CAUSE NO. 13-14-00675-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG, TEXAS EDGAR GARCES DIAZ, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 357th Judicial District Court

of Cameron County, Texas Trial Court Cause Number 2014-DCR-215-E STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF

Luis V. Saenz Cameron County District Attorney ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED René B. González Assistant District Attorney 964 East Harrison Street, 4thFloor Brownsville, Texas 78520 Phone: (956) 544-0849 Fax:(956) 544-0869 Attorneys for the State of Texas ACCEPTED 13-14-00675-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 11/9/2015 9:52:26 AM Dorian E. Ramirez

CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S

Tab le of C on te nt s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i In de x o f Aut ho rit ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Sal ut at io n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Su m m ary of th e Arg um en t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 St at e’s Res po ns e to App el lant ’s Firs t Is su e o n Ap pe al . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 St at e’s Res po ns e to App el lant ’s Seco ndIss ue onApp eal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 St at e’s Res po ns e to App el lant ’s Thi rdIss ue on App eal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 St at e’s Res po ns e to App el lant ’s Fou rth Iss ue on App eal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Cert ifi cat e o f Co m

pl ianc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Cert ifi cat e o f Serv ic e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

- i -INDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas e la w Pag e Abd no r v. Sta te , 87 1 S .W .2d72 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 94 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Agu irre v. Stat e , 69 5 S .W .2d79 3 (Te x. Ap p.-- SanAnt on io 19 85 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 All en v. McCo tt er , 80 4 F .2d13 62 (5th C ir. 1 98 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 , 17 Alma nz a v . Stat e , 68 6 S .W .2d15 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Amad or v. Stat e , 22 1 S .W .3d66 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Arl in e v. Sta te , 72 1 S .W .2d34 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Arms te ad v. Stat e , 97 8 S o.2 d 6 42 (Mi ss . 20 08 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Ash le y v. Sta te , 40 4 S .W .3d67 2 (Te x. Ap p.-- El Pas o 2 01 3, n o p et .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Bar ri os v. Stat e , 28 3 S .W .3d34 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 09 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Ben av ides v. Stat e , 76 3 S .W .2d58 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 88 , pet . ref’d) . . . . . . . . . . 27 Berghu is v. Th omp ki ns , 56 0 U.S. 3 70 (20 10 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

- i i -Best

v. Stat e , 11 8 S .W .3d85 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Fo rt Wort h 2 00 3, n o p et .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Bot to m v. Stat e , 86 0 S .W .2d26 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Fo rt Wort h 1 99 3, n o p et .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Bra m v. Uni te d Sta tes , 16 8 U.S. 5 32 (18 97 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Brisb on v. Uni te d Sta tes , 95 7 A.2 d 9 31 , 94 6 (D.C . App . 20 08 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Bro ok s v. Sta te , 32 3 S .W .3d89 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 10 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Bus se ll v. Stat e , 98 Tex. Cr im . 17 0, 2 65 S.W . 16 4 (1 92 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Co mmon wea lth v . Raymo nd , 42 4 M as s. 3 82 , 67 6 N.E.2d82 4 (1 99 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Co ntre ra s v. Sta te , 31 2 S .W .3d56 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 10 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Co ok se y v. Sta te , No. 0 5- 08 -0 13 43 -CR, 2 00 9 WL 24 88 50 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- Dall as Aug . 17 , 20 09 , pet . ref’d).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Cu rr y v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d39 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 00 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Dow th it t v. Sta te , 93 1 S .W .2d24 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 96 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8 Esq ui vel v. Stat e , No. 0 4- 08 -0 07 30 -CR, 2 00 9 WL 32 22 62 6 (Te x Ap p.-- SanAnt on io Oct. 7 , 20 09 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

- i i i -Gon za les v. Sta te ,

51 5 S .W .2d92 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 74 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 33 Har ris v. S

ou th Ca ro li na , 33 8 U.S. 6 8 (1 94 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Har ris v. Sta te , 16 4 S .W .3d77 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 20 05 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . 20 Hea rd v. Stat e , 88 7 S .W .2d94 (Tex . App .--Tex ark an a 1 99 4, p et . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 33 Hud so n v . Stat e , 12 8 S .W .3d36 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 2 00 4, n o p et .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Ill in ois v. Al le n , 39 7 U.S. 3 37 (19 70 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Jo hn so n v . Stat e , 68 S.W .3d64 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 Jo nes v. Sta te , 98 4 S .W .2d25 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 98 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Kel lyv. Lyn au gh , 86 2 F .2d11 26 (5th C ir. 1 98 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ki he ga v. Stat e , 39 2 S .W .3d82 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 2 01 3, n o p et .). . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 , 29 Ki ng v. Stat e , 29 S.W .3d55 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 00 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Ku pf er er v. Stat e , 40 8 S .W .3d48 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 20 13 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . 9

- i v -Lo sa da v. Stat e ,

72 1 S .W .2d30 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Lu na v. Stat e , 30 1 S .W .3d32 2 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 20 09 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Lyn umn v. Ill in ois , 37 2 U.S. 5 28 (19 63 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Maest es v. Stat e , 98 7 S .W .2d59 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 99 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 Mai nes v. Sta te , 17 0 S .W .3d14 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- East land20 05 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Mal lo y v. Hog an , 37 8 U.S. 1 (19 64 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mar sh al l v. Sta te , 21 0 S .W .3d61 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 06 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 May es v. Stat e , 8 S .W .3d35 4 (Te x. Ap p.-- Am ari ll o 1 99 9, n o p et .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 McCa ll v. Stat e , 14 Tex. Ct . App . 35 3 (1 88 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 , 24 Mic hi ga n v . Mos le

y , 42 3 U.S. 9 6 (1 97 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 1 0, 1 1 Mil le r v. Sta te , 69 2 S .W .2d88 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Mir an da v. Ari

zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 (19 66 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7 , 11

- v -Mon ta ne

z v. Sta te , 19 5 S .W .3d10 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 06 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Moo re v. Stat e , 67 0 S .W .2d25 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 32 Mun izv. Stat e , 85 1 S .W .2d23 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Ng o v . Stat e , 17 5 S .W .3d73 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 05 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Pap ak os ta s v. Sta te , 14 5 S .W .3d72 3 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 20 04 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Ramo s v. Sta te , 24 5 S .W .3d41 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 08 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7 Rog er s v. Ri ch mon d, 36 5 U.S. 5 34 (19 61 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Romer o v . Stat e , 80 0 S .W .2d53 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 90 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Sa li na s v. Sta te , 16 3 S .W .3d73 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 05 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Sa nc he z v. Sta te , 84 2 S .W .2d73 2 (Te x. Ap p.-- SanAnt on io 19 92 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . 32 , 33 Sh ar p v . Stat e , 70 7 S .W .2d61 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Sh elbyv. Stat e , 72 4 S .W .2d13 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Dall as 19 87 ) (o p. o n re h’g) va ca te d o n o th er

gr ou nd s , 76 1 S .W .2d5 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 88 ). . . . 26 , 27

- v i -Sp arks v. Stat e ,

10 8 Tex . Cri m . 36 7, 3 00 S.W . 93 8 (1 92 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 St at e v. Kel ly , 20 4 S .W .3d80 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 06 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 St at e v. Per ez , 12 4 Oh io St.3 d 1 22 , 92 0 N.E.2d10 4 (2 00 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 St at e v. Ros s , 32 S.W .3d85 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 00 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Ta yl or v. Uni te d Sta tes , 41 4 U.S. 1 7 (1 97 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 , 32 Th oma s v. Sta te , 57 8 S .W .2d69 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 79 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Th omp so n v . Hal ey , 25 5 F .3d12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Tr ac y v. Sta te , 14 S.W .3d82 0 (Te x. Ap p.-- Dall as 20 00 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Uni te d Sta tes v. Alva ra do -S aldi va r , 62 F.3d69 7 (5 th Cir . 19 95 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Uni te d Sta tes v. Herna ndez , 57 4 F .2d13 62 (5th C ir. 1 97 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Uni te d Sta tes v. J

oh ns on , 35 1 F .3d25 4 (6 thCir . 20 03 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 , 17 Val ti erra v. Stat e , 31 0 S .W .3d44 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 10 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

- v i i -W

at so n v . Stat e , 76 2 S .W .2d59 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 W es t v. Jo hn so n , 92 F.3d13 85 (5t h C ir. 1 99 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 W ie de v. Stat e , 21 4 S .W .3d17 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 07 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 W il li am v. Sta te , 25 7 S .W .3d42 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Aus ti n 2 00 8, p et . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sta tute s Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 33 .03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 36 .19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 37 .07 , § 2 (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Tex . Pen al Co de § 3 6.0 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 U.S. Con st . am en ds . V & XIV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Rule s Tex . R. App . P. 21 .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Tex . R. App . P. 33 .1(a )(1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

- v i i i -CAUSE NO. 13 -1 4- 00 67 5- CR

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS THI RTEENT H J UDICI AL DIS TRI CT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRIS TI - EDINB URG, TEXAS

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ EDGAR GARCES DI AZ , Appel la nt

v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ STATE ’S APPELLAT E BRI EF

