NO. 07-07 -028 1-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JOHNNY

LLAMAS , APPE LLA NT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF B EXA R CO UNT Y; NO . 200 6CR 8798A; H ON ORABLE RA Y MO ND AN GELI NI , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, Johnn y

Ll amas, w as conv icted o f th e o f fe nse of capi tal murder and puni shmentw as ass ess ed at impri sonmentfor life in the Insti tuti onal Div is ion of the Tex as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l Ju s ti c e. Ap pe l l an t ap pe al s the tr i al c ou rt’ s j ud g me nta nd w e affi r m.

Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und On Ma y 23, 2006, two men entered the Roa d Run ner Food Ma rk et in San A ntoni o, Tex as. O n duty

at the c ounter

of the mar ketw as S u ndeep ( Sunny ) Si ng h. There w as2

ano ther e mp l oy ee a t th e s to re, G i l be rt Arec hi g a, w ho w as i n th e ba c ko f t he s tore re sto ck ing the cool er . The mark et was eq uip ped with a nu mber of v ide o c amera s a nd thes e cameras ca ptured w hat o cc ur re d w hen t he two woul d- be robbers e ntered th e s tore. Upo n ent ry , one of the robbers, subs eq uentl y i denti fied as appel lan t, brandi shed a shot gun. Imm e d ia t e ly a fter ent ering the store, app ellantshot th e cash regi ster. W hile appel lan t poi nted the s hotg un atthe cl er k, the s econd robber w e n t a ro und t he c ounter toward th e cash register. As the se cond rob ber app roach ed the ca sh register, th e v ictim produce d a c an of

pepper spray

and beg an spray ing the ro bber
. The v icti m then re ached for a b a seball bat and, at t his ti me, th e fatal sh ot was fire d. From the back of the s tore, Arechi g a heard “ it ’s a ro bber y ” follo w ed by a shot g un bla st. A few se conds l ater , t here w as a n o th e r sh o tgu n bl a st . A re ch iga im m e d ia te ly ca lle d 91 1 on hi s ce l l ph o n e . A re ch iga sta y ed i n the cooler

for f iv e to ten mi nutes before comi ng out. U pon g oin g to the front o f the s tore, he found Sunny dead. Upon arrivin g a tthe scen e, th e San Anto nio Po lice Departm ent(SAPD) of f icers found an ex pended shot g un s hel l and not ic ed th at t he ai r cont aine d a heavy sc ent o f pepper spray . Arechi g a confir med that Sunny alway s c ar ri ed pepp er sp ra y . An empty

ca n of pepper

sp ra y w as found behi nd th e c ounter , c los e to the v icti m. The p oli ce obtai ned t he coope ra ti on of the mark et’ s o w ner i n re tr iev ing the sur

v eil lan ce camera’s footag e of the events tha t night. Af

ter v iew ing the scene s on the hard drive of the comp ute r, the po lice w ere ab le to de term ine th e general de scription of th e a ssailant s and w hatthey were w earing at the time o f

the m urde r. The v ideo w as transferred f rom th e ha rd driv e to a CD Rom t h a t w a s t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y b y t h e p o l i c e . P o l i c e t e c h n i c i a n s l a t e r t ra n s ferr ed th e3

v ide o from the CD Rom to a DV D dis c. This D VD w as int ro duced at tr ial and pla y ed for the jur y . W hil e proc ess ing the sc ene, the p oli ce noted that no money had been t aken from the cas h reg is ter

and, furth er , t hat S unny ’s w all et c ontai nin g $270 had notbeen dis tur bed. The foll ow ing day , add it ion al cr ime sc ene t echni ci ans and a pol ic e off ic er l ocat ed v ar iou s p iec es of cl othi ng and a pai r of late x g lov es in an area c los e to the ma rket. The it ems found g enerall y

m atc hed the descr ipt ion of the cl othi ng wor n by

the ro bbers. Al l of th is m a te ria l was u lt im a te ly su b m it te d fo r DNAte st in g. The SAPD dete cti v e i n c harg e of the inv est ig ati on recei v ed a ti p tha t Sh aron Bor re g o had infor mati on reg ardin g the ide nti ty of on e of the s uspects. Thi s i nformati on l ed to th e arr e stof

