1 SeeTex. P enal C ode A nn. § 29 .03 (W est 199 4).



### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-99-00860-CR

44444444444

4444 Justin Rynell

Young, Appel

lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331S T JUDICIAL DIST RICT

NO. 0990568, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 Appe llantJu st in Ryn ell Yo ung wa s i nd i cte d f or ca pi tal m urder w hi l e i n th e c ours e of
co mmi t t ingand a t t empt ingto com m i t the of f en se of robb ery of K ry stl e Di ane Dav i s. SeeTex. Penal Code An n. § 19.03(a)(2) (West 1994). T he j ury found appell

ant guil ty of the lesser-i

ncl uded fi rst degree f elony off en se of aggra va ted robb ery

1 an d a ss es se d h is p un is h m en t a t sixty y

ears’ i m pri son men t. The j ury f

urther found that appella

nt knew that

a deadl y w ea pon, a

b as eb al l b at, would be use d i n the com m i ssi on of “th i s of f en se.”
Point of Er ror Appe llantadvan

ces a si ngle poin t o f error: “The jury ’s verdict and t he cou rt ’s judg ment ar e n

ot s uf f i ci en tl y su pp orte d by

the f acts a nd a re cl earl y wrong and m an i f estl y unjust.”2

A ppe l l an t i s ob vi ous l y ch al l en gi ng the f ac tua l su f f i ci en cy of t he ev ide nc e t o su pp o r t his co nvictio n. We will a ffir m. Factual Sufficiency

A revi ew of the f

actual sufficiency of t he evide nce be gins with the pres umption that t he evidence is legally

su f f i ci en t to su ppor t the j udg men t of con vic tion
. See Cle

wis v. State , 922 S.W.2d 12 6, 1 34 (Tex . C ri

m . A pp . 19 96 ). In

a ch al l en ge to the factualsuf

fi ci ency of the evi dence,
we vie w t he ev ide nc e w it ho ut t he pr ism o f “in th e l i gh t m ost f av ora b l e to the prosecution” as i n l egal suf fi ci en cy challe nge s. See id. , 92 2 S. W.2d at 129 ; Stone v. Sta te , 8 23 S .W. 2d 3 75, 381 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

199 2, pet. ref’d unti

me ly fi le d). A reviewi

ng court must consider all the evi dence impa r t iallycom

pa ri n g ev i den ce

th at te n dsto prov e th

e ex i ste n ce of a d i spute d f ac t or f ac ts w i th evi dence that ten ds to di sprove tha

t fact or those f

acts. SeeSantellanv. State , 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1997 ). The v

erdi ct is to be se t aside only when t he fact ual finding is aga inst t he gre at w ei gh t an d pr ep ond era nc e of th e ev i den ce

so as to be

clearl y wrong and un j ust. See Cle

wis , 922 S.W.2d at 129 . In the factual suff ici ency anal ysi s, it must be rem em bered that the trier

of f act is the sole j udge of t he we ight and credi bi l i ty of the testim

ony . See Santellan , 939 S.W.2d at 164. A pp el l ate cou rtssh oul d b e on gu ard n ot to substi

tut e thei r own judgm

ent in these m atter s f or t hat of the tri er of

f act. See id. The re

vi ew i ng cou rt’ s eva l ua ti on s hou l d n ot su bs tan ti al l y i ntr ude upon t his f act f i nde r’srole
. See Jones v. Stat e , 944 S. W.2d 642 , 64 7 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 96) ; see also Johnson v. State , 23 S.W.3d 1, 8-9 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 200 0). A de ci si onis n ot man if estly unj ust
mer ely because the jury resolved confl

icting v ie ws of the ev

ide nce i n f avor of the State. See Cai n v. State , 958 S.W .2d 404 , 410 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1997 ).3 Facts On the morni

ng of January

29, 1999, the body of

Krystle Di

ane Dav is , age 21, was fou nd in the lounge

of the My

stique Modeli ng Studio i

n A ustin . Davi s, a model

at the studio, had been bl udgeoned to deat h. The caus e of death was blun t-force tr aum

a to t he h ead w it ha blunt cy l i ndr i cal obj ect such

as a ba seb al l ba t. Tw o of th e th re e b l ows to the head would have been fatal ind ep en de nt o f t he o t he rblo ws ac co r di ng t o t he med ica l ex amin er wh o pe r fo r med t he au t o ps y.

