y pe rs on shown to h av e m ade a n y ef f ort to s ecur e th

e p rop er ty an d p r o t ec t it from

in truders was Lin

da Wood. We co nclude , a s did t he dist rict co ur t , t hat app ellant had no re aso nable exp ect at ion o f privac y in the destroyed hous e. See Davis v. State , 8 40 S .W. 2d 4 80, 486 -8 7 ( Te x. App.—Ty le r1992, pet. r ef’ d) (de stru cti on so severe that n

o reason ab l e pri vacy i ntere sts remai

ne d; n o attem pt to secure

prem i ses ).6 The evi dence se iz ed d

uring t he se ar ch o f the bur ned ho use on M ay 6 sho wed t he ex tent of the dam age a nd c onf i rmed th e i nc endi ary nature of the f

ire. Nei ther of these m

atter s was dis puted at tr ia

l. Un der the ci rcu m sta nc es , we are also s ati sf

i ed tha t an y err orin t he ad miss io n o f t his evi den ce was harm

l ess beyond a reas onab l e doubt. Tex. R . App. P. 44.2 (a). The se co nd c halle nge d s ea rc h wa s o f a t ra iler belo nging t o H ar old Har t wig t hat he kept on hi s S outh Tex asde er l ea se . A f ter th e f i re, appe l l an

t ha d the tra i l er m ove d to a Ne w B r au nfe ls trailer pa rk a nd lived in it un

ti l h er ar re st. Fo llowing t he ar re st , Linda Woo d’s a t t or ney went t o t he trailer park for the purpose of hav

in g the trailer

move d to the Hartwig property. The atto rney entered t he t ra iler, w hich was not lock ed. Inside , he fou nd se ver al insura nce p olicies, a sa le barn r ece ipt , a nd l etters and n

ot es by appella nt. He sei zed these i

tems an d even tuall y turned them

over to the police. Appel la nt does not co ntend that the atto rney was actin g as an age

nt of the State when he

searched t he t ra iler. I nst ead , she ar gu es t ha t t his p r iva t e s ea r ch vio lat ed ar t icle 38.23. See State v. Johnson , 939 S.W.2d 586, 587-88 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996) (articl e 38.23 excl usi onary rul

e applie s to searches by pri va te pers ons) . Arti cle 38.2 3 f

orbi ds the us e of

unl awf ull y sei zed e vi den ce. Te x. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.23(a). The stat ute is m erely an ex cl usi onary rul

e. Bef ore art ic le 38.23 may

be i nvoked, it m ust be shown

that t he ev

ide nce i n question was obtaine d in vi olation of the constitution or law s of the Uni ted St ates or Texas. Woods v. State , 97 0 S .W .2d 77 0, 7 75 (Tex . A

pp .—A us ti n 19 98 , pe t. ref ’d). The atto rney ’s search of the trail

er di d n ot v i ol ate th e f ederal an d s tate constitutions, wh

ic h o nly pr ot ect aga ins t unreas ona ble sear ches and s eizur es by ag ent s o f the go ver nment a nd have no appl i ca ti on to purel y pri va te sea rches or s ei

zures . State v. Comeaux , 818 S.W.2d 46, 49 ( T ex . Cr im.7

App. 199 1); Woods , 97 0 S. W .2d at 7 74. A

ppe l l an t doe s n ot as se rt t hat t he at t or ney violat ed a ny ot her co nst itu t ional o r st at ut or y pro vision by ent er ing t he trai l er, an d th eref oref ai l s to demon strate any basis fo r su ppr essing t he evide nce s eized t her ein.

The dis trictcou rt di d n ot er r by o ver ru ling the mot ion t o s upp re ss evide nce. Po int of error t hree i s overruled.

Finally , a ppe llant co mplains of t he ad m i ss i on of t wo co lor pho t og ra phs t ake n at t he aut op sy. T he firs t ph o t o gr ap h sh o ws Ha r o ld H ar t wig ’s se ve r ely bu rned an d c ha rre d b ody l y i ng on t he aut op sy ta ble. T he se co nd dep icts a cr os s-s ect ion o f Har t wig’s lung sho wing soo t in the airway s, a fact or t hat led t he medica l examiner t o c onc lude t hat Har t wig had been a live when t he fi re started. T he ad miss ibilit y o f

a p h otogr

ap h i s wi th i n th e s oun d di scre ti on

of th e tr i al cou rt. Williams v. State , 95 8 S . W. 2d 18 6, 19 5 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 97 ) . Ge ne r ally, a p ho t o gr ap h is ad miss ible if

verbal te sti mony as to the matters de

pi cted i n the ph otograph is ad

m i ssi bl e. Id . T he pho t og ra phs in

question were relevant to show the cause of death, as the m edi cal exam in er testifi ed. The c our t di d n ot ab us e h i s d i scre ti on i n deter m i n i n g th at th e p h otogr ap h s w ere rel

ev an t. Appe llantargu es

th at t he r eleva nc e o f t he ph o t o gr ap hs w as o ut we igh ed by t he ir un fair ly pr ej udi ci al, gr ue som e n atu re. See Te x . R . Ev

i d. 4 03 . W

h en a def en da n t ob j ec ts to ph o t o gr ap hic evi

dence on rul

e 403 gro unds, t he co ur t must balance t he pr oba t ive value o f the evi dence agai nst the poten

tia l f or unf ai r prej udice. Ladd v. State , 3 S.W.3d 547, 568 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 9) . As no t ed a bove , t he pho t og ra phs were proba tiv e of the c aus e of

Hartwi g’s death . To t he extent that they are disturbin g or gruesome, they m

erely refl ect t he di sturb i

ng, g rues ome na ture of th e i n j uri es . Th

e d i str i ct c our t di d n ot ab us e h i s d i scre ti on b y con cl udi n g th at the p h oto gr aphs8

were mor e pr oba t ive tha n p re j udicial . See Ke

ndrick v. State , 9 42 S .W. 2d 1 20, 126 (T ex. App. —Be aumo nt 199 7, no pet .) (char red bod y); Tod d v. State , 9 11 S .W. 2d 8 07, 819 -2 0 ( Te x. App.—El Pas o 1995, no pet .) (aut opsy ph ot os). Po in

t o f error four is

overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: Septembe

r 13, 2001 Do No t Publis

h