R et i r ed Four t eent h Cour t of Appeal s Just i ce Don W i t t i g assi gned t o t hi s C our t by t he Chi efJust i ce 1 o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x a s p u rs u a n t to th e g o v e rn m e n t c o d e . T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 74. 003 ( Ver non 20 05 ). 

### NUM BER 13-07- 035- 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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
M A RSH A LL A NT HON Y SMITH, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 st Dist rict C ou rt o f N ew to n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d W it ti g 1



### M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e W it ti g Marshall Anth ony Sm ith, appe llant, w as convicted by a jury of the of fense of injury to a chi ld. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN § 2 2

. 0 4 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e j u r y a s s e s sed puni shmentat sev enty

ye ars confinementand a $10,000.00 fine. In fiv e i ss ues, appel lan tT he i ssues o fl aw i n t hi s case ar e set t l ed, and t he p ar t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he b ackgr ound f act s. 2 A c c o rd i n g l y w e w i l l n o t re c i te m a tte rs n o t m a te ria l to o u r d e c i s i o n . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4.

W e i de nt i f y t he m i no r c hi l d as AP. 3 2 compl ain s the e v ide nce is not suffici ent t o s ust ain des cr ipt iv e al leg ati ons in the i ndi ctment , the e rroneous admi ss ion of DN A te sti ng , t he admi ss ion of infla mmator y and prejud ici al photos of the c hil d, ad mis si on of a c ust odi al sta tement and i neffect iv e as si sta nce of
c ou ns el

. W e w i l l a ffir m.

2 1. Va rianc e: Descriptiv e A llega tions Appel lan t arg ues that t h e S ta te i s b ound by i ts all eg ati ons in the i ndi ctmentand
m u stpro ve th e m be yon d a re a so n a b le do u b t, cit in g Mo or e v . St ate , 531 S.W .2d 1 40, 1 42 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 7 6 ) (S t a t e is b o u n d b y it s a ll e ga t io n s in t h e in d ic t m e n ta n d m u s tp ro ve th e m b e yon d a re a so n a b le do u b t) (cit in g Butler v. Sta te , 429 S.W .2d 4 97 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1968) ); Sei

ffer t v . St ate , 501 S.W .2d 124 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1973)

. In Moore , the S tate w as bound t o prov e bey ond a re asona ble dou b t th at t he appe ll ants robbed t he c omplai nant Shaw w it h a p is tol

. See id. Therefore, proof of robber y w it h a saw ed- off

shotg un di d not meet that burde n. Id. In this case, app ellant w as charged wi th inte ntion ally or know ingly
caus ing se ri ous bodi ly

i nju ry to “A P”, a ch il d y oung er than 15, by

bur nin g hi m w it h hot g re ase. Appell ant conte nds the ev ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o prov e the bur n i nju ri es 3
w ere c aused by

hot g re ase. Dep uty D uncan tes ti fied to f ind ing a larg e brow n stai n on the flo or w hic h appea re d to be co ffee. Al so presentw as a bro ken coffee pot. Bel ow the re frig erator

w as w hat appeared to be c ool ed g re ase. A fry ing pan w as in the sin k with a m ixtu re of w ater and gre a se . D u n can poured th e pan dow n the si nk and found w hat h e tho ug ht w as human3

sk in. A pai r of chi ldren’ s s hor ts appeared to hav e grease st ain s on them w hic h w ere not tes ted. The apparent g re ase on th e floor w as not c oll ect ed or tes ted. A pai r of adultj eans als o appea re d to hav e g re ase or oi l sta ins but ag ain w as not t est ed. Forens i c s c i e nti st Hen son tes ti fied to recei v ing and anal yz ing tw o pi eces of sk in, one from the fry ing pan and ano ther pi ece from the bathroom floor

. A par ti al DN A profile of the sk in sampl e found i n the fry ing pan w as found to be co nsi ste nt w it h the D NA of AP. A
secon d skin sam ple f rom th e pa n w as no t teste d. Henso n f urthe r opined t h a tt h e skin
sam ple f rom th e ba throo m f loor w as tha t of AP, to a reason able degree of scientif ic
cer tai nty

. She w as not abl e to sta te that AP w as the source of the ot her pan sampl e tes ted to a re asona ble deg re e of s ci enti fic cer tai nty

. Hen son did not opi ne as to w hat c aused the sk in to bu rn or

the ty pe of sub sta nce that mig ht ha v e been on th e s ki n. Dr

. Lukefahr , in a medic al cons ult ing re por t, w ro te hi s i mpres si on : “c hil d phy si cal abuse co nsi sti ng of mult ipl e c ontus ion s to head and body and immersi on g re ase bur ns to feet .” On cross examina tion, he adm itted his basis fo r conclu ding the b u rn wa s gre ase ind uced w as based on w hat he lea rn ed from CP S and law enforc ement. He f u rther admitted, thatbased upon the appearance of the b ur n, he co uld not ide nti fy the nature of the l iq uid ca usi ng the bur n. Appel lan t admi ts that his tes ti mony at tr ial differed from h is pre- tr ial st atements but they i nv olv ed coffee an d a broken coffee po t. This w as cor ro borated by appel lan t’ s mot her and t he te sti mony