Ma r ia H ar dy, an o t he rmo de l, f oun d the b ody

ab out 10 :00

a.m. wh en sh e a rri ve d f or work an d tur ne d on the l i gh ts i n th e l oun ge . Ha rdy sa w D av i s on a c ouc h w

i th bl ood on her chest and “holes all over her head .” Davis’s pur se w as by t he co uch. It was wid e o pe n a nd fu ll o f mo ne y. The re wa s al so m oney on the f l oor. Debra Holla

nd, t he o wner /manag er of t he Myst ique M od eling Studio, test if

ie d that it was an adul

t entert ai nm ent busi ness off erin g nude an d li ngerie m odeli ng. Holl and was in t he st ud io when t he bod y was d isco ver ed. Ho lland had g one t o d inner t he eve ning befo re and r et ur ned t o t he stu dio’s parki

ng l ot about 1:00

a.m . on Ja

nua ry 29, 1999. She s t ayed in her aut omo bile becau se she had b een dri n ki n g w i n e. She d i d n ot wa n t to violate her own stric

t ru le pr ohibit ing individuals in the st ud io who had consum

ed al coholi

c bev erages. She f

el l a sl eep. Hollan

d was disturbed by

the noise of another car on the parkin g lot about 5:00 a.m. and en tered the studi o shortl

y there af ter. She ha

d not turne d on the l

i ghts i n the lounge

and di d not se e Dav

i s un til Hardy noti f i ed h er. Ho lland report ed that Davi s and Ch er Lowe, appell

ant’s l iv e-in girl fri end, had worked
on the eveni ng of Jan uary 28th a nd th e m orni ng of Jan uary 29th. D uri ng th i s ti me peri od, there were only two “shows” performed, both by Davi s. The record al so reflects that Davis

moonl igh ted that ni ght with an

escort agency a

nd di d two “ou t calls” at $15 0 ea ch. Cher Lowe m ade no m oney that4

even in g. Models H ardy an

d Mary An n Piche testif

ie d that Davi s was a peti

te, beautif ul gi rl wi th large breasts. She f

requently to ok custo me

rs away from Lowe. Apparentl

y the re was s om

e a n i mosi ty between Davi s and L owe because L owe h ad su pp ose dl y sl ep t wi th Davi s’s h usban d or ex-husba

nd. Da vis alw ays ca rr ied lar ge su ms of m oney in her purse. It was generally known that Davis pl ann

ed to sp en d that p arti

cul ar week-e

nd at the s tudi

o. In the early m

orning hours of January 29th, Davi s, Lo we a nd P iche wa t ched t he movi e, “Th e Tex as Cha i ns aw M ass acre .” Later, about 4:30 a. m., Piche agreed to take Lowe home. Da vis wa s a sle e p at t his time. When leaving, Lo we t oo k t he VC R and movies, and t ur ned o ff the hallway li ght s. T he light swit ch had been t ape d t o p re vent t he li ghts from bei

ng turned o ff

because of t he se cur ity video camer a. Piche tur n ed th e l i gh ts b ack on . In

th e p ar ki n g l ot, Low e k

noc ke d on t he wi nd ow of Ho llard’s car , st oo d t her e a w hile and t hen anno unce d t o P iche t hat Ho lland was dr unk and asl eep i n he r car. Piche drove Lowe home. Ho me was the apartmen

t o f M elin da Sim pson, apartment m

an ag er of t he Highland Co ve A pa rtm en ts in Austi n. Si mps on li ved there with h

er boyf rien d, Chad Thatche

r. Appella

nt was
unem ploy ed and Lowewa s n

ot mak i n g m uc h mon ey. Th

ey h ad b een ev i cte d f rom th ei r a pa rtm en t. Si m pson al l owed th em

to stay i n h er apa rtme nt an d sl eep on the l i vi ng r oom f l oor. The twenty-three-y