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TO TH E HO NORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW , App el le e, th e STATE OF TEXAS , b y an d th ro ug h th e Cam ero n Co un ty Dis tri ct Att orne y , th e Hon or ab l e Lu i s V. Saen z, an d, pu rs ua nt to Ru le 38 .2 of th e Tex as Ru le s of App el la te Pro cedur e, fil es th is , it s App el late Bri ef in th e ab ov e-s tyled an d -num be red cau se of act io n, an d in supp ort th ereo f, wou ld sh ow th is Hon or ab le Co urt as fol lo ws: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT App el lantrai se s fo uris su es on ap pe al . (1) I n h is fir stis su e, App el lant arg ue s tha t the tri al co urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s h is vi de o State’s B rief Pag e 1st at em en ts to po li ce. App el lantarg ue s two s ep arat e b as is insupp ort o f th is is su e:

fir st , th athi s s ta te m en ts sh ou ldha ve be ensupp res se d b ecau se po li ce re -in it ia te d th ei r in te rro ga ti on of Ap pe ll an t af te r App el lantin vo ke d h is rig htto term in at e th e in te rv ie w; an d s eco nd , th atth e th reat s b y po li ce, t o a rres t Ap pe ll an t’s fa m il y m em be rs , ren de redApp el lant ’s st at em en ts in vo lu nt ary. The St at e res po nd s b y as se rti ng th atth e p ol ic e sc rupu lo us ly hon or edApp el lant ’s reque stto termin at e th e in te rv ie w, andfurth er, the th reat s b y po li ce t o a rres t Ap pe ll an t’s fa m il y m em be rs di d n otren de r App el lant ’s st at em en t i nv ol un tary be cau se , po li ce h ada ba si s i n factfor th reat en in g t o a rres t the fam il y m em be rs . (2) I n Ap pe ll an t’s s eco ndis su e, he ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce. Sp eci fic al ly, ap pe ll an t co nt en ds th e ev id en ce i s i ns uf

fic ie ntto sh ow h e m

ur de redth e v ic ti m

he rei n i n t he co ur se of co ur se of c omm it ti ng ret al iati on . The St at e res po nd s b y no ti ng th atth e ev id en ce i s le ga ll y su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt acap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on . (3) I n h is th irdis su e, App el lantco m

pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt re fu se d t o i nc lu de a “be ne fitof the do ub t” in st ru ct io n i n t he jury ch arg e. The S ta te co nc ed es th atwher e anoff en se co ns is ts of di ffer en t d eg rees , a ch arg e g iv in g t he de fen da ntth e b en efi t o f a rea so nabl e do ub t b etweenth e d eg rees wou ldbe pro pe r, an d i t wo ul d b e err orord in ari ly in su chcas e to refu se su cha ch arg e whe n re qu es te d. Al th ou ghth e St at e co nc ed es erro r, th e St at e n ev erthe le ss ass ert s tha t thi s C ou rt s ho ul d d et erm in e th atno ha rm State’s B rief Pag e 2be fel l Ap pe ll an t as a res ul t o f th aterro r. (4) In h is fou rth is su e, App el lant

co m pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt erredinsen te nc in g Ap pe ll an t in ab se nt ia . The St at e res po nd s b y

ass ert in g t ha t the tri al co urt’s d eci si on to pro ceedwith t he pu ni sh m en t ph as e inApp el lant ’s abs en ce was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

ARGUMENT & AUTHO RIT IE S St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Fir st Is su e Inhi s fi rs t i ss ue , App el lantarg ue s tha t the tri al co urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s h is vi de o s tate m en ts to po li ce. App el lantarg ue s two s ep arat e ba si s i n s up po rt o f th is is su e: fir st , th athi s s ta te m en ts sh ou ldha ve be en supp res se d b ecau se po li ce re -in it ia te d t he ir i nt erro ga ti on of Ap pe ll an t af te r App el lantin vo ke d h is rig htto term in at e th e in te rv ie w; an d s eco nd , th atth e th reat s by po li ce, t o a rres t Ap pe ll an t’s fa m il y m em be rs , ren de redApp el lant ’s st at em en ts in vo lu nt ary. The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the po li ce s crupu lo us ly hon or ed App el lant ’s reque stto term in at e th e in te rv ie w, andfurth er, the th reat s b y po li ce t o arre stApp el lant ’s fam il y

m em be rs di d n otren de r App el lant ’s st at em en t in vo lu nt ary be cau se , po li ce h ada ba si s i n fa ctforth reat en in g t o a rres t the fam il y m em be rs .

State’s B rief Pag e 3St an da rd

of Revi ew Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws the tri al co urt’s ru li ng on a m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce un de r a b ifu rcat edst an da rdof r ev ie w. Amad or v. Stat e , 22 1 S .W .3d66 6, 6 73 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 07 ). In r ev ie win g t he tri al co urt’s d eci si on , th is Co urt d oe s no t en ga ge init s o wn fa ctua l re vi ew. Romer o v . Stat e , 80 0 S .W .2d53 9, 5 43 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 90 ); Best

v. Stat e , 11 8 S .W .3d85 7, 8 61 (Tex . App .--Fo rt Wort h 20 03 , no pe t.). Th e tr ia l ju dg e is th e so le tri er o f fac t an d ju dg e o f th e cre di bi li ty of th e wit ne ss es an d t he weig htto be gi ve n t he ir t es ti m on y . W ie de v. Stat e , 21 4 S.W .3d17 , 24 –2 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ); St at e v. Ros s , 32 S.W .3d85 3, 8 55 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 00 ), modif ie d o n o th er

gr ou nd s b y Sta te v. Cu ll en , 19 5 S .W .3d 69 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 06 ). Ther efo re, thi s C ou rt m us t g iv e al m os t t ot al de fere nc e to th e tr ia l co urt’s ru li ng s o n (1 ) qu es ti on s o f hi st or ic al fact , eve n i f th e tri al co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f th os e fac ts was n otba se d o n a n e va lu at io n o f cred ib il ity

an d d em ean or ; an d (2 ) ap pl ic at io n- of -la w-to -fac t que st io ns th attu rnon anev al ua ti on of c red ib il ity an d d em ean or . Amad

or , 22 1 S .W .3dat 6 73 ; Mon ta ne z v. St at e , 19 5 S .W .3d10 1, 1 08 -0 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 06 ); Jo hn so n v . Stat e , 68 S.W .3d64 4, 6 52 -5 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ). Bu t wh enap pl ic at io n- of -la w-to -fac t qu es ti on s d o n ottu rnon th e cre di bi li ty andde m ean orof t he witne ss es , we rev ie w th e tr ia l co urt’s ru li ng s o n t ho se qu es ti on s de no vo . Amad or , 22 1 S .W .3dat 6 73 ; State’s B rief Pag e 4Jo hn so n , 68 S.W .3dat 6 52 –5 3.

Whe n re vi ewin g t he tri al co urt’s ru li ng on a m ot io n t o s up pr es s, thi s C ou rt m us t v ie w th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e tr ia l co urt’s ru li ng . W ie de , 21 4 S .W .3dat 2 4; St at e v. Kel ly , 20 4 S .W .3d80 8, 8 18 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 06 ). Whe n t he tri al co urt m ak es ex pl ic itfactfin di ng s, thi s C ou rt d et erm in es whe th er the ev id en ce, wh envi ewedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e tr ia l co urt’s ru li ng , supp orts th os e fac t fi nd in gs . Kel ly , 20 4 S .W .3dat 8 18 -1 9. A rev ie win g co urt m us t the n re vi ew th e tr ia l co urt’s l eg al rul in g de no vo un le ss it s ex pl ic itfact fin di ng s tha t ar e supp orte d b y th e rec or d a re al so di sp os it iv e o f th e le ga l ru li ng . Id . at 8 19 . In the ab se nc e o f ex pl ic itfin di ng s, the ap pe ll at e co urt as su m es th e tr ia l co urt m ad e im

pl ic itfin di ng s tha t s up po rt i ts rul in g a s l on g a s tho se fin di ng s ar e supp orte d b y

th e rec or d. Val ti erra v. Stat e , 31 0 S .W .3d44 2, 4 47 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 10 ). The tri al co urt fa il edto m ak e fi nd in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of l aw in th e pr es en t ca se ; the refo re, thi s C ou rt s ho ul d a ss um e th atth e tr ia l co urt m ad e im pl ic it fin di ng s tha t s up po rt t he de ni al of t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s, s o l on g a s the se fin di ng s are s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d. Id .

State’s B rief Pag e 5App el la nt

di d n ot Uneq ui vo ca ll

y Ass er t h is Right

to Remai n Sil en t App el lantarg ue s tha t h e in vo ke d h is rig htto rem ai n s il en t an d t he po li ce of fic ers fai le d t o s crupu lo us ly hon orth e as se rti onof t ha t ri gh t. Insupp ort o f hi s arg um en t, Ap pe ll an t p oi nt s t o h is st at em en t tha t h e wan te d t o g o b ackto hi s ce ll , atth e en d o f th e fi rs t i nt erv ie w. The Fif th Am en dm en t t o the Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n, m ad e ap pl ic ab le to th e st at es th ro ug h t he Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, p ro vi de s tha t n o p ers on “ sh al l b e co m pe ll edinan y

cri min al cas e to be a witne ss ag ai ns t h im se lf.” U.S. Con st . am en ds . V & XIV; se e a ls o Ma ll oyv. Hogan , 37 8 U.S. 1 , 8 (1 96 4) ; Ramo s v. St at e , 24 5 S .W .3d41 0, 4 18 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 08 ). The p ro te ct io n ag ai ns t se lf- in cri m in at io n i s v io la te d wh ena la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer h as eli ci te d an in vo lu nt ary co nf

es si onfro m

a cri m in al de fen da nt . Bra m v. Uni te d Sta tes , 16 8 U.S. 53 2, 5 42 -4 3 (1 89 7) ; se e a ls o Ro ge rs v. Rich mon d, 36 5 U.S. 5 34 , 54 4 (1 96 1) . A con fes si on is pre su m edto be in vo lu nt ary if i t was m ad e p ur su an t t o acu st od ia l in te rro ga ti on an d wi th ou t ad equa te warn in gs to pro te ctth e p riv il eg e ag ai ns t se lf- in cri m in at io n. Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 , 47 8 (1 96 6) . Co ns is te ntwith t hi s p ro te ct io n a ga in stsel f-i nc riminat io n, l aw en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls , bef

or e que st io ni ng a pe rs on incu st ody , m us t i nf orm hi m th athe ha s a rig htto rem ai n s il en t an d t ha t an y st at em en t h e m ak es m ay be us edag ai ns t h im

in State’s B rief Pag e 6co urt. Berghu is v. Th omp ki ns , 56 0 U.S. 3 70 (20 10 ); Miran da , 38 4 U.S. at44 4- 45 ,