of Dep uty

D uncan . The Stat e c ounters t hat t he Mo or e and Butler

l ine of cas es hav e been suppl anted by the Ful ler ca se. Full

er v. Sta te , 73 S.W .3d 250 , 252 -253 (Te x . Crim. App . 2 0 0 2). Before Ful

ler , the problem w ith a vari ance between an indi c tm entand proof w as f ully4

dis cus sed in Gol

li h a r v. Sta te, 46 S. W .3d 2 43, 2 46 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ( "v ar ian ce"
occ urs w hen t here i s a dis crepancy betw een the all eg ati ons in the charg ing ins tr ument an d t h e p ro o f a tt r i a l ; i n a v ar ian ce si t u a t i o n , t h e S t a t e h a s p ro v e n t h e d e fe n d a n tg u i l t y o f a
cr ime, but has prov en i ts commi ss ion i n a mann er th a t var ies from t he al leg ati ons in the charg ing i nst ru ment) ( ci ti ng 42 GE ORG E E. D IX & ROB E RT O. DA W S ON, T EX AS PRAC T I C E, C R I M I N AL P RA CTI CE A ND P ROCE DURE § 31.81 at 178 (1995) ). In Gol li har , t he c our t reaff ir med the fatal v ar ian ce doct ri ne and adopted the mater ial ity tes t. Id. at 257. Mo re recent ly

i n G r otti , t h e c ourt reite rated the te st for legal suf f iciency foun d in Malik

. Gr

otti v. Sta te , N o. PD
- 13 4- 07 , 20 08 Te x . C r i m. A pp . LE X IS 7 61 , * 15
- 16 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . Jun . 25 , 2 0 0 8 ) (ci ti n g Ma li k v . St ate , 953 S .W .2d 2 34, 2 36-4 0 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7). The Gr otti co urt w ro te: In Malik , w e h e ld t h a t leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce w oul d no lon g er be measured by

the jur y ch arg e ac tual ly

g iv en, b ut t hat i t w oul d i nst ead be me asure d by the elem ent s of the of fense as def ine d b y

the hypoth etically cor re ct jur

y ch arg e for the c ase. Ma l i k v . Sta te , 9 5 3 S .W .2d a t 234

. Malik also held that , w hen assessing the legal suf f iciency of

ev iden ce on app eal, the a ppel lat e c our

t s houl d meas ure elements of the offense as defined i n a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e for the c ase. Id. at 240. Id. The Gollihar cour t s ummed up, hol din g thatw hen faced w it h a s u f f ici e ncy of the
e vid e n c e c la im b a s e d u p o n a va ri a n c e b e twe e n t h e in d ic t m e n ta n d t h e p ro o f , o n ly a "mater ial " v ar ian ce w il l re nder the ev ide nce ins uff ic ien t. Gol li har , 46 S. W .3d at 257 . “Thu s, the hy pothet ic all y cor re ct charg e w il l tak e int o cons ide ra ti on the fatal v ar ian ce d o ctri ne forme rly ex presse d by this C ourt an d tod ay reaf f irmed .” Id. Al leg ati ons g iv ing r ise to immater ial v ar ian ces may be d is re g arded in the hy pothet ic all y co rrectch arg e, bu t
a lle gat ions g iv ing r is e to mater ial v ar ian ces mustbe i ncl uded. Id. Thu s , w e i nq ui re5

w hether the ind ictm e n t’ s a ll eg ati on of “ hot g re ase” as oppos ed to hot coffee or other
sc ald ing l iq uid i s mat er ial

. App ellantargues there was evidence o f spilled cof

fee a nd a broken pot. He w ould hav e us hol d tha t ev ide nce of i ntent ion al inj ur y caus ed by hot g re ase is i nsuffici ent. The Sta te argues, a nd we agree, tha t the me ans or w eap on u sed to cause the seriou s injury does not c onst it ute a m ater ial va ri ance. This is so becaus e the means, or g re ase, i s n ot a subst anti v e statut or

y element o f the offense of inj ur y to a c hil d. Sect ion 22.0 4 req uires an i ntent ion al, kn ow ing , reck les s b y omi ss ion or w it h cri minal negl ig ence, causi ng a chi ld: (1) serious bodily injury ; (2) serious men tal def iciency, imp airme nt, or i njury; or (3) bodily inj ur y . T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 04. T he instrume nta lity used in the com mission of this
cr ime is not an ele ment. Flenter oy v. State , 187 S.W .3d 4 06, 4 11 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) (a ppel lan t' s d efense di d not depend on w hether any par ti cul ar ty pe of w eapon w as used;
v ar ian ce betw een t he i ndi ctment 's al leg ati on of a "s crew dr iv er " and the State' s proo f at t ri al of "a hard metal -l ik e obj ect " w as, therefore, immater ial ). The Stat e w as re q uired to prov e tha t a p p e ll ant i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

ca used serious bo dily

in jury t o a child. App ellant ’s defense essen tially w as no t tha t he did n’t bu rn the chi ld but that his conductw as not i ntent ion al or kn ow ing

. See i

d. There is no i ndi cat ion in the record tha t app ellant did not know he w as accu sed o f inten tiona lly

injuring the child
or thathe w as sur pr is ed by the proof at tr ial

. See G oll iha r , 46 S.W .3d at 257. F ina ll y , t he
v ar ian ce does not s ubj ectappel lan t t o anot her prosec uti on for the s ame offense. Ful ler , 73 S. W .3d a t 254 ( appel lan t' s d efense di d notdepend on w hether any par ti cul ar ty pe of
w eapon w as used)

