O RA L AR GU ME N T RE QU E S T E D

NO. P D

- 1 4 30

- 1 4

IN THE C O URT OF CRIM I NAL APPEALS

OF THE S TATE OF TEXAS

S I TT I NG AT AU S T I N, TEXAS

SHEL L EY W ALKER,

P e t i t i on e r,

VS.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS

Resp o ndent

On P e t i t i o n f

o r Dis c r e t i ona r y Re v i e w

To t he Court o f A p p e als Tw e lf t h

S upr e me J udici a l Dis t ri c t Cause

No. 1 2

- 1 2

- 00 3 79

- CR

BR I E F O N TH E MER I T S

J a m e s W

. H u g gl e r

S t a t e Bar No. 0 079 5 437

100 E. F e rgus o n, Sui t e 805

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

T e l e phon e : 9 03

- 5 93

- 2 400

Fac s im i l e : 9 03

- 5 93

- 3 830

jhug g l e rla w @sbc g l o bal

. net

ATT O RNEY F O R PE T I T I O NER PD

- 1430

- 14

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 12/1/2015 5:15:52 PM

Accepted 12/2/2015 9:30:26 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERKi I DE NT I T Y O F T H E P ART I E S A N D C OUN S E L

APPEL L ANT:

Sh e ll e y W a lk e r

APPEL L ANT’S T RIAL COUN S EL:

S c o t t Ellis

419 W e st Hous t on S t r e et

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

903

- 596

- 7600

903

- 596

- 7605 ( F ax)

Cam e r o n Cas t l e b e rry

422 S o uth Sp r ing Av e nue

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

903

- 330

- 3909

APPEL L ANT’S AP P ELLATE COUN S EL

Ja m es Hugg l er

100 E. F e rgus o n, Sui t e 805

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

903

- 593

- 2400

903

- 593

- 3830 ( f

ax)

APPEL L EE

The S t a te o f T e x as

APPEL L EE’S TRIAL C O UNSEL

Jas o n P a rr i sh

J e ff W o od

K e nne t h Bi g gs

S m i t h C o unty Dis t ri c t At t o r ne y ’s Off i ce

100 N. Br o adw a y, 4 t h F l o or

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

903

- 590

- 1720ii

APPEL L EE’S APPEL L ATE C O UNSEL

Micha e l W e st

S m i t h C o unty Dis t ri c t At t o r ne y ’s Off i ce

100 N. Br o adw a y, 4 t h F l o or

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

903

- 590

- 17203 T AB L E O F C ONT E NT S

D E S CR I PT I O N P A G E

I D ENTI T Y O F PART I ES AND COUN S EL.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CONTENT S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

IN D EX O F AUTHOR I T I E S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

S T ATEMENT REGARD I NG ORAL ARGUMEN T

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

S T ATEMENT OF THE CA S E.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I S SUE ON E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The C o urt of App e als e r r e d i n f i nding l e ga l ly suffi c i e nt

e v id e nce i n t his c as e

, and a ll o ws this C o urt to r e e xa m ine t he

issue o f f

ac t ually suf

f ic i ent e vi d en c e fr o m Br o oks v. S t a t e

, 323 S

. W

. 3d 893 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 010)

I S SUE T W O

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The C o urt of App e als e r r e d i n a l l o wing a sp e cula t ive v e r dict t o

st a nd i n c o ntr a st to t his C o urt ’ s i nst r uct i ons.

S T ATEMENT OF FACT S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF THE AR G UMEN T

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ARGUMENT AND AUTHOR I T I E S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I S SUE ONE, RE S TATE D

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I S SUE T W O, RE S TATE D

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A. Cl e wis a nd Br o ok s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. Re l e v ant Fac t s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

C. Analys i s.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

D. S p e cula t ive V e rdi c t All o w e d t o S t and.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

CONCLU S I O N.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

PRAYER.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CERTI F ICATE OF SERV I C E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

CERTI F ICATE OF COMP L IANC E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 I ND E X O F A U TH O R I T I E S

S T A TU TE S

T E X

. P E N A L C OD E A NN

. § 2 2

. 04( a )(1) ( W est 2 011 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

CA S E S

Br o oks v. S t a t e

, 323 S

. W

. 3d 893 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 010 )

. . . . . . 3, 6

, 7, 1 7

Cla y t o n v . S t a te

, 235 S

. W. 3 d 7 72 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 007 )

. . . . . . . . . . 22

Cl e wis v. S t a t e

, 922 S

. W

. 2d 126 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 1 997 )

. . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8

Ga r cia v. S t a t e

, 3 67 S

. W

. 3d 683, 6 87 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 012 )

. . . . . . . . 22

Ho o p e r v. S t a t e

, 214 S

. W

. 3d 9, 1 5 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 007 )

. . . . . . . . . . 21

Jacks o n v . Vir g inia

, 443 U. S

. 307, 3 19 (19 7 9 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 1 8, 1 9, 2 0

Me r az v . S t a te

, 785 S

. W

. 2d 146, 1 54 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 1 990 )

. . . . . . . . . 9

P o ol v . F o rd Mo t or C o

. , 715 S

. W

. 2d 629, 6 35 (T e xas 198 6 ).

. . . . . . . . . . 9

Ex par t e S c huessl e r

, 846 S

. W

. 2d 850 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 1 993 )

. . . . . . . . . 8

Tib b s v

. Fl o rid a

, 457 U. S

. 31 (19 8 2 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

W a lk e r v. S t a t e

, 12

- 1 2

- 0 0 379

- CR, 2014 T e x

. App. LEXIS 1 0466 ( T e x

.

App.

– Ty l e r )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

W a lk e r v. S t a t e

, No. 1 2

- 1 2

- 00 3 78

- CR, 2 014 T e x. App. L EXIS 1 0443

(T e x. App.

