Opinion issued March 21, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00094-CR

———————————

LARRY DALE KING, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 91525-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Larry Dale King, Jr. of tampering with physical 

evidence—a human corpse—and sentenced him to twenty years’ confinement with 

a $9,800 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 37.09(c), (d)(1). Though not entirely clear 

from Larry’s briefing, we construe his arguments as challenging (1) the sufficiency 
2

of the evidence corroborating an accomplice witness’s testimony; and (2) the legal 

sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.1 For the reasons discussed 

below, we affirm. 

Background

Larry was charged with tampering with physical evidence—specifically, the 

remains of his girlfriend, Staysha Lea. He proceeded to a jury trial.

A. Matt’s Testimony

Larry’s accomplice, his brother, Matt, testified for the State.2 He testified that 

in late July 2020, he allowed Larry and Lea to move in with him while Larry looked 

for a job. Matt did not want any drugs in his apartment, because he was working to 

regain custody of his children. Shortly before the August rent was due, Matt noticed 

1 Larry only raises one enumerated issue in his appellate briefing, stating: “The 

evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support this conviction under the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure, article 38.14, a conviction cannot stand on the 

accomplice witness’s testimony unless the testimony is corroborated by other, non[-

]accomplice evidence that tends to connect the accused to the offense.” Elsewhere 

in his brief, Larry explicitly states that he “challenges the legal sufficiency of the 

evidence to support his conviction[]” and discusses the Jackson v. Virginia legal 

sufficiency standard. See 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Construing Larry’s briefing liberally, 

as we must, we address both arguments. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 38.9. 

2 At the time of trial, Matt had been in jail for twenty-nine months. Matt testified that 

in exchange for his testimony, he was given use immunity relating to felony charges 

against him for tampering with physical evidence. Use immunity is “immunity from 

the use of the compelled testimony and any evidence derived therefrom”; by 

contrast, transactional immunity is “immunity from prosecution for offenses to 

which [the] compelled testimony relates.” Foyt v. State, 602 S.W.3d 23, 41 n.6 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d). 
3

that $400 was missing from his wallet. He suspected Lea took the money. After 

Larry paid the entire month’s rent, Matt “let it go.” 

On Sunday, August 9, 2020, Matt was getting ready for a visit with his 

children when he realized his phone was missing. Lea had left the apartment earlier, 

claiming she was going to sell some jewelry for money. Matt and Larry searched the 

apartment but did not find the phone. Instead, they found a baggie containing white 

residue in Lea’s bedroom. Matt left for the visit without his phone, upset that it 

appeared Lea had drugs in his apartment. 

Lea had taken a car that belonged to Matt’s friend when she left earlier that 

day. Larry did not hear from Lea until late in the evening, when she told him that 

she had left the vehicle at a nearby Buc-ee’s. Matt, Larry, and some friends drove to 

Buc-ee’s to pick up the car, which had run out of gas. Lea was not at the gas station. 

Later, Lea told Matt that she had left his phone in the glove compartment of the 

vehicle. When Matt retrieved his phone, he discovered that Lea had used the 

CashApp application to obtain $200 from Matt’s father, purporting to be Matt. 

Matt testified that on the morning of August 10, 2020, between 1:00 a.m. and 

2:00 a.m., he received a call from a police officer at the gas station. The officer 

testified at trial that Lea had been sitting outside in front of the store, and Lea asked 

her to call Larry, because Lea’s phone had died. The officer called Larry, who said 

he would come pick up Lea. Matt then got on the phone with the officer, “yelling 
4

about the fact that [Lea] possibly took $200 from him.” Matt then arrived at Bucee’s without Larry. According to Matt, he went to Buc-ee’s to get Lea’s key to the 

apartment, but she would not return it. Matt told the officer that Lea was not allowed 

to return to the apartment. However, the officer advised Lea that Matt could not keep 

her out of the apartment “because that’s where she had established residency.” Lea 

stayed at the gas station, and Matt returned home. 

Matt testified that later that morning, he went to work. As he left the 

apartment, he told Larry to sleep on the sofa with the sofa blocking the door to keep 

Lea out. Matt stopped at Buc-ee’s on his way to work and saw Lea. On his way out, 

he told her not to come back to the apartment. Larry called Matt later and said Lea 

had been trying to get in. Subsequently, Lea gained entry to the apartment. Matt 

returned home to serve Lea with a homemade eviction notice, stating, “Happy 

birthday. You’re getting evicted.”3 He then locked Lea outside on the apartment’s 

second-floor balcony while she was smoking. Matt testified that he also changed the 

locks, took Lea’s door off its hinges, and removed the thermostat. Matt stated that 

he believed Lea was under the influence of drugs and wanted her to be 

uncomfortable. He testified that the temperature was in the mid to high nineties that 

afternoon. 

