W e w i l l re fe r to th e ju v e n i l e s u b je c t t o th i s a p p e a l a n d h i s fa th e r b y a l i a s e s o n l y . See T EX
. R. A PP
. 1 P

. 9. 8(c ). 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0053 0-CV



## 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
IN THE M A

TTER OF E.S. , I II , A

CHILD
On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 2 of Vict oria 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 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 After a bench tr ial , the tr ial cour t found that appel lan t, E.S. ,II I ( “E .S.” ) co mmitt ed 1 tw o c ounts of deadl y

co nduct

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.05( b) ( Ver non 2003). E.S.
w as orde red com mitt ed to the T exas Youth Co mm ission (TYC) for a de term inate sente nce of ten years. In tw o issues, E.S. con ten ds tha t: (1) th e evidence is insuf f icient to supp ort the t ri al cour

t’ s j udg ment; and (2 ) the tr ial cour t er re d by

co nsi der ing a he arsay

st atement. W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND A little af ter 8:0 0 p.m ., on the ev enin g of July 9, 2008 , Ram ona Nune z sat on a chair in her f ront yard v isiting w ith tw o grandchildre n un der the age of ten, h er sixtee n-y ear-old grand child, J.A. , and his tee nage friend , J.G. Altho ugh the sun ha d set, it w as no t y et da rk, and s he not ic ed a blu e s tati on w ag on dr iv ing dow n the st re et i n front o f h e r home. She infor m e d J.A., w ho w as seat ed ata ne ar by pi cni c t abl e, t hat t he s tati on w ag on w as “c oming r eal sl ow .” The c ar st opped, with i ts p a ss eng er si de i mmediat ely

i n frontof the h o u se . T h e dri ver, id e n ti f ie d as E. S. , re a ch e d ac ro ss th e pa ss e n ger an d be gan f irin g a gu n . Aft e r f ir in g two t o fo u r s h o t s , E

. S

. d ro ve a wa y. Nun ezphoned 911, and off ic ers w er e dispa tch ed to her resi dence

. Scared th at t he blu e sta ti o n w ag on mi g ht retur n, J .A. and J .G. depar ted from N unez ’s home be fore t he pol ic e ar ri v ed. Off ic er

Jo hn Tur ner

w as the first to ar ri v e. Off ic er Turn er tes ti fied th at up on hi s a rr iv al, N unezinformed him th at a blu e s tati on
w ag on had driven i n f ront of her hous e and that E.S. had fire d s hots from t he v ehi cl e. O ffi c e r T u r n e r s e a r c h e d t h e fro n t y a r d a n d fo u n d a “ c r a c k ” o r “ c h i p ” i n t h e w i n d s h i e l d o f a tr uck par ked in Nun ez ’s fronty ard. Off ic er Turn er tes ti fied tha t th e damag e to the
w ind shi eld i ndi cat ed th a t a “proje cti le” su ch as a “ bul let , BB , rock or so methi ng of that nat ure” had hit and “boun ced o f f” the w indsh ield. No bullet s, f ragmen ts, or casings w ere found at t he s cene. Off ic er Z achar y D e La Ros a tes ti fied th at on the w ay t o N u n e z’s re si dence , he
re cei v ed a rad io al ert that E.S. had bee n i nv olv ed i n the sh ooti ng . After usi ng hi s c omputer t o l o c a t e E

. S

. ’ s a d d r e s s , O ffi c e r D e L a R o s a p ro c e e d e d t o E

. S

. ’ s r e s i d e n c e . Lat er tes ti mo n y r e v e a l e d t h a t a l t h o u g h E

. S

. ’ s r e s i d e n c e w a s a “ n u mb e r o f b l o c k s a w a y ” from Nun ez ’s r esi dence , i t w as “n ot v er y far.” W hil e en ro ute, Off ic er D e La Ros a s potte d a b lue3

sta ti on w ag on par ked in a field across from E.S. ’s home. Off ic er De La R osa saw no o ne arou nd th e v ehicle a nd was unab le to tell w het her any one w as inside . Before Of f icer De La R osa coul d reach the sta ti on w ag on, a train cross ed the track s in front of him, blo ck ing his route. O ff ic er

