### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00401- CR

Shane Al le n Saun de r s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLI AMSO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 04-2 41- K3 68, H ONO RAB LE BURT CARNES, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j u ry fo u n d ap p el l an tS h an e A l l en S au n d er s gu i l t y o f e n gagi ng

in org anized criminal activity , found the de adly wea pon alleg ation in the indictmen t “true ,” and a ssessed punishment at life imprisonment. See Tex. P en. C ode Ann. § 71.02 (West Supp. 2005). Saunders asse rts that the evidenc e is le g ally and fac tually insufficient to sustain the g uilty verdic t. He also c omplains that the ind ic tme nt s ho uld

have be e n q

ua sh e d, and

that th e c ourt

e rr e d in a dmi tti ngir

re le va nt a nd un re lia ble expert testimony

reg ardingthe re sults of gunshot re sidue tests. We will overrule these issues and aff irm the conviction.

Bac kgr ound

Ar ound 3:0 0 a .m. on J ul y 22 , 2 00 2, law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs re sp on de d to re po rt s of g unfire a

nd a hig h-spee d automobile chase in a Geor g etown re sidential neig hborhood. Off icer s set up a roa dblo ck an d stopped two speedingvehicles: a white Chevrolet pickup tr uck drive n and2

so le ly oc c up ie d b y

Ki me la Tr ump , and a

re d M a zda

dr ive n a nd so le ly oc c up ie d b y

Sha wn F or re st. F or re st, wh o w a s b le e din g fr om an i nj ury on his ha nd , to ld t he of fi c e rs that so me on e in t

he wh ite truck ha d been shooting at him. Numer o u s bullet holes were found in the fr ont and side of the Mazda. Ther e we re no bullet holes in the Chevr olet pickup truck.

Pa rtic ipa nts’

Te sti mony F or re st t e sti fi e d th a t a

str ang e r c a me to t

he do or of his a pa rtme nt at a

bo ut 2 :00 a .m. on the ni g ht in question and asked for “J ames.” For rest told the man “the re is no James here ” and order ed him to leave

. As the m an walked away , For rest noti ced fig ures moving about in t he dar k,

on e of wh om r an to a

pic ku p tr uc k p ark e d in

a ne ig hb or ingpa

rk inglot . F or

re st l e ft his a pa rtme nt, g ot into his car , and drove toward the suspicious pic kup. He c ould see a fig ure inside the pic kup, b u t w a s u n a

b l e t o t e l l i t s g e n d e r . T h e p i c k u p tr u c k l e f tt h e p ar k i n g l o tan d

b e g ant o dr i v e a w a y. For rest followe d. Suddenly , the truck stopped a nd a figure at the side of t he stree t stepped into the light with an arm extended. Gunshots r ang out, c ausing For rest to duc k down in his car . He he ard bullets striking hi s vehicle a nd felt somethingg raze his hand. Af ter the shooting stopped, the pickup sped aw ay . For

rest pursued, chasingthe pickup throug h the neig hborhood until both vehicles wer e stopped at the police roadbloc k.

For rest re cog nized Trump when she g ot out of the pi ckup. She wa s the g irlfriend of Da vid May na rd , a le a de r o f t he Ar

y an B ro the rh oo d o f T e xas, a pr iso n- ba se d g ang . F or re st acknow ledg ed beinga member of the group. He testified that ear lier that y ear he had r efuse d to obey May nard’ s order

to transport a loa d of methamphe tamine.3 Whil e some office rs dealt with F orre st a nd Trump at the roadbloc k, o t h er o ffice rs beg an sea rchingthe ar ea w here the shots ha d been fired. Reports had been made about a pe rson or persons runningthroug h y ards in that neig hborhood. The officer s wer e looki ng for a ppellant Shane Saunders, whose driver’ s license a nd ATM ca

rd had be en found in the white pickup. At 7:00 a.m., Saunders a

nd Way ne Confer , another

Ary an B rotherhood me mber, we re fo u n d walking in the suspect are a and wer e taken into c ustody