3 August 10th was Lea’s birthday. 
5

Lea called police to report that she had been locked out of the apartment. After 

an officer arrived, she was able to use her key to unlock the balcony door. Lea also 

called the apartment manager to report Matt’s removal of the door and thermostat, 

and the manager called Matt. Matt got the impression that all the occupants would 

be evicted if the situation was not resolved. 

Matt spent the next few hours at a friend’s apartment down the hall. He 

testified that police were dispatched to the apartment two more times following calls 

from Lea. Lea called to report that Matt had closed the windows to the apartment 

after Lea had opened them. Matt testified that he did this more than once because he 

did not want bugs to get into the apartment. The last time police came to the 

apartment, around midnight or 1:00 a.m., they advised that the situation was a civil 

matter, not criminal, and asked Lea to stop calling. According to Matt, during this 

time, Larry was “always walking off . . . playing his little game on his phone.” 

Matt attempted to stay at his neighbor’s apartment that night, but he eventually 

returned home between 12:30 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. When he entered the apartment, 

the light to Larry and Lea’s bedroom was on, but the lights in the other rooms were 

off. Matt testified that he observed Larry “sitting on top of [Lea] . . . straddling her 

abdomen.” Matt stated that Larry was “sitting on her stomach with her arms pinned 

between his legs and her body.” Lea was not moving. He testified that when he was 

finally able to see Lea four to five minutes later, she “was blueish gray in the face” 
6

and was dead. Matt did not say anything, but Larry saw him. Larry approached Matt, 

who was backed up against a wall, and “told [Matt he] was going to help him or 

else.” 

According to Matt, Larry told him that Lea sent Larry a text message stating 

that she was “doubling down.”4 Larry took this as a threat and went upstairs to take 

her phone from her. The two got into a “scuffling match” and Larry “ended up on 

top of her.” Larry did not tell Matt what exactly happened next, but Larry said he 

did not want to go back to jail. 

Matt then testified regarding the pair’s efforts to move Lea and hide her body. 

Larry spread a blanket out in the bedroom and obtained a roll of duct tape. Next, the 

two men rolled Lea into the blanket, taped it up, and dragged her into the living 

room, where they waited until the coast was clear to move her to the trunk of Larry’s 

car. Matt estimated that they waited an hour or an hour and a half. He could not 

recall what they discussed while waiting. He recalled seeing Lea’s smashed cell 

phone in the apartment, though he did not see Larry break it. They then dipped Lea’s 

cell phone in water “to kill it,” placed it in a baggy, and left it on the countertop. 

Matt testified that it was Larry who decided they should take Lea’s body somewhere 

4 Larry provided a written statement to investigators on August 27, 2020, which was 

admitted at trial. In the statement, Larry recounted that he received a message from 

Lea to this effect at approximately 10:45 p.m.
7

to dispose of it. Larry was on his cell phone “looking up places that [they] could take 

her to.” When Larry decided on a location, they left the apartment. 

When they arrived at the car, Larry removed the light from the trunk5 of the 

car, and the men placed her inside. With Larry at the wheel, they first drove to their 

parents’ home in Van Vleck to establish an alibi. The drive took fifteen to twenty 

minutes. Matt testified that they remained at their parents’ home for approximately 

thirty minutes. Larry picked up a bottle of bleach, “stuffed it in his clothing,” and 

walked outside with it. Larry Sr. followed Larry outside, and Matt stayed inside with 

their mother. 

When they left, Matt and Larry traveled east along Highway 35 toward 

County Road 477. Ultimately, they drove the car down a pipeline right-of-way and 

found a spot to dump the body. The men dragged Lea’s body from the trunk, 

unwrapped her, and wiped the body with the bleach and a t-shirt from the trunk. Matt 

testified that they wiped the body to remove any fingerprints. They then got back in 

the car to return to the apartment. On their way home, they threw out the t-shirt and 

bleach bottle at different gas stations. Larry told Matt that he disposed of the blanket 

a week or so later. Matt estimated that they arrived back at the apartment at 6:30 

a.m. They then went to sleep before heading to work at approximately 9:00 a.m. 