D e La Ros a tur ned and procee ded furt her dow n the road, par all el to t he track s u nti l he w as able to find a pla ce to c ro ss . He drov e bac k t ow ards E.S. ’s r esi dence

. Upo n hi s a rr iv al, Officer D e La Ros a obser

v ed that the stati on w ag on w as no l ong er par ked i n t h e fi e l d a c ro s s fro m E

. S

. ’ s r e s i d e n c e , b u tra t h e r , w a s p a r k e d e i t h e r i n t h e d r i v e w a y

o f,
or on the street n ear , E. S.’ s resi dence

. As he approache d the st ati on w ag on, h e s aw three males at a di sta nce of forty to fiftyy ards aw ay

from t he v ehi cl e, r unni ng aw ay f ro m it

. Off ic er D e La Ros a ex it ed his v ehi cl e and ra n to appr ehend the suspe cts . Off ic er D e La Ros a ev entual ly

apprehend ed A.R. , a frie nd of E.S., and the tw o other sus pect s, D. W . and T .T ., w ere ap preh end ed b y othe r of f icers. Off ic er M ar k P ull in, w hil e en ro ute t o N unez ’s r esi dence , hea rd ov er hi s radi o tha t
sus pect s b eli ev ed t o h a ve been i nv olv ed i n the sh ooti ng had fled from a bl ue s tati on
w ag on. Off ic er

Pul li n proceed ed to as si st other o f f icers i n apprehendi ng the three sus pect s s een fleei ng the sta ti on w a g on. After the s uspec ts w er e apprehended, Officer Pullin s e c u red the station w agon. Of f icer Pullin foun d the v ehicle p arked nea r E.S.’s
re si dence ; t he dr iv er ’s side door w as “s li g htl y

ajar ,” and the v ehi cl e w as maki ng a “di ng ing sound ” becau se the k ey s had been left in the ig nit ion

. W hil e c onduc ti ng a s ear ch of the
v ehicle, Of

f icer Pullin foun d a spe nt .2 2 casing on the f loorbo ard of the ba ck seat, directly beh ind th e driv er’s seat. A gun w as never foun d, and n eithe r th e car n or the ca sing w ere dust ed for fing er pr int s. After sec ur ing the v ehi cl e, O ff ic er Pul li n l o ca ted E.S. at hi s resi dence

. Upo n q uest ion ing by

Officer Pul li n, E .S. deni ed ow nin g a g un or hav ing anyf irear ms in hi s h ome;N u n e z a n d J .A . w e re th e o n l y a l l e g e d vic ti m s fo r w h o m a d e te rm i n a te s e n te n c e w a s s o u g h t. 2 4 upon O ff ic er

Pul li n’s r eq uest to search his home, E.S. re fused. E.S. tol d Off ic er Pul li n tha t he h ad b een a t his hou se all d ay playing v ideo gam es w ith “a white bo y ,” but w as un able to de scribe the “w hite boy” or giv e his nam e. Fearing lack of proba ble cau se, Of

f icer Pullin did not ar re st E.S. After pr esent ing the tes ti mony of A.R ., the first sus pectapprehended, N unez , J .A., J.G ., a n d t h e f o reg oin g off ic ers, the S tate re ste d i ts cas e. E.S. ’s father , Ed die , t hen tes ti fied for the d efense. Eddi e sta ted that on Jul y 9, 20 08, h e w as at ho me “ all day and all ni g ht.” Ed die st ated that at t he ti me of the al lege d s h o o ti n g , E. S. w as asl eep on the
couc h i n the l iv ing room, and thatE.S . w as home the enti re ni g ht. Eddi e tes ti fed that he did not speak