– T yl e r)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

R UL E S

T E X

. R. A PP

. P. A NN

. 9

. 4 ( W est 2 015 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

SHEL L EY W ALKER, PD

- 143 0

- 14

§ IN THE C O URT OF

PET I T I ONER §

§

VS. § CRIM I NAL APPEALS

§

THE S TATE OF TEXAS, §

APPEL L EE § AUS T IN, T EXAS

T O T H E H ONO R A B L E C OU R T O F CR I M I N A L A PP EA L S :

Sh e ll e y W a lk e r, P e t i t i o ner a nd D e f end a nt in t he t r ial c o urt,

r e sp e c t fully sub m i t s t his B r i e f o n t he Me r i t s c o m pla i ning of t he ruling

and o pini o n by t he Court o f A p p e als f o r the T w e lf

t h S upr e me J udici a l

Dis t ri c t, a nd w ou l d sh o w the C o urt as f o ll o ws:

S T A T E ME N T RE G A R D I N G O RA L AR GU M E N T

This Court has gr a nt e d o ral ar g um e nt so that a ll ma t t e rs may b e

cla r ifi e d a nd any q ues t i o ns p r es e nt e d b y the b ri e fs of t he par t i e s m ay

be a ddr e ss e d i n a pr o p e r mann e r. Couns e l is pr e par e d t o app e ar at t he

Cour t ’s pl e asur e

.2 S T A T EME N T O F T H E CA S E

Sh e ll e y W a lk e r was indic t ed f o r the f i rst d e gr e e o f

f e nse of i njury to

a c hild in S mi t h C o unty T e xas on May 10, 2 012. CR 1

- 2 1 ; T E X P E N A L

C OD E A NN

. § 2 2

. 04( a )(1) ( W est 2 011 )

. T he case w as c o nso l ida t ed f o r

t r ial wi t h h e r husband, K e nne t h W alk e r. IV RR 2 1

- 2 5 2

. F o l l o wing t he

pr e sen t a t i o n o f e vi d en c e, t he W a lk e rs w e re c on v ic t e d

. CR 266. The

jury a ss e ss e d p unishm e nt at t w e nt y - fi v e y e ars c o nfin e m e nt. CR 2 8 1,

285

- 86. No t ice o f a pp e al was t i m e ly fil e d. CR 298. The C o urt of

App e als aff

i rm e d t he t r ial c o urt ’ s j udgm e nt in a n unpubl i shed o p ini o n.

This Court g ran t ed d i scr e t i ona r y r e vi e w.

1 References to the Clerk’s Record are noted as “CR” with

an arabic numeral following “CR” specifying the correct page.

2 References to the Reporter’s Record are noted as “RR” with

a roman numeral preceding “RR” indicating the volume, and an

arabic numeral following specifying the applicable page in the

record.3 ISS U E S FO R REV I E W

ISS U E O N E : T he C o u r t o f A pp e al s e rr e d i n fi n d i ng l e ga ll y

s u f fi ci e nt e vid e n c e i n t h i s cas e

, a nd all o w s t h i s C o u r t t o r ee xa m i ne

t he i s s ue o f fac t u a ll y s u f f ici e nt e vid e n c e fro m B r oo k s v

. St a te

, 32 3

S.W. 3 d 89 3 ( T e x

. C rim

. A pp

. 201 0 )

.

ISS U E T W O : T he C o u r t o f A pp e al s e rre d i n all o w i ng a sp e c u l a t iv e

v e rd i c t t o s t a nd i n c o n t r as t t o t h i s C o u r t ’ s i n s tr u c ti o n s

.

S T A T EM E N T O F FACT S

Sh e ll e y and K enn e th W a lk e r ad o pt e d t he i r thr e e gr a ndchild r en

af t er t hey w e r e r e m o v e d b y CPS due to a buse a nd n e gl e c t

. V RR 5 4

,

VI I I RR 7 0

- 71. B. W

., o ne of t he ad o pt e d g randch i ldr e n w a s a ll e g e d a s

the v ic t im in t his i ndic t m e nt

. 3 B. W

. had s cald b urns t o b o th f e e t

, m o st

lik e ly caus e d b y wa t er i n t he fa m il y ’s ba t htub. VI RR 1 0 4

- 5.

The S t a t e ’s th e o r y was that B

. W. w as f o rc i bly i m m e r sed b y b o th

of t he W a lk e rs and h e ld in t he wa t e r

. I X RR 136. The W alk e rs th e o r y

was that B

. W. c aus e d t he injur i es he r se l f a cc i d e nta l ly.

B. W

. had b e e n burn e d a t appr o xi m a t e l y 8 : 35 to 8 : 3 8 that

m o rning. VII RR 65. Sh e ll e y W a lk e r b e gan cal l ing Amanda W a lk e r at

3 References to juveniles are made by initials.4

8 : 38 that m o r ning. VII RR 109. At that p o int, B

. W

. ’s f e et w e r e r e d a nd

Amanda ins t ruc t ed S he l l e y W a lk e r to put t hem i n c o ld wa t e r

. V I I RR

111. Th e n B

. W

. ’s skin b e g an t o p e el a nd A m anda ins t ruc t ed t he

W a lk e rs to c all EMS. VII RR 112. At 8 : 54 K e nne t h W alk e r cal l ed 9 11

and w as c o nnec t ed w i t h t he Ty l er P o l ice D e p ar t m e nt. VII RR 19, 2 5.

EMS was disp a t c hed at 8 : 5 6 a

. m. VII RR 139.

Up o n in i t i al insp e c t i o n by p o li c e, t he wa t er h e a t er w as set o ne

l e v e l b e l o w the m ax i mum t e mp e ra t ur e

. V I I RR 1 2 0. The t he r m o st a t

was th e n t urned on and a ll o w e d t o heat f o r thi r ty m inut e s. V I I RR 1 2 1.

At that t he r m o st a t se t t i ng the w a t er t e m p e ra t ure w as ch e ck e d i n t he

ki t ch e n, the m as t er b a t hr o om s i nk and the b a t htub and e ach r e sul t ed

in a m ax i mum t e mp e ra t ure o f 1 20

- 1 22 d e gr e es Fahr e nhei t

. V I I RR

122

- 23. The o ffi c e r s t hen i n c r e ase d t he se t t i ng to t he ma x imum a nd

w e re a ble t o achi e ve a m ax i mum t e mp e ra t ure o f 1 31 d e gr e es in t he

mas t er b a t hr o om f

r om t he t a p. V I I RR 1 2 7. In the t ub, wi t h f o ur t o six

inch e s o f w a t er t he ma x imum t e m p e ra t ure w as 128 to 1 29 d e gr e es. VII

RR 1 2 7.

A t en to f

i f t e e n s e c o nd e xp o sure t o wa t er a t 130 d e gr e es w o uld be

suffi c i e nt to c ause t hese t yp e s o f i njuri e s. VI RR 111. H o w e v e r, i f t he5

wa t er w as 126

- 129 d e gr e es, a s e c o nd d e gr e e burn c ou l d t ake t wo

minu t es. VI I I RR 2 4

. I nit i all y

, the t r e a t ing physi c ian b e li e v e d t hat the

burns w e r e se v e r e and w ou l d r e q uire g raf t ing. VI I I RR 1 1

. T he burns

w e re a ble t o heal w i t hout t he ne e d f or sk i n g raf

t s o r r e c o nst r uct i on. VI

RR 1 1 0.