47 8- 79 . The ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t re qu ire s the po li ce t o i m m ed ia te ly cease cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on when a su sp ect“ in di cat es inan y m an ne r, atany

ti m e p rio r to or dur in g que st io ni ng , th athe wis he s t o re m ai n s il en t.” Ramo s , 24 5 S .W .3dat 41 8 ( qu ot in g Mi ra nd

a , 38 4 U.S. at47 3- 74 ). The ex erci se of the rig htto rem ai n s il en t m us t b e “ sc rupu lo us ly hon or ed .” Mic hi ga n v . Mos le

y , 42 3 U.S. 9 6, 1 04 (19 75 ); Ramo s , 24 5 S .W .3dat 4 18 . A fai lu re t o s to p que st io ni ng aft er a s us pe ctincu st od y in vo ke s h is rig htto rem ai n si le ntvi ol at es hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d re nd ers an y subs eque nt ly obt ai ne d st at em en ts in admis si bl e. Dow th it t v. Sta te , 93 1 S .W .2d24 4, 2 57 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 96 ). Bu t an off

ic er i s n otrequi redto askclarif y in g que st io ns an d, i f th e su sp ect ’s st at em en t i s n otanun am bi gu ou s o r un equi vo cal reque stto term in at e th e in te rv ie w or t o i nv ok e th e ri gh t t o s il en ce, the off ic er h as no ob li ga ti on to st op qu es ti on in g h im . Berghu is , 13 0 S . Ct. at22 59 -6 0 (“ If anaccu se d m ak es a st at em en t co nc ern in g t he rig htto co un se l ‘th atis am bi gu ou s o r equi vo cal ’ or m ak es no st at em en t, the po li ce ar e n otrequi redto en d t he in te rro ga ti on or a sk qu es ti on s t o c larif

y whethe r th e acc us edwant s t o i nv ok e h is or h er Mir an da rig ht s” an d t he re i s n o p rin ci pl edreas on to ap pl y di ffer en t s tand ardforin vo cat io n of rig htto rem ai n s il en t); Mar sh al l v. Sta te , 21 0 S .W .3d61 8, 6 28 (Tex . Cri m . State’s B rief Pag e 7App . 20 06 ) (wh enin vo cat io n o f ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t i s ambig uo us , off ic er ca n ei th er co nt in ue qu es ti on in g “ reg ard in g the off en se ” o r st op qu es ti on in g a ndcla rif y whe th er s us pe ctwant edto rem ai n s il en t); Dow th it t , 93 1 S .W .2dat 2 57 . Am bi gu ity ex is ts when th e su sp ect ’s st at em en t i s s ub ject t o m or e th anon e reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n u nd er the cir cu m st an ces . Lu na v. Stat e , 30 1 S .W .3d32 2, 32 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 20 09 , no pe t.); se e a ls o Do wthi tt , 93 1 S .W .2dat 2 57 . In de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t was un am bi gu ou sl y in vo ke d, co urts lo okto th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . W at so n v . Stat e , 76 2 S .W .2d59 1, 5 97 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 88 ); Lu na , 30 1 S .W .3dat 3 25 . At the be gi nn in g o f th e fi rs t i nt erv ie w, Office r Ram os readth e App el lanthi s rig ht s an d c on firm edth atApp el lantun de rs to odhi s ri gh ts . Office r Ram os th en as ke d Ap pe ll an t wh ethe r he want edto waiv e th os e ri gh ts an d t al k t o h im . App el lantwaiv edhi s ri gh ts an d s po ke to Offic er Ra m os for m or e th ananho ur . At so m e p oi nt , App el lantbe cam e v is ib ly frus tra te d a ndto ldOffic er Ra m os “ I wan t t o go ba ckto m

y cel l... .” A few m or e wor ds were s ai d b y App el lant , andth en Ram os term in at edth e in te rv ie w, andadvi se d Ap pe ll an t h e wou ldha ve a jail er es co rt h im

to hi s ce ll . (R.R. Vol . 11 , DX 1). App el lantco nt en ds th atth is st at em en t was anin vo cat io n o f hi s ri gh t t o rem ai n s il en t. Co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , App el lant ’s State’s B rief Pag e 8st at em en t, “ I wan t t o g o b ackto m y cel l,” was no t a c le ar, une qu iv oc al an d un am bi gu ou s i nv oc at io n o f hi s ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t. Se e Ku pf er er v. Stat e , 40 8 S.W .3d48 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 20 13 , pet . ref’d) (d efen da nt ’s st at em en t tha t “ I rea ll y

do n’t wan t t o t al k abo utit , bu t I m ean . . .” was n ot un am bi gu ou s i nv oc at io n o f ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t); W il li am v. Sta te , 25 7 S .W .3d 42 6, 4 33 -3 4 (Te x. Ap p.-- Aus ti n 2 00 8, p et . ref’d) (d efen da nt ’s st at em en t tha t “ I wan t t o t erm in at e ev erythi ng rig htno w” was am bi gu ou s g iv ende fen da nt ’s pri or st at em en ts , hi s frus tra ti on at h is de te nt io n, an d h is att em ptto de te rm in e whe th er h e ha d b eenarre st ed ); May es v. Stat e , 8 S.W.3d35 4, 3 59 (Tex . App .--Am ari ll o 1 99 9, no pe t.) (s ta te m en t b y

de fen da ntth atsh e d idno t kno w if s he want edto tal k fo ll owe d i m

m ed ia te ly by

de ni al of wro ng do in g was no t u na m bi gu ou s as se rti on of rig htto rem ai n s il en t); se e a ls o C oo ks ey v. Sta te , No. 0 5- 08 -0 13 43 -CR, 2 00 9 Tex . App . LEXIS 63 90 , 20 09 W L 24 88 50 9, at*2 (Tex . App .--Dal la s Au g. 1 7, 2 00 9, pe t. re f’d) (m em . op ., no t d es ig na te d fo r publ ic at io n) (st at em en t tha t “ I do n’t h av e an yth in g t o s ay ” was am

bi gu ou s an d d idno t re qu ire po li ce o ffi cer t o s to p qu es ti on in g d efen da nt ); Esq ui vel v. Stat e , No. 0 4- 08 -0 07 30 -CR, 2 00 9 Tex . App . LEXIS 77 89 , 20 09 WL 32 22 62 6, at*4 (Tex App .--San Ant on io Oct. 7 , 20 09 , no pe t.) (m em . op ., no t d es ig na te d fo r publ ic at io n) (st at em en t tha t d efen da ntdi d n ot wan t t o t al k t o d et ect iv e was am bi gu ou s i n l ig htof d efen da ntco nt inui ng to tal k t o State’s B rief Pag e 9de te ct iv e).

The refo re, thi s C ou rt s ho ul d fi ndth atth e App el lant ’s st at em en t “ I wan t t o go ba ckto m

y cel l,” d idno t u na m

bi gu ou sl y an d u ne qu iv oc al ly ass erthi s ri gh t t o rem ai n s il en t, an d t he refo re, thi s C ou rt s ho ul d d en y th e Defen da nt ’s Mo ti on to Supp res s Ev id en ce. Off ic er s did Sc ru pu lo us lyHon or

App el la nt ’s Ass er ti on of His Right Eve n wer e th is Co urt t o fi ndth atApp el lantdi d u na m bi gu ou sl y an d un equi vo cal ly ass erthi s ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t, thi s C ourt s ho ul d n ev erthe le ss affi rm th e tr ia l co urt’s d eci si on to de ny the App el lant ’s Mo ti on to Supp res s be cau se po li ce d idscrup ul ou sl y ho no r th e App el lant ’s pu rp orte d a ss ert io n o f hi s rig ht . In Mic hi

ga n v . Mos le

y , 42 3 U.S. 9 6 (1 97 5) , th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d th atno pa ss ag e in th e Mir an da op in io n “ cansen si bl y be readto create a pe r s e pr os cri pt io n o f in de fin it e dur at io n upo n any furthe r qu es ti on in g b y an y po li ce of fic er o n any sub

ject, o nc e th e p ers on incu st od y ha s i nd ic at eda ri gh t t o re m ai n si le nt .” Mos le

y , 42 3 U.S. at10 2- 10 3. Th e Co urt co nt in ue d: A reas on ab le an d fa ithf

ul in te rp ret at io n o f th e Mir an da op in io n m us t res t o n t he in te nt io n o f th e Co urt i n t ha t ca se to ad op t ‘ful ly effect iv e m ean s...t o n ot ify the pe rs on of h is rig htof s il en ce an d t o a ss ur e th at State’s B rief Pag e 10th e ex erci se of t he rig htwil l b e sc rupu lo us ly hon or ed ...’ 38 4 U.S. at

47 9. Th e cri ti cal saf

eg ua rdid en ti fie d i n t he pa ss ag e atth e ti m e is a pe rs on ’s ‘ rig htto cut o ff que st io ni ng .’ Id ., at 4 74 . Thro ug h t he ex erci se of h is op ti on to term in at e que st io ni ng he canco ntro l the ti m e atwhi chqu es ti on in g o ccu rs , th e subjec ts di sc us se d, an d t he du rat io n of th e in te rro ga ti on . The requi rem en t tha t l aw en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s m

us t re sp ecta pe rs on ’s exe rci se of t ha t o pt io n c ou nt erac ts th e co erci ve pre ss ur es of t he cu st od ia l s et ti ng . W e th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e admis si bi li ty of st at em en ts ob ta in edaft er the pe rs on in cu st ody ha s d eci de d t o re m ai n s il en t d ep en ds un de r Mir an da on whe th er h is ‘ rig htto cu t o ff que st io ni ng ’ was ‘ sc rupu lo us ly hon or ed .’ Mos le y , 42 3 U.S. at10 3- 10 4 (f oo tn ot es om itte d) . App lying th e fac ts he rei n t o t he law setforth in Mos le

y , th is Co urt s ho ul d c on cl ud e th atadm is si on of t he de fen da nt ’s sec on d a ndth irdst at em en ts he rei n d o n otvi ol at e h is rig htto rem ai n si le nt . In Mos le

