As did the parties in their br iefs, we will refe r to the appe llees collec tively as “Ma dura.” 1 Th e c ir c ums tanc e s fol lowin g the hurr ic ane have be e n w e ll d oc ume nte d, pa rt ic ula rl y 2 conce rning the ef

fec ts on New Or leans’s pe t population: Hur ri cane Katr ina made la ndfall at 6:10 a.m. on August 29, 2005. W ithin hours L ou isi ana ’s le ve e sy ste m w a s o ve rt op pe d a nd br e a c hed. By

Au g us t 31 , e ig hty pe rc e nt o f New Orl eans wa s und e r w a te r. Th e me dia bo mba rd e d th e pu

bli c wi th ima g e s and sto ri e s of anim a ls str and e d a lon e a mid st the de va statio n. Th e se a c c ounts po ig na ntl y c on ve y e d the me ssa g e that ou r n a tio na l po lic ie s a

nd laws we re se ve re ly flawe d when it ca

me to animals and disaster s. Meg an McN abb, Pets in t h e E ye o f the Storm: Hurricane Katrina Fl oods the Courts W ith Pet Custody Disputes , 14 Animal L . 71, 72 (2007) ( citations omitt ed). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 541 -CV

Shal anda Aug ill ar d , A ppe lla nt

v. Tif fan y Madura and Richard T oro , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 06- 0762 , HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM HENRY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N This appea l arises fr om a s uit for conversion filed by Shalanda Aug illard alleg ing that Tiffa ny Madura and Richar d Toro wrong fully exercised dominion and control o v er Au gi l lard’s 1 black c ocker

spaniel, Jaz z, who was rec o v er ed from New Orle ans in the wake of the Hurric ane Katrina disaster in August of 2005. Madura responde d that while she did adopt a dog that had bee n 22

re sc ue d f ro m N e w O rl e ans , h e r do g , Ho pe F loats (“ Ho pe ” ), is no t the same do g tha t A ug ill ard

los t i n t h e f l o o d

. T h e c a s e w a s t r i e d b e f o r e t h e c o u rt , w h i c h f

o u n d t h a t A u g i l l ar d f

a i l e d t o p r o v e b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the dogin question was J azz and entere d judgme nt in favor of Madura . Aug illard asser

ts on appea l that the trial court e rre d in disre g ardingconclusive e vidence , including f

orensic D NA ana ly sis, e stablishing that Hope and Jaz z are the same dog and in deny ing Aug illard’s re quest for injunctive r elief. I n two points of error, Augillar d challeng es t he lega l and fac tual sufficie ncy of t he evidence suppor ting the tr ial court’s judg ment. Be cause we c onclude that the evidenc e is leg ally

insufficient, we reve rse a nd rende r judg ment in favor of Aug illard.
BACK GR OUND T h i s ca s e b ega ni nM ay

2 0 0 6 wh en Au gi l l ar d

fi l eds u i tfo r c o n v er s i o n , s ee k i n g a te mp o r ar y r e s tr a in in g o r d e r

a n d a nin ju n c ti o nin ane f f o rt t o h a v e th e d o g s h e b e lie ve d w a s Ja zz
re tur ne d to he r. Af

te r s e ve ra l he ari ng s o n A ug ill ard ’s mot ion s, the c ourt or de re d tha t the do g re ma in in Madura’ s possession but en j o i n ed Madura

from moving the dog outside of Hay s County . The

case proce eded to tria l in J une 2007.

The c entra l issue at t rial and the onl y disputed issue on appea l is whether Aug illard’s dog , J azz, and the dog t hat Madura adopted f rom NewOrlea

ns after Hurric ane K atrina, H ope, ar e in fac t the same dog . I n an ef fort to prove J azz’s identit y , Aug illard offe red two D NA tests and expert t es t i mony

reg ardingJ azz’s and Hope’s similar medica l conditions, as well as her mother’s

an d h e r o w nte s ti mo n y

th a t e a c h o f

th e m h a d p e r s o n a ll y

id e n ti f ie d H o p e a s Ja zz. At tr ia l, Aug ill ard

te sti fi e d th a t sh e le ft

Jazz inhe r m oth e r’ s c are wh e n h e r j ob wi th Fe der al E x p re s s require d her to stay at the Ne w Orle ans Airpor t and over see the delivery ofI n re s ponse to Hurr icane Katrina , Congr ess passed the Pet Emerg ency Transpor tation 3 Safety Act of 2006. The PETS Act require s local and state di saster plans to include provisions for household pets and se rvice animals in the eve nt of a natural disaster or emer g ency

in order for the lo c a li ty to b e e li g ib le f

o r F e d e r a l E me r g e n c y M an a g e me n t g rants. See H. R
. 3 8 5 8 , 1 0 9 t h C o n g. (2006) ( enac ted). Odam testi fied at trial that his org anization broug ht crates and other pet supplies to New 4 Orlea ns on September 12, 2005. He stated that while delivering supplies, he came into possession o f a b l ac k co ck er s p an i el t h at h e t ra n s p o rt edt o T ex as . Od am u s ed“p i ct u re s o f th e do g i n a b l o g” that he wa s running for h i s we b s ite, PawMatch.c om, and solicited cha rity contributions for her