W a t e r hea t ed t o this t e m p e ra t ure w ou l d n o t pr o duce b urns

ins t ant l y, a nd i f w a t er t hat t e mp e ra t ure had b e en splash e d o nto t he

skin, it w ou l d n o t have l e f t any splash ma r ks. VI RR 121, 1 23. The t ub

i t se l f e v e n wh e n c o mp l e t e l y turn e d o ff all o w e d a p e ncil size s t r e am of

wa t er t o en t er t he tub. VII RR 64

- 6 5, 7 9.

B. W

. and N

. W

. b o th had t he i r under c l o th e s o n t he fl o or i n t he

ba t hr o o m

. VI RR 145, XVI RR S t a t e Ex. 4 0. The h e ight o f t he ba t htub

m e ant that B

. W. c ou l d n o t cl i mb in o r out o f t he tub one f o ot a t a t i m e

,

like a n adu l t. VI RR 1 4 4, V I I RR 6 3

- 64. She w ou l d ha v e to s i t on the

e d ge o f t he tub to g et i n o r ou t

. B

. W. a lso had scr a p e s o n h e r thi g hs

c o nsis t ent w i t h sl i ding o v er a m e t al rai l ing to g et i n o r out o f t he

ba t htub. VI RR 1 3 4

- 3 5

. T he ba t htub had s lid i ng gl a ss d o o rs wi t h a

m e t a l fra m e surr o unding the d o o r s i ncluding o n t he tub i t se l f. V I I RR

49, XVI RR S t a t e Ex. 4 0. N. W

., had b e en dia g nos e d a s a uti s t i c and6

d e scr i b e d a s a n ‘ i nst i ga t o r .’ VI RR 3 5

, VI I I RR 1 0 0. He has p r e vi o usly

pull e d h i s s i st e r B. W

. into t he ba t hr o om a nd l o c ked the d o o r

. VI RR

363.

S U MMAR Y O F TH E AR GU ME N T

This cas e

, and t he c o mpan i on case K e nne t h W alk e r v. S t a t e

, PD

142 9

- 14 il l ust r a t e the n e c e ssi t y f o r a fac t ual suffi c i e ncy of t he e v id e nce

r e vi e w. F o ll o wing t he o p ini o n in Br o ok s

, the C o urt of App e als anal y zed

th e se cas e s us i ng on l y a l e gal suf f ic i en c y anal y sis. The W alk e rs se e k a

r e v e rsal o f t he Br o oks p l ural i ty o pini o n and find the e vi d en c e was

fac t ually i nsuffic i ent t o supp o rt t he c o nvi c t i on. In this c as e

, the

anal y sis at t he Court o f A p p e als, f o ll o wing Br o ok s

, all o w e d t he

jud g m e nts to s t and d es p i t e inv e st i ga t ing o f fic e rs chang i ng the s e t t ing

of t he wa t er h e a t er a nd a v e rdi c t which can on l y be c harac t e r iz e d a s

supp o r t ed b y inf

e r e nce up o n inf

e r e nce b as e d o n sp e cula t i o n wh i ch i s i n

c o ntr a st wi t h t his C o urt ’ s p r e v i o us ru l ings.7 AR GU ME N T A N D A UT H O R I T I E S

I ss ue O n e

, Re s t a t e d : T he C o u r t o f A pp e a l s e rr e d i n f i n d i ng l e ga l l y

s u f fi ci e nt e vid e n c e i n t h i s cas e

, a nd all o w s t h i s C o u r t t o r ee xami ne t he

i s s ue o f f

a ct u a ll y s u f

fic i e nt e vi d e n c e fr o m B r oo k s v

. St a te

, 32 3 S.W. 3 d

8 9 3 (T e x

. C rim

. A pp

. 2010)

.

I ss ue T w o

, R e s t a te d : T he C o u r t o f A pp e a l s e r r e d i n all o wi ng a

sp e c u l a t iv e v e rdic t t o s t a nd i n c o n t ras t t o t h i s C o u r t ’ s i n s t r u c t io n s

.

A

. C l e wi s a nd B r o o k s

Jacks o n e st a bli s hed the s t andard of r e v i e w to d e t e rm i ne if

e v id e nce w as l e ga l ly suffi c i e nt to supp o rt t he v e rdi c t. Jacks o n v

.

Vir g ini a

, 443 U. S

. 307, 3 19, 9 9 S. C t

. 278 1

, 278 9

, 61 L. Ed. 2 d 5 60

(19 7 9). The c ri t ical i nquiry w as, i n v i e wing t he e v id e nce i n t he li g ht

m o st fa v o r able t o the p r os e cut i on, w he t her a ny ra t i o nal t r i e r of f a ct

c o uld have f

o und t he es s en t ial e l e m en t s o f t he cr i me b e y ond a

r e as o nable d o ubt. Jacks o n

, 443 U.S a t 319.

In 199 7

, this C o urt he l d t hat b e cause o f T e x as c o nst i tu t i o n and

st a tu t o r y pr o vis i ons, a pp e lla t e c o urts w e r e able t o r e vi e w fact

que s t i ons. Cl e wis v. S t a t e

, 922 S

. W

. 2d 126, 1 28 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 1 997 )

.

The i d e a that a f

a c t ual suffi c i e ncy anal y sis was pr o p e r using the

Jacks o n s t andard was not suf f ic i ent f o r a r e vi e w of f

a c t ual cla i ms.8

Cl e wi s

, 922 S

. W

. 2d at 1 29. The p r o p er s t andard was to v i e w all the

e v id e nce w i t hout t he prism o f “ in t he li g ht m o st fa v o r able t o the

pr o se c uti o n” and s et a side t he v e rdi c t on l y if it i s so c on t rary t o the

o v e r wh e lm i ng w e ight o f t he e v id e nce a s t o be c l e arly w r o ng and un j ust.

Cl e wi s

, 922, S

. W

. 2 d a t 129.

Th e re a re k e y dif

f e r en c es b e t w e e n a Jacks o n a nd Cl e wis a naly s is.

If the e vi d en c e is l e ga l ly insuffi c i e nt, t he case sh o uld not ha v e b e en

subm i t t ed t o a jury a nd an acqu i t t al must b e o r d e r e d. Tib b s v . Fl o rid a

,

457 U. S

. 31, 1 02 S. C t

. 221 1

, 72 L. Ed. 2 d 6 52 (19 8 2). T his s ubst i tu t es

the f i nding of t he app e lla t e c o urt f o r the j ury d e cis i on. Cl e wi s

, 922

S

. W

. 2d at 1 33. In c o ntr a st, a f a c t ual suffi c i e ncy r e vi e w is a que s t i on of

fac t

. Ex par t e S c huessl e r

, 846 S

. W

. 2d 850, 8 52, n. 5 ( T e x

. Cri m

. App.