. W e hol d tha t t he v ar ian ce, i f any , i s i m m a te ria l a n d, t herefore, the
ev ide nce is not leg all y i nsuffici ent. See G oll iha r , 46 S .W .3 d at 2 57 n . 2. Th e s am e6

ra ti onal e appl ies w h e ther co nsi der ing l eg al suffici ency or factual su ff ic ien cy . Ful ler , 73 S.W .3d at 254 (unde r Malik ev ide nti ar

y su ff ic ien cy

sh oul d be measure d a g ain st the "ele ments of the offense as defined by the hy pothet ic all y cor re ct jur y ch arg e for the c ase" in all suf f iciency cases). The Stat e al so arg ues that the e vi dence w as suffici ent t o per mit the j ur y to find appel lan t bur ned t he chi ld’ s feet w it h hot g re ase. W e ag re e. Appel lan t’ s v ersi on th at he acci de nt al l y bu r ne d th e c hi l d w i th ho t w at er or th at th e c hi l d s pi l l ed ho t cof f ee is inc onsi ste nt w it h the st ock in g p a tter n of the chi ld’ s t hird deg re e bur ns on hi s feet. The hor ri fic b ur ns patent ly

ca used the c hil d’s sk in to pe el aw ay , and sk in found in the b athroom belo nged to the child. Furthe rmore , the child’s mo the r testif ied to the child’s late r outcry tha t [he ] “mad e me stand in it. It w a s hot. Ooh, hot. ” Circumsta ntial evidence alone is suffici ent t o es tabl is h g uil t. Ma rt ine z v. State , 198 S.W .3d 3 6, 50 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.) Here the testi mony about the g re ase pan i n the si nk, g re ase on th e f loor and clothing, hum an skin foun d in the pan and the bat hroo m and the stocking burn patte rn al l suppo rtthe jur y ’s findi ng . W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. 2 . E x p e r

tT e s t i m o n y In hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel lan t as ser ts the t ri al cour

t er re d i n admi tti ng opi nio n tes ti mony

co ncer nin g a D NA

tes t w it hout a proper

predi cat e. The tr ial obj ect ion st ated the
ex per t H enson w as q ual ified to g iv e the opi nio n butt h a t s he c oul d notg iv e the opi nio n
w ithin a rea sona ble de gree of scie ntif ic certainty. The w itness te stif ied th at th e skin sam ple from the bathro o m matc hed t he D NA of the v icti m, butthe sampl e from t he fry ing pan coul d not ex cl ude the v icti m. The p ro babi li ty of another

C aucas ian matc h w as 1 i n 3,2 03. Appel lan t made the same objecti on w hen the ex per t’ s lab findi ng s w ere i ntroduce d. The7

trial court overruled bot h objection s. App ellantcites Sext

on v . St ate , 93 S. W .3d 96, 99 -100 (Tex. Cr im

. A pp. 200 2). Acc ordin g to appel lan t’ s a rg ument, the State did not meet t he Sexton tes t t hat req uires the proponentof the e v ide nce to s how that : ( 1) the under ly ing sc ien ti fic theor y is v ali d, ( 2) the tec hni q ue appl y ing the theor y i s v ali d, and ( 3) the tec hni q ue w as proper ly appl ied on t he
occ asi on i n q uest ion

. Id. at10 0 (cit in g Kel ly v. St ate , 8 24 S .W .2 d 56 1, 5 73 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 199 2). W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s d eci si on to adm it or ex cl ude s ci enti fic e x per t t est imony under an a bus e o f dis creti on s tandard. Id. If the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng i s w it hin the z one of
re asona ble disag re ement, then the tri al cour t' s r uli ng w il l be uphe ld. Id. ; Kelly , 824 S.W .2d at 5 7 4

. R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 7 0 2 d i c t a t e s , " I f s c i e n t i fi c , t e c h n i c a l o r o t h e r s p eci ali z ed knowledge w ill assist the t rier of fact to und erstan d the ev iden ce or to de term ine a fact in is sue, a w it ness q ual ified as an e x per t by kn ow led g e, s ki ll , ex per ience , tr a in ing , or educa ti on, may

test ify t h e re to in the form of an o pin ion or othe rw is e." TE X. R. E V ID . 702

. The r ule pl aces the tr ial co urt as a g atek eeper and deter miner as to w hether

the proffered
sc ien ti fic e v ide nce is su ff ic ien tl y reli abl e and re lev ant t o ai d the j ur y . Jacks on v. St

ate , 17 S.W .3d 664, 670 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; Kelly, 824 S.W .2d at 573. The proponentof the
sc ien ti fic e v ide nce must demonst ra te t hroug h c lea r and c onv inc ing ev ide n ce that the
ev ide nce is i n fact re li abl e. Jacks on, 17 S. W .3d a t 670 ; Kelly , 824 S.W .2d a t 573

. In o rd e r to q ual ify

as "sc ien ti fic k now led g e," an i nferenc e or as ser ti on mus t be der iv ed by

the sc ien ti fic met hod. Por ter v. Whitehal

l Lab ., 9 F. 3d 6 07, 613 (7th Cir.Port er i s al so ci t ed b y app el l ant f or t he p r oposi t i on t hat sci ent i f i c ev i de nc e t hat f al l s bel ow t he 4 st andar d of

a r easona bl e de gr ee o fsci ent i f i c cer t ai nt y i s not wel l gr ounde d i n t he sci ent i f i c m et hod. W e ag r ee i n pr i nci pl e.