. Both men wer e perspiring heavily and cover ed with dirt

and g ra ss b ur rs . Shortly afte r Sau n d er s’s arr est, Dete ctive B ill P ascoe of the Ge org etown Police De pa rtme nt c on du c te d a c us tod ia l int e rv ie w of Sa un de rs wh o state d that he ha d no thi ng to d o w ith the shooting. When a sked whether he was a member of the Aryan Br otherhood, Saunde rs re plied “kinda sorta .” A se ries of r ecor dings of telephone c onversations between various members of the Ary an B rotherhood w ere admitted during trial. I n the re corde d conver sations, Ma y nard and Confer discussed S aunder s and his role in the Ary an B rotherhood, ta lking a bout “putting [Saunders] to the te st. ” Duri ng ano the r c a ll, Tr ump tol d Ma

y ard that, wh e n sh e dis c us se d th e pla nn e d h it o n F or

re st with Saunders, he “ knew plenty about it.” I n a re corde d conver sation af ter the shooting , Saunders a nd Matthew Cox, a “probationary ” Ar

y an B rotherhood me mber, discussed attempting to evade c apture by police af ter the s h o o ti n g an d

w ip in g d o w nth e w e a

p o n s u s e d

d u r in g th e s h o o ti n g . I nan o th e r c o n v e r s a tion betwee n Saunders a

nd Confer’ s g irlfriend Christina Allen, Saunde rs stated that he and various other g angmembers who w ere direc tly or indirec tly

involved in the shooting w er e go i n g to ge t a new tattoo. Finally , Saunders told another Ary an B rotherhoo d m em b er that he had told the police a

“ b[]s[]” sto ry

a bo ut g e tti ngdr

un k a nd no t kn ow ingwh e re he wa s.At all rele vant times, May nard w as in jail following his a rre st for an unr elated shooting . The 1 ja il h a s a c omp ute ri zed

sy ste m th a t r e c or ds a ll c a lls ma de by inm a te s. 4 Confer g ave sever al statements to the police. He admitted membership in the Ar y an Br otherhood and owner ship of the white Chevrolet pickup truck. He said that May nard, in a series of te le ph on e c a lls , h a d o rd e re d h im to col le c t $800 fr om F or re st. Th e jur

y he ard re c or din g s o f t

he se te le ph on e c a lls , ma de by May na rd fr om t he Tr a vis County

ja il. On

July 22 , Co nf

e r d ro ve to 1 For rest’s a partment, a ccompa

nied by Trump, Saunder s, and Cox . Conf er k n ew that Tr

ump, Saunders, a

nd Cox wer e ar

med, but he denie d h av i n g a we apon himself. Confer said he sent Saunders a

n d C o x t o Fo rr es t’s door to ask for “Shawn.” Confer sa id that he was standingin the parkinglot as Forr est left his apa rtment, g ot into his Mazda, and followed Trump when she drove

awa y in C o n fe r’s truck. Confer told the police that he sawSaunders a nd Cox shoot at Forr est’s Mazda. Confer de nied firingany shots that night, s aying that he “jumped down” in the g rass whe n the shooting star

ted. Trump testifi ed that she bec ame r omantically involved with May

nard a fter he was

re le a se d f ro m pr iso n in

F e br ua ry 20 02 . T hr ou g h he r i nv olv e me nt w ithMay na rd , T rump b e c a me acqua inted with the Ary an B rotherhood or g anization and lear ned it was involved in manufa cturing drug s, selling dr

ug s, and sellin g we ap o n s . She said that she ser ved May nard in the A ry an B ro the rh oo d b y

makin g pa

y me nts , w ri tin g le tte rs , a

nd oth e r s uc h ta sk s. Tr

ump te sti fi e d th a t, i n July 20 02 , s he and

Cox bo th l ive d w ithCon fe r a nd his g ir lf rie nd . Wh ile sta

y ingwi th C on fe r, Tr

ump lear n ed o f the e x istence of

a violent plot by

the Aryan B rotherhood a g ainst Forr est, a membe r. May na rd , th e arc hit e c t of the pla n, wa nte d to kill Fo rr e st be c a

us e F or re st ow e d h im m on e y

fr om a5

drug deal. At the time of

the shooting, Ma

y nard w as involved in a powe r strug g le within the g ang leade rship. She testified that a man na med “D u tch,” a

nother hig h-ra

nking g angmember, se nt Saunders f

rom Houston to take par

t in Forre st’s shooting as well as another shooting that Dutch had planned a g ainst someone in Austin.