ear-old Che

r Lowe was a wi

tness f or t he prosecution. She was
an ac com pl i ce wi tn es s a s a matte r of l aw . L owe

h ad en tered a p l ea of gui l ty to the murder

of Kry stal Diane Davi s and h

ad been giv en a l if e sentenc e. She related that she had n ot been off ered any l en i en cy to tes ti f y . L owe ad m i tted th at sh e h

ad ki l l ed Da v i s wi th a b as eb al l b at. Cher Lowe testifi

ed that she had kn

own appella

nt Justin Young about si

x y ears and, though not marri ed, t hey had lived t og et her for seve ra l years. At t he t ime of t he o ffense, bot h she5

and appella

nt were on probation f

or burglary . Lowe ackn owled ge d th at she and a ppel la nt had dis cussed a robb er y of h er co- wor kersat th e M y sti qu e S t ud io because

the saf e at the studio was bolted to “ the grou nd .” L owewent to work on t he eve ning o f Janua ry 28 t h. S he testifi ed that later when app ellant br ou ght her Simpso n’s VC R and two movie c assettes at work, he was accompan ie d by his f ri end, Cl i f ton Harri s, an d Harr i s’ s f ri end, a ma n named I sra el; t hat at app ellant’ s su gge st ion,
a robb ery at t he st udio was t hen disc uss ed w ith t he o t he rt wo men , bu t it wa s r ea lize d t ha t t he gir ls at t he st udio knew app ellant ; th at la ter t he three m

en returned i

n the earl y m ornin g hours to t ake Lowe to a store ; th

at the rob be ry wa s a gai n d i scus se d b

ut i t wa s dec i de d that the rob be ry wou l d
occ ur “ af ter wor k” an d th at th e robb er y wou l d b e ex ecute d on

l y b y Lowe a n d a pp el l an t. Lowe re vealed t hat when s he ar rived at t he Simpso n apa rt ment af ter 4:3 0 a.m ., app ellant gr ab

b ed th e key s on a ta b l e to one of Si

mps on’s cars an

d drove her bac

k to the Mystique Studi o. The purpose was to sneak i n an d steal Dav

is ’s m oney , to rob her. Lowe made cl ear t ha t app ellant was aware of the pl an, al though they

di d not con

tem plate m urder. Lo we wa s d r es se d in bl ack pa nts an d a gra y sw ea tsh i rt wi th a hood to hi de her f eatures from the s ecurity

vi deo cam era. She wore appell

ant’s tenn is shoes wi th socks on her han

ds. She tri ed

to wal k li ke a m an. Lowe reveal ed t hat she e nt er ed t he st udio wit h her key, went t o t he lou nge, t ur ned t he l i gh ts on br iefly

, a nd determi ned t ha t Da vis w as st ill

sleep ing so undly. S he we nt t o t he bat hro om and came ba ck int o t he lounge when t he teleph

one began to rin g. Lowe tur ned the “

rin ger” off on the phone, but

noticed that Dav i s b egan to stir. Lo we t hen o bt ained a base ball bat k ept at t he st udio for t he pr ot ect ion o f the models. Wh

en Dav is began to move , Lowe be ga n hit t ing Da vis with the b asebal l b at. When Lowe
saw bl ood on he r sw eat shirt , she “frea ked .” She left t he st udio wit h t he bat but wit hou t t aking a ny
mo ne y. Appe llantwas wait ing for her in a par king lo t sep ar at ed by a fenc e fro m the s t udio ’s pa rk ing6

lo t where Holla

nd’s car remai

ne d. When t hey ret ur ned ho me, a ppe llant t oo k t he bas eball bat and threw i t in a nearb y dum pster. Me lan ie Sim

pson, her boy

fri end, Cha d Thatcher, Clif

to n Har ris, several police off icers, and t he medica l examiner all t est ifi ed fo r t he pr os ecu t ion. Appe llantt es t ified in