199 3 ). A r e v e rsal b as e d o n f a c t ual suffi c i e ncy wi l l r e sult i n t he

jud g e m ent b e i ng va c a t ed a nd t he case r e m and e d f or a n e w t r ial.

Cl e wi s

, 922 S

. W

. 2d at 1 33

- 3 4.

The Jacks o n s t andard d o es not i nc o rp o ra t e a fac t ual suffi c i e ncy

r e vi e w, r a t her i t is the m ini m um st a ndard f o r c o mp o r t ing wi t h f

e d e ral

due pr o c e ss. Cl e wis 9 22 S

. W

. 2d at 1 34.

The C o urt has d iscuss e d suf f ic i ent s a f

e guar d s so t hat an a pp e lla t e9

d e cis i on d o es not usurp the j ury funct i on. Me r az

, 785 S

. W

. 2d 146, 1 54

(T e x. Cr i m. App. 1 990 )

. T he Court r e c o m m e nded that t he e v id e nce

should b e d e t a il e d a s t o the i ssue in q ues t i o n and cl e arly s t a t e why the

jur y ’s finding i s so f

a c t ually i nsuffic i ent a s t o be m anif e st l y unjust; w hy

it sh o cks the c ons c i e nc e ; or c l e arly d e m o nst r a t es bias. P o ol v . F o rd

Mo t or C o

. , 715 S

. W

. 2d 629, 6 35 (T e x. 1 986 )

. T he app e lla t e c o urt should

also s t a t e in w hat r e ga r d t he c o ntr a ry e v id e nce g r e a t ly ou t w e ighs the

e v id e nce i n supp o rt o f t he v e rdi c t. I d

.

In 201 0

, the C o urt e l im i nat e d t he Cl e wis f a c t ual suffi c i e ncy

r e vi e w. Br o oks v. S t a t e

, 323 S

. W

. 3d 893 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 010 )

. T he

Court f o und t hat the a naly s is b e t w e e n Cl e wis a nd Jacks o n w as bar e ly

dis t inguisha b le a nd t hat the l e g al suffi c i e ncy st a ndard was the o nly

t e st to a pply t o d e t e rm i ne wh e th e r the e vi d en c e was suffi c i e nt to

supp o rt e ach e l e m ent b e y ond a r e as o nable d o ubt. Br o ok s

, 323 S

. W

. 2d

at 8 95. Wh i le Cl e wis had r e c o gniz e d t he r e was an i nher e nt dif f e r en c e

b e t w e e n t he r e vi e w f

o r l e ga l ly suffi c i e nt e v id e nce a nd f a c t ually

suffi c i e nt e v id e nc e

, the C o urt in Br o oks f o und t hat th e re w as no

m e aningful d i st i nct i on.10 B

. R e l e va nt Fac t s

The W alk e rs had a d o pt e d t hr e e sib l ings thr o ugh C P S. W a lk e r a t

* 6

. E v id e nce e st a bli s hed that t wo o f t he child r en had o v e rfl o w e d t he

ba t htub and w a t er f

l o w ed o ut fr o m under the b a t hr o om d o o r

. W a lk e r

at * 9. Two o f t he child r en had l o c ked th e ms e lv e s i n t he ba t hr o om a nd

o v e r fl o w e d t he sink, t o il e t and t ub. Id

. . T he W a lk e rs ins t all e d l o c ks o n

the b a t hr o om d o o r s a f t er t hese i ncid e nts. I d

. T hese a c t i o ns o ccur r ed

e v en th o ugh s l iding g lass d o o r s w i t h r a il i ngs w e re i nsta l l e d o n t he tub.

W a lk e r a t * 1 0.

During t he inv e st i ga t i o n, the w a t er h e a t er w as set o ne l e v e l b e l o w

the m ax i mum t e mp e ra t ur e

. V I I RR 1 2 0. The t he r m o st a t was th e n

turn e d o n and all o w e d t o heat f o r thi r ty m inut e s. V I I RR 1 2 1. T he

o f fic e rs th e n i n c r e a s e d t he se t t i ng to t he ma x imum a nd w e r e able t o

achi e ve a m ax i mum t e mp e ra t ure o f 1 31 d e gr e es in t he mas t er

ba t hr o om f

r om t he t a p. V I I RR 1 2 7. In the t ub, wi t h f o ur t o six inch e s

of w a t er t he ma x imum t e m p e ra t ure w as 128 to 1 29 d e gr e es. VII RR

127. W a t e r hea t ed 1 26

- 1 29 d e gr e es w o uld not p r o d uce b urns i nstan t ly,

and i f w a t er t hat t e mp e ra t ure had b e en splash e d o nto t he skin, it

w o uld not ha v e l e ft a ny splash ma r ks. VI RR 121, 1 23.11

A t en to f

i f t e e n s e c o nd e xp o sure t o wa t er a t 130 d e gr e es w o uld be

suffi c i e nt to c ause t hese t yp e s o f i njuri e s. VI RR 111. H o w e v e r, i f t he

wa t er w as 126

- 129 d e gr e es, a s e c o nd d e gr e e burn c ou l d t ake t wo

minu t es. VI I I RR 2 4

. S o, t he t i me r e q uir e d f or t hese b urns w as up t o

t w o minu t es, du r ing which t i me t he W a lk e rs w e re t o have h e ld the

child suspend e d i n t he wa t e r

.

B. W

. and N

. W

. b o th had t he i r under c l o th e s o n t he fl o or i n t he

ba t hr o o m

. VI RR 145, XVI RR S t a t e Ex. 4 0. The h e ight o f t he ba t htub

m e ant that B

. W. c ou l d n o t cl i mb in o r out o f t he tub one f o ot a t a t i m e

,

like a n adu l t. VI RR 1 4 4, V I I RR 6 3

- 64. She w ou l d ha v e to s i t on the

e d ge o f t he tub to g et i n o r ou t

. B

. W. a lso had scr a p e s o n h e r thi g hs

c o nsis t ent w i t h sl i ding o v er a m e t al rai l ing to g et i n o r out o f t he

ba t htub. VI RR 1 3 4

- 3 5

. T he ba t htub had s lid i ng gl a ss d o o rs wi t h a

m e t a l fra m e surr o unding the d o o r s i ncluding o n t he tub i t se l f. V I I RR

49, XVI RR S t a t e Ex. 4 0. N. W

., had b e en dia g nos e d a s a uti s t i c and

d e scr i b e d a s a n ‘ i nst i ga t o r .’ VI RR 3 5

, VI I I RR 1 0 0.

