T he St at e di d no t seek t he d eat h pe nal t y i n G onz al es' s case. 1 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0028 3-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 - 

## EDI NBURG
CA RL OS A NT ONIO GON ZA LE S, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , 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 R od rigu ez an d Garza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t Car los Antoni o Gonz ale s compl ain s of the j ur y 's v erdict c onv ic ti ng hi m of capi tal murder a n d sentenc ing hi m to l ife i n pr is on. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 1 12. 31(a ), 19.0 3(a)(2) (Vernon Supp

. 200 9). By eight issues, Go nzales argues that : (1) his rig ht un der the Conf ronta tion Clau se w as v iolate d w hen the St ate cross-e xa min ed h imPabl o Padi l l a was a l so con v i ct ed f or t he ca pi t al m ur der of M or al es. W e aff i r m ed t he co nv i ct i on o n 2 A u g u s t 2 0 , 2 0 0 9

. S e e P a d i ll a v . S ta te , N o. 13- 08- 00470
- C R , 2 009 T ex. App. LEX I S 6552, at * 16 ( T ex. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i A ug
. 20 , 20 09 , pe t

. fi l ed ) ( m em
. op
. , no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ). 2 usi ng the sta tement of his co -d efendant, see U. S. C ON ST
. amend VI ; ( 2) hi s r ig ht un der the Con frontat ion C lause w as v iol ated dur ing the tes ti mony of the p oli ce detec ti v e w ho inv est ig ated the c ase, see id. ; (3 ) th e t ria l co u rtab u se d its di sc re ti o n by fa ili n g to ch a rge the j ur y on t he l esser -in cluded off ense of felo ny murder ; ( 4) the tr ial co urt abu sed it s dis creti on by

fail ing to g ra nt G onz ale s' s mot ion for j uror i nformati on after

g ood c ause w as shown; (5) his constitut iona l rig ht to an impartia l jury w as v iolate d w hen tw o jurors w ithhe ld
cer tai n i n f or mati on dur ing v oir di re , see id. ; ( 6) the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by den y in g Gon z ales's m otion for new trial on the basis tha t tw o jurors failed to disclose
ma terial informa tion; (7) the trial court abu s e d its discret ion by adm itting multiple photog ra phs of the sce ne of the murde r and the autopsy ; and ( 8) the cumul ati v e har m from the multip le const itution al, proce dura l, and ev iden tiaryerrors depriv ed Go nzales of a fair trial. W e reverse and rem and for a new tr ial. I. B A CKGRO UND On F e b r u a r

y 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , V i c t o r

M o ra l e s w a s fo u n d d e a d i n h i s h o me b y h i s w ife, Trac y R omero , w hen s he retur ned home from w or k in the e ar ly ev eni ng
. Romero found Morales ly ing on the f loor by the f ront do or of the ho use in a p o o l o f h is o w n bloo d; it appeared th at M orale s h ad s ust ain ed s ev ere head inj ur ies

. There w as proper ty mis si ng from the house , i ncl udi ng some jew elr y and a f iv e- g all on jug of loose chan g e. Gonz ale s and hi s c o- defendant Pa blo Padi ll a bec ame su spec ts in the cas e w hen i t w as dis cov ered that they had paw ned t he jew elr y m is si ng f ro m Mo ra les 's house. How ev er , t he nat ure of 2 Mo ra les 's deat h and ev ents su rroundi ng i t remaine d a mat ter of g re at di sput e.T he St at e de cl i ned t o pu r sue t he t hef t char ge. 3 3 On M ay 17, 2007, Gonz ale s w as ind ic ted for ca pit al murde r and t heft. G onz ale s 3 ple aded no t g uil ty , and the cas e proceed ed to tr ial on Febr uar y 12, 2008. At the t hree- day tr ial , t he j ur