ap p e lla n t a n d an o th e r in d ivid u a l, Ja co b Sa n Migu e l. Aft e r o b ta in in g a search w arrant, b u c c al sw abs were taken f rom b oth app ellantand SanMiguel. Th ese swabs w ere al so submi tted for D NA tes ti ng . The DN A te sti ng rev eal ed th at bl ood s tai ns found on th e v ar iou s a rt ic les of cl othi ng found near

the marke t were c o n sist ent w it h the D NA of the v icti m. F urther , t he te sti ng re v eal ed that the buccal sw ab DN A for appel lan t was cons is tent w it h D NA found on o ne of the pi eces of cl othi ng found near the sc ene. After a j ur

y had been s ele cte d, ap pel lan t fil ed a moti on to di sc harg e hi s a ppoi nted couns el. The record rev eal s that the motion w as filed w it h the distr ict cle rk on the F ri day before t est imony

w as to be g in on Monday
. On Monda y , the tri al beg an and the is sue of appel lan t’ s mot ion w as nev er broug ht t o the tr ial co urt’ s a ttent ion
.4

At t ri al, the Stat e produce d th e t e st im o ny of another

i nmate w ho te sti fied th at a p p e lla n t h a d ad m it te d sh o o ti n g th e victi m du rin g th e rob b e ry. Fu rt h e r, Sh a ro n Bo rre go tes ti fied th at, on th e ni g ht of the robber y , s he was li v ing w it h appel lan t. H er tes ti mony

w as tha t app ellantlef

t w ith a sho tgun on the night in q u e s t io n in the com pan y of SanMiguel. W hen app ell ant retur ned home, he was extremely ag it ated and admitted t o hav ing ki ll ed the v icti m. The jur y conv icted appel lan t and, at the puni shmenthear ing , ans w ered th e s peci al is sues i n the aff ir mati v e. The resul t was that appel lan t w as sent enced to li fe impr is onment w it hout parole
. By fiv e i ss ues, appel lan t c hal len g es the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt. Appe llant ass erts that the t ri al cour t c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r in: 1) fa ili n g t o gra nt t he req uestof appella nt for

a c hang e of appoi nted couns el, 2) fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y on t he l ess er inc lud ed offense of murde r, 3) admi tti ng “ g ru esome” ph o t o g ra p h s i n t o e v i d e nce, 4) al low ing a w it ness to re ad from a doc ument no t admi tted int o ev ide nce, and 5) admitti ng the DV D into e v iden ce w ithou t a prop er chain o f cu stod y . Disagreeing w ith app ellant , w e w ill af f irm the j udg ment. Appoi nted Cou nsel By hi s first poi nt of

error , appell ant conte nds that the failure of the tr ial courtto g ra nt a p pel lan t’ s req uestto re pla ce appoi nted couns el w it h anot her appoi nted couns el w as re v ersi ble er ro r. At the outs et, w e not e tha t t his i s a ca pit al murde r cas e and the j ur y w as selecte d by i ndividual v oir dire. Appe llant was app ointe d tw o att orne y s to represe nt him5

on J uly 25, 2006. Jury

selecti on bega n on Apr il 20, 2007, and concl uded w it h the se lecti on of the final j uror on Ma y 9, 2007. On Ma y 11, 2007, after the j ur y had been s ele cte d, bu t before t hey