Amanda W a lk e r t e st i fi e d t hat she did not b e l i e ve t hat Sh e ll e y or

K e nne t h W alk e r burn e d B

. W. a s t he S t a t e all e g e d. VI RR 14. The

W a lk e rs ne v er r ais e d t he i r v o ice t o the c hildr e n. VI RR 36. K e nne t h12

W a lk e r has had a h e art a t t ack, a s t r o ke, a p a c e mak e r and d e g en e ra t ive

discs in h i s b ack. VI RR 1 6 2. Sh e ll e y W a lk e r has b ack pr o bl e ms and

ar t hri t is. VI RR 1 6 3. F o r e i th e r of t he W a lk e rs to f o rc i bly i m m e r se

B. W

. in t he tub w o uld r e quire m o r e st r en g th or ph y sic a l e x e r t i on than

th e y w o uld be a ble t o p e rf o rm. If this w e r e an i m m e r si o n burn, B

. W.

w o uld be e xp e c t ed t o fi g ht back, s t rug g l e

, kick or t ry to g et a way f r om

the w a t e r

. VI RR 164; X RR 3 4

. T he r e was no e v id e nce o f t hat in t his

cas e

.

A t w e nt y - six y e a r o l d C P S w o rk e r who had not had a hea r t

a t t a ck, or s t r o ke or o th e r sign i fic a nt m e dic a l issu e s f ound it d i ffi c ult to

ho l d a 2 7 p o und d o ll in t he same m anner i n an in

- c o urt d e m o nst r a t i o n.

VII I RR 104

- 105. A f o r t y - o ne y e ar o l d d o c t o r did not f i nd h o lding a

sim i lar w e igh t ed d o ll in t he p o si t i o n n e c e ssary t o be t he e a si e st thin g . X

RR 36. The d o c t or had not had a hea r t a t t a ck, st r oke o r back pr o bl e ms.

X RR 37.

One o f t he fir s t Ty l er P o l ice D e p ar t m e nt o f fic e rs to a rr i ve a t the

house t es t ifi e d t hat the c ase a pp e ar e d t o be a n is s ue of a n a c cid e nt and

not e nough supe r vis i on. VII RR 36

- 3 7.

A d i ff e r e nt pa t r o l o f

fic e r b e li e v e d b e c ause t he r e w e re no sp l ash13

ma r ks, this w as a f

o rc e d i m m e r si o n. V I I RR 7 0

- 71. He also t es t ifi e d

that he had no e x p e ri e nce a s t o how h o t wa t er had to b e to c ause b urns,

and a dm i t t ed t o que s t i on i ng by the S t a te t hat e v e r y t hing he t e st i fi e d t o

r e ga r ding B. W

. was sp e cula t i o n. V I I RR 7 7

. T his o ffi c er a lso t es t ifi e d

that w hen he arr i v e d t he tub was st i ll full, a nd t hat if the t ub had b e en

dra i ned he w o uld have t ak e n t hat as an i ndica t i o n o f h i ding e v id e nc e

.

VII RR 61

- 6 2. This d e spi t e his s t a t e m e nt that he b e l i e v e d t he W a lk e r’s

as prud e nt par e nts should ha v e dra i ned the w a t e r

. V I I RR 6 1

.

The S t a t e ’s pri m ary e xp e rt w i t ness on the i ssue of t he injur i es was

Dr. W o l f, the Chi e f o f Burn S e rv i c e s a nd P r o f e ss o r and V i ce Chair m an

f or R e se a rch in t he D e par t m e nt of S urg e ry at t he Univ e rsi t y of T e x as

S o uthw e st e rn M e dic a l Cen t e r

. VI RR 87. The o nly way t hat th e se

injur i es w o uld rise t o the l e v el o f s e r i o us b o dily i njur y

, that i s b o dily

i njury w hich c r e a t es a subs t ant i al risk of d e a t h o r that c aus e s d e a t h,

se r i o us p e rm a nent d i sfi g ur e m e nt, o r pr o t r ac t ed l oss o r im p air m ent o s

t he funct i on of a ny b o dily m e m b e r or o rg a n w o uld be i f the b urns w e r e

l e ft un t r e a t e d

. VI RR 117. Only i f t he burns w e r e l e ft untr e a t ed c ou l d

t hey r ise t o the l e v el o f s e r i o us b o dily i njury b e c ause o f

a risk of i nfe c t i on and o ng o ing sys t e m ic pr o bl e ms. VI RR 1 1 7. As l ong14

as the b urns w e r e t r e a t e d, it w as “ r e l a t iv e ly st r ai g htf o rw a rd

. ” VI RR

117.

. Al m ost i m m e d ia t e l y, t he skin w ou l d b e r e d, but the p e e l ing or

bli s t e ring c ons i st e nt wi t h a se c ond d e gr e e burn w ou l d n o t d e v e l o p f or

so m e t i m e

. VI RR 119. It w as p o ssib l e f o r B. W

. to w alk d o wn t he hall

and s e e k as s is t ance p r i o r to t he bli s t e rs d e v e l o ping. VI RR 1 2 0.

So du r ing the f

i nal wi t ness f

o r the p r os e cut i on, t he S t a t e was l e ft

wi t h t wo p o ssib l e c o nclusi o ns f r om t he e v id e nc e

. O ne, t hat B. W

. was in

the w a t er a cc i d e nta l ly ands was wa l king ar o und o n h e r o w n; or t wo

that she w as subm e rg e d o r im m e r sed h e r and h e ld in a n e l e va t ed

p o si t i o n. X RR 3 2

- 33, 7 2, 9 1.

Dr. C o x, t he S t a t e ’ s f

inal wi t ness d e scr i b e d h o w a thr e e y e ar o l d

child c o uld be t r e a t ed w hile i n pa i n. At d i ff e r e nt p o ints du r ing the

cas e

, Dr. C o x was e i th e r c o nc e rn e d a b o ut the s c rap e s a nd s c ra t ch e s t o

B. W

. ’ s l e g s, or n o t o v e r ly c o nc e rn e d. X RR 4 4

- 45. Dr. C o x also b as e d

his a ss e ssm e nt that t his w as abuse o n t he fact t hat he had t r e a t ed

B. W

. ’ s b r o th e r, T

. W

., f o r injur i es y e ars pr e vi o usly. X RR 47. This

o c curr e d b e f

o r e the W alk e r’s ad o pt e d t he child r en or w e r e car e - g i v e rs.