y heard the foll ow ing tes ti mony and ev ide nce: Davi d Curtiss Cur ti ss , a cri m e s cene inv est ig ator for t he C or pus Chr is ti Pol ic e D epar tment (CCPD) , generally describe d the crime scene . He note d tha t the re were blood spatt ers throu ghout th e hou se and tha t the f urnitu re in the liv ing room w as out of place , w hich cou ld ind ic ate t hat t here had been a fig ht. C urti ss furth er tes ti fied th at t he draw ers i n the bedrooms h ad been opened and that it appeared to hi m as i f the pl ace had bee n ra nsac ked. C urti ss note d that the follo w ing w ere found at the s cene: tw o handg uns, one under t h e m a tt re ss and one i n the ni g hts tand draw er ; and remnants of mari huana ci g arettes and a hundred- dol lar bi ll , bot h found i n the trash can. T racyRome ro Ro m e ro t e s t if ie d t h a tMo ra le s h a d a p itb u ll t h a twa s ve ry p ro t e c t ive o f t h e fa m il y; she sta te d t h a tM orales would chain the pit b ull outsid e if some one came to the hou se
w hom the do g did not know. Rom ero testif ied that, w hen she retu rned hom e on Februa ry 22, 200 7, th e pit bu ll w as cha ined up in the backyard. Rom ero also d iscussed Morales's his tor y of dr ug deal ing

. She tes ti fied that Gonz ale s h ad been to her home be fore and sh e
w as once w it h M orale s a t t he Son icnear t h e ir h o u se w hen G onz ale s metup t here w it h Morales. Rom ero stat ed th at, a t som e po int in 200 6, she sepa rated f rom Morale s beca use of his dr ug bus ine ss
. She s tated thatsh e retu rn ed to M orale s b ecaus e s he bel iev ed he had s topped deal ing dr ug s, but t he nig ht before Mo ra les 's deat h, s he and Mo ra les had an4

arg ument be caus e s he bel iev ed he mig ht be deal ing dr ug s a g ain

. Romero tes ti fied th at Morales smo ked m arihua na o n a ne ar-daily basis; sh e ad mitt ed th at she t hrew Morales's mari huana "roache s" i n the trash before t he pol ic e ar ri v ed. R. G. Her nandez Her nandez , M orale s' s b ro ther-i n- law , t est ified thatM o ra le s t old hi m thathe h ad $20,000 i n c ash at t he house

. Her nandez sta ted that Mo ra les often brag g ed to hi m and oth ers abo ut such things. Richard L. Ga rcia Garci a, the lead CC PD detecti v e on the cas e, test ified that he ar ri v ed on the s cene shor tl y after R omero ca ll ed 911 to re p o rt t h e k il li ng
. Garci a not ed th e bl ood s patte r and dis pla ced furni ture at the s cene and, li ke Cur ti ss , s tated that it

w as poss ibl e tha t t here had been a str ug g le or

a fig ht. Al so, l ik e C u rtis s, Garci a bel iev ed th at t he hous e had been
ransa cked. Garcia testif ied th at th e tw o guns foun d i n t h e h o u se an d the pit bull w ere ev id e n c e t h a t M o r a l e s w a s a d r u g d e a l e r
. W h e n a s k e d b y d e fe n s e c o u n s e l i f it w as p o s s ib le t h a tso m e o n e h a d co m e t o t h e h o u s e t o d o a d e a l a n d t h e d e a l h a d go n e b a d ly, lea din g to Mo ra les 's murder , G ar ci a s tated thatthi s s cenar io w as poss ibl e. Garci a tes ti fied th at G onz ale s b ecame a s uspect i n the ca se when he l ear ned of
ru mo rs floati ng around M athi s, Tex as— a s mall tow n out si de of C or pus Chr is ti —th at Gonz ale s a nd Pad il la w ere i nv olv ed in t h e k il li ng and w ere tr y ing to sel l the j ew elr

y they had t aken from the house

. Garci a the n s ent a noti ce out t o paw n s hops in the a re a tha t
re tur ned i nformati on that both Gonz ale s a nd Pad il la had bee n paw nin g se v eral pie ces ofG onz al es does not di sput e t hat he pawned som e of t he j ewel r y t hat was t aken f r om M or al es' s hou se. 4 E v id e n c e a t t r ia l s h o w e d th a t a t ir e c h e c k e r is a h e a v y c lu b u s e d b y tr u c k e r s to te s t t h e tir e s o n th e ir 5 e i g h te e n -w h e e l e r tru c k s
. 5 jew elr y , w hic h w ere l ater

i denti fied as those taken from Morale s' s house. Garc ia tes ti fied 4 tha t he arreste d Gon z ales sho rtly therea f ter, in ea rly