Trump testified that she, Confer, Cox, and Saunders, all hig h on methamphetamine, went to F orre st’s house in the ear ly morning hours of J uly 22, 2002, with weapons a nd ammunition. Trump testified that, whe n they arr ived at F orre st’s apar

tment building, Cox g ot out of the truck a nd walked to the front door of F orre st’s apar tment. After Confe r and Saunde rs left the truc k and Cox had lef t Forr est’s doorstep, Tr

ump rea liz ed a c ommotion was taking pla ce s o s he pulled the truc k into the street in front of F orre st’s apar tment. Forr est followed he r in his vehicle. Af ter they drove a short distance , Trump testified that she observed C onfer , Cox , and appe llant fire their wea pons at F o r e s t ’ s v e h i c l e . A f

t e r t h e s h o o t i n g s t o p p e d , T r

u mp s aw t h e t h r e e s h o o t e r s r u naw ay. Trump then testified that F orre st started up his c ar and drove toward her. Shocked, sh e dr ov e awa

y and F or re st fo llo we d. Al tho ug h sh e loo ke d fo r Con fe r, Cox, and Sa un de rs , s he did not see them. Af

ter a high spe ed cha se, she e n co u n tere d a police r oadblock at the intersec tion of Wil liams and L akew ay , wher e both she a nd For rest we re de tained.

Ot he r T esti mony Ca lvi n Stor

y , a for e ns ic fi re arm s e xami ne r, te sti fi e d a bo ut t he ba lli sti c s e vid e nc e in the c a se . In Jan

ua ry 20 03 , Offi cer Jimm y

Se a ls r e c ov e re d a

9mm Ta ur us ha nd g un in a tr a sh dumpster locate d near

the shooting sc ene. H e also re cover ed a 9mm Glock handgun from nea rby bu sh e s. Sto ry

c omp are d the Ta

ur us and Gl oc k h and g un s r e c ov e re d b y Se a ls t o v ari ou s b ull e ts,6

jacke ts, and fra g ments rec overe d fro m t h e shooting location and from F orre st’s vehicle. Story de te rm ine d th a t tw o o f t

he bu lle t f

ra g me nts re c ov e re d w e re fr om t he Tau rus fi rear

m. S tor y a lso deter mined that a third ty

pe of w eapon , n either the Taurus nor the Glock, ha d been use d in the shooting. Story

testified that two of the bullet casing s rec overe d from the c rime sce ne had be en fire d b y t h e T au ru s fi re ar m , fi v e o f t h e c as i n gs h adb ee nfi re d b y t h e G l o ck , an d t h at ei gh to f t h e c as i n gs had bee n fired by

the third, unrec overe d wea pon. J oan Mailloux , evidenc e tec hnician for the Geor g etown Police Depa rtment, testified that she re cover ed a shipping car ton and instruction manual fo r the 9mm Taur us model handg un from the toolbox of Confer’s white pickup. T h e ser ial number on the gunbox matched the serial number o nth e T a

u r u s f ir e ar m s e c u r e d

b y Jim Se a ls in Ja n u ar y 2 0 0 3

. I n s id e th e tr

u c k , M a il loux locate d t h e fi ng erpr ints of Trump, Confer, Cox, and Saunders. Mailloux also locate d Saunders’ s fi ng e rp ri nt o n th e ins tr

uc tio n ma nu a l f or the Ta ur us Ma ill ou x a lso re c ov e re d tw o a dd iti on a l f ir e a rm s from inside the toolbox of the trunk.

Christopher B enavide z, an a g ent with the fede ral Bur eau of Alcohol, Tobac co, and F ir e arm s, te sti fi e d th a t th e Ta ur us a nd Gl oc k w e a

po ns re c ov e re d b y

Officer S eal s w e re bo th purcha sed fr om a Will iamson County pawn shop in Jul y

2002 b y Ka rl R o t h, Cox ’s associate. Be navidez testified that it was a c o m m o n p ra cti ce of g angmembers to use a ssociates without

c ri min a l r e c or ds to p ur c ha se fi re arm s to be us e d in the c omm iss ion

of g ang -r e la te d c ri me s. Joey Go rd on , a

Te xas R ang e r, te sti fi e d c on c e rn ing his e va luatio n of F or re st’ s v e hic le and the e ntry

ang les of the bullets fire d. Gordon testified that, base d on his ex amination of the7

vehicle, multi ple s hooters had fired the wea pons which ca

used the damag e to the vehic le, and that the shooters we re in c lose proxim ity to the vehicle w hen the shooting occur red. Rob bie Vo lk, a

detecti ve wi th t

he Ga ngUn it o f t

he Au sti n Po lic e De pa

rtme nt, te sti fi e d th a t in

the su mme r o f 2 00 2, Da

vid May na rd (a /k/ a “ B a by Hu e y ” ) w a s in

a po we r s tr ug g le over state wide lea dership of the Ary an B rotherhood of Texas ga ng . Fr om his investigation into the Ary an B rotherhood, V olk determined that May nard a nd other Ar

