1 ... See Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08-421- CR HI E PD. NG O AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 371STDI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NTCO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON A ppel l antH i ep D . N go appeal s hi s convi ct i on f orm ur der . I n t w o poi nt s, N g o a r g u e st h a tt h e e v id e n c e is le g a llya n d f a c t u a llyin s u f f ic ie n tt o s u s t a in h is c o n v i c ti o n b e c a u s e t h e w i tn e s s e sw h o t e s ti fi e d a t tri a lw e ren o t c re d i b l e . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2 II . B AC KG ROUND O n Au gu st10, 2002 , V u Doan w ass hoti n t he hea d a nd k i l l ed i n f r ont ofa poolha l l l oca t ed i n a s t r i p s hoppi ng m al l . P r i or to t he s hoot i ng, t he pool h a l l , w h i c h h a d b e e n “c o m p l e tel yp a c k e d ,” b e g a n to c l e a r ou t as the m aj o ri ty oft he cus t om er s l eft . M i cha el S en gv i l ay, w ho w ass i xt ee n ye ar s ol d on t he ni ght oft he shooti ng, had g o n e to t he poo l hal l w i t h a coupl e off r i ends, i ncl udi ng Doan, t o “ w as t e s om e t i m e”be f or e a tt end i ng a con ce rt ata nea r by cl ub . S en gvi l ay ent er ed t he poolha l l an d s aw N go, w hom hekn ew al t hough t hey w er e notf r i ends. H e not i ced t hatN go had a bl ack eye . S e n g v i l a yt hen e x it e d t h e c lu b a n d b e g a n t a lk in g a n d “ h o r s ep la y in g ” in f r o n to ft h ep o o l h a ll w i t h Doan a nd t hei rot herco m pan i ons . W hi l e i n t he par ki ng l ot , hehe ar d Ngo and ano t herm an st artto ar gue and t hen saw N go f i r e a pi st ol i n t he ai rsever al t i m es w hi l e scr eam i ng. Byst ander s out si de oft he poo l hal l began t o scatt eras N go l ow er ed t he pi st ol and st art ed t o f i r e i nt o t he cr ow d. Seng vi l ay and D oan r an t ow ar dst he par ki ng l ot , butD oan ap par ent l y t ur ned ba ckt ow ar d t he pool hal l . Sengvi l ay cr ouc hed be hi nd a ca rl ook i ng f orhi s f r i end . He w at che d Ngo dr i ve of fw i t h a not herm an. As hes urvey ed t he par ki ng l ot , hes aw D oan on t he gr ound w i t h a guns hotw ound i n t he hea d. A tt r i al , Lana V o, t he m anageroft he poo l hal l , t est i f i ed t hatN go w as a cus t om eran d t haton t he ni ghtoft he sh oot i ng Ngo w asatt he p oo l ha l l an d3

had a bl ac ke y e . S h e t e s t i f i e d t h a tt h es h o o t i n g h a d o c c u r r e d o u t s i d eo ft he p o o l h a ll a n d t h a ts h e w a sg iv e n t w o d e s c r ip t io n so ft h es h o o t e rb yp e o p le f l eei ng i nt o t he poo l hal l . O ne per son st at ed t hat t he shooter had a bl ack eye, and t he ot herr eport e d th a t th e shoot erw as a “ shortand bul ky guy. ” W hen sh e h ea r d t hes e d es cr i pt i ons , V o “ t hough tof ” N go beca us e h e m at che d t he d e s c ri p ti o n o f th e s h o o te r. Jul i e Ly, w ho w as ni net een year s ol d att he t i m e oft he shooti ng, t est i f i ed t h a ts h e p e r s o n a llyk n e w N g o . S h ee x p la in e d t h a ts h ew a ss itt in g in h e rc a rin t he par ki ng l oti n f r ontoft he poolha l l w ai t i ng f ora f r i end an d s aw a cr ow d em er ge f r om t he p o o l h a l l a n d m i l l ar oun d i n f r ont oft he ent r ance. She saw N go a ppr oac h ane ar by c arbutt hen l os ts i ghtofhi m . L y he ar d a s houtan d t h e n s a w N g o f ir e a p is t o l f ir s t in t o t h e a ir , th e n in t o t h ec r o w d in f r o n to fh im . L ysa w D o a n g e t sh o t. H an D oa t est i f i ed t ha t she has know n N go f ort hr ee year s. She st at ed t hatshe w e n tt o t he poo l hal l on t he eveni ng of t he shooti ng t o m eether boyf r i end Ti nh N guye n. I ns i de t he poolha l l , s he sa w N guye n w i t h Ngo. Doa l eftt he poolha l l t o s pea k w i t h a f r i end i n t he pa r ki ng l ot . She w ass t and i ng nextt o N guye n’ s ca r w hen N guye n a nd Ngo w al ke d up and ope ned t he t r unk oft he ca r . She sa w N go t ak e a n obj ec toutoft he t r unkan d w al k t ow ar d t he c ro w d th a t h a d g a th e re d o u ts i d eo f th ep o o l h a l l . M i n u te sla t e r, D o a h e a rd4