y , The Supr em e Co urt fo un d t he fol lo win g fa ct or s i m po rtantto th is an al y si s: (1) whethe r th e su sp ectwas i nf orm edof h is rig htto rem ai n s il en t p rio r to th e in it ia l que st io ni ng ; (2 ) whe th er the su sp ectwas i nf orm edof h is rig htto rem ai n si le ntpri orto th e subs eque ntqu es ti on in g; (3) th e le ng th of t im e b etweenin it ia l qu es ti on in g a ndsubs eque ntqu es ti on in g; (4) whet he r th e subs eque ntqu es ti on in g fo cu se d o n adi ffer en t cr im e; an d (5 ) whe th er p ol ic e h on or edth e su sp ect ’s in it ia l in vo cat io n o f th e ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t. Thu s, Mos le ycreate d a n ad

ho c tes t i n whi ch“ co urts m

us t ev al ua te th e fac ts of e ach cas e to de te rm in e if th e res um

pt io n of po li ce i nt erro ga ti on was c on si st en t wi th scr up ul ou s o bs erv an ce o f th e ri gh t t o State’s B rief Pag e 11cu t o ff que st io ni ng .” Maest es v. Stat e , 98 7 S .W .2d59 , 62 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 99 ),

qu ot in g Un it ed

Stat es v. Alva ra do -S

aldi va r , 62 F.3d69 7, 6 99 (5t h C ir. 1 99 5) . Inth e p res en t ca se , th e Offi cers tes ti fie d t ha t the y di d i nf orm App el lantof hi s ri gh ts pri orto th e in it ia l que st io ni ng as we ll as p rio r to each subs eque nt qu es ti on in g. (R .R. Vol . 11 , DX 1, SX 11 0, SX 1 13 ; C.R . 89 -9 2) . Accor di ng ly, th e fi rs t two Mos le

yfact or s wei gh infav orof “ sc rupu lo us ho no rin g.” Maestas , 98 7 S .W .2dat 6 3. Inad di ti on , Offic er Ra m os st op pe d i nt erro ga ti ng App el lantas so on as De fen da ntsai d h e wis he d t o re turnto hi s ce ll . (R.R. Vol . 11 , DX 1). Onc e App el lantbe ga n t o t al k t o Off ic ers inth e se co ndan d t hi rdin te rv ie ws, h e d id no t try to in vo ke hi s ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t, t o e ndth e in te rro ga ti on , or t o s pe ak with a n a tt orne y . (R.R. Vol . 11 , SX 11 0, SX 1 13 ). Thu s the fif th Mos le yfact or al so weig hs infav orof “ sc rupu lo us ho no rin g.” Id . Offi cer R am os tes ti fie d t ha t Ap pe ll an t as ke d t o b e returne d t o h is cel l at ab ou t 1 0: 00 p.m ., onAug us t 4 , 20 13 . (R.R. Vol . 2, p . 34 ). Offic er Yan ez t es ti fie d th athe Mir an di

ze d Defen da ntag ai n t he ne xtm orni ng on ly after Ap pe ll an t h ad sp en t the ni gh t i n h is cel l. (R.R . Vol . 2, p p. 3 8- 39 ). The t im e o f th e se co nd in te rv ie w beg anat app ro xi m at el y 11 :0 0 a .m ., onAug us t 5 , 20 13 , so m e th irt een ho ur s af te r th e te rm in at io n o f th e fi rs t i nt erv ie w. (R.R. Vol . 2, p . 41 ). Afterbe in g Mir an di ze d, th e App el lant , who in di cat edth athe un de rs to odhi s ri gh ts , sp ok e wit h State’s B rief Pag e 12Offi cer Yan ez i n t he sec on d re co rd edco nv ers at io n.

The th ird Mos le

yfact orwas m ean t t o g uardag ai ns t ab us es insubs eque nt qu es ti on in g. Fo r ex am

pl e, in Uni te d Sta tes v. Herna ndez , 57 4 F .2d13 62 (5t h C ir. 19 78 ), th e Fi fth Cir cu itfou nda Mir an da vi ol at io n wh ere p ol ic e res um ed qu es ti on in g t hi rty to f

orty-fiv e m in ut es aft er the de fen da nt ’s in vo cat io n o f th e rig ht . The p res en t ca se is m or e li ke Kel lyv. Lyn augh , 86 2 F .2d11 26 (5t h C ir. 19 88 ), cert . den ie d, 4 92 U.S. 92 5 (1 98 9) an d W es t v. Jo hn so n , 92 F.3d13 85 (5t h Ci r. 19 96 ), two cas es inwhi chth e Fi fth Cir cu itfou ndpo li ce h adscrup ul ou sl y ho no redth e su sp ect ’s ass ert io n o f th e ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t. In Kel ly , po li ce Mir an di ze d Kell y when he was arres te d. Fi ve ho ur s l at er, o ffi cers ap pr oa ch ed Kell y an d re adth e Mir an da warn in gs , andKell y ag ai n i nv ok edhi s ri gh t t o re m ai n si le nt , whi chth e p ol ic e h on or ed . After f ou r to si x h ou rs , po li ce ap pr oa ch edKell y with aco -d efen da nt ’s con fes si on . Kell y ora ll y co nf es se d a ndsi gn eda writ te n co nf es si on whi chin cl ud edth e Mir an da warn in gs . In W es t , po li ce Mir an di

ze d W es t wh enarre st in g h im . He in vo ke d h is rig htto rem ai n s il en t dur in g t he in it ia l po li ce i nt erv ie w andpo li ce t erm in at edth e que st io ni ng . Pol ic e ap pr oa ch edW es t ag ai n m or e th anth irt eenho ur s l at er. The pre se ntcas e is als o s im il ar t o Maest ea s , 98 7 S .W .2dat 6 0, 6 4, wh erei n t he co urt fo un d t ha t the po li ce h adscrup ul ou sl y ho no redth e d efen da nt ’s ass ert io n o f he r ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t. In Maestas , th e State’s B rief Pag e 13po li ce l eftde fen da ntinhe r cel l wh ensh e as se rte d h er ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t, b ut

returne d s om e n in e h ou rs lat er an d Mir an di ze d he r ag ai n. Th e d efen da ntwaiv ed he r ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t, the po li ce que st io ne d h er an d o bt ai ne d aco nf es si on fro m he r. Id . In the pre se ntcas e th e fac t tha t o ffi cers returne d Ap pe ll an t t o h is cel l fo r th e n ig htan d d idno t re tu rnun ti l s om e th irt eenho ur s l at er i nd ic at es th at th e p ol ic e d idho no r th e App el lant ’s pu rp orte d a ss ert io n o f hi s ri gh t. The refo re, th e th ird Mos le

yfact or weig hs infav orof “ sc rupu lo us ho no rin g.” The subs eque ntqu es ti on in g o f th e App el lanthe rei n d idno t fo cu s o n a di ffer en t cr im e, so th e St at e co nc ed es th atth e fo urth Mos le yfact ordo es no t wei gh in fav orof “ sc rupu lo us ho no rin g.” Howev er, as pa rt o f th e Mos le yan al y si s, thi s Co urt s ho ul d a ls o c on si de r ot he r fac ts an d c irc um st an ces inde te rm in in g wh ethe r a de fen da nt ’s rig htto rem ai n s il en t was “ sc rupu lo us ly hon or ed .” Maestas , 98 7 S.W .2dat 6 4. Sp eci fic al ly, in th is cas e, App el lantwas n otco erce d o r pr om is ed an yth in g fo r ta lk in g wi th off ic ers . Office rs tes ti fie d Ap pe ll an t h adacce ss to ne ces si ti es su chas f

oo d, wat er, an d re st ro om

faci li ti es . (R.R. Vol . 2, p p. 1 5, 3 8) . Fi na ll y , altho ug h o ffi cers in it ia te d t he qu es ti on in g t ha t re su lt edinApp el lant ’s st at em en t, o ng oi ng in ve st ig at io ns pro vi de d t he m with a dd it io na l i nf

orm at io n whi chten de d t o s ho w th atApp el lantwas p res en t atth e sc en e o f th e m ur de r. (R.R. Vol . 10 , SX 5). Th es e ad di ti on al co ns id erat io ns ten d t o s up po rt t he co nc lu si on State’s B rief Pag e 14th atpo li ce “ sc rupu lo us ly hon or ed ” App el lant ’s rig htto rem ai n s il en t. Id .

Afte r ap pl y in g t he ad

ho c tes t s etou t i n t he cas e la w to th e ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , th is Co urt s ho ul d fi ndApp el lant ’s pu rp orte d a ss ert io n o f hi s ri gh t t o rem ai n s il en t was “ sc rupu lo us ly hon or ed .” Th re at s t o a rr es t Ap

pe llan t’s fa mil

y did no t r en de r h is stat emen t i nv ol un ta ry App el lantfurth er al le ge s tha t thr eat s wer e m ad e b y law en fo rcem en t t o arre stApp el lant ’s par en ts . App el lantarg ue s tha t the se th reat s re su lt edin App el lantpro vi di ng anin vo lu nt ary co nf es si on . The Supr em e Co urt h as reco gn iz edth atth reat s ag ai ns t fa m il y m em be rs can res ul t i n a n i nv ol un tary

co nf es si on . In Har ris v. S

ou th Ca ro li na , th e Co urt fo un d a co nf es si on to be in vo lu nt ary ba se d upo n anu m be r of cir cu m st an ces th at in cl ud eda th reatto arre stth e su sp ect ’s m ot he r. 33 8 U.S. 6 8, 6 9– 71 (19 49 ) (d et ai li ng th e ci rcum st an ces ); id . at 7 0 (thr eatto arre stm ot he r). In Lyn umn v. Ill in ois , th e Co urt fo un d aco nf es si on to be in vo lunt ary un de r ci rcu m st an ces th at in cl ud edth reat en in g t o t ak e away the su sp ect ’s chi ldren . 37 2 U.S. 5 28 , 53 4 (1 96 3) . The St at e ackno wled ge s tha t s ev eral lo wer co urts ha ve li ke wis e reco gn iz edth ata th reatag ai ns t a f am il y m em be r m ay res ul t, u nd er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , inanin vo lu nt ary co nf es si on . Neverth el es s, thr ee fe de ral State’s B rief Pag e 15ci rcu it s (i nc lu di ng th e U.S. Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Fi fth Cir cu it ) an d s ev eral

st at e h ig h c ou rts ha ve he ldth atlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s ca n t hr eat ento arre sta fam il y m em be r, witho utvi ti at in g t he vo lu nt ari ne ss of aco nf es si on , if the y