y an B rotherhoo d members we re planning a murde r in the Austin metropolitan are a. Volk testified that t he Ar y an B rotherhood leade rship in the Austin ge og raphic al re g ion commonly used a member or aff iliate of the g ang from the Houston are a to ca

rry out or take part in g ang -re lated assaults or murde rs in the Austin are a. He testified that the Ar

y an Br otherhood was involved in va rious ty pes of criminal ac tivity , including manufa cturing and selli ng methamphetamine, burg lary , and murder. He testified that Confer w as a “ma de member ” of the Ary an B rotherhood holdingthe ra nk of major. Charles Ha

y hurst, a g angintelligenc e officer with the Wil liamson County Sheriff’ s Of fi ce , testified conc erningphotogr aphs of Saunde rs’s tattoos that wer e admitted into evidenc e. These tattoos feature d emblems such as a double lightningbolt, a swastika, an iron cross, a G erma n eag le, and “ 187,” a r efe renc e to the California Penal Code statute for murder. Hay hurst testified that th ese tattoos we re a ll e mbl e ms c omm on ly a sso c ia te d w ithwh ite su pr e ma c ist g ro up s o r g a ng s. Hay hurst also testified that Saunder s admitted being a member of the Ar y an B rotherhood. Coun t o n e o f th e in d ic tm e n t c o n ta in e d thr e e p ar a g r a p h s a c c u s in g Sa

u nders of

or g anize d c ri min a l a c tiv ity . Pa ra g ra ph s o ne and

thr e e a lle g e d th a t Sa

un ders , wi th th e int e nt t o establish, maintain, or par ticipate in a combination or i n the profits of a combination: (1) c ommitt ed8

ag g ravated assault by

intentionally , knowing ly , or re cklessly causingbodily

injury to Fo rr est by shooting a firea

rm; and (2) committed a g g ravated assault by intentionally or knowing ly threatening For rest with imminent bodily injury while using or exhibit ing a firearm. P ara g raph two a lleg ed that S a u n d e r s , a s a

m e mb e r o f a c r i m i n a l s t r e e tg an g , c o m m i t t e d a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l tb y i n t e n t i o n a l l y, knowing ly , or re cklessly

causing bodily injury

to Forr est by

shooting a

firea rm. All three pa

rag raphs

wer e submitted to the jury in the court’s charg e, which a uthorized Saunders’s c onviction either a s the primary actor

in or as a pa

rty to the ag g ravated assault. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 7 .0 2 ( Wes t 2 0 0 3 )

. T h e j u r

y r e tu r n e d a g e n e r a l v e r d i c to f

g u i l ty.

Discussion Sufficiency of

the Evidence I n h is f ir st two iss ue s, Sa

un de rs ur g e s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g ally and fa c tua lly insufficient to sustain the jury ’s v er d i ct . The que stion presented is whe ther a rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse bey ond a re asonable doubt. See J ackson v

. Vi rg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 32 4 (19 79 ) ( le g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Gr iff in v . S tat e , 614 S.W .2d 155, 158-59 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ) ( le g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Zun iga v . S

tat e , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004 ) ( f a c tu a l s u f f ic ie n c y )

. Ina le g a l s u f f ic ie n c y r e v ie w , a ll th e e v id e n c e is r e v ie w e d in th e li g ht

m o s tf a v o r a b l e t o t h e v e r d i c t ; i ti s a s s u m e d t h att h e t r i e r

o f f a c tr e s o l v e d c o n f

l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y, weig hed the e vidence , and dre w re asonable infere nces in a manner that supports the verdic t. Gr iff in , 6 1 4 S

. W

. 2 d

at 1 5 9 (c i t i n g Jack

son , 4 4 3 U

. S. a t 3 1 8

- 1 9 )

. I n a f a c tu a l s u f f ic ie n c y r eview, a ll the evidenc e is consider ed equa ll y , i n cl u d i ng the testimony of def ense w itnesses and the e x istence of alternative hy

potheses. Or on a v . S

tat e , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Aus t i n 1 9 9 2 , no pet.).9