5 Photographs admitted at trial demonstrated the removal of the trunk light in Larry’s 

car. 
8

At some point after the disposal of Lea’s body, Matt and Larry agreed to a 

version of events they would tell anyone who asked about Lea’s disappearance. Matt 

testified that the story was “[t]hat [Lea] left the apartment on her own free will and 

just dropped off the face of the earth.” However, the men “didn’t go over the story 

enough times for it to actually stay with [Matt],” and he “fumbled it up.” 

On September 5, 2020, a police officer interviewed Matt at work about Lea’s 

disappearance. Matt initially told the officer that Lea was at the apartment when he 

came back from his parents’ home on August 11, 2020, but then she left.6 Matt 

returned to his apartment that day after he got off work. Larry arrived some time 

thereafter. Matt testified that Larry “had a sick look on his face and he turned around 

and walked out.” Matt found out later that Larry went to their parents’ home. He 

tried reaching Larry several times, but only got Larry’s voicemail. On September 7, 

2020, Matt called police to let them know that Larry “was on the run.” 

A few days later, Matt spoke with his boss, Murray Underwood. Matt told 

Underwood that he knew where Lea was and just wanted to say goodbye to his 

children before turning himself in. Matt went to his children’s mother’s home in 

Texas City, and police met him there. Matt got into the police car, told the officers 

6 That same day, Larry told officers a different version of events—that Lea was gone 

by the time they returned on August 11, 2020. 
9

what happened, and took them to the site of Lea’s remains. The following day, he 

provided a written statement detailing his account of the events. 

B. Other Testimony

The jury also heard testimony from several other individuals, including Matt 

and Larry’s friend and coworker, Eric Tilitzki; their boss, Murray Underwood; and 

their brother, Dwayne King. Officers involved in the investigation also testified.

Regarding the incident at issue, Eric recalled that Matt and Larry arrived to 

work late on August 11, 2020. He testified that Matt seemed more tired than normal, 

was extremely late, and standoffish. Eric knew that Matt and Larry were attempting 

to have the landlord evict Lea on August 11, so he thought it was odd that they did 

not come discuss the matter with him when they arrived at work. Later that evening, 

Matt eventually approached Eric at work. Matt told Eric that he gave Lea $200 and 

“she just left.” According to Eric, this “[j]ust didn’t feel right,” so he decided to 

question the men further. He asked the men to come by his house that evening. When 

they did, he kept asking questions. Eventually, Larry told Eric that “[Lea] had to go 

and they took care of it.” When the men left, Eric “didn’t feel good about that 

conversation at all” and wanted to press the issue further. He invited them back a 

few nights later, and Matt eventually stated that “[Lea] was deceased and her body 

was disposed of in another county.” Neither of the men would disclose the location 

of Lea’s body. On September 5, 2020, Eric provided a written statement to police. 
10

The jury also heard testimony from Murray Underwood, the owner of Brazos 

Motorsports. Underwood testified that Matt and Larry began working for him in the 

summer of 2020. Matt and Larry were hired as mechanics and were good workers. 

When Matt began “messing up pretty bad” on some general repairs, Underwood felt 

“his head wasn’t in the game” and decided to terminate him. He also testified that 

Matt was distant, very nervous, and was not acting like himself. Regarding Larry, 

he said that he changed his appearance by “cut[ing] his hair off” and then stopped 

coming to work. When he later came in to pick up his last paycheck, Underwood did 

not recognize him. After that, he never heard from Larry again. 

Before firing Matt, Underwood decided to ask him about what was going on 

with him personally. Matt said he was nervous. Underwood testified that he “could 

just tell he had something on his mind he wanted to get off his chest.” Matt told 

Underwood that “he was pressured” and that Larry “made him help him get rid of a 

body.” Underwood testified that the body belonged to “the girlfriend of his brother.” 

Underwood then told Matt he needed to turn himself in, and he also contacted the 

police department and provided a statement. The last Underwood heard from Matt 

was a text message stating he was turning himself in to police. 

Dwayne King also testified at trial. Dwayne explained that he is younger than 

Larry but older than Matt. At the time of Lea’s disappearance, Dwayne lived in 

Oklahoma. In September 2020, he came to Texas to drop off a truck for his father. 
11

When Dwayne arrived, he spent the night at his parent’s house in Van Vleck. On 

September 5, 2020, he received a text message from Larry, asking Dwayne to pick 

him up. Dwayne went to get Larry and the two went fishing. Later that night, they 

returned to their parents’ home. The next day, Larry went to church with Dwayne 

and their parents. Dwayne testified that this was unusual for Larry because he is not 

religious. After lunch, Dwayne was getting ready to return to Oklahoma. Larry told 

Dwayne that he was going to Pennsylvania for work and was taking a bus. He 

claimed that his bus was passing through Oklahoma City, and asked Dwayne if he 

could ride with him to Oklahoma. Dwayne presumed Lea “wasn’t in the picture” if 

Larry was going to work in Pennsylvania without Lea, because Larry typically 

“[took] her with him everywhere and he was by himself.” 