w ere s w or n, ap pel lan t fil ed a pro se mot ion at tem pting to discha rg e his app ointe d att orne y s. Th is motio n w as f iled w ith t h e B e x ar Count y Distri ct Clerk. The re w as no order settin g the mot ion fo r hea ring. In fa ct, the record ref lects tha t w hen the cou rt convene d on the followi ng Mon day, May 1 4, 200 7, app ellantsa id not hing to the trial court about the mot ion
. W e can f ind no supp ort in the record for the p ropo sition th at th e mo tion to dismiss app ointe d cou nsel w as ever brought to the t rial cou rt’s at ten tion. T his is fa tal to ap pellan t’s posi ti on for two reasons. Fi rs t, the t ri al cour t was deni ed th e oppor tuni ty to ru le on th e moti on. As suc h, t he sa m e h as not b een preser v ed for appeal
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33. 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. S e c o n d , w h e n a p p l i e d t o a re q u e s t t o d i s mi s s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , the law re qu ir e s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtb e in fo rm e d o f t h e m o t io n in a t im e ly m a n n e r. Se e Ma lc o m v. Sta te , 628 S.W .2d 7 90, 7 91 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1982)
. The record fail s t o s how thatthe mo tion was ever brou ght to the atte ntion of the trial court. Accordin gly, we ov errule appel lan t’ s first is sue. Lesse r Include d Of fense Appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue c omplai ns about the t ri al cour t’ s refusal to g iv e a l ess er in clu d e d ch a rge o n t h e o f fe n se o f m u rd e r. Co u n se l fo r a p p e lla n t re que st e d s u ch a ch a rge at t he c harg e c onferenc e, bu t t he tr ial co urt den ied the req uest
. Appel lan t was ind icted for ca p it a l m u rd e r th a t all e ged a p p e lla n t did in te n ti o n a lly ca u se th e d e a th o f Su n d e e p Sin ghAppe llant’s brief d oes notargue for the lesse r included of fense of robbe ry , w hich 1 w as als o req uest ed by

tr ial co unsel , and w e do not a ddress thati ss ue. A n o ffe n s e i s a l e s s e r

i n c l u d e d o ffe n s e i f: 2 (1 ) it is est abl is hed by proof o f t he same or les s t han al l the fact s req uired to est abl is h the co mmiss ion of the o ffense charg ed; .
. . . 6 by sh ooti ng hi m w ith a d e a d ly w eapon, a firear m, w hil e appel lan t was in the c ourse of com mitt ing or atte mp ting to com mit th e of fense o f rob bery. From a revi ew of app ellant ’s sec ond i ss ue, i t i s a pparent t hat a ppel lan t is c ontendi ng that , s inc e the ev ide nce did not show thatany

mon e y was t a ke n i n the robber y , t he j ur

y sh oul d hav e been all ow ed to det ermin e if

the ap pellan t w as guilty of only mu rder and not cap ital mu rder. 1 W hen we rev iew

an a ll eg ati on th at t he tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to g iv e a req uest ed les ser i ncl uded offense c harg e, we must eng ag e i n a tw o par t ana lysi s. H all v . St ate, 225 S
. W
. 3 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 5 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e f irs tp a rto f t h e a n a lys is is a qu e s t io n o f la w, w here w e c ompare the el ements of the o ffense as allege d i n the in dictment w it h the elem ent s of

the po ten tial lesser include d of fense . Id. In t h e c a s e b efore the Court, all par ti es hav e ag re ed th at t he req uest ed l ess er i ncl uded of

fe n se , m u rd er , i s a l ess er inc lud ed of

fense under the capi tal murder st atute , as i ndi cte d. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . § 37.09( 1) ( Ver non 200 6)
. The s econd st ep i n the anal y si s req uires that w e rev iew 2 the ev iden ce to asce rtain if t here is som e evidence in the reco rd t hatwould perm it a jury ra ti onal ly to find th at, if the defendant i s g uil ty , he is g uil ty onl y of t h e l e ss e r inc lud ed offense. Hal l, 225 S.W .3d a t 536 ( ci ti ng Bi g nal l v . St ate, 887 S. W .2d 2 1, 23 (Tex .C ri m.App.1 994) ). Thi s s econd st ep i s t he q uest ion for u s t o dec ide
.F urther referenc es to t he Tex as Penal C ode w il l be by referenc e to “§ ___. ” 3 7 Fi rs t, appel lan t’ s a rg ument i s c entered on the factthatno mone y w as tak en from the cas h reg is ter

or the deceased
. Acc ordin g ly , appell ant p osi ts that thi s was not a murder commi tted dur ing the course of committi ng robber y . This anal y si s d oes not cons ide r that th e in d ict m e n t c h a rge d m u rd e r in th e co u rse o f co m m it ti n g or

atte mp ti ng t o com mit ro bber y . The fact t hat n o money w as tak en does not eq uate to proof t hat, if the a ppel lan t w as g uil ty , he w as g uil ty of on ly the les ser inc lud ed offense. W e mustl ook to t he s tatut e involv ed to prope rly

ana lyz e app ellant ’s argume nt. T he eleme nts of robb ery , as app licable here, are: (a ) A person commi ts an offe n se i f , i n the co urse of committi ng theft as defined i n C hapter