Al tho ug h d

ue de fe re nc e sti ll mus t be a c c or de d th e fa c t f ind e r’ s d e te rm ination s, pa rt ic ula rl y tho se

conce rning the weig ht and cr edibility of the e vid en ce , t h e reviewing court may disag ree with the result i n order to preve nt a manifest injust ice. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The evidence will be deemed factually insufficient to sustain the convic tion if the proof of g uilt is too w ea k or the c ontrary evidenc e is too strong to support a finding of g uilt bey ond a

rea sonable doubt. Zuniga , 1 44 S.W. 3d a t 48 4- 85 ; see J

ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. Saunders a

rgue s t h at t he State esta blished his presenc e nea r the sce ne of the confr ontation w ith F orre st a s well as his a ssociation with T rump, Confer, and Cox , but ur ges t h at there is no evidence that he fire d a g un at Forrest. Saunders a lso asserts that there is no evidence that he solicited, enc ourag ed, dire cted, a ided, or attempted to aid another person to shoot at For rest, nor that Sa un de rs a c te d w iththe int e nt t hat F or re st b e fi re d u

po n. “ Me re pr e se nc e is in su ffici e nt t o

su sta in a g uil ty ve rd ic t” su mma

ri zes Sa un de rs ’s argume nt that the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt. Th e jur y c on vic te d Sa

un de rs of the fi rs t degree fe lony

of fe ns e of e ng a g ingin org anized criminal ac tivity . The underly ing felony offe nse alleg ed wa s ag g ravated assault. The jury was pre sented with two alternative theories of the c onspiracy offe nse: either a

ppellant committed the offe nse as a

member of

a criminal combination or a member of a cr iminal street g ang . The jury was also prese nted wit h alternative theories as to the manner of the c ommissi on of the unde rly ing offe nse: either Saunde rs i ntentionally , knowing ly , or recklessly cause d bodily injury to Forr est and

us e d o r e xhibi te d a dea dly we a po n, a fi re arm ; or i nte nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

thr e a te ne d F or

re st w ith imminent bodil y

injury and used or

exhibi ted a de adly

wea pon, a fire arm. The jury

was c harg ed on the law of parties. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 7.02( a)( 2) (West 2003).10 Saunders does not challeng e the suff iciency of the e vidence to show he wa s a member of a c riminal combination or cr i m i n al s t re et gang . Saunders’ s awa rene ss of the intent behind the visit t o For

rest’s r esidenc e wa s shown throug h t h e conver sations among Confer, Tr ump, and May nard, in pa

rticular, the one about Saunders proving himself. Trump’s testimony showed that the Ar y an B ro the rh oo d le a de rs hip in Ho us ton se nt Sa un de rs to Au sti n to p art ic ipate in k ill ingF or re st and one othe r per son. I n terms of phy sical evidence, Saunders’s finge rprints wer e found in Confer’s tr uc k a nd on the ins tr uc tio n ma nu a l f or on e of the fi re arm s use d in the sh oo tin g . Hi s d ri ve r’ s li c e ns e and ATM c ard w ere also found in Confer’ s truck. After the shooting, Saunde rs and Cox di scussed the ir a tte mpt s to a vo id b e ingc a ug ht, wi pin g do wn

the we a po ns us e d, and

the polic e e ff

or ts t o question Trump about the shooti ng . Fur ther, S aunder s’s admittedly “b[] s[] ” st ory to the police a bout g etting dr unk and not knowing wher e he was leads to a reasonable infere nce of a consc iousness of g uil t. All of the above evidenc e, and the rea sonable infe renc es there from, ar e a suf ficient ba sis fo r a co nc lus ion by the jur y be y on d a re a so na

ble do ub t, that Saun de rs wa s g uil ty a s a pa rt y to

c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult . Furt he r, the jur

y c ou ld a lso have re a so na bly conclude d that the evidenc e wa s sufficient to hold Saunder s g uilty as a pr incipal. Story , the ballistics

e xpe rt , te sti fi e d th a t a t le a st thr e e dif fe re nt gun s w e re fi re d d

ur ing th e sh oo tin g . T he re we re on ly four p eo p l e at the sce ne of the shooting, a nd there was no e vidence that Trump fire d a we apon. Saunders’ s fing erpr int was found on the instruction manua l of the Taurus, one of the guns involved in the sh oo tin g . The e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

Sa un de rs ’s c on vic tio n. We o ve rr ule issue one.11 I n h is s e c on d is su e , Sa

un de rs c on te nd s tha t the e vid e nc e is fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o support the conviction. S au n d ers contends that the only evidenc e that could sug g est that he committed the offe nse of a g g ravated assault is Trump’s testimony that she drove him to Forre s t ’s house with the intent to shoot Forre st. He urg es that Trump’s t es t i m o n y h as no probative va lue beca use she not only

admitted to ly ing a

bout the events of that night, but also wa s i m p ea ch ed by F or re st an d ha d a motiv e fo r te sti fy ing un tr uth fu lly . H e a sse rt s th a t he r t e sti mony a t mo st r e fl e c ts

a po or ly c on c e ive d a

nd bo tc he d e ff

or t to c oll e c t a

de bt. The jury is the sole judge of the c redibility of the witnesse s and the we ight to be g iven the evidence, and may choose to believe all, some, or none of it. Ma rg ra v es v . S tat e , 34 S.W .3d 912, 91 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Ra c ha l v . S tat e , 917 S.W. 2d 79 9, 80 5 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Thus , the jury is permitted to be lieve or disbelieve any part of the testimony of any witness. J

on es v . S tat e , 9 8 4 S

. W

. 2 d

2 5 4 , 2 5 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 )