shot s f i r e d, a l t ho ug h s he c ou l d no t s e e t he s ho ot e r . Ngo a nd Nguyen t hen r u s h e d t o w a r d sN g u y e n ’s c a r , a n d N g u y e n o r d e r e d D o a t o g e t in t o t h ev e h ic le and dr i ve. Fo urpe opl e w er e p r es enti n t he ca rasD oa pul l ed aw ay: Doa i n t he d r iv e r ’s s e a t ; N g u y e n n e x tt o h e r ; a n d N g o a n d a w o m a n D o a d id n o tk n o w in t he back seat . N guyen f or ced D oa t o dr i ve t o H oust on. D oa tes ti fi e d t hat dur i ng t he dr i ve, N go a nd Nguyen d i scu sse d w hatha d oc cur r ed and N go a d m itt e d t o f ir in g t h e s h o t sin f r o n to ft h ep o o l h a ll. A ft ert he sh oot i ng, pol i cet al ke d t o S eng vi l ay, V o, and Ly . Seng vi l ay and Ly t ol d t he pol i cet hatN go w ast he sh oot er , a nd V o t ol d t hem t hats he s u s p e c te d th a t N g o w a sth e s h o o te r. B ye a rl y2 0 0 7 , N g o h a d re l o c a te d to L o u i s i a n a a n d h a d b e c o m ea “ v e ry goo d associ at e[ ] ” ofW esl ey Lee , a feder al f el on. Lee t est i f i ed t hatN go had t ol d hi m t hatheha d be en “a ta cl ub, s om e t ypeofga m e r oom ” w hen he“ got i nt o i tw i t h s om e f ool s. ” N go t ol d Le e t hat he w ent t o hi s ca ran d “ w ai t ed f or t he f ool s t o c om e o ut . ” W hen t heyex i t ed, “ he sh otone oft hem i n t he hea d, ki l l ed oneoft hem . An d he g ot i n t he ca r , pul l [ ed] of f , ” and f l ed t o Houst on. L e e co n tac ted the T a rr a n t C o u n ty S h e ri ff’ s D e p a rt m e n t a fter N g o co n fes se d to hi m . Lee t est i f i ed at N go’ s t r i al t hat t he pr osecut or had agr eed t o w r i t e a l ett er on Lee’ s behal fseek i n g a r educti on i n Lee’ s pr i son sent ence i fhe t est i f i ed aga i ns tN go.5

A u na ni m ou s j ury co nv i cted N go f or D oa n’s m urde r , an d the t r i al c o u rt su b se q u e n tl yse n ten c e d h i m to l i fe i m p ri so n m e n t. II I. S TA NDA RDS OFR EVI EW A . LegalSu ff i ci ency I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l s uf f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet o s upporta con vi ct i on, w e v ie w a ll o f th e e v i d e n c e i n th el i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l eto th ep ro s e c u ti o n in or dert o de t er m i ne w het heran y r at i ona l t r i eroff ac tco ul d ha ve f ou nd t he e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n tso f th e c ri m eb e y o n d a re a s o n a b l ed o u b t. Ja ckson v. V ir ginia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h i s s tan d a rd g i v e s fu l l p la yt o t h e res p o n sibi l i ty o f t h etr i e r of fac t t o r esol ve confl i ct s i n t he t est i m ony, t o w ei gh t he evi dence, an d t o dr aw re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e sfro m b a s i c fa c tsto u l ti m a te fa c ts . Jacks on , 4 43 U . S . at 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 235 S . W . 3d at778. The t r i eroff ac ti s t he s o l e j u d g e o f th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i ty o f th ee v i d e n c e . SeeT e x . C o d eC r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 4(V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); Brownv. S tate , 270 S. W . 3d 564, 568 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). T h u s , w h e n p e rfo rm i n g a l e g a l s u fficie n c yre v i e w , w e m a yn o t r e -ev a l u a te th e w e i g h t an d cre d i b i l i ty o f t h eev i d e n c ea n d su b sti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r. D e wb erryv. S tate , 4 S. W . 3d 735, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U . S . 1 1 3 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . I n s t e a d , we6