X RR 47. He o r d e r e d a sk e l e t a l surv e y and f ound no sign of p r e v i o us

undiagn o sed o r untr e a t ed i njuri e s. X RR 4 8

- 49. He f o und n o thing i n15

the f a mi l y his t o r y to su g g e st abuse e i t he r

. X RR 4 9

.

Dr. C o x assum e d, and t es t ifi e d p r e vi o usly, t hat the w a t er

t e mp e ra t ure w as at l e a st 135 d e gr e es and w as pr o bab l y w e ll o v er 1 35

d e gr e es. X RR 50

- 5 1. He did not kn o w the r esu l ts of t he t e mp e ra t ure

t e st i ng c o nduct e d b y the T yl e r p o li c e. X RR 52. His ass e ssm e nt was

c o nduct e d, and he b as e d h i s o pini o n o nly on inf o rm a t i on in t he fir s t t w o

days f o ll o wing t he burns, and w as not r e e va l uat e d b as e d o n any o th e r

e v id e nc e

. X RR 5 3

.

S i gnif i can t ly, C o x also s t a t ed t hat th e re w e r e no bruise m arks or

hand p r ints o r gr a sp m arks to i ndica t e B. W

. was r e st r ain e d i n t he

wa t e r

. X RR 9 5

.

The W alk e rs cal l ed D r. S c o tt L aw r en c e, a f o rm e r en g in e er a nd

pil o t in t he Air F o rce a nd a physi c ian since 2 000. X RR 168. He was a

gr a dua t e of t he Air F o rce Ac a d e m y

, r e c e iv e d a m as t e r ’s of s c i e nce i n

en g in e e r ing mana g e m en t

, and h i s m e d ical t rain i ng at t he Univ e rsi t y of

T e xas Me d ical Br a nch. X RR 1 6 8, 1 71. He curr e ntly w o r ks as a n

e m e r g e ncy r o om a nd f a mi l y pra c t i ce ph y sic i an. X RR 1 6 8

- 1 7 0. Dr.

La w r e nce r e v i e w e d t he p o li c e r e p o r t s, the m e d ical r e c o r ds, the p i c t ur e s,

the i nt e rv i e w s i n t he cas e

, and d id not a gr e e to t es t ify f o r the W alk e rs16

until he w as w e ll into t he r e vi e w pr o c e ss. X RR 1 7 3. Bas e d o n D r

.

La w r e nc e ’s r e vi e w of t he e v id e nc e

, the b urns t o B. W

. w e re a cc i d e ntal i n

natur e

. X RR 1 7 4.

Like D r. C o x, he c ons i d e r e d t he ske l e t al surv e y, a ll the

pho t o g raphs, t he fa m ily his t o r y. X RR 176

- 77. Ho w e v e r

, he also had

acc e ss t o the a c t ual l o ca t i o n and ba t htub wh e re t his o ccur r e d

. X RR

176. He d e t e rm i ned that t he t o t a l sl o pe i n t he ba t htub was an i nch and

a half, a nd t hat wi t h a child, h e r f e et sh o uld e r wid t h ap a r t

, the

dif f e r en c e in t he burn m arks of ha l f a n inch pr o v e d t hat she was t r ying

to g et o ut and b l o ck e d b y the sh o w e r d o o r

. X RR 1 8 0

- 8 1

. D r. L aw r en c e

pr o vi d ed t he m o st th o r o ugh r e v i e w and e xp l ana t i o n o f t he e v id e nc e

. X

RR 1 8 0

- 1 8 8.

He also r e v i e w e d a nd ana l yz e d t he W a lk e rs m e dic a l his t o r y and

ca m e to t he c o nclusi o n t hat ne i th e r K e nne t h o r Sh e ll e y W a lk e r

indi v idual l y or j o i ntly w e r e physi c ally c apab l e of h o lding B

. W.

suspend e d i n t he air f

o r the t ime r e q uir e d t o cause t he burns. X RR

188

- 192, 1 93. Ne i th e r of t he W a lk e rs had a ny burns t o th e ir hands o r

ar m s, th e re w as no e v id e nce t hey w e r e in t he tub. X RR 192.17 C

. A n a l ysi s

In anal y zing the f

a c t s, and i n an e f

f o rt t o c o mp l y wi t h t his C o urt ’ s

guid a nce f

r om Br o ok s

, the a pp e lla t e c o urt st a ck e d sup p os i t i on upon

supp o si t i o n in o r d e r to supp o rt t he v e rdi c t in t he cas e

. B

. W. c ou l d n o t

have b e e n r e sp o nsible f o r st a r t ing the w a t e r

, d e spi t e e v id e nce t he

child r en had d one t hat b e f o r e

. O ne of t he W a lk e rs must ha v e knock e d

the sh o w e r d o o r s f

r o m the t racks, d e spi t e e v id e nce a b o ut th e ir age a nd

m e dic a l c o ndi t i o n. W a lk e r a t * 2 0

- 2 1

. O ne of t he W a lk e rs, w i t h t he i r

m e dic a l c o ndi t i o ns, m ust have h e ld B. W

. suspend e d i n t he tub of

sca l ding wa t er w i t h a child pr e sumab l y fi g hting a ga i nst th e m to e scape

the w a t e r

. E v en the S t a t e ’s e x p e r t s t es t ifi e d t hat it w ou l d b e dif f icult

f o r e i th e r of t he W a lk e rs to t ake t hese a c t i o ns. W a lk e r a t * 2 1. The

c o urt e x am i ned, a nd d i sr e ga r d e d, e v id e nce o f s plash ma r ks w hich d id

not supp o rt t he S t a t e ’ s t he o ry. W a lk e r a t * 1 3.

The c ou r t r e so l v e d t es t im o ny r e ga r ding wh e th e r B. W

. had t he

physi c al abi l i t y to t urn t he fauc e t on by he r se l f i n f a v o r of t he v e rdi c t (a

d e t e c t ive o pin e d she d i d n o t, w hile a t r e a t ing physi c ian no t ed t hat B. W

.

had c li m b e d o ut of a h o spi t al cr i b wi t h r a il i ngs). W a lk e r a t * 1 4

- 1 5

.