T he T ex as D P S stan da rd for “r ea s on ab l e sc i en t i fi c c ert ai nty ” ac c ord i ng t o t he ex pe rt w ou l d req ui re 5 13 of 15 l oc i m atch es . F or a m ore t ho rou gh di s c us s i on of t hi s m att er, see H ar vey v. H or an , 285 F. 3d 2 98, 30 5 N

. 1 (4t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( Lu t t i g, C i rcu i t Ju dg e, c on c urri ng ), 8 1993)

. W e w il l not d is tur b the tr ial cour t' s deci si on to admit sc ien ti fic e v ide nce absen t an 4 abuse of dis creti on. See G ri ffi th v . St ate , 983 S.W .2d 282 , 287 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98). Nei ther at tr ial nor in his br ief does appel lan t poi nt ou t w here the Sta te’ s p ro of fail ed to s how the DN A ev ide nce w as unreli abl e or i rrele v ant. N or

does appel lan t s tate how the
ex per t t est imony

di d notsh ow : 1) the unde rlyin g s cientifictheo ry to be v ali d, ( 2) the tec hni q ue appl y ing the theor y w as v ali d, and (3) the tec hni q ue w as proper ly appl ied on t he
occ asi on i n q uest ion

. See Kelly , 824 S.W . 2d at 57 3. The ex per t s tated her

co ncl usi on th at t h e sk in f ro m t h e b a t h ro o m wa s t h a t o f A P t o a re a s o n a b le d e gr e e o f sc ie n t if icce rt a in t y. Con cer nin g the fry ing pan sampl e, s he i ndi cat ed th at t he s ki n w as h u m an and that AP coul d notbe e x cl uded. The probabi li ty that another Cau cas ian sk in w oul d match the p an sampl e w as onl y

1 i n 3,2 03, 1 in 7 ,2 8 3 for a Bl ack and 1 i n 18, 250 for a H is pani c. The scie n t if ic meth odo logy

used for both skin samp les w as the same . Th e expert, ho w ever,
w as on ly able to obta in a partia l DN A prof ile f rom th e p a n s k in

. Beca use sh e w as on ly able to obt ain 4 match ing loci on the pan skin sam ple, she could not te stif y to a reaso nab le degree of

scientif ic certainty that t h e pa n sam ple act ually ma tche d AP. She cou ld 5 deter mine and did test ify only that AP coul d notbe e x cl uded an d the sk in w as cons is tent
w it h tha t of AP. The Stat e arg ues, and w e agree, that the admis si on of the ex per

t’ s test imony

on the pan s ample w as nei ther unreli abl e nor

i rrele v ant. The ex per

t dul y l imit ed her

tes ti mony9

conc er nin g the pan s ample to show i t w as human s ki n, c onsi ste nt w it h AP’ s s ki n, an d tha t AP cou ld notb e excluded as the d ono r. T he quest ion raised byapp ellantconce rns mo re the w eight of

the te stimo ny rathe r that its reliability . H enso n did no t testif y the skin bel ong ed to AP as appel lan t i denti fied i n hi s t ri al obj ect ion

. Ev en i f w e w ere to ass ume er ro r in the e x per t’ s repor t and the tes ti mony

co ncer nin g the h uman ti ss ue found i n the fry ing pan, our ex aminat ion of

the record i n i ts enti re ty l eads
us to conc lud e that the all eg ed er ro r did not affect a subs tanti al ri g ht of the appe ll ant. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.2( b)

. A s ubst anti al ri g ht i s a ffect ed w hen t h e error had a s ubst anti al and inj ur iou s e ffector

i nfluenc e i n det er min ing the jur y 's v erdict. Ki

ng v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Kotteakos v. U.S. , 328 U .S. 750, 776, (1 946) ). I n li g ht of the proper ly

admi tted ev ide nce of the ex per t’ s o pin ion and re por

t that the bat hroom sk in ti ss ue bel ong ed to AP, tak en w it h the tes ti mony of Dunc an, t he unob jected t o phot os of the bur ns, and als o the outc ry tes ti mony

repor ted b y AP’ s mot h e r, we find t hat t he compl ain ed of

opini on in this case did not hav e a subs tanti al or inju ri ous influ ence on th e jur y 's dec is ion

. This i s p arti cul ar ly tr ue w hen t here i s a bsol utel y no s ug g est ion thatthe
ex per t’ s o pin ion w as manufactured or untr ue and w here appel lan t hi msel f a d m it te d that AP’ s s ki n peel ed aw ay and dropped i n the hous e. W e ov er ru le thi s i ss ue.