hi s own beh

al f, den yi ng an y gui lty partici pation i n the off ense,
orany robbery or at tempted

ro bber y. App ellant re late d t hat he had been o ut unt il the ea rly morning hours with Ha rris an d Israel b ut came h ome an d went to sleep. Appel

la nt stated t hat Lowe awakened him abo ut 4: 30 a .m. and insist ed t hat he dr ive her t o t he studio; that he ass ume d that Lowe had left Sim pson’s VCR at the Mystique St udio and w ant ed t o r et rieve it . Ap pellant re called t hat Lo we w ent upstai rs an d c ame ba ck wit h t he ke ys t o Simp son’s ca r th at Th atc he r norm al l y drov e. H e di d n

ot noticethat Lowe was unusual ly dressed, or that she had socks on he r ha nds, or t hat she w as w ear ing his sho es. Appe llant d ro ve Lo we t o t he studio and then drove around the block twice. Holl and h ad warned him not t o c ome t o t he studio, so when he saw Ho lland’s ca r, he did no t st op on t he pa rk ing l ot. Wh en Lowe cam

e out of t he st udio , a ppe llant o bser ved t hat Lo we w as “wa lking frant ically ” and
was holdi ng som ethin g at her sid e w hic h sh e p lac ed in t he ba ck se at o f t he ca r . Ap pe llant did not see what it was. On

the way home , Lowe to ld a

ppel la nt that she thought she had kil led Davi s. Appe llant did not beli

eve her. U pon ar rivi

ng at S im pson’s ap ar t men t , Lo we pu t a b as eb all bat in the a par t ment dum pster. Appel

la nt went to bed. Appell

ant testif ie d that Lowe never

tol d h i m th at s h e i n ten de d to robDavis; if he had kno wn t hat he wa s t aking L ow e t o c ommit a cr ime, he “wo uld have go ne in and done i t wi th her.” Appe llantad

m i tted th at on Ja nu ary 28th he ha d a con ve rs ati on wi th Lo we, Har ris and
an acquai ntance n am ed Israel a bout a ro bbe

ry at the My

stique Studio to be perpetrated by the three7

men. The robbery

had b een suggested by

Lowe. Appel

la nt reveal ed that the

y di scus se d a

ne ed f or
a we ap o n t o t ak e t he mo ne y, t he be st t ime t o co mmit t he robbery, the fact that he would need a m ask because h e w as

kn own b y th e g i rl s, an d h ow h e w oul d c ov er th e s ecuri

ty camer a if he wa s g oi

n g to be in volved. Appel

lan t related t hat he did not know I sr a el very well, that his f

rien d, Harris, was “f l aky ,” t hat he had just go t t en o ut of jail, and t ha t he did no t t ak e t he r o bbe ry di sc us sio n s er io us ly. Appe llantadm

itted that aft er t he mur de rhe did at t empt t o he lp Lo we d est ro y evidence including t he gray swe atsh i rt. Further, he had s earche d the dum pster for the basebal l bat, but fou nd t hat t he dumps ter had been

em ptied. The t we nt y-t hr ee - yea r - o ld a pp ella nt ad mi t t ed his e xt ens ive c rimina l hist o ry bu t left t he i m pre ss i on t hat he had no t , in fact , be en gu ilty of any pr eviou s o ffense r esu lting in a co nvictio n. T his opened th e door to detail s of the pri or off

en ses . At the tim

e of the i nstant off ense, appel

la nt was
on pro bation for burglary

and unauthorized use of a m otor vehi cle. The burgl

ary h ad been comm itted by appe l l an t and Lowe. Appe llant ad mitt ed t hat he to ld the i nve stigati ng off ic er Lowe had comm