can lawfu ll y effe ctua te su chanarre st( i.e. , if the re i s p ro babl e cau se to arre st ). All en v. McCo tt er , 80 4 F .2d13 62 , 13 64 (5t h C ir. 1 98 6) (po li ce h adpro babl e cau se to arre stwife foraid in g arob be ry ); Uni te d Sta tes v. J oh ns on , 35 1 F .3d25 4, 2 63 (6t h Ci r. 20 03 ) ( “ whe th er the th reatto pro se cu te ... was co erci ve tu rn s o n t he is su e o f whe th er the th reatco ul d h av e b eenlawf ul ly execu te d. Whethe r th e p ol ic e co ul d ha ve lawf ul ly arres te d ... intu rnde pe nd s o n wh ethe r th e in ve st ig at in g o ffi cers ha d pr ob ab le cau se ” - p ro babl e cau se ex is te d, s o t hr eatdi d n otco ns ti tu te co erci ve co nduc t); Th omp so n v . Hal ey , 25 5 F .3d12 92 , 12 97 (11 th Cir .20 01 ) (“ whe th er a th reatto pro se cu te a th irdpa rty was co erci ve de pe nd s upo n wh ethe r th e st at e h ad pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th atth e th irdpa rty hadco m m it te d acri m e atth e ti m e th e th reatwas m ad e” - s us pe ct ’s gi rlf rie nd ’s ownst at em en t es tabl is he d h er pa rti ci pa ti on inth e cri m e); Arms te ad v. Stat e , 97 8 S o. 2 d 6 42 , 64 8 (M is s. 2 00 8) (“ Thre at s t o arres t a d efen da nt ’s fam il y m em be r(s ) do no t re nd er a co nf es si on in vo lu nt ary so lo ng as p ro babl e cau se ex is ts to arre stsu chpe rs on s.” B ecau se th e co cai ne was fo un d i n t he ki tc he n, p ro babl e cau se ex is te d t o arres t the su sp ect ’s wife . Ci ti ng

All en 80 4 F .2dat 1 36 4) ; St at e v. Per ez , 12 4 Oh io St.3 d 1 22 , 13 1- 32 , State’s B rief Pag e 1692 0 N.E.2d10 4, 1 19 –2 0 (2 00 9) ( “ Thre at s t o a rres t m em be rs of asu sp ect ’s fam il y m ay cau se a co nf

es si on to be in vo lu nt ary. The i ss ue tu rn s o n wh ethe r th e th reat co ul d h av e b eenlawf

ul ly execu te d.” [ci ta ti on s, i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d el li ps es om it te d] “ Bec au se th e o ffi cers co ul d h av e la wfu ll y arre st ed[th e su sp ect ’s wife ], th reat en in g t o d o s o was no t a c oe rci ve tac ti c.”). Se e a ls o C ommo nw ea lth v . Ray mon d , 42 4 M as s. 3 82 , 39 6, 6 76 N.E.2d 8 24 , 83 4 (1 99 7) (“ Whi le th e p ol ic e m ay no t ex pr es sl y

ba rg ai n wi th th e d efen da ntov er the rel eas e o f ot he r in di vi du al s orm ak e th reat s o f arre st in g a ndch arg in g o th ers with n o b as is , wher e th is type o f co nduc t i s ab se nt , th e p ol ic e m ay bri ng to th e d efen da nt ’s att en ti onth e p os si bi li ty th athi s re la ti ve s m ay

be cu lp ab le .” [ci ta ti onom it te d] Ci ti ng All en 80 4 F .2dat 13 64 ); Brisb on v. Uni te d Sta tes , 95 7 A.2 d 9 31 , 94 6 n .17 (D.C. App . 20 08 ) (“ So m e co urts dra w a di st in ct io n b etweende cep ti ve an d t ru th fu l p res su re t act ic s i nv ol vi ng fam il y m em be rs .” Ci ti ng

Jo hn so n, 35 1 F .3d25 4, 2 63 , an d Armst ea d , 97 8 S o. 2 d 64 2, 6 48 ). The Texa s C ou rt o f Cri m in al App eal s ac kn owl ed ge d t he for eg oi ng au th or it ie s i n Co ntre ra s an d h el d, i n t ha t ca se , th atbe cau se law en fo rcem en t d id no t ha ve pro babl e cau se to arre stth e d efen da nt ’s wife, the ev id en ce d idrai se a fact is su e reg ard in g wh ethe r th e th reatto arres t h is wife ren de redth e d efen da nt ’s co nf es si on in vo lu nt ary. Co ntre ra s v. Sta te , 31 2 S .W .3d56 6, 5 76 -7 7 (Te x. Cr im . State’s B rief Pag e 17App . 20 10 ).

Inth e p res en t ca se , th e ev id en ce d em on strat es th atlaw en fo rcem en t d id ha ve pro babl e cau se to ch arg e App el lant ’s par en ts with h in de rin g app reh en si on , as well as wi th ass is ti ng App el lantinth e ev ad in g o f hi s arres t. (R.R . Vol . 2, p . 19 - 21 , 45 ). Ther efo re, b ecau se th e rec or d re fle ct s tha t o ffi cers di d h av e p ro babl e cau se to arre stApp el lant ’s fam il y , th e tr ia l co urt was di d n oterr i n fi nd in g t ha t App el lant ’s st at em en t was no t co erce d b y th e o ffi cers act io ns . Acco rd in gl y , App el lant ’s firs t i ss ue sh ou ldbe ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Seco nd

Is su e InApp el lant ’s sec on d i ss ue , he c ha ll en ge s the su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce. Sp eci fic al ly, ap pe ll an t co nt en ds th e ev id en ce i s i ns uf fic ie ntto sh ow h e m

ur de red th e v ic ti m

he rei n i n t he co ur se of c ou rs e o f co m m it ti ng ret al ia ti on . The St at e res po nd s b y

no ti ng th atth e ev id en ce i s l eg al ly suf fic ie ntto supp ort a c ap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on . St an da rd of Revi ew The Texa s C ou rt o f Cri m in al App eal s h as de te rm in edth at“ th e Ja cks on v. Vir gi ni a leg al -s uf

fic ie nc y st an da rdis th e o nl y

st an da rdth ata rev ie win g c ourt sh ou ldap pl y

inde te rm in in g wh ethe r th e ev id en ce i s s uf fic ie ntto supp ort ea ch State’s B rief Pag e 18el em en t o f a cri m in al off en se th atth e St at e is requi redto pro ve be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Bro ok s v. Sta te , 32 3 S .W .3d89 3, 8 94 -9 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 10 ). Ther efo re thi s C ou rt m us t re vi ew App el lant ’s su ffi ci en cy is su e o n app eal un de r th e Ja cks on v. Vir

gi ni a leg al su ffi ci en cy

st an da rd . Id . Ina su ffi ci en cy

rev ie w, th is Co urt m

us t v ie w all ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e v erd ic t an d d et erm in e whe th er an y rat io na l trie r of

factco ul d h av e fo un d the ess en ti al ele m en ts of acri m e b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Sa li na s v. St at e , 16 3 S .W .3d73 4, 7 37 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 05 ). The jury , as the so le jud ge of th e cre di bi li ty of th e wit ne ss es , is free to be li ev e o r di sb el ie ve all or p artof a witne ss ’ te st im on y . Jo nes v. Sta te , 98 4 S .W .2d25 4, 2 57 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ). The jury m ay

reas on ab ly infe r fac ts fro m th e ev id en ce p res en te d, cr ed itth e witne ss es itch oo se s t o, d is be li ev e an y or a ll of t he ev id en ce o r te st im on y pr of fere d, an d wei gh th e ev id en ce as itsee s fi t. Sh ar p v . Stat e , 70 7 S .W .2d61 1, 61 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ). Reco nc il ia ti on of c on fli ct s i n t he ev id en ce i s wi th in th e jury’ s d is cret io n a ndsu chco nf li ct s al on e wil l n otcal l fo r rev ers al if the re i s en ou ghcred ib le ev id en ce t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on . Lo sa da v. Stat e , 72 1 S .W .2d 30 5, 3 09 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 ). An ap pe ll at e co urt m ay no t re ev al ua te th e weig htan d c red ib il ity

of t he ev id en ce p ro du cedat t ria l an d i n s o d oi ng subs ti tu te it s ju dg m en t fo r th atof t he factfin de r. Ki ng v. Stat e , 29 S.W .3d55 6, 5 62 (Tex . State’s B rief Pag e 19Cri m . App . 20 00 ). Inc on si st en ci es inth e ev id en ce ar e res ol ve d i n fa vo r of th e ve rd ic t. Cu rr

y v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d39 4, 4 06 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 00 ). Thi s C ou rt do es no t en ga ge ina se co ndev al ua ti onof t he weig htan d c red ib il ity of t he ev id en ce, b uton ly ens ur es th e jury reach eda rat io na l d eci si on . Mun izv. Stat e , 85 1 S .W .2d23 8, 2 46 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 93 ); Har ris v. Sta te , 16 4 S .W .3d77 5, 78 4 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 20 05 , pet . ref’d.). Th e La w Co nc erni ng