Dwayne described the ride to Oklahoma as awkward. He testified that Larry 

pretended to sleep most of the ride, and talking was minimal. The men arrived in 

Oklahoma late that evening. Larry spent the night with Dwayne, and the next day, 

Dwayne dropped Larry off at the bus stop on his way to work. 

Dwayne recalled that Matt turned himself in the following Wednesday. That 

day, Matt called Dwayne to tell him he was about to turn himself in for helping Larry 

hide Lea’s body. 

Dwayne did not have contact with Larry for ten or eleven months. He testified 

that he eventually heard from Larry in summer 2021. Larry called Dwayne from an 
12

unknown number and asked if he would come to the bus station to pick him up. 

When Larry got in the car, he asked Dwayne “how big it was.” Dwayne explained 

that he understood Larry to be asking about Lea’s case. Dwayne told him that it was 

“pretty big.” Dwayne knew that police were looking for Larry, and he told Larry 

this. He told Larry that he could come to the house to eat and shower, but then he 

would have to leave. Larry told Dwayne that “somebody killed [Lea]” and that police 

were looking for him. Larry also told Dwayne that “he felt bad for Matt going 

through this.” Larry brought gifts for Dwayne and his wife. Dwayne testified that 

Larry also had some “skull heads,” which Dwayne thought was strange. Dwayne 

testified that Larry explained “it was like [Lea] was with him” and that the skulls 

brought him closer to Lea. Larry then left Dwayne’s house after a few hours. 

C. Recorded Interviews

Though Larry did not testify at trial, the State showed the jury three recorded 

interviews he gave to police, all on September 5, 2020. In these interviews, Larry 

gave officers an account of his on-and-off again relationship with Lea, beginning in 

2015. Larry knew Lea had a drug problem and had been through drug treatment 

before their relationship began. He learned that she began using drugs again in 

December 2018. After that, Larry attempted to get Lea into various treatment 

programs, but she was not interested. Larry also told officers that she repeatedly took 
13

money from him and even when they were broken up, Lea would call him when she 

knew he was getting paid.

Regarding the days leading up to Lea’s disappearance, Larry told officers how 

Matt believed Lea took $400 from his wallet. Larry told Matt Lea never took money 

in such an obvious manner—she preferred more surreptitious methods. Regardless, 

Larry covered the $400 they needed to make rent. Larry then took what little money 

he had left to buy groceries. Larry knew Lea’s birthday was coming up, and he did 

not have money for a present, so he bought the ingredients for her favorite meal. 

Instead of being appreciative, Lea was upset that they did not have money for beer 

or cigarettes. Lea told Larry she had decided to sell one of her necklaces for money 

and then left to meet the buyer, approximately forty-five minutes away. 

That same day, Matt’s phone went missing. Larry and Matt searched the house 

but could not find the phone. Larry stated that Matt eventually had to leave for an 

appointment without his phone. While Matt and Lea were out of the apartment, Larry 

searched Lea’s things for the missing phone. When Matt came home, he continued 

with the search. At that point, Matt and Larry found what they believed to be a used 

bag of drugs under Lea’s dresser. Matt then told Larry that Lea needed to move out

because Matt did not want any drugs in his apartment. Larry called Lea and told her 

what they had found, and that Matt wanted her out of the apartment. He then accused 

her of taking the phone and the $400. Larry also accused her of leaving to buy drugs 
14

and not to sell jewelry. According to Larry, Lea only denied the accusation that the 

baggy contained drugs. She then began asking Larry for gas money, even though she 

had told him she would take her last ten dollars and fill up before she left. Larry told 

Lea that he would not come pick her up. Sometime after midnight, Lea called Larry 

and asked for a ride. Larry told Lea that he would not come get her, and that she 

needed to return Matt’s car. Eventually, Lea called and stated that the car was at 

Buc-ee’s. Matt, Larry, and some friends drove to Buc-ee’s in two vehicles to pick 

up the car. There, they found the keys and Matt’s phone inside the car, but did not 

see Lea. 