itted t he previous burglary, cl

ai mi ng he was m erely present at the scene. W

ith regard to the ot her

off ense, app ellant stated his f

rien d had stolen

the car wi

thout hi s knowl edge, and wh en th e of f i cers approached, he f

le d the car, leav

in g Lowe behi

nd, beca use he h ad dr ugs on his p er so n. Ap pellant acknowl edged

his guilt fo r t he off

ense of deliv ery of a controlled

su bst an ce , bu t cla imed it wa s o nly “co nst ru ct ivede liver y” a lt ho ug h he “p o ck et ed ” t he mo ne y. A pp ella nt admi tt ed that he had b een
co nvic t ed t wic e fo ras sa ult ing Lo we an d t ha t she ha d b ee n c o nvic t ed o nc e fo ras sa ult ing him.
Discussion Inhi s f actual suf fi ci ency argumen t, appellant does not review all the evi den ce a s required, bu

t f ocu se s s ol ely upo n t he t es t imon y of C her Lo we whic h he de sc ribe s a s “s elf-2 SeeTex. C ode C rim. P roc. An n. art. 38 .14 (W est 197 9). 8 contrad i cti ng.” Appell ant argues t hat Lowe’s t estim ony, whi ch tends t o pr ove ap pellan t’s involvement as

a p ar ty , i s th e s am e ev i den ce

th at te n dsto disprove appell

ant’s in volvem ent as apa r t y. Over loo king t he pr es ump t io n that the evi dence is l egally

suf fi ci ent when

a fac tual suf fi ci ency chal le nge i s m ade, the gis

t o f appel

la nt’s argum

ent is that Lowe’s testim

ony as an accompl ic e witness has

n ot be en co rr o bo r at ed t o sh o w t ha t ap pe llan t wa s a pa r t y t o t he r o bbe ry. A pp el l an t, however, doe s n

ot ci te article 38.14 2 or d iscuss the corro boration test necessary under t hat st at ut e. Lo we c learly t est ifi ed t hat app ellant d ro ve her t o t he mod eling st udio kno wing of t he intent to steal m

oney from Davi s. Despi

te the e ar lier dis cus sions t hat day abo ut a r obbe ry at t he mod eling studio, appell

ant deni ed that he knew of

Lowe’s i ntent to steal f

rom or ro b Dav

is . He cl ai me d t hat he dr ove Lo we t o t he stu di o i n th e e ar l y m orn i n g h our s th i n ki n g sh e p oss i

b l y wa n ted to
re t rieve a VCR. Mel

in da Sim pson and Cl

if to n Harri s both testif

ie d that after the fact

ap pe llant t o ld them that he (appe ll

ant) knew o f Lowe’s int en t t o st ea l o rr o b. Lo we ’s t es t imo ny w as su fficie nt ly
corro borated. The Corre ct St an da rd

[T ]he com pl ete and c or re ct st anda rd a r eviewing court mus t foll ow to conduct a Clew is f ac tua l su f f i ci en cy rev i ew of the el em ents of a cri

mi nal off ense as ks whether a ne utra lrevi ewof

al l the e vi dence, b ot h f

or and agai

nst the f in din g, demonstrates t hat t he pr o o f o f gu ilt is s o o bvio us ly weak as t o unde rmin

e co nfi dence in the jury’s det er minatio n, or t he pr o o f o f g uilt , alt ho ug h a de qu at e if t ak en alo ne , is g r ea t ly o ut we ighe d by c o nt ra ry p ro o f.
Johnson , 23 S.W.3d at 11.
Conclusion9 Ut ili zing the f oreg oi n g st anda rd , w e have , in ac co rd ance wit h Clew is , ex amine d a ll t he evi dence im partial ly , and gi vi ng due def

erence to the jury ’s verdict, we concl ude that the verdic

t is no t so co nt ra ry t o t he o ver whe lming w eig ht o f the ev i den ce as to b e c l ea

rl y wron g a n d u n j us t. Appel la nt’s sol e contention i s overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

John F . Onion, Jr., Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s B . A . Sm

i th, Ye akel

an d O ni on * Af fi rmed File d: October 12, 2000 Do No t Publis

h

* Bef ore John F. On i on, Jr ., Presidi

ng J udg e ( re t ired ), Co ur t of Cr imi nal Appe als, s itt ing by ass i gnm en t. SeeTex . Gov’ t Code A nn . § 74.00 3(b ) (We st 1998 ).