3. Photo s Appel lan t next arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by

admi tti ng i n f la m m a tory and preju dic ial photos. T he admiss ibi li ty of phot og ra phs ov er

a c hal len g e i s w it hin the sound dis creti on of t he tr ial co urt. R oja s v . St ate , 986 S .W .2d 2 41, 2 49 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 8); Mo ntgom er

y v . St ate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 378- 80 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1990) ( op. o n rehr 'g ). The tria l c o u rt ' s decision w ill be reversed on ly if it w as "o utside the zone of reason able10

dis ag re ement." Nar

vai z v. Sta te , 840 S.W .2d 415 , 429 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92); Montg om ery , 810 S.W .2d at 380 . Rule 403 provi des th at, " altho ugh relevant, evide n ce ma y be excluded if its prob ative value is substa ntially outw eighed b y the da nger of

unfair preju dic e, c onfusio n of the issu e s, or mis lea din g the jur

y , or by co nsi derati ons of undue del ay , or needles s pres entat ion of cumulat iv e ev ide nce. " TE X. R. E V I D. 403. The foll ow ing four- prong ed te st is util iz ed in rev iew ing a tr ial court 's ev ide nti ar y rul ing under r ule 403: ( 1) the proba tiv e v alue of

the evidence ; (2) the pot ent ial to i mp ress the jury in som e irrationa l, y et in delible , w ay; ( 3) the tim e ne ede d to de v elop the evidence ; and (4) the propo nen t's need for the ev ide nce. Er

azo v . St ate , 144 S.W .3d 487 , 489 (Tex. Cr im

. A p p . 200 4); Montg om ery , 810 S.W .2d a t 389 -9 0. For t he admiss ion of photog ra phs, w e al so cons ide r the followi ng facto rs: (1) the num ber of p hot ographs; (2) their siz e; (3) w het her the y are in color or black an d w hite; (4) w het her they are gruesom e; (5) w het her the bod y dep icted is clo th ed or

nak ed; a nd ( 6) w hether the body

has been alt ered by

auto psy . E

r a zo , 144 S.W .3d a t 489

. This co urt has hel d tha t a photog ra ph s houl d add someth ing thati s rele v ant, legitimate , and logi cal to the testim ony that acco mp anie s it and t hatit shou ld assist the jury in it s d eci si on- maki ng duti es. Den oso v. State , 156 S.W .3d 1 66, 1 77 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 2005 , pet . den ied). Som etim es this m ay, i nci d e n t a lly , include elem ent s thatare em otion al and prejudicial. Howev er, if there a re e le me nts of a pho tograph thatare genuine ly

helpf ul to the jury

in ma king its decision , the pho tograph is i nad missible only if the e moti onal and preju dic ial as pect s s ubst anti all y outw eig h the hel pful as pect s. Id. The tr ial obj ect ion s to the photos w ere tha t br uis es and c ontus ion s o ther than to the bur ned feet w ere offered. Tri al couns el further obj ect ed th e phot os w ere i nflammator y and11

that thei r preju dic ial effectoutw eig hed any probati v e v alu e. The onl y dis cer nabl e c it ati on to au thor ity

by appel lan t i s t o Er

azo. See E

ra zo v . St ate , 167 S.W .3d 8 89, 8 90 ( Tex . Ap p.– Hou sto n [14 th D ist .] 2 005, pet. deni ed)

. In the E r a zoremand, t he c our

t found har mf ul
er ro r fo r t h e a d mi s s i o n o f a n a u t o p s y p h o t o g ra p h o f t h e d e c e a s e d c o mp l a i n a n t ' s dead fetus w hen there w ere no charg es pertai nin g to the fetus

. The onl y ch arg es per

tai ned t o the d eceas ed mothe r w ho w as not e v en pi ctu re d i n the obj ect ion abl e phot o. Id. Dep uty Duncan testi fied to his ini ti al obser v ati ons of AP i n the ERbefore bei ng l ifef lig hte d to t he b ur n c en te r i n Ga l v es to n. Th e bo y h ad a l arg e k no t on t he l efts i de o f his he ad a nd b l oo d c om i ng o uto f hi s n os e. The ch i l d w as “ rea l , rea l s c ared l oo k i ng .” S om e of the few

tr ulygra p h ic p h otos sh ow ed th ese same i nju ri es to t he c hil d. These ph otos
w ere c lea rl y

rele v ant a nd needed by the Stat e to re but a ppel lan t’ s s tatement s d eny ing
caus ing any

othe r inj ur ies to the c hil d and appel la n t’ s clai m of acc ide ntal i nju ry . T E X R. E V ID
. 401. Other

mil d and sang uin e pi ctu re s s how ed multi ple br uis es of v ar y ing ag es to the c hil d. These ph otos w ere als o re lev ant to show inj ur ies appel lan t c lai med w ere c aused by the child p la ying w it h ol der si bli ng s. Id. Th e com plaine d of pho tos are h ardly inf lam ma tory, particularly w hen contrast ed wi th th e un obje cted to pho tos of the child’s bur ned feet. D r. Luk efahr ex pla ine d the bandag es to t he c hil d’s head w ere c aused by the g ra fts nec ess ar

y to treat t he s ev ere bur ns to t he feet. Other w it ness es used many of the p h o t o s t o e xp la in t h e ir

t e s t im o n y. W here pi cto ri al ev ide nce w il l hel p the jury to understa nd v er bal tes ti mony , s uch as t h e t e c h n ic a l la n gu a ge u s e d b y a m e d ic a l d o c t o r i n d e s c ri b in g t h e in ju ri e s su s t a in e d b y a
v icti m of a cr ime, the photog ra ph i s g enerall y admi ss ibl e. Har

ri s v. State , 661 S.W .2d 1 06, 107 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1983)