Later that night, Lea had an officer call the house to ask the men to let her 

back in. According to Larry, Matt went to Buc-ee’s to tell Lea she could not come 

back for the night. Larry slept on the couch with the couch blocking the door so that 

Lea could not return. Larry told officers that the next day, Monday, was Lea’s 

birthday. Matt went to work that morning, but Larry was scheduled to be off. Shortly 

after Matt left for work, Lea arrived at the apartment. Larry told Lea that she could 

not come in, and she called police. Larry called Matt to let him know Lea had 

returned, and Matt came home from work. Subsequently, Matt, an officer, and Lea 

had a discussion outside while Larry remained inside. At some point, Matt and the 

officer left, and Lea got inside. Larry again called Matt and let him know.
15

Lea told Larry she needed time to get into a program, but he told her she could 

not stay at the apartment any longer. When Matt came home from work again, he 

removed the thermostat and changed the locks on the front door. Larry and Matt left 

to hang out with friends because the apartment was getting hot. Lea and Matt took 

turns opening and closing the windows. Following another call from Lea, officers 

returned to the apartment. At that time, Matt, Larry, and some friends were outside 

the apartment. The officers spoke with Matt, Larry, and their friends. Larry recalled 

that the last officer advised them that the situation was a civil matter, and that if they 

kept calling police, someone would be arrested. Larry claimed that they then went 

inside and began watching television, but it was very hot in the apartment—around 

ninety-five degrees. They then decided to go to their parent’s house, sometime after 

midnight. 

During the interview, Larry told the officers that his parents had been living 

in a camper in Van Vleck, Texas. When they arrived, both their mother and father 

were at home. Larry claimed they stayed up talking to their father for awhile and did 

not go to sleep. They returned to their apartment between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. 

Larry denied that the pair made any stops on the way to their parents’ home or on 

the way back. According to Larry, when they returned to the apartment, the door 

was unlocked. Larry reported that Lea was not in the apartment when they returned. 

He stated that they then locked the door and attempted to take a quick nap before 
16

going to work. Larry indicated that he and Matt arrived at work late because they 

overslept, and when they arrived home after work that evening, Lea was still not 

there. 

Toward the conclusion of the interview, the officer confronted Larry with 

Matt’s earlier statement that Lea was at the apartment when the men returned from 

the visit to their parents’ house. Larry repeatedly denied that this was true. Larry also 

told the officers that he sent a text message to Lea, letting her know that her mother 

was looking for her. The officers told Larry that Lea’s phone had not been used since 

she called 9-1-1 on the night of August 11, 2020. Officers also told Larry that 

someone had reported that Larry said he “took care of the problem” with Lea and 

disposed of her body. Larry maintained throughout the interview that he did not do 

anything to harm Lea and did not know what had happened to her.

The jury was given an accomplice-witness instruction with regard to Matt, 

instructing that Larry could not be convicted upon Matt’s testimony unless it found 

(1) Matt’s testimony to be credible and that it showed Larry was “guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt,” and (2) other evidence in the case, outside of Matt’s evidence, 

“tending to connect” Larry with the offense charged.7 On January 30, 2023, the jury 

7 Larry was not charged for Lea’s murder—only with tampering with physical 

evidence. At trial, the jury heard testimony from the medical examiner, who 

explained that because only skeletal remains of Lea were recovered, she could not 

determine her cause of death. 
17

found Larry guilty of tampering with physical evidence, sentenced him to twenty 

years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional 

Division, and imposed a $9,800 fine. The trial court signed a judgment of conviction 

on February 8, 2023, and this appeal followed.

Accomplice Witness Testimony

We first consider Larry’s argument that the evidence presented at trial was 

insufficient to corroborate Matt’s accomplice-witness testimony.8

A. Standard of Review

An accomplice is a person who participates with a defendant in the charged 

offense before, during, or after its commission with the requisite mental state. Smith 

v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). “A conviction cannot be had 

upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending 

to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not 

sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.” TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 38.14.

“When evaluating the sufficiency of corroboration evidence under the 

accomplice-witness rule, we ‘eliminate the accomplice testimony from 

consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if there 

8 The parties do not dispute that Matt was an accomplice for purposes of the 

accomplice-witness rule. 
18

is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.’” 

Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Solomon v. 

State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). We view corroborating evidence 

in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 567 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If there are two views of the evidence, one tending to 

connect the accused to the offense and the other not, we defer to the jury’s view. 

Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 442. “[I]t is not appropriate for appellate courts to 

independently construe the non-accomplice evidence.” Id.