“d et er m i ne w het hert he nec es sa ry i nf er enc esar e r ea so nab l e b as ed up on t he com bi ned an d c um ul ati ve f or ceofal l t he evi den cew hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m ost f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” Ho op er v. S tate , 2 14 S. W . 3d 9, 16–1 7 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2007 ) . W e m us tpr es um e t hatt he f ac t f i nde rr es ol ved an y con f l i ct i ng i nf er enc esi n f avo roft he pr os ec ut i on and def ert o t hatr es ol ut i on. Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. B. Fact ualSu ff i ci ency W h e n rev i e w i n g the fac tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h eev i d e n c eto s u p p o rt a con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. Nea l v. S ta te, 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cert. denied, 129 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); W a tso nv. S tate , 204 S . W . 3d 404, 414 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 6) . W e t hen as k w het hert he evi den ces upport i ng t he con vi ct i on, al t hough le g a lly s u f f ic ie n t , is n e v e rt h e le s s s o w e a k t h a t t h e f a c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is c le a r lyw r o n g a n d m a n if e s t ly u n ju s to rw h e t h e rc o n f lic t in g e v id e n c es o g r e a t ly o u tw e i g h sth e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th ec o n v i c ti o n th a t th efa c tfin d e r’s d e te rm i n a ti o n i sm a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. L an c o nv. S tate , 2 53 S. W . 3d 699, 704 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W atson , 20 4 S . W .3 d at41 4– 15 , 41 7. To r ever se unde r t he se con d gr ound, w e m us t det er m i ne, w i t h s om e o bj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he r ec or d, t hatt he gr ea tw ei gh tand pr epo nde r anc e o fal l t he evi den ce , t hough l e g a l l ys u fficie n t, c o n tra d i c tsth ev e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417.7

I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th ee v i d e n c eis fa c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y su f f i ci ent evi den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a s u bj e c ti v el e v e l o f r e a so n a b l ed o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W ec a n n o tc o n c lu d et h a ta c o n v ic t io n is c le a r ly w r o n g o rm a n if e s t lyu n ju s ts im p lyb e c a u s ew ew o u ld h a v ed e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ryo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e ew it h t h eju ry ’s r e s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin th e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m ay nots i m pl y s ubs t i t ut e ou rj ud gm en tf ort he fa c tfin d e r’s . Jo hn so nv. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ca in v. S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n l e s sth ere c o rd c l e a rl yre v e a l st h a t a d i ffe re n t re s u l t i sa p p ro p ri a te , w em u s t d e fe r to th ej u ry ’s det er m i nat i on of t he w ei ght t o be gi ven con t r adi ct or y t est i m oni al evi dence b e c a u se res o l u ti o n o f t h e co n fl i c t “o ften turn s o n an ev a l u a ti o n o f cred i b i l i ty and dem eanor , and t hose j ur or s w er e i n at t endan ce w hen t he tes t i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t8 . T h u s , u n le s s w e c o n c l u d et h a titis nec es sa ry t o c or r ec tm ani f es ti nj us t i ce , w e m us tgi ve duede f er enc e t o t he f ac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “ part i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i onsco nce r ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . a t 9 . O u r d e fe re n c ei n th i sre g a rd s a fe g u a rd sth e d e fe n d a n t’sri g h t to a tri a l b yj u ry . Lancon, 253 S. W . 3d a t704. A n opi ni on addr essi ng f act ual suff i ci ency m usti ncl ude a di scussi on of t he m ost8

i m port antan d r el eva ntev i den cet hats upport s t he ap pel l ant ’ s com pl ai nton a p p e a l . Si

m s v. S tate , 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ).