March 2007 . Garcia testif ied th at, in the state me nt Go nzales g ave Garcia after his arrest, Gon z ales sta ted thathe an d Pad illa thoug ht t here w oul d be more money at Mo ra les 's hous e and that Gonz ale s d id not g o i nto the hou se to hu rt Morales. Garci a tes ti fied th at P adi ll a g av e a s tatementi n Sept ember 2007 and, after g iv ing the s tatement , t ook Garci a to a c ali che piti n M athi s w here Padilla s ta ted the murder
w eapon h ad been dumped. I n the cali che pit , Garc ia found a heavy ti re ch eck er

tool and a pai r of g lov es, w hic h Padi ll a i denti fied as the w eapon u sed to k il l Mo ra les and the g lov es used in the i nci dent. 5 Ray F er nandez Fer nandez , t he N ueces C ounty medi cal ex aminer

w ho per formed th e a u tops y

on Morales's bod y , testif ied that M orales had suf fered severe hea d injuries an d tha t the cause of death w as blu nt for ce trauma to the head. He noted that the b ack of Mo ra les 's sk ull w as depress ed, w hic h c oul d hav e been caus ed by a t ire c heckertool of the ty pe found by Garci a at th e ca li che pit , and thathe h ad i nju ri es to t he frontand si de of hi s h ead
cons is tent w it h bei ng ki ck ed in the face. W hen que sti oned bydefense coun sel , F er nandez state d tha t the injuries could also be con sistentw ith a f ist f ight. How ever, Fernand ez also noted that Mo ra les had no mar ki ng s o n hi s fis ts or broken fing er nai ls that w oul d i ndi cat e he h ad b een f ighting w ith his f ists.6

Guadal upe R odr ig uez Rod ri g uez , ano ther

CCPD detec ti v e i nv est ig ati ng the cas e, t est ified thather investig ation rev eale d tha t the re had bee n con siderab le drug traf f ic in and ou t of

Morales's hou se. She a lso conf irmed Cu rtiss's f indings, not ing th at tw ent y -one marihu ana "roach es"
w er e found in the house

. Rod ri g uez dis cus sed the re sul ts of t he pol ic e's paw n shop inv est ig ati on butsp eci fical ly noted, w it hout obje cti on, that the factthe jew elr y w as paw ned did no t nece ssarily

mea n Gon z ales an d Pad illa intend ed to murd er Morales. Al v aro Andrade Andrade, Gonz ale s' s brot her , testi fied that Morale s w as a dr ug deal er
. He sta ted that he had been t o M orale s' s h ouse w it h Gon z ale s a nd Pad il la sev era l ti m e s s o tha t Gon z ales cou ld buy drugs f rom Morale s. He testif ied th at he had b een in the ho use o nly
once and tha t, typically , Morales w ould com e out to their car to tran s a c twit h Gonzales. Andrade t est ified thatw hen he w ent i nto t he hous e, M orale s chai ned up his pit bul l in the backy ard. Car los Gonz ale s Gon z ales him self

testif ied att rial. He adm itted t hath e w as a cocain e dea ler. He testif ied that he bou ght large v olum es of cocain e f rom Morales on a regular b a s is. Gonz ale s s tated thathe o w ed M orale s $ 1,000 at t he ti me of Morale s' s d eath. In hi s t est imony

at tr ial , Gonz ale s blamed Padi ll a for the murde r. He t est ified that , on the d ay in question , Pad illa asked Go nzales to driv e him to Morales's hou se so he could buy some drugs. Gon z ales stated tha t he pulled up to the hou se, Pa dilla exi ted the car, knoc ked on Mo ra les 's door , and Mo ra les let Padi ll a in the h ouse. G onz ale s t est ified that
around fiv e mi nutes l ater , Pa dil la opened the front d oor of the h o u se and w av ed toC ounsel fo r G on z al es ob j ect ed t o t he St at e' s use ofPadi l l a' s st at em ent on C onf r ont at i on Cl ause 6 g ro u n d s
. See U

. S. C ON ST . a m e n d V I.