Reta li at io n App el lantco m

pl ai ns th atth ere i s l eg al ly ins uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on forcap it al m

ur de r. App el lantwas c ha rg edwith i nt en ti on al ly caus in g th e d eath o f th e v ic ti m

he rei n wh il e App el lantwas “ th enan d t he re i n the co ur se of co m m it ti ng or a tt em

pt in g t o c omm itth e o ffen se of r et al ia ti on ag ai ns t” th e v ic ti m . (C.R. 2 0) . The o ffen se of “ ob stru ct io n o r ret al ia ti on ” is de fin edas f ol lo ws: (a) A p ers on co m

m it s an off

en se if h e in te nt io na ll y

or kno win gl y ha rm s o r th reat en s t o h arm an ot he r by an u nl awfu l ac t: (1 ) inret al ia ti onforor o n a cco un t o f th e se rv ic e o r st atus of an ot he r as a: (A) publ ic serva nt , witne ss , pro sp ect iv e wit ne ss , or in fo rm an t; or (B) p ers on who ha s re po rte d o r who th e act orkn ows in te nd s t o re po rt t he oc cu rren ce o f a cri m e; or (2 ) to pre ve ntor d el ay

th e se rv ic e o f an othe r as a: (A) publ ic serva nt , witne ss , pro sp ect iv e wit ne ss , or in fo rm an t; or State’s B rief Pag e 20(B) p ers on who ha s re po rte d o r who th e act orkn ows in te nd s t o re po rt t he oc cu rren ce o f a cri m e. Tex . Pen al Co de § 3 6.0 6. Th e Evi de nc e a t Tr ia l The ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l i nc lu de d t he st at em en t o f App el lant . App el lantadm it te d i n h is th irdst at em en t t o p ol ic e th athe ranup th e st ai rs at a n ap art m en t co m

pl ex ch as in g ape rs on id en ti fie d a s Leo ne l Gar ci a. The v ic ti m in th is cas e was on th e st ai rwel l t o t he sec on d fl oo r. App el lantst at es th athe no ti ced th e v ic ti m

on th e st ai rs an d o rd eredhe r “ Don ’t m ov e, do n’t m ov e, do n’t l oo k.” App el lantth enki ck edinth e d oo r of Leon el Garci a’s ap art m en t an d s ho t i nt o h is ap art m en t s ev eral ti m e. App el lantth enst at es th atas h e tu rn edto lea ve , th e v ic ti m tu rn edto ward s h im

an d l oo ke d at h im

an d t he vi ct im

st at edth atsh e was so rry . App el lantst at es th athe to ldth e v ic ti m “ why didy outu rn ? ” an d t he n s ho t the vi ct im on ce. Inres po ns e, th e v ic ti m cri edou t, an d Ap pe ll an t s ta te d “ I th ou gh t s he was th reat en in g t ha t s he was g on nacal l the law o r so m ethi ng , li ke ‘ cau se sh e sa w m y face .” App el lantth enst at es th atsh e sh otth e v ic ti m sev eral m or e ti m es . App el lantad ds th athe sh otth e v ic ti m with t he in te nt io n t o “ sc are h er.” (C .R. 10 9- 11 2; R.R. Vol . 11 , SX 11 3) . Bas edon th is st at em en t b y App el lant , th e jury cou ldha ve reas on ab ly

State’s B rief Pag e 21in ferr edth athe sh otth e v ic ti m on acco un t o f th e v ic ti m ’s st atus as ape rs on who th e App el lantkn ew in te nd edto rep ort a c rime (sai d c rime bei ng App el lant ’s sh oo ti ng in to Leon el Garci a’s ap art m en t), o r th e jury cou ldha ve reas on ab ly in ferr edth athe sh otth e v ic ti m to pre ve ntor d el ay

th e v ic ti m ’s servi ce as a pe rs on who App el lantkn ew in te nd edto rep ort the oc cu rren ce o f a cri m e. Ineit he r ev en t, th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt Ap pe ll an t’s co nv ic ti on forcap it al m ur de r, be cau se th e ev id en ce d em on strat edth atApp el lantin te nt io na ll y cau se d t he de ath of th e v ic ti m

he rei n wh il e in th e co ur se of c omm it ti ng or a tt em pt in g t o c omm itth e of fen se of r et al ia ti on . The refo re, Ap pe ll an t’s s eco ndis su e sh ou ldbe ov erru le d.

St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Thir d I

ss ue App el lantne xtco m

pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt re fu se d t o i nc lu de a “be ne fitof th e d oubt ” in stru ct io n i n the jury ch arg e. The S ta te co nc ed es th at“ [w]here a n of fen se co ns is ts of d iff

eren t d eg rees , a ch arg e g iv in g t he de fen da ntth e b en efi t o f a reas on ab le do ub t b etweenth e d eg rees wou ldbe pro pe r, an d i t wo ul d b e err or or di na ril y insu chcas e to refu se su cha ch arg e whe n re qu es te d.” McCa ll v. Stat e , 14 Tex. Ct . App . 35 3, 3 63 (18 83 ), ci te d w ith a pp ro va l, Ba rr io s v. Sta te , 28 3 S.W .3d34 8, 3 52 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 09 ); se e a ls o K ih ega v . Stat e , 39 2 S .W .3d State’s B rief Pag e 2282 8, 8 35 -3 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 2 01 3, n o p et .) (h ol di ng tri al co urt erredby

fai li ng to in cl ud e “be ne fitof t he do ub t” in st ru ct io n wh ere c harg e g iv enth e jury au th or iz edco nv ic ti on s o n c ap it al m ur de r as well as l es se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se s o f m ur de r, m an sl au gh te r, an d c riminal ly neg li ge ntho m ic id e). Altho ug h t he Sta te co nc ed es erro r, th is Co urt s ho ul d n ev erthe le ss de te rm in e th atno ha rm be fel l App el lantas ares ul t o f th aterro r. Whe re jury

ch arg e err oris all eg ed , th is Co urt m us t fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er erro r ex is ts inth e ch arg e; if the re was erro r, th e Co urt m us t the n d et erm in e whe th er s uf

fic ie ntha rm

res ul te d fr om

th aterro r to co m

pe l re ve rs al . Ng o v . Stat e , 17 5 S .W .3d73 8, 7 43 -4 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 05 ). W he re the de fen dantpro pe rly ob jects to th e ch arg e, an y

erro r requi res rev ers al if s ai d d efen da ntsu ffer edso m e ha rm as ares ul t o f th e err or . Se e Alma nz a v . Stat e , 68 6 S .W .2d15 7, 1 71 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 84 ). The h arm cau se d b y

th e err orm

us t b e co ns id ered“ in li gh t o f th e en ti re jury

ch arg e, th e st at e o f th e ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng th e co nt es te d i ss ue s an d th e wei gh t o f pr ob at iv e ev id en ce, the arg um en ts of c ou ns el an d a ny oth er re le va nt in fo rm at io n re ve al edby the reco rdof t he tri al as awho le .” Id . at 1 71 ; se e a ls o Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 36 .19 . App el lantm us t h av e su ffer edactua l h arm , no t m erel y th eo ret ic al ha rm . Se e Arl in e v. Sta te , 72 1 S .W .2d34 8, 3 52 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 ). W

he re a d efen da ntfai ls to pro pe rly ob ject, re ve rs al is warran te d o nl y State’s B rief Pag e 23whe re the ap pe ll an t s uf fere d h arm

so eg reg io us as t o h av e b eende ni eda fai r an d im pa rti al tri al . Alma nz a , 68 6 S .W .2dat 1 71 . App el lantreque st edth atth e jury char ge in cl ud e anin stru ct io n o n t he

“be ne fitof t he do ub t,” a s fo ll ows : If y oush ou ldfin d fr om

th e ev id en ce b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t th e d efen dantis eit he r gu il ty of cap it al m ur de r orm

ur de r, bu t you ha ve a reas on ab le do ub t as to whi choff en se he is gu il ty, th eny ou sh ou ldres ol ve th atdo ub t i n d efen da nt ’s fav or , andinsu chev en t, y ou wil l fi ndth e d efen dantgu il ty of th e o ffen se of m ur de r. (C.R. 4 15 ). App el lanturg edth e Co urt t o i nc lu de th e ab ov e in st ru ct io n i n t he ch arg e; ho wev er, the tri al co urt o ve rru le d Ap pe ll an t’s re qu es t. (R.R . Vol . 7, p p. 1 1- 12 ). The ch arg e g iv enth e jury didau th or iz e co nv ic ti on s o n t he les se r of fen se of m ur de r. In e achap pl ic at io n p arag rap h, the tri al co urt’s ch arg e in st ru ct edth e jury to co nv ic t Ap pe ll an t o f th e p art ic ul ar o ffen se if the jury fo un d t he res pe ct iv e el em en ts to ha ve be enpro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Itwenton to in st ru ct th atif the jury ha d areas on ab le do ub t as to each pa rti cu lar of fen se , th e ch arg e in st ru ct edth e fac t-f

in de r to acqui t Ap pe ll an t an d n ex t co ns id er wh ethe r he was gu il ty of th e n ex t l es se r of fen se . (C.R. 44 5- 44 6) . As ci te d abo ve , a tri al co urt errs to refu se su cha reque st edin st ru ct io n. McCa ll , 14 Tex. Ct . App . at 3 63 ; se e a ls o S pa rk s v. Sta te , 10 8 Tex . Cri m . 36 7, 3 00 S.W . 93 8, 9 39 (19 27 ); Bus se ll v. Stat e , 98 Tex.C rim. 17 0, 2 65 S.W . 16 4, 1 65 State’s B rief Pag e 24(1 92 4) . Becau se App el lantpro pe rly ob jecte d t o t he ch arg e as gi ve n, thi s C ou rt sh ou ldrev ers e th e tr ia l co urt’s jud gm en t o nl y if i t ca n b e sh own th atApp el lant su ffer edso m e actua l h arm . The p res en ce o f so m e h arm , reg ard le ss of d eg ree, i s su ffi ci en t t o re qu ire rev ers al . Abd no r v. Sta te , 87 1 S .W .2d72 6, 7 32 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 94 ). Thi s C ou rt s ho ul d t ak e in to acco un t the en ti re jury ch arg e, th e st at e of th e ev id en ce, arg um en t o f co un se l, an d a ny oth er re le va ntin fo rm at io n re ve al ed by the reco rdinit s en ti rety . Abd no r , 87 1 S .W .2dat 7 33 . The jury ch arg e in st ru ct edth e jury to fi ndApp el lantgu il ty of cap it al m ur de r on ly if th e jury un an im ou sl y fou nd , beyon d areas on ab le do ub t, tha t h e was gu il ty of th atcri m e. If th e jury fail edto un an im ou sl y m ak e th atfin di ng be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, o r if

th e jury harb or edsu cha reas on ab le do ub t as to hi s g ui lt , it was in st ru ct edto fin d Ap pe ll an t n otgu il ty of cap it al m ur de r an d t o t he n c on si de r whe th er h e was gu il ty of th e le ss er o ffen se of m ur de r. (C.R. 4 45 ). Sim il arl y , th e jury w as on ly autho riz edto fin d Ap pe ll an t g ui lty of m ur de r if th ey un an im ou sl y fo un d, b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t, h im to be gu il ty of th atoff