31 a nd w it h i ntentto obta in o r m a int ain co ntrol of the proper ty , he: (1) intent iona lly , knowing ly , or recklessly cause s bod ily

injury to ano the r; T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 29. 02( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 6)
. F urther more, “in t h e c ourse of 3 commi tti ng theft” i s d efined as “ condu ct that occ urs i n an attemptto commi t, dur ing the com mission , o r in i m m e diate f lig ht after the atte mp t or comm ission of theft.” § 29. 01(1 ). C o u rt s i n T e x a s h a v e l o n g re c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e a ct u a l c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f fe n s e o f t h e ft is not a prereq uis it e to the c ommis si on of the offense of robbe ry . See R obi nson v . St ate, 596 S. W .2d 1 30, 1 34 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1980) ; Dou g las v . Stat e, No. 04- 04- 00059- CR , 200 5 Tex .App. LEX IS 6 063, at * 6, ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o, A ug ust3, 2005, pet. r e f ’d)( not d e s ig n a t e d fo r p u b li c a t io n ). T h is is so b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e is n o tre qu ir e d t o sh o w a compl eted theft to est abl is h the cor pus del ic ti of robber

y . See Purser v . St ate, 902 S. W .2d8

641, 6 4 7 ( T e x.A pp.–El Pas o 1995, pet. ref’d)
. See al so Jefferson v . St ate, 144 S. W .3d 612 , 613 -14 (T e x.Ap p.–Am arillo 2004 , no pe t.). W hatw e con clude f rom th ese ca ses is that the fai lure to prov e a c omplet ed th eft does not, in and of i ts elf, en ti tl e appel lan t t o a lesser include d cha rg e of murd er. H o w e v e r , w e m u s ta l s o re v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r mi n e i f t h e re i s m or e than a s c in t il la o f

e vid e n c e t h a two u ld a ll o w a ra t io n a l ju ry t o co n c lu d e t h a t , if a p p e ll a n tis gu il ty, he is guilty

of only the lesse r includ ed o f fense . Big nall, 88 7 S.W .2d at 23. The record cl ear ly sh ows t hat, upon enter ing the mark et, appel lan t brandi shed a s hotg un. The other employ ee heard s omeone s ay , “ it ’s a robber y .” The D VD s h o w ed appe ll ant fire the shot g un before the dec eased took any ty pe of defensi v e or protecti v e s teps
. The DV D als o s how ed th e o th er

per petrator , Sa nM ig uel , g o behi nd th e c ounter and approach the cas h reg is ter
. Fur

ther , t he j ur

y heard, on the DV D, appell ant say “ g et t he money , J ake. ” The Stat e produce d anot her i nmate w ho te st ified thatappel lan t t old hi m, “ I s moked the fool. He w ould n’t giv e me the m one y , so I smo ked him .” Finally , app ellant ’s g irlfriend told the jury that , on th e night af

ter the m urde r, a ppe llant told her he shot th e v ictim be cause “h e woul dn’ t g iv e me t he money .” Appel lan t c an onl y

di re ct thi s C our

t t o St ate’ s couns el’ s openi ng st atement and t he g ir lfri end’ s t est imony

reg ardin g appell ant’ s ag it ated stat e upon ar ri v ing home to show that there i s a sc int il la of ev ide nce to s uppor t t he req uest ed less er

i ncl uded offense c harg e. Howev er , t he St ate’ s o peni ng st atement is not ev ide nce. The g ir lf rie n d ’s te sti mony w as“ Ice ” is a s lan g ter m for meth amphetami ne. 4 9 tha t app ellantw as “pan icky and just like he w as o n ice.” Contrary to app ellant ’s 4 int er pretati on of thi s t est imony , it w as merel y descr ipt iv e of

appell ant’ s demeanor

and w as notev iden ce tha t app ellant w as, i n fact, on drugs. Further, even ha d he bee n on drugs, his i ntox ic ati on woul d notneg ate a ny cu lpa ble mental st ate. See § 8.0 4 Base d upon thi s re cord, w e mustco ncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce appel lan t s ay s e nti tl es him to a l esser includ ed ch arge does n ot rise to even a scintilla of ev iden ce tha t w ould all ow a rati onal jur