IV . S UFF I CI E NCY OF THEE VIDENCE In t w o p o in t s , N g o a r g u e st h a tt h ee v id e n c eisle g a ll ya n d f a c t u a lly in s u f f ic ie n tt o c o n v ic th im o fm u r d e r . S p e c if ic a lly , h ec o n t e n d st h a tn o c r e d ib le t est i m ony exi st ed t o est abl i sh t he el em ent s ofm ur derbecause every w i t ness w as“ ei t herl yi ng, gr ant ed i m m uni t y f or perj ury, orw as n’ ts ur e o fw hat[ he or s h e ] k n e w .” A . Law on M ur der A pe r so n c om m i t s m ur deri fhei nt ent i ona l l y ork no w i ngl y c aus est he deat h ofan i ndi vi dual ori nt ends t o cause ser i ous bod i l y i nj ur y and com m i t s an ac tcl ea r l y da nge r oust o hum an l i f e t hatca us est he dea t h ofan i ndi vi dua l . Tex . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 1 9 .0 2 (b )(1 )– (2 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). B. Legal l y S uff i ci entEvi dence V i e w i n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th el i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l eto th ev e rd i c t, th ere c o rd dem onst rate s t hatt w o eyew i t nesses— both ofw hom per sonal l y knew N go— t es t i f i ed t hatt heys aw N go f i r e a pi st ol i nt o t he cr ow d out si de oft he pool h a l l . See Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 1 9 , 9 9 S .C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 235 S. W . 3d at77 8. At hi r d w i t ness— w ho al so per so n a l l yk new N go— t est i f i ed t hat m om ent s bef or e t he sh oot i ng, s he sa w N go and N guye n ge ts om et hi ng ou tof2 ... N go a r gue s t ha tt he evi den cer ega r di ng w het herheha d a bl ac k e ye

o n the n i g h t of th e s h o o ti n g is inc o n sisten t. T h i s a rgu m e n t i s n o t ap p rop ri a te f or our l egal suf f i ci ency r evi ew , i n w hi ch w e m ustpr esum e t hatt he f act f i nder r esol ved any confl i ct i ng i nf er ences i n f avoro fthe prosecut i on and def erto t hat re s o l u ti o n . Se e Jac kson , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 235 S . W . 3d at77 8. C onsequ ent l y, w e w i l l ad dr ess N go’ s ar gum ent , w hi ch he al so r ai se s i n hi s f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y po i nt , i n ourf ac t uals uf f i ci enc y r evi ew be l ow . 9 t he t r unkofN guye n’ s ca r , t hats he hea r d s hot s and s aw t he cr ow d r unni ng, and t hatN go and N guye n t hen f or ce d heri nt o t he ca ran d or der ed hert o dr i ve t hem t o Houst on. The sa m e w i t nes s t es t i f i ed t hatdur i ng t he t r i p t o Houst on, N go con f essed to fi ri n g t he shot s out si de oft he poo l hal l . Af ourt h w i t ness t es t i f i ed t hats he al so knew N go per so nal l y and sa w hi m att he poolhal l on t he ni ghtoft he sh oot i ng. She exp l ai ned t hats he r ec ei ved t w o de sc r i pt i onsoft he shooter

— t ha th e w a ss ho rta nd b ul k y a nd t ha th eh a d a b l a c ke ye — a nd t hat N go m at ched bo t h oft he descr i pt i ons. 2 A f i ft h w i t ness t est i f i ed t hatN go had t ol d hi m t hatheha d s hotan d k i l l ed so m eon e a ta gam e r oom i n Tar r antCount y. V i e w i n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th el i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l eto th ej u ry ’sv e rd i c t, w e ho l d t hata r at i ona l t r i eroff ac tco ul d ha ve f ound t hatt he t es t i m ony oft he w i t nes se s at t r i al w as su f f i ci ent t o es t abl i sh t he el em ent s ofm ur derbe yond a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. See Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d a t 7 7 8 ; s e eal s o Tex . Pe na l Cod eAnn . § 19 . 02( b) ( 1) –( 2)10