en se . Sho ul d t he y ha ve a reas on ab le do ub t, the jury was to ldto fin d Ap pe ll an t n otgu il ty of m ur de r. (C.R. 4 45 -4 46 ). The jury ch arg e g av e ex pl ic itrequi rem en ts forfin di ng s o f gu il t an d d ire ct edth e jury to c on si de r le ss er o ffen se on ly if th e g reat er o ffen se was n ot pr ov en . State’s B rief Pag e 25The ev id en ce s up po rti ng a fi nd in g o f gu il ty on the ch arg e o f cap it al m ur de r was so li d. Ap pe ll an t’s co nf es si on to th e p ol ic e was th athe no t o nl y cau se d t he de ath o f th e v ic ti m , bu t h e d idso be cau se he be li ev edth e v ic ti m wou ldid en ti fy App el lantto th e p ol ic e as th e p ers on who ha d ju stsh otin to th e ap art m en t. The Sta te bri efl y

m en ti on edth e le ss er-i nc lu de d o ffen se init s cl os in g arg um en t: Let’s g o o n t o num

be r fo ur . Andnu m

be r fo ur for-- if y oufin d t ha t th ere i s n o o r in su ffi ci en t p ro babl e cau se as t o t hi s fi rs t co un t o f cap it al m ur de r, y ouwil l co nc lu si ve ly, th e v ery ne xton e el im in at es ret al iati on fro m

th e wor di ng . Andy oucanst il l fi ndhi m gu il ty of m ur de r if y oufin d fr om

all th e ev id en ce tha t h e is res po ns ib le for kn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y cau si ng he r de ath. (R .R. Vol . 7, p . 20 ). Tha t the jury wou ldno t co ns id er the les se r of fen se m ur de r un le ss fir st co nc lu di ng th atApp el lantwas n otgu il ty of th e p rimary off en se of c ap it al m

ur de r is a co rrec t s ta te m en t o f th e la w. The St at e th enco nt in ue d t o a rg ue th atth e ev id en ce p oi nt edto affi rm at iv e fi nd in gs on all of the requi si te ele m en ts of c ap it al m ur de r. Sev eral in te rm ed ia te co urts (in cl ud in g t hi s C ourt) ha ve ad dr es se d s im il ar si tu at io ns (i.e ., where th e reque st ed“be ne fitof t he do ub t” in stru ct io n was no t gi ve n) . In Sh elbyv. Stat e , 72 4 S .W .2d13 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Dall as 19 87 ) (o p. o n reh ’g), va ca te d o n o th er

gr ou nd s , 76 1 S .W .2d5 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 88 ), th e State’s B rief Pag e 26rev ie win g c ou rt o bs erv edth atth e ch arg e g iv enth e jury m ad e cl ear t ha t the

de fen da ntco ul d o nl y

be fou ndgu il ty of m

ur de r if th e jury hadno reas on ab le do ub t as to hi s g ui lt . Alth ou ghth e tr ia l co urt fa il edto gi ve th e reque st edin st ru ct io n o n be ne fitof t he do ub t, the ch arg e g iv en“ le [ft ] no un cert ai nt y as t o h ow t o re so lv e th e d oubtor wh ere t he bu rd enof p ro of li es onth atis su e” i f th e jury were indo ub t as to whet he r Sh el by was g ui lty of m ur de r orag gr av at edass au lt . Id . at 1 40 .

“ Whe n the ch arg e g iv enby the co urt ad equa te ly pres en ts th e d efen se pro po se d b y a reque st edin st ru ct io n, the accu se d i s n otha rm ed .” Th oma s v. Sta te , 57 8 S .W .2d 69 1, 6 98 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 79 ) (tria l co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns on av ai labi li ty of se lf de fen se su ffi ci en tl y

pre se nt edde fen si ve th eo ry pro po se d b y

de fen da nt ’s reque st ed in st ru ct io n) . In Ben av ides v. Stat e , 76 3 S .W .2d58 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 88 , pe t. re f’d), th e tr ia l co urt al so de ni edth e d efen da nt ’s reque stfora be ne fitof t he do ub t i ns tru ct io n. No ti ng th atth e g iv ench arg e “ cl earl y in st ru ct [ed ] th e jury tha t, if i t i s n otco nv in cedbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t ap pe ll an t i s g ui lty of ag gr av at edrob be ry , itsh ou ldacqui t h im of the gre at er o ffen se be fo re co ns id eri ng ap pe ll an t’s g ui lton th e le ss er o ffen se ,” th is Co urt fo un d t ha t n o fu rth er b en efi t o f th e d oubtin st ru ct io n was ne ces sa ry . Id . at 5 89 . “Any reaso nabl e d oubtab ou t whe th er the ap pe ll an t i s g ui lty of t he les se r orgre at er o ffen se th us res ul ts inan State’s B rief Pag e 27acqui tt al of t he gre at er o ffen se be fo re the jury ev enco ns id ers th e le ss er o ffen se .”

Id . Here, l ik ewis e, th e tr ia l co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns to th e jury clear ly requ ire d a fin di ng of g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t o n t he ch arg edoff en se of c ap it al m ur de r. It wen t o n t o i ns tru ctth e jury tha t i f itha rb or edan y su chdo ub t, i t was in st ru ct edto acqui t Ap pe ll an t an d t he n c on si de r th e le ss er o ffen se of m ur de r. Lik ewis e, th e jury was au th or iz edto fin d Ap pe ll an t g ui lty of m ur de r on ly if it fo un d h im

gu il ty of th atoff

en se be y on d areas on ab le do ub t: inth e fac e o f su ch de gr ee o f do ub t, the jury was pl ai nl y to ldto fin d h im

no t g ui lty . In o th er wo rd s, th e in st ru ct io ns ad equa te ly ins tru ct edth e d own wardlad de r of in st ru ct io ns forth e le ss er o ffen se . Thu s, the ch arg e p ro vi de d fo r co ns id erat io n o f analt ern at iv e le ss er o ffen se an d autho riz edco ns id erat io n a ndco nv ic ti on fora le ss er o ffen se if the jury ha d reas on ab le do ub t as to th e p rimary ch arg edoff

en se . As su m

m ari zedab ov e, th e ev id en ce es tabl is hi ng App el lant ’s gu il t fo r cau si ng th e d eath o f th e v ic ti m whi le in th e co ur se of c omm it ti ng th e o ffen se of r et al iati on was v ery so li d. Th e St at e d id no t s pe ndan y

ti m e ad dr es si ng th e le ss er o ffen se init s cl os in g a rg um en t, an d wh en itdi d s o, i t d iditinth e co nt ex t o f di rect in g t he jury to wardth e ev id en ce t o es tabl is h g ui ltof c ap it al m ur de r. Co ns id eri ng th e en ti re ch arg e, th e st at e o f th e State’s B rief Pag e 28ev id en ce, an d t he Sta te ’s arg um en ts , th is Co urt cann otfin d t ha t Ap pe ll an t was

ha rm edby the de ni al of h is reque stfora be ne fitof t he do ub t i ns tru ct io n. Se e a ls o Ki he ga , 39 2 S .W .3dat 8 37 -3 8 (h ol di ng de fen da ntwas n otha rm edby tria l co urt’s de ni al of “ be ne fitof the do ub t” in stru ct io n wh ere jury ch arg e ad equa te ly in st ru ct edth e d own wardlad de r of in st ru ct io ns forth e le ss er-i nc lu de d o ffen se s) . The refo re, thi s C ou rt s ho ul d o ve rru le th e th irdis su e. St at e’s Res po ns e to Ap

pe ll an t’s Fo urth Is su e Inhi s fo urthis su e, App el lantco m pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt erredin se nt en ci ng App el lant in ab se nt ia . The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the tri al co urt’s d eci si on to pro ceedwith t he puni sh m en t p ha se inApp el lant ’s abs en ce was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

“ One of t he m os t b as ic of t he rig ht s g ua ran te edby the Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e is th e acc us ed ’s rig htto be pre se ntinth e co urtro om at e ve ry st ag e o f hi s tria l.” Ill in ois v. Al le n , 39 7 U.S. 3 37 , 33 8 (1 97 0) . Arti cl e 3 3.0 3 o f th e Tex as Co de of Cri m in al Pro cedur e p ro vi de s tha t a d efen da ntm us t b e p ers on al ly pres en t atth e tri al of afel on y

un le ss he “ vo lu nt ari ly abs en ts hi m se lf a fte r pl ead in g t o t he in di ctm en t o r in fo rm at io n, o r aft er the jury ha s b eensel ect edwhen tri al is be fo re a jury, [inwhi chcas e] the tri al m ay pro ceedto it s co nc lu si on .” Tex. Co de Cri m . State’s B rief Pag e 29Pro c. art . 33 .03 . Thu s, “ [a]fterco m m en cem en t o f tr ia l p ro ceed in gs , a de fen da nt m ay vo lunt ari ly abs en t h im se lf f ro m th e tr ia l wi th ou t a v io la ti on of h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o b e p res en t dur in g a ll ph as es of t he tri al .” Ash le y v. Sta te , 40 4 S.W .3d67 2, 6 80 (Tex . App .--El Pa so 20 13 , no pe t.) ( ci ti ng Ta yl or v. Uni te d St at es , 41 4 U.S. 1 7, 1 8- 19 (19 73 ) (p er cu ria m); Mil le r v. Sta te , 69 2 S .W .2d88 , 90 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ); Tr ac y v. Sta te , 14 S.W .3d82 0, 8 26 (Tex . App .--Dal la s 20 00 , pet . ref’d)). “ Thi s i s b ecau se th e Supr em e Co urt h as reco gn iz edth ata de fen da nt ’s con du ctinvo lu nt ari ly abs en ti ng hi m se lf a fte r hi s tria l h as co m m en ced with h im inatt en da nc e am ou nt s t o afor fei tu re o f hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o b e pr es en t dur in g t he ti m e h e is ab se nt .” Ash le y , 40 4 S .W .3dat 6 80 ( ci ti ng Ta yl or , 41 4 U.S. at18 –1 9; Mil le r , 69 2 S .W .2dat 9 0– 91 ). The Sta te res po nd s i ni ti al ly to Ap pe ll an t’s fo urth is su e b y no ti ng th at App el lantfai le d t o p res erv e th is po in t o n app eal be cau se hi s co un se l d idno t ti m el y ob ject t o t he tri al co urt’s d eci si on to pro ceedwith p un is hm en t. (R.R . Vol . 8, p p. 5 -8 ). Se e Tex. R. Ap p. P. 3 3.1 (a)( 1) (pr ov id in g t ha t t im el y ob jecti on , reque st , or m ot io n i s n eces sa ry to pre se rv e err orforap pe ll at e rev ie w). Furth er, App el lant ’s cou ns el di d n otin tro du ce an y ev id en ce tha t Ap pe ll an t’s ab se nc e was in vo lu nt ary, no r di d Ap pe ll an t i nc lu de inhi s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al a gr ou nd al le gi ng th athe was u nl awfu ll y tri edinab se nt ia ; the refo re, h e d idno t p res erv e th is State’s B rief Pag e 30is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Se eTex. R. Ap p. P. 2 1.2 (pr ov id in g t ha t a m ot io n fo r