to p o lice w hen t hey

ca me to the h ome and spok e w it h E. S. t hat n ig ht, becau se he had not seen them. Addi ti onal ly , Ed die tes ti fied th at i f the pol ic e had come t o his r esi dence thatni g ht, itw as for “ [n]ot hin g se ri ous, ” becau se, had it been a ser iou s matter , “ they

w oul d hav e cal led [hi m] outs ide .” H e al so sta ted t hat J .G. had made threats to him in the pa st, an d tha t af ter the a lleged shoo ting, J. A. an d J.G. exhibited a gun in his pr esenc e. After cons ide ri ng the foreg oin g tes ti mony , t he tr ial cour t found that E.S. co mmitt ed the o ff ense of deadly

con d u ct a s to N unezand J.A

. The c our t t hen order ed E. S. 2 commi tted to TY C for a deter minat e s entenc e of ten y ears. This appeal ens ued. II. S UF FI CI E NCY In hi s first is sue, E.S. cont ends that the e v ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he tr ial
cour t’ s ju d gm e n t th at he eng ag ed i n deadl y co nduct

. Al thoug h E. S. s ets forth the leg al suf f iciency stan dard of

rev iew, h is su b-issues pre sent factu al suf f iciency argume nts. T h e re fo re , o u t o f

an ab u n d a n ce of

ca u ti o n , we co n st ru e E. S. ’s a rgu m e n ts as a ch a lle n ge5

t o le ga l a n d fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c y. A . St and ard s o f Rev iew an d A pp licab le L aw In condu cting a legal suf f iciency rev iew , w e mu st ask w het her “‘ any rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the cr ime 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 dou bt.’” Laster

v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 512, 517 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2009) (qu o ti n g Jacks on v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 318- 19 ( 1979) ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l) ). W e do not reev alu ate t he
w eig ht an d c re dib il it y

of the e v ide nce, and w e do not subs ti tute our ow n jud g ment for th e tr ier of fact. Ki

ng v. St ate , 29 S.W .3d 5 56, 5 62 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ( en banc ); Beck ham
v. State , 29 S.W .3d 148, 151 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 200 0, pe t. re f’d)

. Ins tead,
w e c onsi der

w hether the jur y r eache d a rati onal dec is ion

. Beckh am , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. W e mustr esol v e any

i ncons is tenc ies i n th e e vi dence i n fav or of the j udg ment. Curry v. State , 30 S. W .3d 394 , 406 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00). In c onduc ti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy r ev 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 erdic t s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and man ifestly 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 )

. We
w ill not rev 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 preponderanc e of the ev ide nce cont ra dic ts the v erdic t. Id. at 417. W e mea s u r e t h e s u ffi c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e b y t h e e l e me n t s o f t h e o ffe n se as d efined by

the hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 40 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Adi v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. re f’d)

. The hy pothet ic all y correctjur

y charg e for

deadly conductreq uires proof that a6

perso n kno w ingly

discharges a f irearm at or in the direction of : (1) one or more ind iv idua ls,
or (2 ) a habi tati on, bui ldi ng , or v ehi cl e and is re ck les s as to w hethe r th e habitat ion , bui ldi ng , or

v ehi cl e i s o cc upi ed. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §22.05( b). Ape rso n ac ts know ing ly , or

w it h k now led g e, “ w hen he is aw ar e of the n ature of hi s c onduc t or thatthe ci rc umstan ces ex is t” or “ he i s a w ar e that h is conduc t i s reason abl y ce rt ain to caus e the result.” Id. § 6.03 (b) (Vernon 2003 ). A perso n acts recklessly, or i s reckless, w hen “he is
aw ar e of but con sc io usl y di sreg ards a s ubst anti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk thatthe circumsta nces e x ist or the result wi ll occur.” Id. § 6.03 (c). B. A nal ysis E.S. argues thatthe evide n c e i s i n s u f f icient be cause : (1) “there was no tan gible
ev ide nce to s uppor

t t he al leg ati on” ; ( 2) “ the S tate’ s e y ew it ness es w er e notcredi ble ”; and (3 ) E.S. “ had an ali bi for th e ti me of the s hooti ng .” W e di sag re e. Nun ez , J