. Ph o to graphs that depi ct the n ature, l ocat ion , and extent ofW hi l e we n ot e t hat t he s he er nu m be r o fpho t os ap pearexcessi v e, we can not say t hat f act or 6 s ta n d i n g a l o n e re n d e re d th e i r a d m i s s i o n o u ts i d e th e zo n e o f re a s o n a b l e d i s a g re e m e n t. 12 a w ound ha v e been found to be probati v e enoug h to outw eig h any preju d ici al effect

. Legate v. State, 52 S. W .3d 797 , 807 (Tex. App

. – S a n Anto nio 20 01, pet. ref'd). Ov erall, the pho tograph mustbe he lpf ul to the jury ; "if there a re elem ent s of a ph oto graph thatare genuine ly

helpf ul to the ju ry

in m aking its decision , the p hot ograph is inadm issible only i f the e moti onal and preju dic ial as pect s subs tanti all y outw eig h the hel pful as pect s." E r a zo , 144 S. W .3d at 491-92. W e hold that the tri al ju dg e could hav e reas onabl y found that t he pho tos in question were helpf ul to the jury and thatthe em otion al and prejudicial asp ects, if any, did not subst ant ially outw eigh the help f ul aspe cts. See i d. W e ov er ru le thi s i ss ue. 6 4. Stateme nt In his forth issue , app ellant argues tha t his aud io-tap ed statem entg iv en to district attor ney inv est ig ator

Amburn. did not meet t he te st setout in Cross. See Cro ss v. Sta te , 144 S. W .3d 521, 526-5 27 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2004) . Before t ri al, appel lan t, in open c our t, requeste d the t rial court to dism iss his attorne y . Th e judge an d district atto rney both du ly admoni shed appel lan t ag ain st proceed ing w it hout an attor ney . Appel lan t i nsi ste d tha t he did no t w antan att orne y and thathe w ant ed to dea l directly w ith the district attorne y ’s of f ice. According to Am burn ’s testimo ny, l ate r that da y he we n to u tt o t he p rison as a
re present ati v e of the dis tr ict attor ney ’s off ic e and re corded a sta tement from appel lan t. Before takin g his state me nt, a ppe llant w as again ad v ised o f h is c onst itution al rig hts. Stat e’s ex hib it2 w as als o introduce d and it re ci ted appel lan t’ s ri g hts and w as si g ned by appel lan t. Cross discusses Or

egon v . Br adsha w , 462 U .S. 1039, 1044, (p lurali ty op.)

. InE d w a rd s v . A rizo n a , 45 1 U

. S

. 47 7, (U

. S

. 19 81 ). 7 13 Or e gon , t he Sup re me C our t c lar ified the Edwar

ds r u l e a n d e s t a b l i s h e d a tw o - s tep 7 procedu re to deter mine w hether a su sp e ct has w aiv ed hi s p re v iou sl y i nv oked ri g ht t o couns el. Id. The first ste p req uires proof that the s uspe ct h im self ini ti ates furth er communi cat ion w it h the auth or it ies after i nv oki ng the ri g ht t o c ounse l. Id. T he s econd st ep requires proof

that , af ter he reinitia tes com mu nicatio n w ith the auth orities, the su s p e ct
v ali dly w aiv es the ri g ht to c ounse l. Id. O nce thi s tw o- ste p w aiv er req uirement i s s how n, the s uspect has co unter manded his or ig ina l ele cti on to speak to au thor it ies onl y w it h the
ass is tanc e of coun sel

. Id. O nce thi s i s d one, the Edwar ds r ule i s ful ly

sa ti sfied. Id. W hile ap pellan t cont end s thatsome how he did no t initiate conta ct w ith the district atto rney’s of

f ice, the record proo f

indicate d tha t app ellantin open court requeste d to visi t
w it h s omeone f ro m the dis tr ict attor ney ’s off ic e. Base d upon that re q uest , Ambur n v is it ed appel lan t t he s ame day

. The taped ses si on al so re it erates appel lan t’ s desi re to speak w it h Ambur n ( someone from the dis tr ict attor ney ’s off ic e)

. Appel lan t als o arg ues that he did not
v ali dly w aiv e hi s r ig ht t o c ounse l. Ag ain , t he record does not suppo rtthi s c ontent ion

. The tap e itself

also shows v alid w arnings to a p p e ll a n t , in cluding his rig ht to coun sel. Addi ti onal ly , t he record i ndi cat es the t ria l jud g e and the d is tr ict attor ney ampl y w ar ned appel lan t. Appel lan t s o mehow co ntends thathe may hav e been influ enced by othe r factors s uch as lac k o f sle ep, p ro mis ed bene fits, mental heal th i ss ues, or undoc umented coercion . Th e record do es no t supp ort the se asse rtions. Fi rs t, w e not e, no su ch obj ect ion s w ere made t o the tri a l co u rta nd w ere thu s
w aiv ed. Ful

ler v. Sta te , 827 S.W .2d 9 19, 9 29 ( Tex . C ri m A p p. 19 92)

. Fur ther more, the14

Cross c o u rtp o in te d o u t th a t th e ca se s fo llo wing Edwar ds are c lea rl y

i ndi cat iv e tha t i n the absen ce of som e poli ce int er ferenc e w it h the ex erci se of the r ig ht t o c ounse l of the
acc used, the Edwar

ds r ule is to be s tr ictl y

and nar ro w ly

appl ied

. Id. (cit in g Plaz inich v. Lynaugh , 8 4 3 F

. 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 8
- 3 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) )

. Th e re c o rd , i n c l u d i n g t h e t a p e i t s e l f, does not s uppor

t app ell ant’ s a ll eg ati ons. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ue.