G onz al es cha l l enged t he vo l unt ar i ness ofhi s st at em ent t o po l i ce i n a m ot i on t o sup pr ess, whi ch was 7 d e n ie d a f te r a h e a r in g
. C o u n s e l f o r G o n z a le s a ls o a tt a c k e d th e v o lu n ta r in e s s o fth e s ta te m e n t a t t r ia l. F urt he r, t he j ur y char ge i ncl uded an i nst r uct i on r equi r i ng t he j ur y t o f i nd t hat t he st at em ent was v ol untary b e f o r e c o n s id e r in g it a s e v id e n c e . G o n z a le s d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e v o lu n ta r in e s s o fh is s ta te m e n t o n a p p e a l.
7 Gonz ale s t o come in. G onz ale s s tated thathe w alk ed up to t he hous e and, w hen he g ot to the front door , he saw Mo ra les lay ing on the floor w it h blo od all around his he ad. Gonz ale s t est ified thatPadi ll a tol d hi m to s tar t t aking prop erty

from t he hous e, bu t Gon z ales ref used and w entback to th e car. Gonzales f urthe r testif ied th at w hen Padilla
re tur ned t o the ca r, he w as car ry ing a t ire c h e ck er tool thathe p lac ed i n a b ox i n the back seatof the c ar
. Gonz ale s s tated thathe d id not l ear n unt il l ater i n the e ven ing that Mo ra les w as dead. The Stat e the n at te m p ted to i mpeach Gonz ale s w it h Padi ll a's st atement to t he pol ic e. In t he s tatement , Pa dil la sta ted t hat G onz ale s h ad been the one to c ommit all the acts previously describe d by Gonzales w hile Pad illa w aited in the car. 6 A tt ri a l, t h e ju ry a ls o wa t c h e d t h e vid e o re c o rd in g o f t h e s t a t e m e n t G o n za le s ga ve to t he pol ic e after his ar re st. D ur ing the sta tement, Gonz ale zg av e s omew hat c onfli cti ng 7
v ersi ons of t he ev ents

. At firs t, Gonz ale s deni ed any know led g e. As th e in te rv iew progressed, howev er, Gon z ales be gan to be more fort h com ing. R eferring to Morales's ki ll ing , G onz ale s stat ed that he "did n'tknow that w as g oin g to happen. " Gonz ale s t old the pol ic e det ect iv e tha t he and Pa dil la w ent t o Mo ra les 's house to ro b him and that thi ng s g ot outof han d an d Pad illa h it Morales in the he ad wi th a bla ck tool. Gon z ales sta ted that"it8

w asn' t s uppos ed to be l ik e tha t." Throu g hout the s tatement , G onz ale s mai ntai ned t hat h e never hit Morales. At t he c los e of th e e vidence, t he tr ial co urt hea rd arg ument fro m the Stat e and d e fe n s e co u n s e l a b o u tva ri o u s is s u e s wit h re s p e c tt o t h e c o u rt ' s ch a rg e t o t h e ju ry. Spec ific all y , c ounse l for Go nz ale s req uest ed th at t he c harg e i ncl ude t he l ess er-i ncl uded off ense of felo ny

murder bec ause there w as ev ide nce at tri al thatthe ki ll ing of M orale s w as not i ntent ion al. The t ri al cour t den ied the re q uest

. The ju ry r e tu rn e d a g uil ty

v erdict,
conv ic ti ng Gonz ale s o f capi tal murder and sent enc in g h im t o l ife i mpri sonmenti n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. L E S S E R I NCL UDE D O FFEN SE By hi s thi rd i ss ue, G onz ale s a rg ues that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on i n fail ing to c harg e the j ur

y on t he l ess er-i ncl uded offense of felony murder

. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 19.02( b) (3 ) (V er non 200 3)

. W e ag re e.