. A

. , a n d J

. G

. e a c h t e s t i fi e d t h a t o n t h e e v e n i n g o f J u l y 9 , 2 0 0 8 , a bl ue sta ti on w ag on, d ri v en by E.S. , sto pped in front of N unez ’s home, and E. S. p oin ted a g un out o f the pas seng er

si de w ind ow

and fired tw o to four s hots

. Nun eztes ti fied th at atthe ti me of the s hooti ng , s he w as abl e to ide nti fy E.S. bec ause he “us ed to g o to [her ] hou se” and s he k new

hi s g ra ndparents

. J.A

. tes ti fied that, despi te the botto m of E .S.’ s face bei ng cov er ed by

a ba ndana, he w as abl e to id enti fy E.S. as the g unman bec ause he and E.S. had bee n fri ends “a y ear or tw o” pr ior

to the s hooti ng . J.G . t est ified thathe recog niz ed E. S. b e c a u s e h e a n d E

. S

. h a d b e e n f ri e n d s a fe w ye a rs b e fo re t h e s h o o t i n g . A d d it io n a ll y, of f icers testif ied th at after the alleged shoo ting, t hey foun d a cracked windshield o n a truck par ked at N unez ’s home. The off ic ers a ls o te st ified thatsh ortl y after the shoot ing , t hey loc ated a bl ue s tati on w ag on, w hic h ma tc h e d t h e des cr ipt ion of the o ne al leg edl y dr iv en by E.S. during the sho oting. Th e blue station w agon w as foun d nea r the driv eway of E.S.’s7

re si dence , and a s pent .22 c ali ber ca si ng w as found behi nd th e dr iv er ’s se at. Vi ew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav or a b le t o t he v erdic t, from the tes ti mony and facts
surroun ding the sho oting, a ration al t ri e r o f fact cou ld have foun d tha t E.S. knowi ngly dis charg ed a fire ar m in the d irect ion of Nun ezand J.A

. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude t hat t he
ev ide nce w as leg all y

su ff ic ien cy

to suppo rtE.S .’ s c onv ic ti on. See La ste r , 275 S.W .3d a t 517- 18. E.S. ’s father , Ed die , t est ified that E.S. w as at ho me on t he ni g ht of J uly 9, 2008. E

. S

. a rg u e s t h a tt h e o n ly e vid e n c e li n k in g h im t o t h e s h o o t in g wa s t h e t e s t im o n y o f Nu n e z, J.A. , an d J .G ., a nd t ha t th es e al l eg ed e y ew i tn es s es a r e no t c r ed i bl e. E .S

. s pe c i f ically
arg ues that Nun ez ’s tes ti mony of the ev ents on Jul y 9, 2008 i s c ontradi cto ry to the e v ents she desc ri bed to off ic ers w hen t hey ar ri v ed on the s cene. O ff ic er Turn er tes ti fied th at
w hen he spok e to Nun ezupon re spond ing to her 911 cal l, N unezdi d nottel l him that J.G

. had bee n at her

home atthe ti me of the shoot ing

. How ev er , attr ial , N unezi nsi ste d tha t J .G

. w as at he r

home at th e ti me of th e s ho ot i ng , an d th atsh e ha d to l d po l i c e ab ou t hi m. Addi ti onal ly , N uneztol d off ic ers a t t he s cene that E.S. w as seat ed in t he pas seng er se at of th e bl ue st at i on w ag on and t ha t th ere w ere on l y t hree i nd i v i du al s i n th e c ar a t th e ti me of the shoot ing (tw o in the front s eat a nd one in the b ack seat ). Attr ial , N uneztes ti fied th at E.S. w as the d ri v er

of the b lue st ati on w ag on and that there w er e four in d iv idu als i n the
v ehi cl e ( tw o i n the frontse at an d tw o i n the bac k s eat)