ne w tri al is a pr erequi si te to ap pe al when ne ces sary to ad du ce fa ct s n otinth e reco rd ), 21 .3(a ) (fel on y

de fen dantm

us t b e g ran te d ane w tri al when he ha s b een un lawfu ll y

tri edinab se nt ia ); Hea rd v. Stat e , 88 7 S .W .2d94 , 98 (Tex . App .-- Tex ark an a 1 99 4, p et . ref’d) (d es cri bi ng ev id en ce ap pe ll an t i nt ro du cedat h eari ng on m ot io n fo r ne w tri al as p ro of th athi s ab se nc e fro m

tri al was n otvo lu nt ary). Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt s ho ul d h ol d t ha t Ap pe ll an t fa il edto pre se rv e th is is su e fo r rev ie w, or al te rn at iv el y , fai le d t o p res en t an y ev id en ce tha t the tri al co urt ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t ha t Ap pe ll an t was vo lu nt ari ly abs en t fr om th e p un is hm en t ph as e o f hi s tria l an d t he reb y co nc lu di ng App el lant ’s tri al inhi s ab se nc e. Se e Gon za les v. Sta te , 51 5 S .W .2d92 0, 9 20 -2 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 74 ) (h ol di ng th at tri al co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t ha t d efen da ntwas v ol un taril y ab se ntfro m

tri al when de fen da ntdi d n otap pe ar atpu ni sh m en t p ha se of tria l, b ut was pre se ntforsen te nc in g, an d d idno t i nt ro du ce an y ev id en ce o f rea so ns forhi s ab se nc e). Inth e ev en t thi s C ou rt d et erm in es th atth is is su e h as be enpre se rv ed , th en th e St at e wou ldass ertth atth e tr ia l co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n p ro ceed in g with t he sen te nc in g o f App el lant , bec au se th e rec or d re fle ct s tha t h e d id vo lu nt ari ly abs en t h im se lf f ro m th e co urtro om . This Co urt re vi ews th e tr ia l State’s B rief Pag e 31co urt’s d eci si on th ata de fen da ntvo lu nt ari ly abs en te d h im se lf f ro m tri al foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Pap ak os ta s v. Sta te , 14 5 S .W .3d72 3, 7 25 n. 2 (Tex . App .-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 20 04 , no pe t.) ( ci ti ng Moo re v. Stat e , 67 0 S .W .2d25 9, 2 61 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 84 )). “ Inm os t i ns tanc es , th e ap pe ll at e co urt m us t d et erm in e, fro m hi nd si gh t, the va li di ty of th e tr ia l co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t the de fen dant ’s ab se nc e was vo lu nt ary. ” Hud so n v . Stat e , 12 8 S .W .3d36 7, 3 75 (Tex . App .-- Tex ark an a 2 00 4, n o p et .) ( ci ti ng Moo re , 67 0 S .W .2dat 2 61 ). “ The de fen dantm us t pr ov id e ev id en ce t o re fu te th e tr ia l co urt’s d et erm in at io n, o r we wil l n otdi sturb th e tr ia l co urt’s fi nd in g.” Id . at 3 75 –7 6.

“ [A] defen da ntcan no t av oi d t ria l b y in te nt io na ll y

di sabl in g h im se lf.” Mai nes v. Sta te , 17 0 S .W .3d14 9, 1 50 (Tex . App .--Eas tl an d 2 00 5, n o p et .). In thi s cas e, App el lantbe cam e v io le ntup on he ari ng th e jury’ s v erd ic t o f gu il ty, an d h ad to be ph y si cal ly restrai ne d b y sev eral co urtro om

ba il iff s. WhenApp el lantrefu se d to cal m do wn, h e was ord eredrem ov edfro m th e co urtro om . (R.R. Vol . 8, p p. 3 - 5) . App el lantco nc ed es th atth e rec or d c on ta in s ev id en ce d em on st rat in g t ha t h e was rem ov edfro m

th e p un is hm en t p ha se of t he tri al be cau se of h is vi ol en t ou tb ur st . (App el lant ’s bri ef, p . 23 ). A def en da ntha s “ no rig htto in te rruptth e tr ia l b y hi s v ol un tary

ab se nc e.” Ta yl or , 41 4 U.S. at20 . “ The bu sy tria l co urts of o urst at e can no t s to p t he whee ls State’s B rief Pag e 32of

analr eady

bu rd en edcri m in al jus ti ce s y st em be cau se a de fen da ntch oo se s t o b e ab se ntfro m

hi s o wn tria l.” Sa nc he

z v. Sta te , 84 2 S .W .2d73 2, 7 33 (Tex . App .-- SanAnt on io 19 92 , pet . ref’d). Thu s, Tex as co urts ha ve he ldth ata de fen da nt vo lu nt ari ly abs en ts hi m se lf f ro m tri al when he att em

pt s t o c omm itsu ic id e, is pl acedina ho sp it al , and , as ares ul t, i s n otpre se ntinth e co urtro om . Se e id .; Bot to m v. Stat e , 86 0 S .W .2d26 6, 2 67 (Tex . App .--Fo rt Wort h 1 99 3, n o p et .); se e al so Heard v . Stat e , 88 7 S .W .2d94 , 98 -9 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- Tex ark an a 1 99 4, p et . ref’d) (h ol di ng ab se nc e v ol un tary when cau se d b y

sel f-i nduc edin to xi cat io n) . In the ab se nc e o f an y

ev id en ce tha t a d efen da nt ’s abs en ce was in vo lu nt ary, th is Co urt m us t “ en ga ge inth e p res um pt io n t ha t the tri al co urt fi nd in g re ga rd in g t he vo lu nt ari ne ss of app el lant ’s abs en ce i s co rrec t.” Agu ir re v. Stat e , 69 5 S .W .2d79 3, 79 4 (Te x. Ap p.-- SanAnt on io 19 85 , no pe t.) ( ci ti ng Gon za les v. Sta te , 51 5 S .W .2d 92 0, 9 21 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 74 )). Inli gh t o f th es e cas es an d i n the ab se nc e o f ev id en ce t o re fu te th e tr ia l co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Ap pe ll an t v ol un taril y ab se nt edhi m se lf f

ro m tri al - ev id en ce tha t co ul d h av e b eenpre se nt edat t he sen te nc in g h eari ng , ina m ot io n fo r ne w tri al , or o th erwi se - th is Co urt ca nn otco nc lu de th atth e tr ia l co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n. Fi na ll y , with re ga rdto App el lant ’s com pl ai ntth athe ha d fi le d an e le ct io n t o State’s B rief Pag e 33ha ve th e jury ass es s h is pu ni sh m en t, the Sta te wou ldno te th atApp el lantwaiv ed

th is rig hton th e rec or d. (R .R. Vol . 8, p . 5). Sp eci fic al ly, App el lant ’s cou ns el as ke d t he tri al co urt t o “ ex cu se th e jury andth ensen te nc e h im inab se nt ia .” A cri m in al de fen da ntm ay

alwa y s ch an ge hi s el ect io n o f th e o ne who ass es se s pu ni sh m en t. Se eTex. Co de Cri m . Pro c. art . 37 .07 , § 2 (b ). Acco rd in gl y , App el lant ’s fou rth is su e sh ou ldbe ov erru le d. PRAYER WH EREFORE , PREMISE S CONSI DERED , th e St at e o f Tex as pra y s th atth is Co urt wi ll ov erru le App el lant ’s is su es on ap pe al , andaffi rm bo th th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti onan d t he sen te nc e h erei n. Res pe ct fu ll y

Subm it te d, LUI S V. SAENZ Camero n Cou ntyDis tri ct Atto rney 96 4 Eas t Harris on Str eet , 4th F lo or Bro wns vi ll e, Tex as 78 52 0 Ph on e: (95 6) 54 4- 08 49 Fax :(9 56 ) 54 4- 08 69 By : /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z René B. G on zá le z Ass is tantDis tri ctAtt orne y St at e BarNo. 0 81 31 38 0 rg on zal ez1 @c o.c am ero n.t x.u s Atto rney s fo r the Sta te o f Tex as State’s B rief Pag e 34CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I certi fy th atth is do cu m en t co nt ai ns 7,7 84 word s (e xc lu di ng th e co ve r, tabl e of co nt en ts an d t ab le of aut ho rit ie s) . The b ody tex t i s i n 1 4 p oi ntfon t, an d t he fo ot no te tex t i s i n 1 2 p oi ntfon t. /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE I cert ify th at a co p y of th e fo reg oi ng St at e’s ap pe ll at e Bri ef was se rv ed by el ectro ni c m ai l up on Mr. Edm un d K. Cy ga ni ewic z, Att orne y at Law, 10 00 East Mad is on Street , B ro wns vi ll e, Tex as 78 52 0, ed cy gani ewic z@ rg v.t wcb c.c o m o n th e 9t h d ay of No ve m

be r, 20 15 . /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

State’s B rief Pag e 35