. R e c o n c i l i a t i o no f e v i d e n t i ar

y c o n f l i c t s i s s o l e l y a function of the trier of f

act. Los ad

a v . S tat e , 721 S.W .2d 305, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) . There is nothing irrational about a jury ’s dec ision to re solve conflicts in the evidenc e in favor of the State. Se e Cai n v . S

tat e , 9 58 S.W. 2d 40 4, 40 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ) (“ A de c isi on is n ot m anif

e stl y un jus t beca use the jury

resolved the manifestly conflicting views of the evidence in favor of the State.”). Evidence is not factually

insufficient mer ely

beca use the fa ct-finde r re s o l v ed conf licting view s of the evidenc e in the State’s f avor. Ro isev . S

tat e , 7 S.W. 3d

22 5, 23 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 99 , p e t. ref ’d). The jury

hear d Trump testify

that she was in ja il at the time of trial, that she ha d made

a ple a ba rg a in t o te sti fy

in r e tur n f or a fo rt y -y e ar se nte nc e a s op po se d to t he lif e se nte nc e sh e c ou ld12

have re c e ive d, that sh e ha d us e d dr ug s he a vil y and se rv e d tim e fo r a state ja il f e lony . T he jur

y a lso hear d about her

fea rs for he r saf

ety and the safe ty of her children and family beca use of r etaliation from th e Ar

y an B rotherhood. T he jury was fr ee to sift and w eig h Trump’s testimony and make judgme nts about its value based on its eva luation of the cr edibility , motive to fabricate, and contra dictions or inconsistencies in that e vidence

. Fur ther, as discussed a

bove, Trump’ s testimony

wa s n ot the on ly

e vid e nc e c on c e rn ingSa

un de rs ’s pa

rt ic ipatio n in

the c ri me of

a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , including phy sical evide nce linking Saunders to the sc ene of the cr ime and we apon used. Even whe n the e vid e nc e is v ie we d in

a ne utr a l ma

nn e r, it i s su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingbe y on d a

re a so na ble doubt that Saunders’ w as g uilty of ag g ravated assault on F orre st. W e over rule issue two.

Mo tio n to Qua sh I

ndic tment I n his third and fourth issues, Saunder s contends that the tria l co u rt should have g rante d his moti on to quash t h e i n d i ctment bec ause it fa iled to name or ide ntify the per sons who participated in the alleg ed combination, thus violating article 21.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e (issue thre e) a

nd the Six th and Four

teenth Amendme nts to the Unit ed States Constitut ion (issue four)

. We r eview the cour t’s ruling de novo. Sta te v . M off , 154 S.W. 3d 59 9, 60 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); Y

an es v . S tat e , 149 S.W .3d 708, 709 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. ref ’d). I n o rd e r t o p ro ve tha

t a de fe nd ant p art ic ipat ed in a c ri min a l c omb inatio n, the State must prove that he participated wit h two or m ore other persons in a continuing course of c riminal activities. Ngu

y e n v . S tat e , 1 S.W. 3d

69 4, 69 7 (Tex

. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). Sa un de rs argue s th a t in order to give a def

endant a dequate notice in orde r to prepa re a defe nse, the State must alleg e the

name s o f t

he oth e r p e rs on s in the c omb inatio n. Th e c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls, ho we ve r, ha s h e ld t oWe wi ll a ssume e rr or wa s p re se rv e d. Af te r t he c ourt ru le d th a t Ro

ja s c ou ld t e sti fy

on ly a s to 2 his conclusions, but not to t he under ly ing te st results on eac h of the four samples, the State wa

nted to withdraw hi m as a witness. The defe nse objec ted bec ause the jury had bef ore it testimony

that swabs had be en take n to perfor m a g unshot residue test. Af ter much b ac k an d fo rt h , the par ties appea red to agree that Ro

ja s w ou ld t e sti fy

a s to his c on c lus ion s. 13 the contra

ry . Whil e the State may be re quired to p ro v e the names of the other members of

the combination at trial, the omission of their na mes does not re nder the indictment defe ctive. State v. Duke , 865 S.W .2d 466, 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (re versing order g ranting mo t i o n t o q u ash). I ssues three and four

are overr uled. Exp e rt T esti mony I n his fifth issue, Saunders c ontends that the trial cour t erre d in admitting irre levant and unre liable expert testimony regarding the re sults of gunshot re sidue tests. Saunders c ontends that the test was a dminist ere d too long a fter the shooting to be r eliable.