. Reconciliatio n of

conf licts in the evidence is w ithin th e exclusiv e province of the f act finder

. See Mosley v. State , 983 S.W .2d 2 49, 2 54 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1998)

. Vi ew ing the
ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce is not so w eak that the c onv ic ti on seem s clearly

w rong and m anif estly unju st, an d the trial court’s dete rmina tion is not against the g re at w eig ht and pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5.8

W e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce is f act ual ly suff ic ien t to suppor

t E.S.’ s conv ic ti on. Ha v ing deter mined that the e v ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly suffici ent to suppo rt E.S. ’s co nv ic ti on,
w e ov er ru le his first is sue.

III . I M PEA C H M ENT BY P RI OR I NCO NSI ST ENT S TA TE MENT In hi s s econd i ss ue, E .S. cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d by

co nsi der ing Officer De La Rosa ’s testimo ny conce rning statem ent s mad e to him byA.R. A . St and ard o f Rev iew an d A pp licab le L aw W e rev iew

a c our t’ s e v ide nti ar

y r uli ng s u nder

an abuse of dis creti on s tandard. See Exxon Pi pel ine C o. v . Z wahr , 88 S.W .3d 6 23, 6 29 ( Tex . 200 2) ; In re Est ate o f R obi

nson , 140 S.W .3d 782, 790 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, pet. deni ed)

. The impea chmentof
a w itness wi th a prior incon sistent state me nt is gov erne d by r ule 61 3(a), w hich provides: In ex amini ng a w it ness co ncer n in g a pr ior i ncons is tent sta tement made by the w it ness , w hether

oral or w ri tten, and before fur ther cross -e x aminat ion conc er nin g , or

extr ins icev ide nce of, suc h statementmay be a ll ow ed, t he w itness m ust be told the conte nts of such sta tem ent and the tim e an d place and t he person to w hom i t w as made, an d mustbe a ff orded an oppor tuni ty to ex p la in or

deny su ch sta tement.

. . . If the w it ness uneq uiv ocal ly admi ts hav ing made s uch sta tement, extr ins icev ide nce of same s h a ll n ot be admit ted. T EX
. R. E V ID . 613 (a). T o l ay th e fou nd at i on r eq ui r ed by r ul e 61 3( a) , th e pa rty s ee k i ng to i mp ea c h mu st
es ta bl i s h: ( 1) an “ i de nt i fi c at i on of th e s ta te me nt ( by ti me , pl ac e, an d pe rs on ) ” ; (2) “ a summar y of the c onten ts ”; a n d ( 3 ) “ a deni al by the w it ness as to w hat t he s tatement cont ains.” See F

er guson v. Sta te , 9 7 S.W .3d 2 93, 2 96 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2003, pet. re f’d) ; Downen v. T e xa s Gul

f Sh ri m p C o. , 8 4 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 2 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 1993 , w rit denied ). A v iolation of the evidentiary rules resulting in the errone ous adm ission of ev iden ce9

is non- cons ti tuti onal er ro r. See Potier v. Sta te , 68 S.W .3d 6 57, 6 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) (e n banc ) (n oti ng that“ [e]r ro neous ev ide nti ar y r u lin gs rarely

r is e to the l ev el of den y ing . . . f und am en t a l constitu tiona l ri ghts”); se e Johnso n v . St ate , 967 S.W .2d 4 10, 417 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) (a ppl y ing ru le 44.2( b) to de ter mine w hether the admis si on of inad missible hea rsayaf fecte d the app ellant ’s s u b stan tial rig hts). W e disregard errors, defects , i rreg ula ri ti es, or v ar ian ces thatdo n ot affect t he s ubst anti al ri g hts of the a cc used. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.2( b) ; Solom on v . St ate , 49 S. W .3d 356 , 365 (T e x. C ri m. App. 200 1). A s ub s ta nt i al r i g ht i s affec te d w he n, aft er r ev i ew i ng th e r ec ord as a w hole , a court
c on c l ud es t ha t th e er ror has a sub s ta nt i al and i nj ur i ou s e ffec t or i nfl ue nc e on t he o ut c om e of t he proceed ing