Wh i le t he r e was t e st i m o ny r e ga r ding the t e m p e ra t ure o f t he18

wa t er i n t he tub of l ess t han 1 3 0 d e gr e es, ( a t * 1 1), t he lack of sp l ash

ma r ks w as an i ndica t or o f a buse b e c ause i t sho w ed t hat B. W

. did not

fi g ht or s t rug g l e

. W a lk e r a t * 1 5. Ho w e v er t he t e mp e ra t ure t es t ed

c o uld not r aise t o a t e mp e ra t ure t o cause sp l ash m arks. I d

. A lack of

spar i ng to B

. W

. ’s f

e et m e a nt she was m o ving a r o und in the t ub, and n o t

b e ing he l d t o the b o t t o m, d e spi t e Mr. W alk e r’s hea r t a t t a ck, st r oke a nd

a pac e mak e r, c arp a l tunn e l syndr o me a nd w rist a nd sh o uld e r surg e ry;

or M r s. W a lk e r’s hyp e r t ens i on, c o m pr e ssi o n a r thr a lg i a hyp e r t r o phy

and a r t hri t is. W a lk e r a t 817, 2 0

- 2 1

.

The S t a t e ’s th e o r y that B

. W. w as he l d susp e nded in t he sca l ding

wa t er d i sr e ga r ds t he scr a p e s a nd b r uis e s p r es e nt, a nd a l so disr e ga r ds

the l ack of f

i ng e r ma r ks o r bruis i ng c o nsis t ent w i t h b e ing he l d s e cur e ly.

W a lk e r a t 814, n. 7

, and 8 19

- 2 0. The a pp e lla t e c o urt st a t e d t hat

ne i th e r of t he S t a t e ’ s e xp e r t s c ons i d e r e d: (1) the s c ra t ch e s o n B

. W

. ’s

ch e st and l e g ; (2) the f a ct t hat the b a t htub had a m e t al t r ack

surr o unding the sh o w e r d o o r ; (3) the f a ct t hat the sh o w e r d o or w as o f f

the t rack; ( 4 ) t he W a lk e rs’ physi c al cap a bil i t i es. W a lk e r a t * 3 4.

In an e ff o rt t o uphold t he v e rdi c t, t he Court o f A p p e als, i n

acc o rdance w i t h a Jacks o n l e g al suffi c i e ncy anal y sis, r ul e d i n e v e ry19

asp e ct t o supp o rt t he S t a t e ’ s t he o ry. S i mp l y r e ga r ding the S t a t e ’s

e v id e nc e

, the c ou r t f

o und l e ga l ly suffi c i e nt e v id e nce d e spi t e: t he

t e st i m o ny that b o t h t he CPS w o rk e r and d o c t o r f o und it ‘ dif

f icul t ’ to

d e m o nst r a t e ho l ding 26 p o unds f o r the r e q uir e d a m o unt of t im e ; the

fact t hat it a pp e ars the o ffi c e r s c hang e d t he se t t i ng on the w a t er h e a t er

th e rm o st a t to p r o d uce t he ma x imum t e m p e ra t ur e ; the f a ct t hat Dr. C o x

did not kn o w of t he t e mp e ra t ure t es t ing p e rf o rm e d a nd t es t ifi e d t he

burns w e r e c o nsis t ent w i t h a high e r t e mp e ra t ure ( i n e xc e ss o f 1 35

d e gr e es) t han w as p o ssib l e; t hat Dr. C o x bas e d h i s c on c lusi o n pa r t i ally

on abuse w hich h a d o ccur r ed y e a rs pr e vi o usly b e f o re t he W a lk e rs w e re

inv o lv e d i n t he li v es of t hese c hildr e n; that D r. C o x disr e ga r d e d t he

abs e nce o f i njuri e s w hich w ou l d ha v e indic a t e d f o r cib l e r e st r ain t ; that

one o f t he fir s t o f

fic e rs on sc e ne d e t e rm i ned this w as an a cc i d e nt and

not i nt e nti o nal; t hat ano t her o ffi c er d e t e rm i ned this w as a f o rc e d

im m e r si o n; that g o o d p ar e nts w o uld have d r ain e d t he tub, b ut that i f

the t ub had b e en dra i ned he w o uld have b e l i e v e d t hey w e r e hiding

e v id e nc e ; that he had no kno w l e dge o f h o w hot w a t er had to b e to b urn

and a dm i t t ed t hat his o pini o n w a s s p e c ula t i o n.

Aga i n b a sed o n a Jacks o n a naly s is, t he c o urt disr e ga r d e d t he20

e v id e nce o ff

e r e d b y Dr. L aw r en c e ’ s o pini o n t hat the b urns w e r e

acc i d e nta l

. D r. L aw r en c e was the o nly e x p e rt t o have a cc e ss t o the

sc e ne as w e ll as the c o m pl e te m e d ical his t o r y and o ff e nse r e p o r t s. He

was the o nly wi t ness able t o id e nti f y and e xp l ain the d i scr e pancy i n

burn m arks and t he scr a p e s i ndica t ing an e ff o rt t o l e ave t he tub by the

child. He also w as the o nly wi t ness to r e v i e w the W alk e rs m e dic a l

his t o r y and c on c lud e d t hat ne i th e r w e re i ndiv i dually o r j o int l y cap a ble

of h o lding B

. W. susp e nded f o r the t ime r e q uir e d t o cause t hese b urns.

Resp e c t full y

, th e se t w o cas e s e st a bli s h t he ne e d n o t just f o r a

l e gal suf f ic i en c y r e vi e w by the a pp e lla t e c o urt s

, but a fac t ual suffi c i e ncy

r e vi e w. Th e se cas e s d e m o nst r a t e that w hile t he r e may b e l e ga l ly

suffi c i e nt e v id e nc e

, the v e r dict w as so c o ntr a ry to t he o v e r wh e lm i ng

w e ight o f t he e v id e nce a s t o be c l e arly w r o ng and un j ust.

D

. S p e c u l a t iv e V e rdic t A l l o w e d t o St a nd

By on l y anal y zing the c ase und e r a Jacks o n a naly s is, t he c o urt

im p r o p e rly a ll o w e d t he v e rdi c ts in t his c ase t o be supp o r t e d

, inf e r e nce

upon inf e r e nc e

. W hile t he r e vi e wing c ou r t is to g ive d e f e r e nce t o the

r e sp o nsibi l i t y of t he t r i e r of f a ct t o fai r ly r e so l ve c onf l ic t s i n t es t im o ny,21

to w e i gh the e vi d en c e, a nd t o draw r e a son a ble i nfe r en c es fr o m basic

fac t s t o ult i ma t e fac t s, sp e cif i cal l y in t his c as e

, the r e v i e wing c ou r t

vi e w e d e v e ry fact a nd i nfe r en c e to uph o ld the v e r dic t

. Jacks o n

, 4443

U. S

. at 3 18

- 1 9.