y to conc lud e appel lan t w as g uil ty of on ly the les ser

req uest ed c harg e. Hal l, 225 S.W .3d a t 536
. Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Photog ra ph A p p e l l a n t ’ s n e xti ss u e c o mp l a i n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s a d mi s s i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e o f a cer tai n phot og ra ph of the decea sed that w as tak en atthe sc ene of the cr ime. As the compl ain t rel ates to a decis ion of the tr ial courtto admitev ide nce, w e rev iew thatdec is ion u n d er an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. See W eather re d v . St ate, 15 S. W .3d 5 40, 5 42 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. An appell ate cour t shoul d af

firm the t ri al cour

t’ s r uli ng unl ess i t finds that the d eci si on i s n ot w it hin the z one of reaso nabl e disag re ement. See Green v . St ate, 934 S. W .2d 9 2, 10 2 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. Stat ed another w ay , w e w il l find an abuse of dis creti on onl y

w hen t he tr ial co urt acted w it hout re ferenc e to any gui din g rul es or

pr inc ipl es by acti ng ar bit ra ril y

or unreason abl y . See Ly les v . St ate, 850 S. W .2d 4 97, 5 02 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) . That a photog ra ph is g enerall y admi ss ibl e i f v er bal tes ti mony about t h e m a tt e rs d e p ic t e d t h e re in is a ls o a d m is s ib le is a we ll k n o wn le ga l m a xim
. Se e G a ll o v.10

Stat e, 23 9 S. W .3d 75 7 , 7 6 2 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ( ci ti ng W il li ams v . St ate, 958 S. W .2d 1 8 6 , 1 9 5 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) )
. I n d e t e r mi n i n g w h e t h e r t h e p ro b a t i v e v a l u e o f a photog ra ph i s o utw eig hed by the infla mmator

y natu re of the p hotog ra ph, t he co u rt may consid er the followi ng, no n -e xh aust iv e, list: 1) the n um ber of ex hibits of

fered , 2) their gr ueso me ness, 3) their deta il, 4) their siz e, 5) w het her the y a re b lack and white or color, 6) w hether

they are c los e- up, a nd 7)w hether the body

depi cte d i s n a ked or

cl othed. I d. A tr ial co urt doe s not commit rev ersi ble error simpl y because itadmits a photog ra ph i nto ev ide nce that is of a g ru esome nature. Sonni er v . St ate , 9 1 3 S .W .2d 5 11, 5 19 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1995)
. The photog ra ph ati ss ue is mark ed as Stat e’s Ex hib it5 an d i s a co lor phot og ra ph d e p ic t in g t h e lo we r b o d y o f t h e d e c e d e n twit h b lo o d o n t h e f lo o r a ro u n d t h e b o d y. Appel lan t pos it s t h a t th e photog ra ph’ s p ro bati v e v alu e w as far outw eig hed by i ts infla mmator

y natu re . The photog ra ph ati ss ue i s a color photog ra ph taken at the s cene of the c ri me by

an SAPD of

ficer
. The firs t of

ficer on the sce ne testi fied that t he phot og ra ph w as an ac curate d epi cti on of the sc ene as he found it
. The col or phot og ra ph i s fiv e i nches by ei g ht i nches i n s iz e. It depi cts the v icti m full y cl othed and i s t aken f ro m s e veral feet aw ay , t herefore, iti s n ot a cl ose up. It does not show the w ound and depi cts onl y the lower torso. The re is considerab le bloo d splat tering shown, but the ex act i njuries of th e v ictim are notse en i n the phot o. There w ere a t otal of 13 phot og ra phs of the s cene admitted i nto ev ide nce and t his w as the onl y one that showed th e v icti m. Thi s p hotog ra ph does noth ing mo re than portray the sce n e o f t h e c rim e as it w as foun d by the police. The trial court cor re ctl y appl ied the re lev ant cas e law in determi nin g w hether to admitthe photog ra ph i nto11

evidence. Gallo, 2 3 9 S
. W .3d at 762 . Accordingly , w e can notsaythatthe trial court abuse d i ts dis creti on by admi tti ng the photog ra ph i nto e v ide nce. W eather re d, 15 S.W .3d at 54 2. Appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led
. Rea din g F ro m Ex hib it Appel lan t’ s four