. See B ur nett v. State, 88 S.W .3d 633 , 637 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02); Ki ng
v. State , 953 S.W .2d 2 66, 2 71 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997)

. B. A nal ysis Dur ing i ts cas e i n c hie f, the S tate cal led E.S .’ s fr ien d, A .R ., to t est ify reg ardin g the Jul y 9, 2008 i nci dent. After i denti fyi ng the ti me and p lac e, an d i denti fyi ng “ the o ff ic er ” as Of f icer De La Rosa, th e Sta te questio ned A.R. as follows: [Sta te]: And do you reme mb er telling the of f icer that you w ere pic ked up by

[E. S.] in a v ehi cl e? [A.R .]: I don ’tr ecal l that.

. . . . [Sta te]: Oka y . Do y ou recal l tel li ng the off ic er that[E. S.] w as dr iv ing a v ehi cl e and that he g av e y ou and y our homeboy

a r ide , y our homeboy

[T.T.]? D o y ou remember tel li ng the off ic er that? [A.R .]: No. [Sta te]: Do y ou remember tel li ng the off ic er that[D .W ., another occup ant of

the vehicle] kep t y elling “ w e got them nigg as”?10

[A.R .]: No. [Sta te]: Do y ou remember tel li ng the off ic er thatw hen y ou as ked h im wh o t h e y go tt h e y re p li e d Ch u c k y? [A.R .]: No. [Sta te]: You don ’t reme mb er telling them thateithe r? [A.R .]: No. [Sta te]: Do y ou remember tel li ng the off ic er thaty ou to ld [E.S .] that y ou d idn’t w ant to be involv ed in an y thing like that b ecau se y ou had already

been shottw ic e? [A.R .]: No. N o. [Sta te]: You don ’t reme mb er telling them thateithe r? [A.R .]: W ell , w hoev er tol d y ou th at t hat’ s [ si c] a l ie becau se I nev er been s hot tw ic e. [Sta te]: Di d y ou remember tel li ng the off ic er thator not? [A.R .]: No. T he St ate then called Of f icer De La Rosa w ho te stif ied, o v er a hea rsayobject ion, a s follows: [Sta te]: W hat d id [A.R .] tel l y ou?

. . . . [Of f icer De La Rosa]:

. . . . And [ A

. R. ] a d vis e d tha t he a nd h is cousin w ho he c a l l e d [ T. T. ]

. . . w e r e w a l k i n g o n 8 00 East For re st w hen the— w hen the blu e st ati on w ag on th at was l ocat ed th er e had pul led up around t he s tr eet real ly fast. H e the n adv is ed me thatthe car

w as occ upi ed by[ E. S. ] and [D

. W

. ] a n d t h a t[ E

. S

. ] w a s d r i v i n g . [ E

. S

. ] as ked [A .R .] a nd [T .T .] i f t he y w an te d to r i de w i th h i m. [A.R .] adv is ed th at t h e y a cc epted the r ide and they g ot i nto t he c ar . [A.R .] adv is ed t h a t [E.S. ] and [D .W .] kept y ell ing , and I q uote[ ,] “W e got them ni g g as. W e g ot t hem [n] ig g as. ” [A.R .] had ask ed w ho th ey go t and they r epl ied “ Chu cky .”11 [A.R.] a dv is ed th at he tol d the m thathe d id not w ant to be involv ed in anything like th at be cause he had already

been shottw ic e and did n’tw ant any one to thi nk that he had someth ing to do w it h it . [A.R .] adv is ed th at he w as then—that som eon e no ticed th e po lic e c ar, w hich I guess and I assume w oul d be myca r, and he to ld them he h ad w ar r an ts a nd h e ha d to g eto uto f t he re and t hen t hey

ran. In hi s first sub- is sue, E.S . arg ues that Off ic er D e La Ros a’s tes ti mony r eg ardin g A.R .’ s p ri or

st atements to him cons ti tutes ina dmis si ble hearsay . Hea rs ay i s a st atement,
o t h e r t h a n o n e m a d e b y t h e d e c la ra n t wh il e t e s t ifyin g a t t h e t ri a l, wh ic h is o f fe re d t o p ro ve the tr uth of t he matter ass erted. T EX
. R. E V ID . 801(d)

. A pri or st atement that is off er ed to impeac h the w it ness ’s credi bil it y i s n ot he arsay . Fl

or es v. State , 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 3 9 7 , 4 0 4 (T e x. App .–W aco 2 001 , pet . ref ’d). Upon E.S .’s h e a rs ay obje ction to Of f icer De La Rosa’s tes ti mony , t he St ate a rg ued t hat t he te sti mony di d notconsti tute hearsay bec ause itw as a “ pr ior i ncons is tent sta tement. ” A w it ness may be i mpeached by

a pr ior i ncons is tent sta tement if the pr edi cat e prov ide d by ru le 613( a) i s met

. See T EX
. R. E V ID . 613 (a ). E. S. d o e s n o tch a ll e n ge t h a tt h e ru le 6 1 3 (a ) p re d ic a t e wa s m e t ; in s t e a d , h e fa il s t o re c o gn ize
ru le 613( a) as a g ro unds throug h w hic h a h earsay st atement may b e proper ly admi tted. Accordin gly , Of

f icer De La Rosa’s test imo ny doe s not con stitute inadm issible hea rsayif it is co nsi der ed s ole ly

for i mpeachment

. See Fl or es , 48 S.W .3d a t 404

. In hi s s econd su b- is sue, E.S . arg ues that the tr ial co urt c onsi der ed Officer D e La Ros a’s tes ti mony

for t he truth of the matter as ser ted, and t hat s uch cons ide ra ti on cons ti tutes har mf ul er ro r. As sumi ng , w it hout deci din g , t hat t he tr ial co urt c onsi der ed th e com pla i ne d- of t es ti mo ny for t he t r ut h of t he ma tt er a s s er te d, w e w ou l d no ne the less
conc lud e that anyerror w as har mles s g iv en the ov er w hel ming ev ide nce of E.S.’ s g uil t t hat
w as proper ly

i ntroduce d. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.2( b) ; Solom on , 49 S.W .3d a t 365 ;12

W esbr ook v. State , 29 S. W .3d 103 , 119 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 2000 ) (notin g tha t “the prese nce of ov er w hel ming ev ide nce suppo rt ing the findi ng i n q uest ion ca n be a factor i n the
ev alu ati on of har mles s error ”)

. As pr ev iou sl y disc uss ed, thr ee ey ew it ness es iden ti fied E. S.
as the g unman at the ti me of t he shoot ing , and a v ehi cl e matc hin g the desc ri pti on of the
v ehicle d riv en b y

the g unm an w as foun d in close prox imity of E.S.’s reside nce. Thu s, in lig ht of this prope rly

adm itted ev iden ce an d v iew ing the record as a whole, w e ha v e a fair
ass u ra n c e t hat any purported error i n relation to the adm ission of Of f icer De La Rosa’s sta tement nei ther

i nfluenc ed th e fact finder nor had more than a s li g ht effect. See Garcia
v. State , 126 S.W .3d 921, 927 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2004)

. E.S .’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led E.S .’ s i ss ues, the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 6th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 9.