(p r o v id in g e le m e n t so fm u r d e r ). A c c o r d in g ly , w eh o ld t h a tt h ee v id e n c e is l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rtN g o ’s c o n v i c ti o n . W eo v e rr u l eN g o ’s se c o n d p o i n t. C . Fact ual l y S uff i ci entEvi dence N g o a r g u e st h a tf a c t u a l l yin s u f f ic ie n te v id e n c ee x is t st o s u p p o rth is con vi ct i on be ca us e t he evi den ce r ega r di ng w het her he had a bl ac k eyeon t he ni ght oft he shooti ng i s i n c onsi st ent . H e poi nt s t o t he f ol l ow i ng al l eged in c o n s is t e n c ie st o s u p p o rth isa r g u m e n t : (1 ) V o , t h em a n a g e ro ft h ep o o l h a ll, t est i f i ed t hatshe r ecei ved t w o di f f er ent descr i pt i ons oft he shooter

— one as a guy w i t h a bl ack eye and one as a shortand bul ky m an; ( 2) Sen gvi l ay t est i f i ed t h a tNg o h a d a b l a c ke y e o n t h en i g h to ft h es h o o t i n g , b u th ed i d n o tt e l l t he pol i cet hatf ac t ; ( 3) Lyt esti f i ed t hats he di d nots eei fN go ha d a bl ac k e ye b e c a u se sh e w a s n o t cl o se en o u g h to h i m ; a n d ( 4 ) D a o , w h o tr a v e l e d to H ous t on w i t h Ngo i m m edi at el y aft ert he sh oot i ng, t es t i f i ed t hats he di d not r em em beri fN go had a bl ack eye. N g o a rgu es t hatt hi s t est i m ony cr eat ed con f l i ct i ng e vi den cean d t hat“ t he m os ti m port antf ac t , t he bl ac k e ye, w asnot m e n ti o n e d to p o l i c e u n ti l m u c h l a te r i n ti m e .”3 ... Fol l ow i ng t he sh oot i ng , a n of f i ce rpr es ent ed Sengvi l ay and t w o or

t hr ee ot her peo pl e w i t h a phot o sp r ea d, w hi ch i ncl ude d a phot o ofN go a nd f i ve ot her s. Seng vi l ay i denti f i ed N go as t he shooterbutt w o oft he ot her peo pl e— w hos e i den t i t i es ar e not r eve al ed i n t he r ec or d— cou l d noti den t i f y t he shooter . O n appeal , N go a rgu e s t hatt hi s i ncon si st ency r ender s t he evi dence f act ual l yi nsuf f i ci entt o suppo rthi s convi ct i on. H ow ever , att r i al , t he of f i cer t est i f i ed t hatt hese t w o peop l e coul d not i denti f y any o n e in t he pho t o spr ead because t hey di d not see t he shooteratt he t i m e oft he of f ense. 11 Butt hi s t es t i m ony i s notco nt r adi ct ory. 3 I t i s u n d e rstan d a b l e , a s th eS tate poi nt s out , t hatey ew i t nes se s w ho k new N go byna m e w oul d des cr i be hi m by nam e, r at hert han as a guy w i t h a b l a c ke y e, w hen t hey t al ked t o pol i ce. Furt her m or e, even i ft he w i t nesses’ t est i m ony w as i ncon si st ent , t he j ur y w as f r ee t o bel i eve t hei r t r i al t est i m ony over t he st at em ent s t hey m ade t o t he pol i ce. Se eCh am b ers v. S tate , 8 0 5 S .W .2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Sh a rp v. S tate , 7 0 7 S .W .2 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ); Ba ker v. S tate , N o. 1 4 -0 8 -0 0 0 4 7 -C R , 2 0 0 9 W L8 3 8 2 5 7 , a t * 3 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] M a r. 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p ., n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l ic a t io n ); see al so F u en tesv. S tate , 9 9 1 S .W .2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 528 U . S. 1 0 2 6 (1999) ( not i ng t hati nco ns i st enc y go est o t he cr edi bi l i t y oft he w i tn e s s e sa n d th e j u ryi sth e s o l ej u d g eo f th a t i s s u e ). N g o a ls o c o n t e n d st h a tL e e ’s t e s t im o n yw a sn o tc r e d ib leb e c a u s e “ it [ w as ] en t i r el y ba se d on [ hi s] de si r e t o obt ai n hi s f r ee dom . ” H e a ss ert s t hatt he S t a t e g r a n t e d L e e “ im m u n it yf o rp e rju ry ”in e x c h a n g e f o rh ist e s t im o n y , b u tt h is12