A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw Tex as cour

ts employ

a tw o- prong tes t t o det e rm in e wh e ther a jur y ch arg e on a les ser-i ncl uded offense mus t b e gi v en. Thr eadgi ll v. Sta te , 1 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 5 4 , 6 6 5 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2004) ( en banc ); s e e a l s o B a r g a s v . S tate , N o
. 1 3
- 0 6
- 0 0 3 7 2
- C R , 2 0 0 7 WL 2459194, a t *6 ( T e x . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug . 31, 2007, no p et.) ( mem. op., not designat ed for pub licat io n). First, w e de term ine w het her the lesser of fense is a l esserinc lud ed offense of the c harg ed offense. Thread gill , 146 S.W .3d at 665 . In oth er w ords, the elem ent s of

the lesse r of

fense mu st be included w ithin th e proo f nece ssaryto esta blish9

the charg ed offense. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar t. 3 7. 09 ( a) ( Ve r no n 20 06); Schwei nle v. Sta te , 915 S.W .2d 1 7, 18 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ( per cu ri am). Seco nd, w e det er mine w hether there i s some ev ide nce that w oul d per mit a rati onal jur y to find that , i f gui lty , t he defendant is g uil ty onl y of the l ess er

offense. Thread

gill , 146 S.W .3d a t 665 ; see Saunder s v . St ate , 840 S.W .2d 3 90, 3 91 ( Tex . Cr im. App. 1992) ( per curiam ). In othe r w ords, " [t]h e evidence mu st esta blish the lesser-include d of fense as a
v ali d rati onal al ter nati v e to the c harg ed offense." Thread gill , 1 4 6 S

. W. 3 d a t6 6 5

. We
cons ide r all of the e v ide nce int ro duced at tr ial , w hether produce d b y t h e S ta te or by the defendant. Enr

iqu ez v. Sta te , 21 S.W .3d 2 77, 2 78 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2000)

. In c onsi der ing the e v ide nce for pur poses of the s econd prong , w e do not j udge th e c re dib il ity of the
ev ide nce or

w hether i t c onfli cts w it h other

ev ide nce. Sau nde rs , 840 S.W .2d at 391 . Th us, becau se w e are notto w eig h the st re ng th or w eakne ss of

the ev ide nce, an i nst ru cti on on the l ess er-i ncl uded o f

f e n se i s w ar ra nted if w e find "[a]nythi ng more tha n a s ci nti ll a of
ev ide nce from any

so ur ce" from w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld ac q uitthe defendant of the g re ater offense w hil e co n victing hi m of the l ess er
. Schweinle , 915 S.W .2d a t 18; see Sau nde rs , 840 S.W .2d a t 391 ; se e al so Bar gas , 200 7 W L 24591 94, a t * 6. The ev ide nce can ind ic ate a def endant is gui lty of only the les ser

offense in one of tw o w ay s. See Saun ders , 840 S.W .2d at 391 . First, if the e v iden ce eith er "af f irmatively
re futes or

neg ates an e lementes tabl is hin g the g re ater offense, " the les ser-i ncl uded off ense is rais ed. Schweinle , 9 1 5 S

. W

. 2 d a t1 9

. Se c o n d , " a d e fe n d a n tm a y b e sh o wn g uil ty onl y of the l ess er

offense if the ev ide nce present ed i s s ubj ectto tw o i nter pretati ons. " Sau nde rs , 840 S.W .2d a t 392 ; see Ros s v . St ate , 861 S.W .2d 870, 875 ( Tex . C ri m. App.10

199 2) ("W here the evidence g iv en a t trial is subje ct to two reaso nab le inferen ces, th e jury shoul d be ins tr uct ed on both inferences .")

. If w e find er ro r in the c harg e s ubmit ted t o the j ur y , w e must sti ll dete rmi ne w hether suffici ent harm res ult ed f ro m the er ro r to req uire rev ersal

. See Ross , 861 S.W .2d a t 875

. A proper ly

preser v ed er ro r in the j ur

y ch arg e req uires re v ersal i f the er ro r w as "cal cul ated to i nju re the ri g hts of defendant." Al m anza v . St ate , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 198 6) (op. on reh'g); see Saunders v. Sta te , 913 S. W .2d 5 64, 5 71 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) (e n banc ) (a ppl y ing the Al m anza stan dard in a case w here the objected -to error w as failure to i ncl ude an ins tr uct ion on a les ser-i ncl uded off ense)