Wh i le j uri e s a re a ll o w e d t o draw m ult i ple i nfe r en c es as l o ng as

e a ch i nfe r en c e is supp o r t ed b y the e vi d en c e, t hat did not o ccur he r e.

Ho o p e r v. S t a t e

, 214 S

. W

. 3d 9, 1 5 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 007 )

. An inf e r e nce

is a c o nclusi o n r e ach e d b y c o nsid e ring o th e r fac t s a nd d e ducing a

l o gi c al c o nse q uence f

r om t he m

. Id. A c o nclusi o n r e ach e d b y

sp e cula t i o n m ay not b e c o mp l e t e l y unre a son a bl e

, but it i s n o t

suffi c i e ntly b as e d o n f a c t s o r e v id e nce t o supp o rt a f i nding b e y o nd a

r e as o nable d o ubt. I d

. W hile i t is dif f icult t o r e c o gnize t he dif f e r en c e

b e t w e e n an inf

e r e nce a nd sp e cula t i o n, it i s n o t im p os s ible a nd i s a f a ct

dri v en anal y sis.

Wh i le t his c ou r t e x pr e ss e d i ts disa p pr o val o f t he t e rm inf e r e nce

st a cking as adding unne c es s ary c onfus i on, i t has c l e arly d i sappr o v e d a

sp e cula t ive v e r dict a nd r e l i e d o n t he c o urts using a Jacks o n a naly s is to

d e t e rm i ne if it w as sp e cula t iv e

. Ho o p e r 2 14 S

. W

. 3d at 1 8. As i n t hese

cas e s, the a pp e lla t e c o urts w ill d r aw th e se succ e ssi v e inf e r e nc e s e v e n22

wh e n t he r e are s e ri o us qu e st i ons as to t he cr e dib i li t y of w i t ness e s o r

wh e th e r th o se inf

e r e nc e s a re e v e n v ali d

.

A r e vi e wing c ou r t should d e t e rm i ne wh e th e r the n e c e ssary

inf e r e nc e s a re r e a son a ble b as e d up o n t he c o mb i ned and c umula t ive

f o rce o f a ll the e vi d en c e wh e n v i e w e d i n t he li g ht m o st fa v o r able t o the

v e rdi c t. Cla y t o n v . S t a t e

, 235 S

. W

. 3d 772, 7 78 (T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 007 )

.

As i n t his c as e

, app e lla t e c o urts c an s t ack inf e r e nc e s e v e n wh e n t hat

t y pe o f a naly s is is not p e rm i t t e d

. Ga r cia v. S t a t e

, 367 S

. W

. 3d 683, 6 87

(T e x. Cr i m. App. 2 012 )

.

The d i ff e r e nce i n ana l ysis i s p r o f ound. By l o ok i ng at t he e v id e nce

to supp o rt t he v e rdi c t, c ou r ts apply o ne ra t i o nal. W i th o ut a fac t ual

suffi c i e ncy r e vi e w, t hey a r e

, as he r e, f r ee t o disr e ga r d r e a son a ble

c o nclusi o ns f

r om t he cr e dib l e e v id e nce a nd a l l o w a sp e cula t ive v e r dict

to s t and. W i t hout a no t her d i scussi o n o f t he fac t s f r o m this c as e

, the

jur y ’s v e rdi c t is on l y bas e d up o n sp e cula t i o n, and p os s ibly e m o t i on, a nd

is not r e a son a ble w hen e x am i ned cumul a t i v e ly. Th e se v e rdi c ts are

mani f es t ly unjust and s hould be r e v e r se d

.23 C ON C LU SI O N

Under a ll ci r cums t anc e s, the C o urt of App e als e r r e d i n a f fir m ing

the t rial c ou r t ’ s d e cis i on. This Court sh o uld e i th e r r e v e rse t he l o w e r

c o urt and r e m and t o the t rial c ou r t f o r a new t rial b y r e ins t a t ing a

fac t ual suffi c i e ncy r e vi e w, o r r e v e rse t he jud g m e nt of t he t r ial c o urt

having f o und t hat the v e r dict i s b as e d o n sp e cula t i o n, not r e a son a ble

c o nclusi o ns and inf

e r e nc e s f

r o m cr e dib l e e v id e nc e

.

P R A Y E R

WHEREF O RE, P e t i t i on e r pra y s t he Court t o r e v e rse t he

jud g m e nt of t he Court o f A p p e als; a nd f o r such o th e r and f

urth e r r e li e f

to w hich s he may sh o w he r se l f j ust l y en t i t l e d.

Resp e c t fully sub m i t t e d,

/ s/ Ja m es Hugg l er

Ja m es W. Hug g l e r

S t a te Bar N o

. 007 9 5437

100 E. F e rgus o n, Sui t e 805

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

T e l e phon e : 9 03

- 5 93

- 2 400

Fac s im i l e : 9 03

- 5 93

- 3 830

ATT O RNEY F O R PE T I T I O NER24 CER T I F I C A T E O F S ERV I C E

I he r e b y c e r t ify that a t r ue and c o rr e ct c o py of the f o r e g o ing P e t i t i on

has b e en f

o rw a rd e d to the Dis t ri c t At t o r ne y

, S m i t h Coun t y, T e xas, and on

the S t a t e Pr o se c uting At t o r ney by r e gular ma i l or thr o u g h t h e S t a t e of

T e xas El e c t r o nic Fi li n g S y st e m on this the 1 s t day of D e c e mb e r, 2015 at

the a ddr e ss e s l is t ed b e l ow

/ s/ Ja m es Hugg l er

Ja m es W. Hug g l e r

Mike W est

S m i t h C o unty Dis t ri c t At t o r ne y ’s Off i ce

100 N. Br o adw a y, 4 t h F l o or

Ty l e r

, T e xas 757 0 2

Lisa M c Minn

S t a t e Pr o se c uting A t t o rn e y

PO Box 1 2405

Austin, T e x as 787 1 1CERT I F I CA T E O F C O M PL I A N C E

I c e r t ify t hat this Br i ef c o m pli e s w i t h T e x. R. App. P . 9

. 4, sp e cif i cal l y

using 14 p o int Cen t ury f o nt and c on t ains 5

, 060 w o rds as c o unt e d b y

Co r el W o r dP e rf

e ct v e r si o n x 6.

/ s/ Ja m es Hugg l er

Ja m es W. Hug g l e r, J r.

25