“[T]he corroborating evidence need not prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt by itself.” Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257. Nor is it necessary “that the 

corroborating evidence directly connect the defendant to the crime.” Cathey v. State, 

992 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Instead, the corroborating evidence 

must only link the defendant in some way to the commission of the crime and show 

that “rational jurors could conclude that this evidence sufficiently tended to connect 

the accused to the offense.” Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257 (quoting Hernandez v. State, 

939 S.W.2d 173, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (internal alterations omitted)). The 

corroborating evidence need only “connect the defendant to the crime, not to every 

element of the crime.” Joubert v. State, 235 S.W.3d 729, 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2007); see State v. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d 587, 598 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (“The 

corroboration requirement in Article 38.14 does not apply separately to each element 
19

of the offense charged or to each aspect of the accomplice’s testimony.”). There is 

no set amount of non-accomplice corroborating evidence that is required; instead, 

each case must be judged by its own facts. Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257.

Although a defendant’s mere presence at the scene of the crime, by itself, is 

not sufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony, such evidence “when coupled 

with other suspicious circumstances, may tend to connect the accused to the crime 

so as to furnish sufficient corroboration to support a conviction.” Id. (quoting Brown 

v. State, 672 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). The corroborating evidence 

may be direct or circumstantial. See Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 442. “If the combined 

weight of the non-accomplice evidence tends to connect the defendant to the offense, 

the requirement of Article 38.14 has been fulfilled.” Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 462.

B. Analysis

Larry contends that “[t]he non-accomplice evidence does not show that [he] 

had both the motive and opportunity to tamper with the physical evidence or was 

present at the time of the tampering.” We disagree with Larry’s characterization of 

the record evidence. Excluding the testimony of the accomplice (Matt), we are left 

with the following evidence:

In his recorded interviews, Larry placed himself with Matt at the time Matt 

claims the offense occurred. Larry admitted to officers he was with Matt the entire 

evening of August 11, 2020, when he contends that the men last saw Lea. This is 
20

also the timeframe that Matt testified that the disposal of Lea’s body took place, and 

the last time Lea used her cell phone, according to her phone records. Our courts 

have held that the presence of the accused with the accomplice witness at or near the 

scene of the crime or about the time of its commission, when coupled with other 

suspicious circumstances, may be sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the 

accomplice witness to support a conviction. See, e.g., Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112, 

127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (corroborating evidence included appellant’s statements 

to police acknowledging presence at time of offense, though no non-accomplice 

witnesses placed him with accomplice); Custard v. State, 812 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d)) (appellant’s statements that he was with 

accomplice at time of shooting, though he contended accomplice was shooter, 

tended to connect him to murder). 

Larry also gave false information to investigators. In his recorded interview, 

Larry reported that he sent a text message to Lea on August 12, 2020. However, the 

investigator assigned to Lea’s case, Lieutenant Jacqueline Moore, testified that Lea’s 

phone records revealed this was untrue. Lying to police officers is conduct showing 

a consciousness of guilt and may be considered as circumstantial evidence of guilt. 

See King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (making false 

statements to cover up crime is evidence indicating consciousness of guilt and 

attempt to cover up crime); Torres v. State, 794 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Tex. App.—
21

Austin 1990, no pet.) (defendant’s conduct after crime indicating consciousness of 

guilt is “one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt”). 

Additionally, testimony of other witnesses at trial tended to connect Larry 

with the tampering. First, Eric Tilitzki testified that Larry told him that “[Lea] had 

to go and they took care of it.” This statement by Larry is an admission of guilt made 

to a non-accomplice witness and tends to connect Larry to the offense. See Joubert, 

235 S.W.3d at 731 (holding defendant’s videotaped statement wherein he admitted 

involvement in offense, but denied shooting victim, tended to connect him to 

offense); Matthews v. State, 999 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

1999, pet. ref’d) (holding defendant’s confession to his sister, whose written 

statement detailing confession was admitted at trial, tended to connect him to 

offense); see also Collier v. State, No. 01-09-00478-CR, 2010 WL 5250885, at *3 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 9, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated 

for publication) (holding inculpatory statements made by defendant to nonaccomplice roommates, including statement that roommate “might see something 

on the news,” corroborated accomplice testimony). 

Further, Eric testified that during a second conversation with both Matt and 

Larry, Matt stated that “[Lea] was deceased and her body was disposed of in another 

county,” and Larry did not refute this. See Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535–

36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (recognizing silence as adoptive admission by party 
22

opponent); TEX. R. EVID. 801(e)(2)(B) (excluding from hearsay adoptive admission 

by party opponent); see also Webb v. State, No. 01-11-00403-CR, 2012 WL 

1564298, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 3, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication) (determining that non-accomplice’s testimony as to 

appellant’s silence during conversation wherein non-accomplice witness stated 

appellant committed crime corroborated accomplice’s testimony). The jury, as the 

trier of fact and sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, was free to believe or 

disbelieve all or any part of Eric’s testimony. See Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 

614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872 (1988).

Dwayne and Lieutenant Moore testified as to Larry’s flight following Lea’s 

disappearance. As noted above, Dwayne testified that he drove Larry to Oklahoma 

and then did not hear from him for ten or eleven months. Likewise, Lieutenant 

Moore testified that after her interview with Larry on September 5, 2020, Larry “left 

within a couple of days” despite her request that he stay in town or let her know if 

he left. Lieutenant Moore recalled that Larry was gone for eight months or longer 

and was eventually arrested in Wisconsin. Evidence of flight serves to corroborate 

the accomplice testimony. Cockrum v. State, 758 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1988). 

In reviewing the evidence to determine whether it tends to connect Larry to 

the offense, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. 
23

See Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 442. Larry’s arguments rely on considering the evidence 

in a manner contrary to the jury’s verdict. To the extent that the evidence gives rise 

to conflicting views, we must defer to the jury’s resolution of any conflicts in the 

evidence. See id.

Further, we disagree with Larry that the State only presented evidence of 

Matt’s motive to harm Lea and tamper with evidence of her death. Larry’s written 

statement and recorded interviews detail a long and tumultuous relationship between 

the couple, including Lea’s repeated efforts to lie and steal from him, and her drug 

use. Larry also admitted that Lea was angry with Larry’s efforts (or lack thereof) to 

celebrate her birthday on August 10, 2020, just hours before she was last seen around 

midnight on August 11, 2020. Though Larry used the last of his paycheck to buy 

groceries to cook Lea’s favorite meal, Lea complained that he did not buy any beer 

or cigarettes. From this, as well as testimony from officers who were called out to 

the apartment and gas station (which is other evidence that the situation in the 

apartment was escalating), and Larry’s discovery of what he believed to be drugs 

under Lea’s dresser, the jury could have reasoned that Larry had a motive to tamper 

with evidence of Lea’s death (her corpse). Though evidence demonstrating motive 

or opportunity of the accused to commit the crime is insufficient alone to corroborate 

accomplice witness testimony, it may be considered in connection with other 

evidence which tends to connect the accused with the crime. Reed, 744 S.W.2d at 
24

127 (concluding evidence of affair could be considered in connection with all other 

evidence tending to connect appellant to wife’s murder). 

Considering all the non-accomplice evidence, including Larry’s own 

statements, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence that tends to 

connect Larry to the charged offense of tampering with physical evidence. 

Legal Sufficiency

As mentioned earlier, Larry appears to confuse the standards of proof for the 

sufficiency of corroborating evidence and legal sufficiency to support the jury’s 

verdict as a whole. As this Court has explained, “[a] challenge of insufficient 

corroboration is not the same as a challenge of insufficient evidence to support the 

verdict.” Utomi v. State, 243 S.W.3d 75, 80 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, 

pet. ref’d). Because Larry’s brief can be read as challenging both the sufficiency of 

the corroborating evidence and the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

verdict, we turn now to the issue of legal sufficiency.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

When, as here, we are asked to review the legal sufficiency of the evidence, 

we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine 

whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. We do not eliminate the testimony of the 

accomplice witness when analyzing the legal sufficiency of the evidence as a whole. 
25

Long v. State, 245 S.W.3d 563, 569 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). 

The jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of witnesses, and the 

weight given to their testimony. Id. (citing Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d 912, 919 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). A jury is entitled to accept one version of the facts and 

reject another or reject any part of a witness’s testimony. Id.

Regarding the offense at issue, a person commits the offense of tampering 

with physical evidence if the person, (1) knowing that an offense has been 

committed, (2) alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing (3) with 

intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in any subsequent 

investigation of or official proceeding related to the offense. TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 37.09(d)(1); see also Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). 

B. Analysis

On appeal, Larry only challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence as to 

the second element of the offense of tampering with physical evidence—the altering, 

destroying, or concealing requirement. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 37.09(d)(1). 

Specifically, Larry contends that “[t]he evidence of alteration is insufficient” 

because “there was no evidence that [the] physical state [of the corpse] was 

changed.” 
26

While Larry’s argument focuses on the “alteration” language, the statute also 

includes destroying or concealing as alternative methods for tampering with 

evidence. Further, the indictment included all three alternatives9, as did the trial 

court’s charge to the jury. Thus, the State alleged alternate manners and means of 

committing the charged offense of tampering with physical evidence. Additionally, 

the jury returned a general verdict of “guilty of the offense of Tampering with 

Physical Evidence, as alleged in the indictment.”