. A s how ing of inj ur y req uires nothi ng more than there be "some h ar m" to t he defendant becau se o f the er ro r. A l

m a n za , 686 S.W .2d at 171

. "[T ]he presen ce of any harm, regardless of degree, is suf

f icient to require a rev ersal of the c onv ic ti on." D ickey v. Sta te , 22 S.W .3d 4 90, 4 92 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) (en ba nc). B. A nal ysis It is w ell -e sta bli shed that felony murder i s a l ess er-i ncl uded offense of capital murde r, so the firs t prong of the tes t is met. See Thread gill , 146 S.W .3d a t 665 ; see a lso Bar gas , 2 0 0 7 W L 24 5 9 1 9 4 , a t * 6 (cit in g Sal ina s v . St ate , 16 3 S. W .3 d 73 4, 741 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2005) ). The cr u cia l que sti on on appeal , t hen, is w hether there w as more than a scintilla of

ev iden ce tha t if

G onzales com mitt ed an of fense , he com mitt ed o nly the of fense of felo ny murder

. See Thread

gill , 146 S.W .3d a t 665

. "The el ement dis ti ng uis hin g capi tal murde r from felony murder i s t he i ntentto ki ll ." Id. Fel o n y mu rd e r is a n un in te n ti o n a l kil l i n g c o m m i t te d in th e co u rse of co m m it ti n g a11

felony ; c api tal murder

i s a n i ntent ion al ki ll ing commi tted in the course of commit ti ng , among other offenses , robber

y . See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 19. 02(b )(3), 19 .03 (a)(2). Thu s, in the c ontext of f e lo n y

murder bas ed on ro bber

y , t o be enti tl ed to the ins tr uct ion on t he lesser-include d of

fense , "th ere m ust be some ev iden ce tha t w ould perm it a jury rationa lly to find the defe n d a nt ha d the i ntentto commi t robber y but not t o c ause the d eath of the
v ic ti m." Thread

gill , 146 S.W .3d a t 665

. Here, t here w as ample ev ide nce at tr ial that Mo ra les w as a s er iou s d ru g deal er and that he may

hav e ha d l a rg e amount s o f cash and dr ug s i n hi s h ouse, al l ci rc umstan ti al
ev ide nce of a poss ibl e moti v e for the ro bber y . Cur ti ss and Garci a both tes ti f ie d th a t the phy si cal e videnc e from t he s cene— in par ti cul ar , t he bl ood s patte rs and dis pla ced furni ture—c oul d be cons is tent w it h a str ug g le or f ig ht in the house. Fer nandezstated that Mo ra les 's i nju ri es coul d be ind ic ati v e of a fis t fig ht. R odr ig ueztes ti fied th at G onz ale s a nd Pad illa's paw ning of

the jewelry

d id notn ecessa rily

p rov e tha t the y

in ten ded to kill Morales. In th e stat em enthe gav e po lice, Gon z ales ad mitt ed th at he and P adilla w entto the hou se to rob Morale s but that he did not intend for thing s to turn out the w ay theydid. He sta ted that the s it uati on g ot ou t of ha n d and that Padi ll a hi t M orale s o n the head. Be caus e the
ev ide nce is su bje ct to m u lt ipl e i nter pretati ons, see Sa und ers , 840 S.W .2d a t 392 ; Ross , 861 S. W .2d a t 875 , w e bel iev e an ins tr uct ion on t he l ess er-i ncl uded offense of felony murde r w as w ar ra nted. See S a und ers , 840 S.W .2d a t 391 ( hol din g thatthe re v iew ing
cour t i s n ot t o w eig h the st re ng th or w eakne ss of the ev ide nce)

. In other w ords, there w as more than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce at t ri al that, al th o u gh Go n zal es and Pa dil la int ended t o12

ro b Mo ra les , they did not i ntend to k il l him. See Thread gill , 146 S.W .3d a t 665 ; Schweinle , 915 S. W .2d a t 18. The Stat e arg ues that Gonz ale s w as not enti tl ed to a l ess er-i ncl uded i nst ru cti on on felony murder bec ause there w as no ev ide nce that the murder of Mo ra les w as anythi ng but int enti onal