5. In ef fe ct iv e A

ssist ance Fi nal ly , app ell ant c ontends thathis tr ial co unsel rendered i neffect iv e as si sta nce to him at t he tr ial l ev el. Sp eci fical ly , he arg ues that tr ial counsel fail ed to f il e a noti ce of inten t to rais e the in sa n ity

defense. N ext, he av ers c ounse l faile d to proper ly obj ectto the int ro duct ion of his tape -recorded s tatementdi sc uss ed abov e. Fur ther , his co unsel fail ed to req uesta he ar ing on t he v olu ntar ine ss of his tape d s tatement

. Appel lan t c onced es that in most cas es the preferabl e method of ra is ing thi s i ss ue is thou g h a hab eas co rpus p ro ce e d in g, ci ti n g Ex par te T or re s , 9 4 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 5 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Ex Par te D uffy, 607 S.W .2d 507, 512-5 13 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1980) (i n m o s ti n s t a n c e s , t h e re c o rd o n d ir e c ta p p e a l i s in a d e qu a t e t o d e ve lo p a n in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e c lai m). Bu t, he arg ues, sometimes the ex is ti ng record pos si bly demons trates
a s ing le eg re g iou s e rror or omi ss ion thatw il l cons ti tute ine f f e ct ive assi sta nce, ci ti ng Jacks on v

. St ate , 7 6 6 S

. W

. 2 d 50 4 , 5 1 0 -5 1 1 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (ci ti n g Nero v. Blackb urn , 597 F .2d 9 91, 9 94 ( 5th C ir . 197 9) ( "Someti mes a si ng le er ro r is so su bst anti al that ital one c auses the attor ney 's as si sta nce to fall bel ow the si xth amend ment stan dard .")). In rev iew ing cl aims of ine ffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el, w e apply t h e tw o- prong Str ickl and test to d ete rmine w het her assistance of coun sel w as so de fective as to require15

re v ersal of the d efendant's co nv icti on. Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U.S. 668 , 687 (198 4);
see Her nandez v. Sta te , 988 S.W .2d 770 -72 (T e x. C ri m . App . 199 9). T o esta blish ine ffect iv e as si sta n ce o f c ounse l under

the Str ickl and t e s t , a p p e ll a n tm u s tp ro ve b y a prep ond eran ce of

t he evidence tha t (1) h is trial coun sel's re prese nta tion was def icient in tha t it fe ll below

the sta nda rd of

p re va il in g profession al norm s; and (2) there is a
re a s o n a b le p ro b a b il it y t h a t , b u tfo r c o u n s e l' s d e f ic ie n c y, t h e re s u lto f t h e t ri a l wo u ld h a ve been di fferent. Str

ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7- 9 4

. Sta ted o ther w is e, "W hen a conv icted def end antcomp lains of the ine f fectiveness of

coun sel's assistan ce, th e de fend antmust show thatc o u n sel' s represent ati on fell bel ow an o bje cti v e s tandard of reason abl eness ." Id. at 687- 88. The c our

t mus t t h e n det er mine w hether , i n l ig ht of al l the c ircums tanc es, the ide nti fied acts or

omi ss ion s w ere out si de th e w ide range o f professi onal ly

co mpetent
ass is tanc e. Ma ta v

. St ate , 226 S.W .3d 425, 428 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. In maki ng that det erminat i on , th e c ou rt s ho ul d k ee p i n mi nd th at c ou ns el ' s fun c ti on , as el ab orat ed in prev ail ing professi ona l nor ms, is to make t he adv ersar ial tes ti ng proces s wor k i n the par ti cul ar ca se. Id. At the sam e time , the court sho uld recognize that cou nsel is strongly presumed to ha v e rendered adeq uate ass is tanc e and made al l si g nific ant d eci si ons in the
ex erci se o f reas onabl e professi onal j udg ment. Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 0. Judi ci al
s c r u t i n y o f c o u n s e l ' s p e r

fo r ma n c e m u s tb e h i g h l y d e fe re nti al. Id. at 695. F urther more, all eg ati ons of ineffectiv e as si sta nce of couns el must be fir mly founded i n the record, w it h the record aff ir mati v ely demons trati ng the all eg ed i neffect iv eness . Thom pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. On direct a ppe al, a revi ewi ng court indu lges a strong p re s u m p tion th at cou nsel's16

condu ct fell w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e p ro f e ss ional ass is tanc e. Id. at813- 14. I f t h e re is a tle a s tt h e p o s s ib il it y t h a tt h e co n d u c tco u ld h a ve b e e n le gi t im a t e t ri a l s t ra t e gy, t h e re vie win g c o u rtm u s td e fe r t o co u n s e l' s d e c is io n a n d d e n y re li e f o n a n in e f

fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel cl aim on di re ct appeal