After Saunders’ s arr est and a pproxi mately

five hour s af

t er the shooting, police swabbe d his hands for the prese nce of g unshot residue. Police a lso swabbed the ha nds of Confer , Tr ump , a nd F or re st a ft e r t he sh oo tin g . T he sw a

bs we re su

bmi tte d to the De pa

rtme nt o f Pub lic Sa fe ty Crime L ab, whe re the y

wer e ana ly

zed by fore nsic che mist J uan Ro j as . S au nders objec ted to the admission of the testimony conce rning the g unshot residue. 2 I n deter mining whe ther to admit expert testimony of a scientific nature, a trial court must first determine that the proff ere d testimony

is sufficiently

reliable and re levant to assist the jury in r eac hing a

n acc urate result. Mo ra le s v . S tat e , 3 2 S. W. 3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 5 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ; T e x. R. Crim. Evid. 401. A t rial court’s decision on the admis sibili ty of such testim ony is reviewe d for14

an abuse of discre tion. Se

x ton v . S tat e , 9 3 S. W.3 d 9 6, 99 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). Th e te st f or a bu se of dis c re tio n is wh e the r t

he tr ia l c ourt

a c te d w ith ou t r e fe re nc e to a ny g uid ingrul es or pri nc ipl e s. Ro isev . S tat e , 7 S .W .3 d 22 5, 23 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 99 , p e t. r e f’ d) . A n a

pp e llate c ourt

mus t uphold the trial court’ s ruling if it was withi n the z one of r easona ble discre tion. W

e ath e rre d v . S

tat e , 15 S.W .3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

To be re l i ab l e, ev i d en ce m u s ts at i s fy t h re e c ri t er i a: (a ) t h e u n d er l y i n g s cientific theory must be valid; (b) the technique a pply ing the theory

must be valid; and (c) the technique must have been proper ly applied. Ke lly v . S tat e , 824 S.W .2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Fa ctors that could af fec t a trial cour

t’s deter min at i o n ab o ut reliability , include, but ar e not limited to: (1) the extent to which the underlying scientific theory and technique are acce pted as valid by the re levant scientific c ommunity ; (2) the qu al i fi ca t ions of the expert testifying; ( 3) the e x istence of literature supporting or

reje cting the under ly ing sc ientific theory or technique; ( 4) the potential e rror rate of the te c hn iqu e ; ( 5) the a va ila bil ity of oth e r e xpe rt s to te st a nd e va luate the te c hn iqu e ; ( 6) the c lari ty with w hich the underlying scientific theory and technique can be explained to the c ourt; and (7) the experience and skill of the per son who applied the te chnique on the oc casion in question. Id

.

Th e r e w a s n o c h a ll e n g e to Ro ja s ’ s c r e d e n ti a ls

. Ro

ja s te s ti f ie d th a t u nder the g uidelines of the Te x as De partment of Public Safe ty , swabs take n from suspec ts over four hours af ter the oc c ur re nc e of the c ri me we re g e ne ra lly no t ana ly zed fo r t he pr e se nc e of

g un sh ot r e sid

ue du e to the usual dissipation over time of the c hemical e lements associate d with the discharg e of w eapons found on a pe rson’s hands. H e testified that the four- hour g uideline was ba sed on the diminished likelihood of finding the elements a ssociated with g un s h o t re sidue in sufficient qua ntities for aSe e ge ne ra lly 2 Stev en Go ode et a l., Texas Practice : Guide to the Tex as Rules of Evidenc e 3 § 702.6, at 57-58 (3d e d. 2002) (discussing influence on admissibili ty of whether err or rate in testing would result i n fa lse neg ative, we ighingtoward a cquittal, or fa lse positive, weig hing towa rd conviction). 15 p o s i t i v e r es u l t , n o t t h e p o t en t i al o cc u rr en ce o f a fa l s e p o s i t i v e. He s ai d i twa s p o s s i b l e, al t h o u gh 3

no t li ke ly , th a t th e te st c ou ld r e su lt i n a po sit ive fi nd ingsix or