. See G onzale z v. State , 296 S.W .3d 6 20, 6 26- 27 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2009, pet. filed ); Fl

or es v. State , 21 5 S. W .3 d 52 0, 53 0 ( Tex

. Ap p. –B ea um ont 200 7), a ff'd on other gr ounds , 245 S.W .3d 432 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2008) ; Mo ham m ed v . St ate , 127 S.W .3d 163, 167- 68 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 3, pe t. re f'd). The S tate ass erts that an instructio n on the lesse r-in c lu ded of fense of felon y murd er is not prop er unless th ere is
som e evidence at trial that th e de fend antcomm itted a felon y and , "in the course of

and in furtherance" of t he cr ime, "commi t[t ed] an act cl ear ly dang erous to human l ife tha t c ause[ d] the d eath of a n i ndi v idu al. " See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.02( b) (3 ); Mo ham m ed , 127 S.W .3d a t 16 7. O ur

rev i ew o f t he e v i de nc e pres en te d att r i al h as rev ea l ed e v i dence relevant to th i s i s s ue
. The r e w as ev i de nc e at tr i al th at th e mu rde r w ea po n w as a tire checke r tool and thatthis tool w as use d t o h it Morales in the he ad. As prev iously dis cus sed, the tes ti mony at tr ial also ind ic ated that there may hav e been a str ug g le or fig ht before Morales's de ath

. T his evidence is subje ct to m ore tha n on e inte rpretat ion. It cou ld be int erprete d as proo f t h a twh o e ver hit Morales inten ded to kill him . Or—especia lly in combi nati on w it h the ev ide nce that there mi g ht ha v e been a fig ht an d Gon z ale s' s t est imony that he w a s u n a w a r e t h a t M o r a l e s w a s d e a d u n t i l l a t e r i n t h e e v e n i n g — i t c oul d be int er preted as proof t hat there w as an alt er cat ion that esc ala ted bey ond the int enti ons of Gonz ale s a nd Padi ll a and re sul ted in Mo ra les 's death. If the ev ide nce cons ide re d at t ri alT he S t ate al s o a rgu es t ha t G on z al es i s j ud i c i al l y es t op pe d f rom c om pl ai ni ng of t he t ri al co urt ' s fai l ure 8 t o cha r ge t he j ur y on t he l esser - i ncl uded off ense b ec au s e G onz al es r el i es on t he st at em ent he ear l i er c h a l l e n g e d a s in v o l u n ta ry i n m a k i n g h i s c o m p l a i n t. S e e S c h m i d t v . S ta te , 2 7 8 S .W .3 d 3 5 3 , 3 5 8 ( T e x . C r im

. App. 2009) ( hol di ng t hat t he equi t abl e r ul e of j udi ci al est oppel gener al l y pr ev ent s a par t y f r om pr ev ai l i ng i n on e ph as e o f a ca s e o n a n a rgu m en t an d t he n rel y i ng on a c on t rad i c t ory arg um en t t o preva i l i n an othe r pha s e). H ow eve r, as previ ou s l y de t ai l ed , G on z al es ' s stat em en t w as no t t he on l y e v i d e n c e s up po rt i ng t he l es s eri ncl uded off ense. T her e was ev i dence at t r i al t hat M or al es was a ser i ous d r ug d eal er who p ossi bl y had l ar ge st or es of

cash and dr ugs, whi ch i s ci r cum st ant i al ev i dence of G onz al es and Padi l l a' s m ot i v e t o r ob M or al es. M or eov er , t he t est i m ony of C ur t i ss, G ar ci a, F er nande z , and R odr i guez al l pr ov i ded ci r cum st ant i al ev i dence th a t t h e k i l l i n g o f M o ra l e s m a y n o t h a v e b e e n i n te n ti o n a l

. S e e E n riq u e z v . S ta te , 21 S. W

. 3d 277, 278 ( T ex. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 00 ) ( req ui ri ng us t o c on s i de r al l evi de nc e p res en t ed at t ria l t o d eterm i ne w he t he r a l es s eri n c l u d e d c h a rg e i s w a rr a n te d ); S c h w e in l e v . S ta te , 91 5 S