An indictment may contain as many separate paragraphs charging the same 

offense as is necessary to meet the contingencies of the evidence. Graham v. State, 

19 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). When alternate manners or means of 

committing a crime are alleged, it is sufficient to prove only one of the manners or 

means set forth in the indictment. See Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1016 (2000) (noting that jury was charged 

in disjunctive and evidence was sufficient to support finding that appellant killed 

victim in one of manners alleged); Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256, 258–59 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 958 (1992) (holding jury’s general guilty 

9 The indictment alleged that King, “knowing that an offense has been committed[, 

did] alter or destroy or conceal a thing to wit: a human corpse[,] with intent to impair 

its verity, or legibility or availability as evidence in any subsequent investigation of 

or official proceeding related to the offense.”
27

verdict on indictment charging alternative theories of committing same offense will 

be upheld if evidence supports any of theories alleged). 

Here, Larry does not argue on appeal that the evidence is legally insufficient 

to support a finding that he destroyed or concealed Lea’s body. Because Larry does 

not challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence underlying the two alternative 

theories presented to the jury, we are required to uphold the jury’s verdict. See 

Henderson v. State, 77 S.W.3d 321, 326–27 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) 

(holding that, when appellant fails to challenge legal sufficiency of evidence as to 

alternate manners and means, appellate court is required to uphold sufficiency of 

evidence if evidence is sufficient to convict under any of submitted allegations); 

McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (holding that “[w]hen 

a general verdict is returned and the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of 

guilt under any of the paragraph allegations submitted, the verdict will be upheld”). 

Nevertheless, our review of the record evidence in this case demonstrates that 

legally sufficient evidence does exist to support a finding that Larry at least 

concealed Lea’s body, as alleged in the indictment. First, Matt testified that he and 

Larry decided that they “were going to take [Lea] somewhere where [they] could 

dispose of her body.” Throughout Matt’s testimony, references were made to 

“dumping” Lea’s body “in the woods.” He testified that they located a pipeline rightof-way, and after walking the area to make sure their vehicle would not get stuck, 
28

drove down the right-of-way and removed Lea’s body from the trunk. They then 

took the body out of the blanket it was wrapped in and wiped it down with bleach 

“to take any fingerprints off of her.” 

Later, Michael Thomas, a former crime scene investigator with Brazoria 

County Sherriff’s Department, testified about the location of Lea’s body. He testified 

that the area was off County Road 477, which he described as “an empty road.” He 

explained that the body was found off the pipeline right-of-way, a “40[-]foot[-]wide 

remote area [that] was wooded on both sides.” Thomas testified that at night, the 

area was “extremely dark” because there were no residences or businesses in close 

proximity. The body itself was located in a small opening in the tree line off the 

right-of-way, which Thomas explained “could have been for deer and other game 

that would have went into the woods.” He further described the opening as “very 

dark . . . [j]ust like any area where you have game and wildlife that live, there [were] 

holes dug, spiderwebs, grapevines, everything that you can imagine you’re trying to 

get through.” Photographs admitted at trial likewise depicted the remote nature of 

the area in which investigators located Lea’s remains.

Though the tampering-with-evidence statute does not define “conceal,” 

various Texas courts have considered the issue. See, e.g., Thornton v. State, 401 

S.W.3d 395, 398 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013) rev’d on other grounds, 425 S.W.3d 

289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Lewis v. State, 56 S.W.3d 617, 625 (Tex. App.—
29

Texarkana 2001, no pet.). More recently, in Stahmann v. State, the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals agreed with the lower court in a tampering-with-evidence case

that “[a]ctual concealment requires a showing that the allegedly concealed item was 

hidden, removed from sight or notice, or kept from discovery or observation.” 602 

S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). 

Applying that definition to the present case, legally sufficient evidence 

establishes that Matt and Larry’s placement of Lea’s body in a remote, wooded area, 

away from the roadway and far from any homes or businesses, kept the body 

“hidden” and “removed from sight,” thus establishing concealment for purposes of 

the tampering-with-evidence statute. See id. Larry’s concealment is further 

demonstrated by the fact that the body was not discovered until Matt revealed the 

location to law enforcement. Viewing the totality of the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict, including the testimony of Larry’s accomplice (Matt), see 

Long, 245 S.W.3d at 569–70, we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to 

establish Larry’s guilt and support the jury’s verdict finding that Larry tampered 

with physical evidence. 

We overrule Larry’s issue.
30

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction. 

Amparo Monique Guerra

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).