al l egat i on i s notsupport ed by t he r ecor d. M or eover , i tw as w i t hi n t he pur vi ew o f th e j u ryto d e te rm i n e th e c re d i b i l i tyo f L e e ’ste s ti m o n y . See Fuentes , 991 S. W . 2d at271. The j ury w aspr es ent ed w i t h a m pl e e vi den ceco nce r ni ng t he ci r cum st anc esofLe e’ s t es t i m ony and w ast huspos i t i one d t o r es ol ve que st i ons a b o u t h i sc re d i b i l i tya n d th e w e i g h t to b eg i v e n to h i ste s ti m o n y . See Bo nham v. S tate , 6 8 0 S .W .2 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 8 6 5 (1 9 8 5 ). N ot hi ng i n t he r ec or d s ugge st s t hatanyoneot hert han N go k i l l ed D oan . Se eRo yv. S tate , 76 S. W . 3d 87, 103 ( Te x. App . — Hous t on [ 14t h Di s t . ] 2002 , no pet . ) ( r ej ect i ng f act ual suf f i ci ency com pl ai ntw hen eyew i t ness t est i f i ed t hat he sa w de f end ant com m i t cr i m e and def end ant “d i d nott es t i f y orpr es entan y c o n tr a ry e v i d e n c e ”). C o n tr a ry to N g o ’s a ss e rt i o n s o n a p p e a l , n o th i n g su g g e sts t hatt he w i t nes se s w er e “ l yi ng”or“ w er en’ ts ur e o fw hatt heykn ew . ” D oa and S e n g v i l a y , b o th o f w h o m p e rso n a l l ykn e w N g o , w i tn e ss e d N g o fi re a p i sto l i n to t he ai ran d i nt o t he cr ow d i n f r ont ofh i m . Thr ee w i t nesses t est i f i ed t hatD oan w as shot t hr oug h t he head as a r esul t of t he shooti ng, an d the m edi cal e xa m i ne rt e s t i f i e d t ha tDoa n di e d ofa g unsh otw ou nd t o t heh e a d. Tw o w i tn e s s e st e s ti fi e d t h a t N g o c o n fe s s e d t o t h es h o o ti n g s . T h u s , d e s p i te N g o ’s a rg u m e n tsth a t th e rew e re“ i n c o n s i s te n c i e s ”i n th ete s ti m o n ya n d th a t L e e ’s t est i m ony w as not cr edi bl e, suf f i ci ent evi dence w as ot her w i se pr esent ed t hat13

s u p p o rte d N g o ’sc o n v i c ti o n fo rm u r d e r. Se eBo wdenv. S tate , 628 S. W . 2d 7 8 2 , 7 8 4( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) (ho l d i n g tha t t h ejuryis to re so l v eco n fl i c ts i n e vi de nc e and s uch co nf l i ct s w i l l notca l l f orr eve r sa l i ft her e i s eno ugh c re d i b l e te s ti m o n yto s u p p o rt th ec o n v i c ti o n ). W e h aver evi ew ed t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , an d w e f i nd no o b je c t iv e b a s i si n th e re c o rd fo r h o l d i n g th a t th ej u ry ’sv e rd i c t w a sc l e a rly w r ong o rm ani f es t l y un j us tort hat i t w as con t r adi ct ed by t he gr ea tw ei ghtan d p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . See L anc on , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W atson , 204 S. W . 3d at414– 15, 417. Rat her , t he evi den cepr es ent ed att r i alw ass uf f i ci ent t o s upportt he ver di ct , and no c ont r ary e vi den ceex i st s t hatw oul d r end ert he e v id e n c e fa c tu a l l yi n s u fficie n t u n d e r th ea p p l i c a b l es ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . See Lancon , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W atson , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 ; Baker, 2 0 0 9 W L8 3 8 2 5 7 , a t* 3 . A c c o r d in g ly , w eh o ld t h a tt h ee v id e n c eisf a c t u a lly su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rtN g o ’s co n v i c ti o n . W eo v e rr u l eN g o ’s fi rst po i n t. V . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o fN g o ’sp o i n ts , w ea ffir m th etri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J ul y 9, 2009