th i ss ue c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d in all ow ing a w it ness to re ad from a n ex hib itthatw as not i ntroduce d into ev ide nce. Appel lan t’ s conte nti on is that the t ri al cour

t all ow ed the testi mony in v iol ati on of r ule s 6 12 and 803( 5) of the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. Se e T EX . R. E V ID . 612, 803( 5)
. Rul e 612 deal s w it h the us e of a w ri ti ng to re fresh a w it ness ’s m emory . Rul e 803( 5) i s a n ex cept ion to hearsay w hen a w it ness us es a recorded recol lecti on to refresh hi s memor y . As the compl ain t rel ates to a decis ion of the tr ial co urt t o admi t ev ide nce, w e rev iew that deci si on unde r the s ame abus e o f dis creti on s tandard det ail ed abov e. See W eat herred , 15 S. W .3d at 5 4 2
. Ho we ve r, w e no te th at th e com plainton ap pea l must compor t w it h the obj ect ion l odg ed attr ial
. See B ur ks v . St ate, 876 S. W .2d 8 77, 9 08 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 94) (citing R ezac v . Stat e, 782 S .W .2d 869 , 870 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 0)). Dur ing the t ri al, the w it ness i n q uest ion , O ff ic er Laz cano, tes ti fied reg ardin g v ide o cam eras locat ed a t the scene of the crime. Lazcano w as shown tw o Sta te’s exhibits, Nos. 24 and 25, a nd was ask ed, reg ardin g Sta te’ s N o. 24 , Q. N ow I’ d l ik e to directy our

att enti on to Sta te’ s E x hib itN umber 24. D oes th is a p p e a r to be t he D VD – or the CD R, I shoul d s ay , t hat was tak en i nto cus tody by D etecti v e Pet ro wsk i from As hw oin Gaj era?12

A. Y es , ma ’ am . Appel lan t’ s c ounse l then int er posed the follo w ing obj ect ion
. Judge, I’m going to object i f she’s g oing to read f rom a nything, from a device or so methi ng thathas n’tbeen int ro duced i nto e v ide nce. The cour t ov er ru led the obj ect ion
. The w it ness w as then ask ed another ques ti on reg ardin g Sta te’s Exhibit No. 24 and counsel fo r app ellant lodged th e sam e objection . Th e trial court ag ain ov er ru led the obj ect ion
. It is cl ear from t he q uest ion ing of the w it ness thatthe Stat e w as not t ry ing to re fresh the memor y of the w it ness . It is al so cl ear from t he obj ect ion that a p p e ll a n twa s n o to b

je ct in g t o t h e t e s t im o n y o n t h e b a s is o f h e a rs a y. The sol e bas is of the o bje cti on, as v oic ed to the tr ial court , w as that the w it ness w as tes ti fyi ng to matters c ontai ned on the e x hib itand the e x hib ithad not b een i ntroduce d i nto ev ide nce. The i ss ue rai sed in appel lan t’ s bri ef is not the s ame as the obj ect ion l odg ed at tr ial
. Therefore, w e f ind that the al leg ed er ro r w as not p re ser v ed for re v iew
. Id. W e not e that, ev en i f w e c onst ru ed th e i ss ue on a p p e a l to de al w it h the off ic er tes ti fyi ng from an exhibit not intro du c e d a t trial, the objection w as no t time ly mad e. A previous w itness, Ashwoin Gaj era, had tes ti fied to the same facts w it hout obj ect ion ; t herefore, the a ppel lan t has w aiv ed an y error

by fail ing to obj ectw hen t he te sti mony w as firs t i ntroduce d. See Sto ke r v. S t a t e , 788 S.W .2d 1, 12 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 198 9). Appe llant’s fourth issue is ov er ru led
.13 Cha in of Cus tody

of the D VD In his final i ss ue, a ppel lan t pos it s t hat t he tr ial co urt c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r w hen ital lowed th e i ntroduct ion of the DV D of the s ur v eil lan ce v ide o i nto e v ide nce w it hout the est abl is hment of a proper chai n of c ust ody
. As in the tw o prev iou s i ss ues, w e are deal ing w ith the trial cou rt’s de cision to adm it e v iden ce. Th us, w e refer the p arties to th e stan dard of rev iew se t fort h under

appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. The tr ial record s hows t hat Ashwoin Gaj era tes ti fied th a t h e m ain tai ned t he sur v eil lan ce cameras at the marketin q uest ion
. On t he ni g ht of the murder , he w ent t o the mark et at the behes t of the ow ner and re v iewed th e s ur

v eil lan ce v ide os capt ured on the hard dr iv e of the comput er w it h the poli ce. He further testi fied th at he made a CD R om of the images an d gav e it to the police. T he police of f icer with th e tech nical surv eillance unit of the SA PD , O ff ic er

Laz cano, tes ti fied th at he v iewed th e C D Ro m a nd transfer re d the data to a DV D. It is thi s DV D, that w as mark ed as Sta te’ s E x hib itN o. 26 , t hat i s i n i ss ue. Laz cano tes ti fied that the imag es on the DV D had not been alt ered in any manner and that the y w ere exact copie s of the ima ges capt ured on the hard driv e of the m arket’s com put er. T he reco rd f urthe r ref lects tha t the of f icer, w ho initia lly too k posse ssion of the CD Rom, d id nottestif y . It is this g ap in th e cha in of custod y thatapp ellant ’s issue atta cks. The Tex as Ru les of Ev ide nce prov ide thatphysi cal ev ide nce re q uires suffici ent aut hen tication to supp ort a f inding tha t the exhibit in issue is w hatthe pro pon entclaims it to be
. See T EX . R. E V ID . 901( a)
. This has been int er preted to mean that Rul e 901 re q uires onl y a s how ing sa ti sfy ing the tr ial co urt t hat t he m a tter i n q uest ion i s w hat i ts proponent14

claims. See Silv a v . Stat e, 98 9 S.W .2d 64, 67 -68 (Te x .Ap p.– San Anto nio 19 98, pet. ref ’d). Such ev ide nce is to be recei v ed i f the tr ial courtf ind s t hat a reason abl e j uror co uld find t hat the e v ide nce w as authent ic ated. Ponde xter v . St ate, 942 S. W .2d 5 77, 5 86 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. See al so Ma rt ine zv . St ate, No . 04- 07- 00147- CR , 200 7 Tex .App. LEX IS 9 830, at *4 (Te x .Ap p.– San Anto nio D ecem ber 19, 200 7, no pet .) (not designat ed for pub lication). Proof of the be ginning and en d of t he chain o f

cu stod y wil l suppo rt adm ission of an object bar ri ng any

ev ide nce of tamper ing or al terati on. See M aranda v . State, 253 S.W .3d 7 62, 770 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2007, pet. di sm’ d) ( ci ti ng Sto ker , 788 S.W .2d a t 10)
. W it hout any ev ide nce of tamper ing , q ues ti ons conc er nin g ca re and cus tody of the o bje ct g o to the w eig ht t o be attac hed to the ev ide nce and not to it s admis si bil ity . See Lag ro ne v . St ate, 942 S. W .2d 6 02, 6 17 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) . The tr ial courthas the dis creti on to dete rmi ne the s uff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nti ar

y predi cat e. Ma ra nda, 253 S. W .3d a t 770
. Und er the facts of t his cas e, the tr ial cour t heard the t est imony

reg ardin g how

the data came t o be capt ured on the h ard dr iv e of the co m p u te r a t the mark et. F urther , t he tes ti mony

demons trated how

thatdata w as transfer re d from t he hard dr iv e to the C D Rom and w hen and how

the pol ic e too k p oss ess ion of the CD R om. F ina ll y , t he St ate o ffered the t est imony

of the o ff ic er

i n c harg e of transfer ri ng the data to t he D VD a t iss u e , w ho tes ti fi e d t h a t t he D VD w as an exactco py of the d ata c ontai ned on the C D Rom. F ro m thes e facts , we are l eft w it h the co ncl usi on that the tri al cour t deter mined that the S tate had me t the e v i de nt i ar

y p red i c at e to a dm i t th e D VD
. W e c an no t s ay t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt’ s decision abu sed its discretion
. W eat herred , 15 S.W .3d at 542. T here fore, we o verrule appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue.15 Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Publ is h.