. Id. W as couns el ine ffect iv e bec ause he di d notti mely fil e a n oti ce of inte nt to rais e the ins ani ty defense? The record reflect s o nly thatco unsel fil ed hi s n oti ce o n N o v ember 9, 2006, cl aimi ng thatg ood c ause ex is ted for not fili ng the n oti ce at l east20 d ay s p ri or to the date the c ase w as setfor t ri al. The t ri al jud g e deni ed th e moti on/not ic e on Nov ember 13, 2006 noti ng “A bov e Den ied after hear ing .” Appel lan t cont ends he w as therefore denied his r ig ht t o rais e an impor tant defense. It is not poss ibl e to deter min e w hether co unsel ’s ac ti ons fell outs ide the ra ng e of effect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. F irst, appel lan t’ s c lai m is not firml y g ro unded i n the record. Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813

. There is li ttl e ev ide nce that appel lan t w as sufferin g from any mental i mpair ment s uff ic ien t t o rais e an ins ani ty defense. Appel lan t did compl ain of “ day
mares ,” thathe c oul d notrecal l some c onduc t, or thathe h ad no cont ro l. H ow ev er , t he
re cord does not re flecttr ial couns el’ s strateg y or preparati on. W it h his cl ien t i ncarcerated, di d c ou ns el d ec i de to proc ee d to tr i al to av oi d th e atte nd an t de l ay s a nd p rob ab l e ou tc om e of such a def ense assum in g tha t the re might have bee n an y ev iden ce of

insanity? Di d
coun sel have his client examine d by a psychiatrist or psy cholo gist? W hat , if anything did the expert opin e? Did app ellant him self dem and such a def ense , w aiting unt il th e la st minut e? S econd ly , on directappeal , a re v iew ing co urt indul g es a st ro ng presumpt ion that
couns el' s condu ct fell w it hin the w ide ra ng e of reason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. Thom pson 9 S.W .3d at 813-14

. T hus, app ellant fails to dem onst rate by a prepo nde rance17

of the ev ide nce that the first prong of the Str ickl and tes t has been met. Next, w as couns el’ s o bje cti on to the in troduct ion of the taped sta tement defici ent? A p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d s t h a tc o u n s e l d i d n ’ to bj e c to n t h e b a s i s o f A rt i c l e 3 8

. 2 2 o f t h e Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . See TEX . C OD E C RI M. PR OC . ar t. 38.2 2 § 3 (a )( 2) ( Ver non 2005) ( re q uir ing fo r admis si on th at du ri ng the re cordin g t hat w ar nin g s b e g iv en and the
acc used v olun ta rily waiv e hi s r ig hts ). The t ape recordin g i tse lf demons trates thatthe
re q uired w ar nin g s w ere g iv en. Appel lan t s ig ned off on a w ar nin g doc ument i ntroduce d i nto
ev ide nce at t he tr ial

. The tape it sel f als o demons trates appel lan t’ s e ag er ness and
w illing n e s s t o spe ak w ith Am burn . Appe llant can didly adm its he did n ot review the very tap e recordin g he n ow atta cks a s d ef icient. Again, the record doe s not sup port ap pellan t’s all eg ati on. Fi nal ly , app ell ant c ontends co unsel w as defici ent byfail ing to re q uesta hear ing on the v olun ta rines s o f the recorded s tatement

. Onc e thi s i ss ue i s rais ed, i f req uest ed, t he trial court w as ob lig ate d to ho ld a hea ring out side the p resen ce of t he jury t o det ermin e if the w aiv er of ri g hts w as v olu ntar y or not. See Jacks on v

. D enno , 378 U .S. 368, 394 ( U. S. 1964) ( prov idi ng fo r a n adeq uate ev ide nti ar y hear ing product iv e of reli abl e resul ts
conc er nin g the v olu ntar ine ss of hi s c onfessi on) ; see als o Al var ado v . St ate , 912 S. W .2d 199, 211 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ( once a defendant mov es to s uppress a s tatementon t he g ro und of "i n volu n tar ine ss ," t he due proces s g uarantee re q uires the t ri al cour t t o hol d a hear ing on t he admi ss ibi li ty of the s tatementouts ide the presenc e of the jur y ). As di sc uss ed abov e, w e c annot re ad the mi nd of tr ial co unsel

. Tri al couns el had the advanta ge of

both spea king w ith his client, rev iew ing th e tap e itself , w hich on its fa ce
w as v olu ntar

y , and w as presumabl y

v er y aw are of the facts and c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng18

the a ll eg ed v olu ntar ine ss i ss ue. Cou nsel may w ell hav e been aw are or co ncl uded t hat t he state me nt w as no t "involunta ry ," for the p urpo ses of fede ral due p rocess, be cause there
w as no offici al, co erci v e c onduc t, and t he s tatementwa s e ss e nti all y the free and
uncon strain ed c hoi ce by i ts maker

. See Al var

ado v . St ate, 8 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 , 19 , n . 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1993) ; Sm it h v. St ate , 779 S.W .2d 417 , 427 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89). On direct app eal, a rev iew ing court indulges a strong presum ption t hatco unse l's con ductfell w ithin the w ide rang e of reaso n a b le professi onal as si sta nce. Thom pson, 9 S. W .3d a t 813 -1 4. T hus, app ellantfails to dem onst rate by a prepo nde rance of the evidence t h a t the f irst prong of the Str

ickl and tes t has been met. W e ov er ru le thi s i ss ue. The ju dg ment and se ntenc e of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

D ON W ITTIG, J u s t i c e Do NotPubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 22nd day

of Janua ry , 200 9.