. Odam testified that he nev er l i sted the dog with Pet Finders, a n online reg istry

and data base f or loc a tin g mis sin g pe ts. Thomas Dar

nell, another volunteer who acc ompanied Odam to New Orlea ns, also testified. He e xpla ine d tha t he and

Od a m w e re ins tr

uc te d b y le a de rs fr om t

he SPCA no t to re mov e any anim a ls from the c ity

beca use loca l owners we re still try ing to find their pets, and that Odam took the black cocke r spaniel a

ny way beca use he w anted “ a poster c hild to represe nt what we ha d done.”

3 evac uation supplies. She testified that her mother was e ventually require d to evac uate he r home by the Natio na l G uard and wa s n ot p e rm itt e d to take Jazz on to t he re sc ue bo a t. Aug illard’s mother 3 then l eft J azz on t he sec ond floor of he r home with seve ral we eks’ wor th of wate r and f

ood. Aug illard explained that afte r the hurrica ne, she was among the first civilians permitted to ree nter the city , and she immediate ly went to her mother’s house to try to rec over Jazz . Finding the door kicked i n an d J azz m issing, Aug illard beg an conta cting local shelter s, online pet reg istries, and org anizations that had been se t up to f acilitate post-Katrina pet rec overy . Eventually , Aug illard was put i n t o u ch with Andy

Odam of Paw Match.c om, a website that Aug illard believe d had posted a p ic tu r e o f Ja zz. Au g ill ard te sti fi e d tha t O dam r e fu se d h e r r e pe a te d r e qu e sts to s e e the do g a nd to 4 verify that it was her missing pet. Despite not being able to see the dog in person, Aug illard testified that she immediately

rec og nized J azz from the photogr aphs bec ause she had ra ised the dog for the la st ei g ht an d a hal f y e ars , fr om the tim e that J a zz wa s only a fe w w e e ks old . A ug ill ard e ve ntu a llyI n the cha otic afte rmath of the flood, at least 50,000 pets we re stra nded in the Ne w Orle ans 5 ar ea. McNabb, supra n o te 2 , a t 7 5
. A p p r o xim a te ly 1 5 , 0 0 0 w e r e r e s c u e d b y A n im a l Co n trol and other voluntee rs; of t hese, about 3,000 wer e promptly reunited w ith their owners, w hile 12,000 wer e adopted. Id. M an y o f

t h e s e 1 2 , 0 0 0 p e t s w e r e t r an s p o rt e d t o j u r i s d i c t i o n s a s f

ar aw ay a s N e w J e r s e y, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. I d

. a t 76 ; s ee also id. a t 84 -1 03 (s ur ve y ingthe po st- Katr ina

pe tcustody litigation).
4 lear n ed from her c ontacts in coc ker spa niel resc ue g roups that the dogfrom the we bsite had bee n br ou g ht t o H ay s Co un ty , T e xas. 5

Aug illard also testified concerning J azz’s medical hist ory . She stated that for about six y ear s, J azz had suffere d from thy roid problems, a skin c ondition that caused thinning of Jaz z’s hair, a nd bladder

problems that re sulted in J azz’s fre quent urination and the occa sional appea ranc e of blo o d i n h er u ri n e. Profe ssional photogr aphs that Aug illard had take n of Jaz z in 2003 or 2004

wer e admitted into evidenc e and show ed that Jaz z’s hair was thinning around her nec k and the lowe r portion of her

body , which Augillard testified was a “fa irly common” condition for Jazz . The trial

rec ord also contains a portion of J azz’s vete rinary documents (those that survived the f lood), which indicate that Jazz (1) ha d been administered her shots and vaccinations, (2) rec eived r eg ular phy sical examination s , (3 ) w as p re s cr i b eds ev er al d i ff er en tm ed i ca t i o n s , i n cl u d i n g C ep h al exin and Neopre def powder , and (4) had bee n regularly bathed a nd g roomed. On cr oss-examination, Madura’s c ounsel attempted to ca ll into doubt Aug illard’s

asser tion that J azz and Hope are the s ame dog. Noting Aug illard’s prior statements that J azz was in “ e xce lle nt p hy sic a l c on dit ion ” a s o f August 29 , 20 05, a nd that Jazz h a d s uf

fe re d f ro m c hr on ic health issues, specific ally “thy roid illness” and “urina

ry trac t problems (kidney

stones),” Ma dura’ s counsel c ited ev i d ence that when Hope arr ived in Austin, she was suff eringfrom a se rious andThis evidence was o ff er ed t hroug h the testimony of Ga rre tt Donop, one of the 6 ve te ri na ri ans wh o tr e a te d H op e a ft e r s he wa s b ro ug ht t o T e xas. Al tho ug h D on op ha d p re vio us ly testified at the tempor ary

injunction hearing , Aug illard objected to D onop’s testify ing as an expert witness at t rial on the basis that Madura had failed to desig nate Donop as an expert. The trial c ourt su sta ine d A ug ill ard ’s ob

je c tio n a nd pe rm itt e d D on op to of

fe r on ly fa c tua l te sti mony c on c e rn inghis observations of the dog

. Madura does not a raise a cross-point on appea l c omplaining that Donop’ s e xpe rt te sti mony

wa s im pr op e rl y e xclu de d d

ur ingtr ia l. 5 appar ently

untreated ca s e o f h y

pothy roidism and had two abnor mally larg e bladde r stones, rather tha n k idn e y sto ne s. Counsel further

emphasized that Hope’ s skin condition resulted in her having 6

a ve ry str on g and

dis tin c tiv e od or , a lth ou g h A ug ill ard ha d te sti fi e d th a t J a zz ha d n o unu su a l sm e ll, other than a

“slig htly strong er ur ine smell.” Fur ther testimony reg arding the dog ’s medical conditions was offe red f rom Dr. Tom Ho us e and

Dr . G arr e tt D on op , th e tw o v e te ri na ri ans wh o tr e a ted Ho pe a ft e r s he arr ive d in Te xas. House wa s the first to treat and diag nose the dogafte r she wa s reloc ated to the Hay s County are a. He testified at trial that Hope, an older cocke r spaniel, “wa s obese, had thin ha ir coat, [and] had bee n clipped fa irly

rec ently .” He explained that the dog exhibi ted seve ral c onditions t hat ar e
fa ir ly c omm on

in a n o lde r co c ke r s pa

nie l. T he thi n c oat g oe s a lon g wi th [hy po]t hy roidism. Bad ears—c ocker s are known for bad ears. Those are ty pical for any cocke r spaniel you see. This one did have diar rhea , which wouldn’t be surprising not having—not knowing w hat it had eaten in the last sever al day s. [The dog ha d] some internal pa

rasites a s well as fle as. The dogdid have some e vidence of staph inf e c tio n in the sk in. An d c e rt a inl y the sta phinf e c tio n in the sk in a

nd the y e a st infec tio n in th e e ar s w o u ld g o a lo n g w it h b e in g in th e w a te r , e s p e c ia ll y in a [ h y p o ] t h y ro i d d o g.
House testified f

urther that the dog “wa s probably well taken c are of,” e vidence d by the fa ct that she ha d been g roomed rec ently and had be en g iven hea rtworm-pr evention medica tion.Halver son is also a licensed ve t er i n arian and holds advanc ed deg ree s in veterinar y 7 medicine a

nd veter inary

epidemiolog y . At t ri al, Madura did not object to Halver son’s being qu a lif ie d a s an e xpe rt
. 6 When asked whe ther he had dete cted the g olf-ball-sized bladder stones, House testified that he

e xami ne d th e do g ’s bla dd e r b ut d id n ot f e e l any sto ne s. Madura ’s veter inarian, D r. Donop, testified that M ad u ra broug ht Hope in for a n examination in S eptember of 2005 af

ter the dogshowed s i g ns of havinga bladde r problem. He stated that Hope prese nted as “ a happy dog ” who was overw eig ht and had “ seborr hea or g rea sy skin, kind of thin-haire d g rea sy skin,” which he suspected was t he result of hy pothy roidism. He testified that w he n h e fi rs t e xami ne d Ho pe , he pe rf or me d an ult

ra so un d e xami natio n, wh ic h is do ne fo r a ll

“ ur ine -t ra c t- pr on e anim a ls, ” and tha t he fo un d n o b la dd e r s ton e s at th a t po int

. Afte r p ro ble ms
c on tin ue d for se ve ra l we e ks , Don op too k x-r ay s, re ve a lin g tw o “ la rg e r t ha n g olf -b a ll- size d s ton e s” that he had not pr eviously detec ted. Donop wa s permitted to testify , over Aug illard’s objec tion, that the size of the bla dd e r s ton e s in dic a te d th a t th e c on dit ion sh ou ld have be e n dia g no se d e arl ie r b e c a us e “y ou are n’t g oing to g row these siz ed roc ks in a week’s time.” H e fur ther stated that he believe d Hope’ s g landular c o n d ition was due to her hy pothy roidism, which also ca

uses a dogto have a “strong ” odor.

Donop was a sked on cross-e x amination whether the dog’s ski n condition could have be e n e xac e rb a te d b y

str e ss, and

he te sti fi e d th a t st

re ss c ou ld in creas e bo th t he se ve ri ty

of the sk in

c on dit ion and the g ro wth o f b la dd e r s ton e s. I n a dd iti on to the te sti mony c omp ari ng Jazz’ s and Ho pe ’s me dical con dit ion s, Aug illard also ca lled Dr. J oy Halver son, an ex pert in the fie ld of DNA a naly sis and the direc tor of Q u e s t G e nF o r e n s i c L a

b o r a t o r y. Halver son testified concerning two DNA tests that she perfor med 7The sug g estion to conduct DNAanaly sis was first ra ised d u ri n g t h e May 30, 2006 8 temporar y injunction hearing . At that time, the parties a g ree d that a buccal s am p le would be collecte d from Hope and sent to the DNA lab and that Aug illard would try to salvag e some of Jazz ’s hair fr om the hurrica

ne debr is for scientific compar ison. Halver son’s first DNA r eport, which wa s admitted into evidence , indicates that on J une 1, 2006, the lab r ece ived a shipment of two dogsweaters and a h ai rb ru sh, along with “a presc ription for Jaz z Augillard f rom L akevie w Vete rinary Hospital in New Orlea

ns for Ne oprede f powder dated 3/2/99.” Ha lverson testified that she was a ble to extract a usable DNA sample fr om exudate in the hairbrush a nd that the exudate mater ial is a “brow n-re d,” “se rum-like” substanc e that commonly

results from “ canine skin disorders.” Also noteworthy

are Halver son’s observations in her repor t that the Neopr edef

presc ription 9 bottle acc ompanying the hair sample f rom the dog brush made it evide nt “that the owne r had be en tr e a tin g the do g fo r m any y e ars ” fo r i ts s kin

c on dit ion

and tha t “ su c h c on dit ion s a

re c omm on

in Cocker spa

niels and ar e par

ticularly problematic in hot, humid e nvironments such as Ne w Orle ans.” B oth Jazz’ s and Ma dis on ’s Am e ri c an K e nn e l Clu b p e dig re e pa

pe rs we re a dmi tte d in to 10 evidenc e, esta

blishing that they

share d the same da

m, Hunter’s L ittle L ady

I I I
. Madison’s owner , a proje ct eng ineer

for L ockhee d Martin, trave led from Vir g inia to testify at trial conc erning Ma dis on ’s ma tr ili ne a g e ; sh e a lso te sti fi e d r e g ard ing the c ha in o f c us tod

y of Ma dis on ’s DN A s a mpl e and its su bmi ssi on to t he DN A l a

b f or ana ly sis

. 7 in this case. In the first ana ly sis, which was a dmitt ed i nto evidence , Halver son compare d DNA

ma te ri a l fr om Ho pe wi th DN A e xtra c te d fr om o ne of Jazz’ s d ogbr

us he s. Acc ording to Halver son,

8 the test showed a

complete matc h at all seve nteen DNA m arke rs wit h a likelihood ratio excee ding

on e tr ill ion , me anin g that “ it is a tr ill ion tim e s mo re lik e ly

tha t th e sampl e s matc h b e c a

us e the y c a me from the same dog ” than be cause the samples “c ame f rom diffe rent dog s and match by chanc e.” 9 H a lv e r s o n te s ti f ie d th a t t h e s e c ond test, which wa s conducte d a month later, c ompare d Hope’ s mitochondrial DNA to the mitochondrial DNAtaken f rom Madison, a c ocker

spaniel born to th e s a me mo th e r

a s Ja zz. Th e re su lts sh ow e d th a t H op e and Mad iso n h a ve the same

10 mitochondrial ty

pe, which oc curs whe n two dog s are materna l relatives, and that Hope a nd Madison

c ou ld t he re fo re have the same mot he r. Ha lve rs on

te sti fi e d th a t he r l a

b’ s d a ta ba se c on ta ins a

fa ir ly diverse numbe r of mitochondria l ty pes for cocke r spaniels and that, g iven the vast e x tent to whichThe judg ment also disposed of Madura ’s counter claims ag ainst Aug illard, which a re not 11 re le va nt t o th is a

pp e a l. 8 cocke r spaniels have bee n bred in the United S tates, m itochondrial t y pes among the c ocker

spaniel bre e d ar e mo r e d iv e r s e th an a mo n g o th e r b r e e d s . Sh e f u rth e r s tate d th a t th e mi to c h o n drial ty pe share d by Hope a nd Madison is not shared by any of the other

cocke r spaniels in the database

. Halver son admitted on cross-e x amination that it was “p o t en t i all y true” that there could be a

chain of cocke r spaniels who w ould all be re lat ed t h ro u gh the mother’s D NA and that
su c h a c ha in c ou ld c on sis t of hund re ds of do g s sp ann ingse ve ra l g e ne ra tio ns . Sh e c lari fi e d th a t in prac tice, howe ver, the re is gene rally not such a “ conce ntration of ce rtain mitochrondria l ty pes,” a nd she re jected c ounsel’s sug g estion that perha ps even “ thousands” of c ocker spaniels would share the same mitochondrial ty

pe, i.e., that they

would all derive from a sing le mater nal re lative. Madura also testified at trial. She state d that she picke d up Hope f rom Andy

Odam

on Se pte mber 26 , 20 05 , and that th e do g “ sme lle d r e a lly , r e a lly ba d, ” “ he r h a ir

wa s v e ry

thi n
ever y wher e and g on e i n m an y

spots,” and “she was urinating blood.” Ma dura te stified that Hope was diag nosed with hy

pothy roidism, had been pr escr ibed Cephalex i n , an d h ad two lar g e bladde r stones remove d. Madura

also submitted photog raphs of the dog that wer e take n within a month after Hope wa s resc ued. She testified that the photog raphs show H ope’s “ skin condition on her nec k and [a] li ttl e bit

on he r b a c k, ” e xpla ini ngthat w hil e the ph oto g ra ph s d id n ot fu lly

de pic t it , “ the ha ir

los s
was a ll over the body

with the exception of her he ad and he r leg s.” At the c onclus ion

of the tr ia l, t

he c ourt e nte re d a

take -n oth ingjud g me nt a s to Au g ill ard ’s c la im, making the following finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law: 119

The main disputed issue invol ved whether or not Aug illard owned the proper ty , i.e. the dog . Aug illard failed to pr ove the c ase by a pre pondera

nce of evidenc e. The testimony

of Aug illard’s witnesses wa s not credible. A re asonable fac t finder c ould not find that the D.N.A. e vidence pres en ted by Aug ill ar d has bee n authenticated or identified thus indicating a high pote ntial for t am p er i n g.
Au g ill ard no w a pp e a ls.

DI SCU SSIO N Aug illard asser

ts that the evidenc e is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to suppor t the trial court’ s judgme nt beca use she c onclusively

established eve ry

element o f h er claim for

conver sion. W e ag ree .

When a par

ty attacks the leg al sufficie ncy of an adver se finding on an issue on which sh e ha s th e burd e n o f pr oo f, sh e mus t de mon str a te on a pp e a l th a t th e e vid e nc e e sta bli sh e s, a s a matter of law, all vital fac ts in support of t he is sue. Sterner v. M arathon Oil Co. , 767 S.W .2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989). I n order to establish conver sion of persona l property , a plaintiff must prove that (1) she owned or had lega l possession of t he property or entit lement t o possession; (2) the def endant

un lawf ull y and wi tho ut a uth or iza tio n a ssume d a

nd e xer c ise d d omi nio n an d co ntr ol o ve r t he pr op e rt y to the exclusion of, or inconsistent w ith the pla intiff’s rig hts as an owne r; (3) the plaintiff demande d return of the prope rty ; and (4) the def en d an t re fu s ed to re turn the prope rty
. Ap pleIm po rts , In c . v . Ko ole , 945 S.W .2d 895, 899 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, wr i t denied). It is undisput ed that Madura exercised dominion and contr ol over the d o g, Au gi llard dema nded re turn of the dog , and10

Madura ref

used to r eturn the dog to Aug illard. There fore , as the trial court corr ec t l y d eter mined, resolution of this matter turns on whe ther Aug illard established that s h e o wn ed the dog, ther eby

makin g Ma dura ’s po sse ssi on un lawf ul. Th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d tha t Aug ill ard fa ile d to pr ov e that Jazz and Ho pe are the same do g and thu s fa ile d to pr ov e owne rs hip . In r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e mus t
cre dit evidence that support s t h e verdict if a r easona ble fa ctfinder

could and disre g ard c ontrary evidenc e unless a r easona ble fa ctfinder

could not. Ci ty o

f Ke ll e r v . W

ilson , 168 S.W .3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). Under

our leg al-suff

iciency revie w, we c annot disreg ard c ontrary ev i d ence that conclusively

establishes the opposite of a vital fac t. Do w Ch e m. Co. v . F ra nc is , 46 S.W .3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001) (per

curiam) (cour

t must first ex amine re cord f or evide nce suppor

ting ve rdict, ig noring

a ll e vid e nc e to c on tr ary ; if the re is n o s uc h e vid e nc e , c ourt the n ex ami nes e nti re re c or d to se e if

c on tr ary fi nd ingis e sta

bli sh e d a s matte r o f l aw) . “ Pr op e r l e g a l- su ff ic ie nc y re vie w p re ve nts
rev i ew ing c ourts from substituting their opinions on cre dibilit y for those of

the jurors, but prope r revie w also pre vents jurors fr om substit uting their opinions for undisput ed t ru t h. When evidence contra ry to a verdic t is conclusive, it cannot be disre g arde d.” City of Keller , 168 S.W .3d at 816-17. This is equally

true whe n the fa ctfinder

is the trial court, rather than a jury

. See id. at 816 n.66 (citing Murdock v. Murdoc k , 811 S.W .2d 557, 560 (Tex. 1991)). Whil e the factfinde r is the sole judg e of

c re dib ili ty , d e c isi on s re g ard ing c re dib ili ty mus t be re a so na ble , an d the fa c tf

ind e r is not pe rm itt e d to ignor e undisputed testimony that is “clea

r, positive, direc t, otherwise c redible, f ree from contra dictions and inconsistencies, a nd could have been r eadily controve rted.” Id. at 820.11 Aug illard argues that it was er ror fo r t h e t rial cour

t to ignore uncontrove rted DN A

e vid e nc e c on c lus ive ly

e sta bli sh in g t hat Hop e and

Jazz are the same do g . T he re su lts of the fi rs t DNA analy sis confirme d that the s ample collected from Hope was a “perfe ct match” to the materia l Ha lve rs on

e xtra c te d f

ro m Jazz’ s d ogbr

us h, e sta bli sh ingto a

ve ry hig h de g re e of

sc ie nti fi c c e rt a int

y that Hope a

nd J azz are the same dog . Madura neither of

fer ed contr ary

DNA e vidence nor disputed the validity of this perfe ct DNA match. While it i s “impossible to define pre cisely when undisputed evidenc e bec omes conc lusive,” as the c ourt explained in City of Keller , “undisputed contra ry evidenc e becomes conclusive (and thus ca nnot be disreg arde d) whe n it concer ns phy sical fa cts that cannot be denied.” Id. at 815.

Rather than c halleng e the r esults of the DNA test, howeve r, Madur a asse rts that the sample purpor

tedly obtained fr om J azz was in fact take n from H o pe, pointing to the tr ial court’s finding that the DNA e vidence was not “a uthenticated or

identified thus indicating a hig h potential for tampe ring .” Howeve r, Madura cites nothing in the trial rec ord that would support the a lleg ation that th e DN A e vid e nc e ha d b e e n ta mpe re d w ith , n or h ave we fou nd any e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d to support such a claim. I n fac t, the uncontra dicted evide nce a t trial was that Aug illard did not have

an o pp or tun ity to o bta in a

DN A s a mpl e fr om H op e . I t w a s und isp ute d th a t A ug ill ard and he r f a mil y members did no t h av e co ntact with Hope a fter the May 30, 2006 temporar

y injunction hearingat which Aug illard’s counse l first reque sted DNA testing wit h the t rial court. I t was also undisputed tha t th e o n ly c o n ta c t A u g il la r d an d h e r f

a mi ly h a d w it

h H o p e p r io r to th a t h e ar in g w a s on May 5, 20 06 , wh e n the y we re pe rm itt e d to se e the do g a s sh e wa s b e ingtr ans po rt e d to the Do g Ca mp kennel. The re w as no evide nce that they brushed the do g or, for

that matter, that they

wer e eve rAu gi l l ar d t es t i fi ed at t ri al ab o u t p ro v i d i n g J az z ’s d o g s we at er s an d b ru s h fo r D NA t es t i n g: 12 Q. After

this suit was filed, wer e y ou asked to f ind thing s that might have J azz’s ha ir on it? A. Ye s. Q. What ty

pe s o f t hin g s d id you

loo k f or that mi g ht h a ve Jazz’ s h a ir on it? A. Hairbr

ush, sweate rs, any

thing that I

could find that belong ed to her

. Q
. A n d

w e r e yo ua s k e d

t o d o t h a ta f

t e r t h e h e ar i n g s i nM ay? A. Ye s. Q. Okay . Did y ou find the hairbr ush or sweater? A. Yes, I

found both. Q. An d w hat di d y ou do wi th t ho se ite ms? A. Iput the m in a bagand plac ed them in my trunk until the nex t hear ing in San Marc os . Q. An d th e n w hat di d y ou do wi th t he m? A
. A f

te r th e h e ar in g Ig a v e th e m t o [m y a tt o r n e y ]. Q
. D i d

yo ue x a m i n e o r

t a mp e r w i t h t h o s e b r

u s h e s o r s w e a t e r s i nan y w ay? A. No. Q. Di d y ou

pla nt a ny DN A e vid e nc e on

the br us he s o r s we a te rs ? A. No.
12 alone with the dogon that day ; Aug illard’s attorney and a county constable w ere also prese nt when Au gi l l ar d an d h er m o t h er we re wi t h t h e d o g. 12Con sis te nt w iththo se state me nts , Dr . Ha lvo rs e n tes tif ie d tha t sh e re c e ive d F e dE x ship me nts with cha i n o f cu s t ody

slips indi catingthat the dog brush and swe ater s were sent to her lab by A u g i l l ar d ’ s a t t o r

n e y. I n addit i o n , Au g illard’s mother testified that she did not take any samples from Hope on May 5, 2006: Q. Did y ou see a

dog that y o u b el i eved to be y our daug hter’s dogon May 5, 2006? A. Ye s. Q. Thank y ou. Did y ou brush the dogat that time? A. No. Q. Di d

y o ure co gn i z e t h e d o g? A. Ye s. Q. W as i ty o u r d au gh t er ’s d o g? A. Ye s. Q. Have y ou ever taken any samples of a ny kind, blood, hair, or other wise, fr om t h e d o g? A. No. Q. Ha

ve y ou se e n a ny on e do that? A. No.
13 I n this respec t, we think Madura ’s cha lleng e to the DNAevidenc e pre sents a situation analog ous to that in Murdock . I n Murdock, an alleg ed father c halleng ed the c ourt’s finding of pater nity and judgm en t o rd ering him to pay child support afte r blood tests excluded him as the biologica l father

of a ch i l d b o rn t o his ex -wife during their marr iag e. 811 S.W.2d at 558. The

m o t h e r d i d n o to b j e c tt o t h e a dm i s s i o no f t h e b l o o d t e s t s a t t r i a l o r a t t e mp t t o d i s p u t e t h e i r v a l i d i t y.As we unde rstand it, Madura ’s cha lleng e is limit ed to the authe nt i city of Jaz z’s DNA 13 sample extracted f

rom J azz’s dog brush. Ma dura ha s never argued that the s am p l es used in the second D NA ana ly sis involvi ng Madison wer e tainted, nor has she questioned the a uthenticity

of the bucca l swabs obtained f

rom Hope. With respe ct t o her tampering alleg ation, Rule 901(a) provides that the authentication or i dentification of an item for a dmissibi lity purposes is satisfied by

evidenc e that is su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingthat the ite m in qu e sti on is wh a t its pr op on e nt c la ims . T e x. R. E v i d

. 9 0 1 ( a ); Sil

v a v . S tat e , 989 S.W .2d 64, 67 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. ref ’d). “ A showing of the possibili ty o f t amper ing or comminglingis not sufficient to bar a dmission of the evidenc e, and goes only to the weig ht of the evide nce.” Do sse tt v . S tat e , 216 S.W .3d 7, 17 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref ’d) ( ci t ing Da rro w v . S tat e , 504 S.W .2d 416, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)) (e mphasis in origina l). 14 Rather, she testified that she never had sexual re lations w ith any other men dur ing the marria g e and that her e x -husband ha d alway s treate d the child as his own. Id.

Despite the fac t that the bl ood tests were admitted without objection and showed that Murd oc k h a d n ot f

a the re d th e c hil d, the c ourt of a pp e a ls h e ld th at th e evide nc e wa s le g a lly insufficient to establish that the tests we re “ proper ly conducte d” and a ffirme d the judg ment of the trial court. Id. at 560. Rever sing the court of a ppeals, the Te x as Supreme Court he ld that “[o] nce the t rial cour

t rec eives blood test re sults int o evidenc e, they are admitted for a ll releva nt purposes just like any

other piec e of e vidence .” Id. The supreme court conclude d that the evidenc e off ere d b y the alleg ed father wa s conclusive pr oof that he w as not the father of the child and that he w as there fore entitled to judgment in his favor

. Id.

L ike w is e , th e tr ia l c o u rt i nth is c a s e a d mi tt e d in to e v id e n c e D r . H a lv e r s o n ’ s DNA analy sis establishing to a ve ry high de g ree of scientific cer tainty that the two samples she te sted wer e from the same dog . Madura ’s only objection to t h e fi rst DNA a naly sis was based on a

sanctions motion allegingthat she had not been properly allowed to depose Halverson; however, she made no objection to the admission of the DNA test on the basis that it wa s inauthentic or that the samples h adb ee ns u

b j ec tt o t am p er i n g. Nor did Madura attempt to rebut Aug illard’s DNAevidenc e by 13I n her br iefing to this C ourt, Madura cites Halver son’s testimony from the he aringon the 14 rec onsideration of the temporar y injunction that occurr ed on De cembe r 12, 2006, to suppor t the trial court’s finding that there was a “hig h potential for tampering .” Halver son’s tes t i m o n y at t h at he ari ng , in

wh ic h s he state d th a t he r r e su lts we re “ on ly a s g oo d a s th e sampl e s” g ive n to he r a nd that, as fa r as she knew, both samples could have come from Hope , does not contra dict the evidenc e that A u g i l l ar d h a d n o o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i na D N A s a mp l e f

r o m H o p e . E v e nm o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y, Halver son’s previous testimony was not admitted by

the tri al co urt and wa s not part of the r ecor d in this case. Althoug h the trial cour t took judicial notice of its file, “the tria l court ca nnot take judicial notice of te stimony from a pr evious proce eding at a subsequent proc eedingunless the testimony is admitted into evidence at the subseque nt proce eding .” Paradigm Oil, Inc. v . Retamc o Operati ng, Inc. , 161 S.W .3d 531, 539-40 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied)

. Se e als o Es c am illa v . E

sta te of E

sc am illa , 921 S.W .2d 723, 726 (Tex. App.—Corp u s Christi 1996, wr it d e nie d) ; Mul ler v. Ley endec ker , 697 S.W .2d 668, 675 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1985, writ ref ’d n.r.e .). 15 c a lli ngint o q

ue sti on the me thod s us ed to c on du c t th e ana ly sis , o ff e ri ngano the r D NAana ly sis showing that Hope a

nd J azz ar e not the same dog , or having another expert challeng e the results of the DNA test proff

ere d by Aug illard. She did not offe r any testimony

or evide nce a

t trial indicating that the sample fr om J azz had been tamper ed with or wa s inauthenti c, n o r d i d s he cr oss-examine Aug illard or her

witnesses re g ardingAug illard’s ver sion of the dog b ru s h an d sweater’s c hain of custody . The re cord be fore us is devoid of any evidenc e that contra dicts the items’ cha in of custody as testified to by

Aug illard, her mother , and Dr . Halver son. 14 Once it admitted into evidence the D NA ana ly sis confirming that the dog in Madu r a’s possession is in fact Augillard’s dog , the trial cour t erre d by choosing to disreg ard that evidence , wh ic h w a s c on c lus ive of

the vit a l f a c t of the do g ’s ow ne rs hip

. Ma dura ’s su bs e qu e nt atte mpt s to c a st doubt on the authenticity

of the samples amounted to no more than “mere surmise or suspicion,” see Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W .3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004) , t h at Au gillard had somehow

e xtra c te d a DN A sa mpl e fr om H op e and pla nte d it on ite ms b e lon g ingto Ja zz; su c h c on je c tur e wi ll not sustain the verdict in the fa ce of conc lusive, uncontrover ted evidenc e esta

blishing the dog ’sWe also note th e o b v ious dissonance be tween the emotional investment at the hea rt of 15 the human-pe t relationship and the c urre nt leg al sy stem, which identifies this eleven-y ear -old coc ker sp anie l w ithc hr on ic he a lthpr ob le ms a s “ pr op e rt y ,” su bje c t to su it fo r co nv e rs ion and ide nti fi e d in terms of he r ec o n o m i c wo rt h . Given the pa rties’ c onsiderable expenditure in this case, it g oes without say ing that J azz’s si g nificanc e as a cher ished member of

Aug illard’s family

—as well as he r importance to he r car etake rs of almost thre e y ear s, Tiffa ny Madura and Richar d Toro—fa r excee ds her ma rket va lue. Thus, while re solving this appea l in acc ordanc e with the applicable law g overning ow ne rs hip of c hatte l, we re c og nize that the re are imp or tant n on -e c on omi c int e re sts a t st a ke in t his case . As one c ommentator has r emar ked,
Pe op le do no t pl an me mor ia l ser vic e s, or inv e st i n s e ri ou s me dic a l tr e a tme nt f or the ir books or lawnmowe rs. They don’t plan to pay

more in insuranc e pre miums t han the purc ha se pr ic e or

re pla c e me nt c os t of

the pr op e rt

y the y se e k to pr ote c t. I

nd ivi du a ls do no t le a ve mon e y fo r the ir bic y c le s in the ir wi lls , or s e e k v isi ta tio n a rr ang e me nts fo r t he ir te le vis ion s u

po n th e te rm inatio n o f t

he ir marr ia g e s. Kathy Hessler , Me dia tin g A nim al L aw M att e rs , 2 J . Animal L . & E thics 21, 28 (2007). 16 ide nti ty —e vid e nc e that a

re a so na ble fa c tf ind e r c ou ld n ot h a ve dis re g arde d. W e sus ta in Aug illard’s first issue.

Whil e we a lso a g re e wi th Aug ill ard that th e e vid e nc e is f

a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o support the judg ment, beca use of our di sposition of her first issue, we ne ed not re ach he r sec ond. 15

CO NC LU SION Be cause we hold that the e vidence is leg ally insufficient to support the judg ment of the trial cour

t, we re verse and re nder judg ment in favor of Aug illard.17 __________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson; ConcurringOpinion by

J ustice Patterson Reverse d and Rende red Filed: June 20, 2008