. W

. 2d 17 , 18 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 96 ) ( pe r cu ri am ). T h e re fo re , w e a re u n p e rs u a d e d b y th e S ta te 's e s to p p e l a rg u m e n t.
13 is subject to tw o reaso nab le inferen ces, the jury shou ld be instru cted on bo th inferen ces. See Saun ders , 840 S.W .2d a t 392 ; Ross , 861 S.W .2d a t 875

. Here , b a se d o n the
ev ide nce before i t, the t rial co u rt e rred in re fusing to ins tr uctthe jur y on fel ony

murder becau se there w as ev ide nce from w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld hav e c oncl uded t hat Gon z ales w as guil t y o n ly o f , in the co urse of robbing Morales, com mitt ing an act clearly dang erous to hu man l ife tha t l ed to M orale s' s d eath. See Schweinle , 915 S.W .2d a t 18; 8
see als o Bar

gas , 200 7 W L 24591 94, a t * 6. Havi ng conclud ed th at th e trial court erred in failing to in struct the ju ry o n the lesserinc lud ed offense of felony murder , w e now

tur n to w hether

tha t e rror

su ff ic ien tl y

har med Gonz ale s s o as to r eq uire rev ersal of his co nv ic ti on. S e e A l m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 171

. Th e T e xas C our

t of C ri minal Appea ls has reason ed th at "s ome har m" has befall en a defendant w here "the tr ial co urt fail ed to su bmit a l e ss er [- ]i ncl uded offense th at w as requeste d an d raised b y the evidence " an d "where tha t fai lu re l e ftt he jury w ith the sole opti on ei ther to conv ic t the defendant of t he g re ater off ense or to acq uit him. " Sau nde rs , 913 S. W .2d a t 571

. In s uch a c ase, “ some” harm oc curs b ecaus e "the j ur y w as not per mitt ed to fulfil l it s role as factfinder to re sol v e the factual di sput e w hether the defendant14

commi tted the g re ater

or l ess er offense. " Id. The jurors at Gonz ale s' s tr ial w ere faced w it h jus t s uch a s cenar io. Mo re ov er , w it h reg ard to puni shment , t he j urors w ere present ed w it h onl y tw o opti ons: (1 ) conv ic ti ng Gonz ale s and sent enci ng him to li fe i n pr iso n w ithout parole ; or

( 2) ac q uitti ng Gonz a le s a nd s etti ng hi m free. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12. 31(a ). By cont rast, the p unish me nt range for f elon y m urde r is f iv e to nin ety-nine y ears. See i d. § 12. 32( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. Base d on the for eg oin g f act s and analy si s, w e cannot conc lud e tha t t here w as no har m in the tr ial co urt' s e rror
. See D ickey, 22 S.W .2d a t 492. R ather , w e c oncl ude t hat,
as previously discusse d, w here the evidence at trial raised the issue o f f e lo n y m urde r, Gonz ale s i ndeed s uff ered "s ome har m" becau se the jur y w as not ins tr uct ed on, and thus not a ll ow ed to con sid e r, the l ess er offense— and l ess er

puni shmentrang e—of felony
mu rder

. S e e A l

m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 571 ; see a lso Ross , 861 S.W .2d a t 877 ( op. o n
re h'g ). G onz ale s' s t hird i ss ue i s s ust ain ed. Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat t he tr ial cour t er re d in faili ng to ins tr uctthe jur y on t he l ess er inc lud ed offense of felony murder and that Gonz ale s w as har med by thi s e rror , w e need not reach Gonz ale s' s remaini ng i ss ues. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .1; Ross , 861 S.W .2d a t 877 (rem and ing case to trial court after f inding error and ha rm resulting f rom trial cou rt's deni al of i nst ru cti on on les ser-i ncl uded off ense of felon y murder ); see a lso John son v. State , No. A14 -92-01 036 -CR, 1994 W L 66 822 9, at*4 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [ 14t h Dist.] Dec. 1, 19 94, pet. ref 'd) (not de signated for pub lication) (sam e).15 III . C ONCL US I ON Gonz ale s' s j udg ment of conv ic ti on i s rev ersed, and w e remand to the tr ial co urt for
a new tr ial

. See Ross , 861 S.W .2d a t 877 ; see als o Johnso n , 199 4 W L 66822 9, at*4.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 4th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.