e ig ht h ours la te r. He re fe rr e d to results obtained f

ro m samples over f

our hours old as “ inconclusive” rathe r than unre liable. He ag ree d that the test itself did not become unr eliable; the likelihood of evidenc e that had onc e bee n prese nt disappear ing w as the c oncer n. Rojas expl ained what gunshot re sidue was and how it might come to be deposited on someone’s h an d s , including the possibili ty that it could be deposited on someone who had not h an d l e d a g u n , b u tw a s i ni t s v i c i n i t y. D u r i n g v o i r d i r e , h e e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e l a b t e s t e d f o r an t i m o n y, barium, and lead, the three components of g unshot residue. I n order to conclude that a result was positive, all thr ee el ements m ust be prese nt above c erta in threshold levels. (He testified that demandingthat all three elements be prese nt was a more conser vative appr oach tha

n the Fe dera l B ur e a u o f I nv e sti g a tio n’ s a

pp ro a c h, wh ic h o nl y requ ir e d f ind ingtw o e le me nts to c a ll a re su lt po sit ive .) Roj a s th e n d e ta ile d th e me a sure me nts on th e sample s ta

ke n f ro m a ll f our i nd ivi du a ls. Only Saunders’ s samples showed the pr esenc e of a l l t hree elements, but antimony was be low the threshold level, lea ding to a result of “ inconclusive.” Appellant ar gu ed that the cour t erre d in admitting the testimony conce rning the “inconc lusive” re sults o f

th e g u n s hot residue testing beca

use his hands we re swa

bbed over four hour s afte r the shooting occur

red, making the result unre liable. He a lso objected to t h e ad m i s s i o n ofThere is no contention that the underly ing the ory

was invalid or

that technique w as invalid or 4 incorre ctly

perf ormed. Se e Ke lly , 824 S.W .2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 16 testimony that g unshot r esidue tests on Forr est, Trump, and Confe r we re ne g ative. Howe ver, Rojas

a lso te sti fi e d that the re su lts on Sa un de rs we re ne g a tiv e —in c on c lus ive if g ive n three choi ces, neg ative if c hoosing be tween positive a nd neg ative. The c ourt had be fore it the expert’s testimony the test was r eliable a fter f our hours but that the state of the evidenc e may have deg rade d. On voi r di re, the court ha d in front of it the 4 de ta ils of the te sti ngpe rf

or me d o n th e se fo ur ind ivi du a ls, wi th the ult imate re su lts c on sis te nt w ith the testimony

conce rning the test methodolog y . The c ourt was entitled to acce pt that testimony and deter mine that the t est was reliable and the ex pert’s te stimony admissible. Se e Be thu ne v . S tat e , 821 S.W .2d 222, 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1991), af f’d , 8 28 S.W. 2d

14 , 1 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ) ( a dmi tti ngDN A e vid e nc e ; e xpe rt te sti mony

th at DNA test

ve ry re lia ble fo re ns ic te st; no possibili ty

of fa lse positive beca

use any deg radation of sample wil l only lead to no result at all). The tr ia l c o u rt s e r

v e s a s th e “ g a te k e e p e r ” an d d e te r mi n e s th e r e li a

b il it y o f th e te s t; n o t t

he

corr ectne ss of t he ex pert’s conclusions. Se e Ha rtm an v . S tat e , 946 S.W .2d 60, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Ultimately , appellant’ s objection to the testimony was to the contra s t b etween “inconc lusive” and “ neg ative,” a problem cured by

his ex amination of Rojas and sec uring testimony that the re sult could be viewe d as neg ative for all of them. An a

ppellate co urt will not rever se a judgme nt if the appellate court deter mines that the error did not aff ect the substantial r ights of the defe ndant. Tex. R. Ap p . P

. 4 4

. 2 (b ). As pre viously discussed, a la

rg e volume of e vidence wasSaunders was char g ed as a party as we ll as a principa l. To secur e a c onviction as a pa rty , the 5 State did n o t have to show that Saunders himself pulled a tr igg er. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 7.02(a) (2) ( West 2003). 17 admitted during the ca se. Given the overw helming e vidence in the case , the testimony conce rning the g un sh ot r e sid

ue , w hic h wa s no t e mph a size d or c ru c ia l to S a un de rs ’s c on vic tio n, wa s h arm le ss 5

err or. We overr

ule appe llant’s fifth issue.

Conclusion We have ove rruled a ll of appellant’s issues. W e affirm t he judg ment of convic tion.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: August 18, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh