### NUM BER 13-09- 0016 3-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
DIM AS D A NIEL GON ZA LE Z ZA M ORA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 13 9t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez A j ur y found appel lan t, Di mas D ani el Gonz ale zZ amora , g uil ty of attempt ed c api tal
m u rder, a first- deg re e felony , and ca pit al murde r. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 15.01 (V er non 200 3) , § 19.03( a) (7 ), ( 8) ( Ver non Supp. 2009) . The jur y as ses sed puni shmentat fifty -fiv e y ears’ i mpri sonmentfor t he offense of attempted capi tal murder , and bec ause the Sta te did not see k the de ath pen alty, the trial court assesse d pu nishm entfor the o f fense of ca p it a l m u rder at l ife i mpri sonmentw it hout the p oss ibi li ty of parole

. See i

d. §§2

12.31( a) (2 ), 12.3 2 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. B y si x is sues , Z amora co ntends that : (1 ) he received inef

fective assistance of

coun sel; (2) the trial court erred in den y ing his request for a mansl aug hter

inst ru cti on; a nd ( 3) the tr ial co urt er re d i n fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y that itmustreach a unani mous v erdict. W e aff ir m. I. B A CKGRO UND Shor tl y after 10:0 0 p.m. , on Tuesday , Jul y 29, 2008, Ma ri a Varg as, drov e home from a socce r match in Pharr, T exas w ith he r comm on-law husban d, Am ado r Ga ribay, their three- y ear

ol d daug hter , Y ar it z a Gar iba y , and two fri e nds, C hr is ti na M ez a and Emil ian o Al caz ar . After dr iv ing a s hor t di sta nce, Varg as tur ned her y ell ow Vol ks w ag en nor

th on to Sug ar R oad off of

Ow ass a R oad. A w hit e Ford T aur us that Varg as had not ic ed foll ow ing her si nce le a ving the soc cer fiel d pas sed and pul led i n frontof her Vol ks w ag en and sto pped. Tw o i ndi v idu als ex it e d t h e Taur us, fired repeated ly at Varg as’ s v ehi cl e, reentered th e Taur us and drov e aw ay . Ei g hteen b u llet cas ing s a nd one bul letw ere l ater found at t he s cene. Af

ter the shoot ing ceased, the occ upants of the Vol ks w ag en real iz ed t h a tMe za wa s i n ju re d a n d t h a tt h re e -ye a r- o ld Ya ri t za h a d b e e n sh o tin t h e h e a d

. Ya ri t za
w as sub sequen tly

prono unce d de ad a t Edinb urg C hildren ’s Hospital. Af ter cond ucting an investigation, Hida lgo C oun ty She riff ’s of f icers nam ed Zam ora a s a s u s p e c t

. O n A u g u s t 4 , 2 0 0 8 , I n v e s t i g a t o r F e r n a n d o T a n g u ma s p o k e t o Z a mo ra ’ s w i fe to de term ine Zam ora’s w here abo uts. Investigator T angum a test if ied t h a td u rin g the ir
conv ersat ion , Za mora’ s w ife recei v ed a cal l from Z amora on h er ce ll ula r tel ephone. Zamora’s w ife as ked him w here he w as and as ked him to c all I n ves ti g ator Tang uma. Za m ora’s w ife tol d Inv est ig ator Tang uma thatthe tel ephone number thatZ amora ca ll ed from appeared to or ig ina te i n M onter re y , M ex ic o. Ten to fifteen minut es lat er , Z amora phoned Inv est ig ato r Tang uma. Inv est ig ator3

Tang uma ex p la in e d t o Z amora thathe w as condu cti ng an i nv est ig ati on and w anted to spea k to him . Zamo ra den ied ha v ing anything to do w ith the shoo ting and ref used to te ll In v es ti g at or

Ta ng um a w he r e he w as . O v er t he ne xt s ev eral da y s , In v es ti g at or Ta ng um a spok e to Zamora ov er

the phone, and on Aug ust 7, 2008, Zamora i nformed I nv est ig ator T angum a tha t he was on h is way back f rom Mexico and th at he w as “going to tu rn himse lf into [sic] [In v estigator T angum a].” Th at afterno on, Investig ato r Tan guma receiv ed a call adv is ing hi m thatZ amora w as detai ned atthe por t of entry in H ida lg o, Tex as. Z amora w as later relea sed to Investig ato r Tan guma and transpo rted to the Hidalgo Coun ty She riff ’s off ic e. Zamora g av e a sta tement to Tang uma that w as admit ted a nd read i nto e v ide nce,
w ithou t obje ction, d uring trial. Za mo ra’s sta tem entp rov ides, in pertin entp art, as follows:

On Tues day [,] Ju ly

29, 2008[, ]

. . . [a]tabout9:30 p.m. Fav io [l ater iden tif ied as Jua n Favio Chipres Torres, herein referred to as “Fav io”] told me to tak e hi m to t he s occ er fiel d bec ause he w ante d t o s e e h is g ir lfri end. W e l eft w it h Li zand Jorg e. I w as dr iv ing the 1999 w hit e T aur us[ .] Fav io w as in the front p ass eng er

se at. Lizw as si tti ng on the rear passeng er

seat and Jorg e w as si tti ng i n the rear se ar behi nd me.

. . . Fav io cal led so meone on the p hone w hen w e w er e dr iv ing to the soc cer f iel d. W e arr iv ed at the soc cer field and I par ked on th e w estsi de of the par ki ng l ot. F av io tol d me t hat h e wa s g o in g to ta lk to his g irlfriend and stepp ed o ut of the car. I saw Favi o enter the ind oor

so cc er fiel d. Sev eral minut es lat e r[ ,] I dec ide d to use the restroom

. As I w as getting out of the car I saw Fav io w alking back to th e car. I as ked Fav io if he s poke to hi s g ir lfri end and he s aid he did. I w alk ed i nto the res t ro o m a n d t h e n re t u r n e d t o t h e c a r . I re me mb e r t h a tI s a w

a y e l low Vo l k s w ag en p ar k ed i n th e pa r k i ng l ot o f t he s oc c er

fi el d. Th e c ar

c au g htmy atten ti on bec ause of the c olo r. I g ot ba ck i nto t he c ar

and Fav io tol d me to leave. As I w as driv ing out of the parking lot I notice d several othe r cars also lea v ing

. I t ur ned w eston O w ass a R oad tow ards Ex press w ay 281. As I g ot to t he i nters e ct ion of Ex press w ay 281 and O w ass a R oad[, ] I w as about to tur n s outh w hen F av io tol d me t o c onti nue w est o n O was sa Roa d. I re member sev e ra l cars w ere i n frontof me. I g ot t o the i ntersec ti on of Ow ass a Road an d Sug ar R oad[; ] F av io tol d me t o tur n nor th on Sug ar

R oad. Fav io then tol d me t o ov ertak e the y ell ow Vol ks w ag en. At t he same ti me[,] I feltthat Jorg e pla ced a g un to my head becau se I feltthe press ure of the bar re l ag ain st myhead. F av io yell ed atme to st op i n frontof the Vol ks w ag en and blo ck

i t. I noti ced that Fav io w as als o poi nti ng a g un atme. Fav io sai d that they w oul d ki ll me if I did n’t do w hat t hey sa id. I t w as the [ .]384

[S]u per w it h the engra ving o n i t. I sto pped i n frontof the V olk sw ag en and they st opped b ehi nd me. F av io and Li zg ot ou t o f the c ar and sta rt ed to shootat the V olk swag on. Fav io and Li zboth retur ned bac k t o the Taur us and tried to get into th e f ront seat

. T hey ran in to each othe r and th en Favio g ot i nto t he frontpas seng er seat, Lizgot in to the back seat

. Fav io y ell ed at me to dr iv e off

. Jorg e kept the g un to my head. F av io and J org e threatened me w ith the g uns a nd sa id tha t the y wo u ld kill me and my fam ily if I did n’t dr i v e w h e r e t h e y

s a i d

. . . . I d ro v e [ n ] o rt h o n S u g a r [ , ] t h e n F a v i o m a d e me tur n l eft on Al ber

ta R oad. As I w as dr iv ing w est [,] Fav io made me tur n ont o sev eral streets

. Jorg e c ontinued to t hreaten me w it h the g un press ing ag ain st myhead. I remember that w e almostw ere outof g as and t he c ar sta rt ed to st all so w e w ent to t he St ri pes on Bus ine ss 83 a nd 10t h [S ]treet. Fav io g av e me $20 .00 t o g o i nsi de and pay for g as. I retur ned and fil led the c a r wi t h $ 2 0

. 0 0 o f

ga s . I t h e n d ro ve so u t h o n 1 0 t h S t re e tt o t h e E xp re s s wa y.

. . . Fav io con tinued t o threaten me and my famil y . . . . I then ex it ed ont o Shar y R oad .

. . and drov e i nto t he W al- Ma rtpar ki ng l ot. I p a rke d i n the par ki ng l ot an d F av io, J org e, an d Li zg ot ou t and w alk ed ov er to Mc Don ald [’ ]s. After

around tw enty

min utes , I ca ll ed my wife[,] Mo nic a[,] to com e for me . Monica cam e an d got me and w e starte d to lea v e. Favi o cal led me and tol d me t o hol d on. F av io, Jo rg e and Lizca me bac k a nd g ot int o my w ife’s Je ep. W e the n w ent b ack to our hous e. On W edn esda y [,] July 30th, in the mo rning[,] me and Fav io w entback to t he W al- Ma rtand pic ke d up t he 1999 Taur us. F av io sai d tha t i t nee ded to be cl eaned. Th a t a fte rnoon me an d M oni ca took the tw o [. ]38 S uper pistols and a shot gun tha t belo nged to Favi o to my f riend[ ’]s hou se . Fa v io had w ra pped the pis tol s in a w hit e t[- ]sh ir t and cl ear

tape

. Fav io tol d me t o tak e the g uns ov er

to Gi lbe rt o’s house. Fav io tol d me t hat h e k new Gi lbe rt o coul d be t ru st e d. Fav io tol d me t hat I had to l eav e my [s teps on] .

. . atthe house and ind ic ated that har m w oul d come to my ste p son if I did not del iv er the g uns to m y

f riend. On thatsame date [,] m y w ife an d I drove to Gilberto’s hou se to lea v e the gun s. . . . W e arriv ed a t Gilberto’s ho use[ ,] an d I told h im that I w as lea v ing out of tow n and ask ed hi m to t ake care of the g uns. I w as tol d by Gi lbe rt o tha t he w oul d place the g uns in the atti c so his w ife w oul d not f ind th em . . . . I then w entback ho me and Fav io told me to giv e Jorge and Liz a r ide to the bus sta ti on and to not ask any q uest ion s. Jo rg e and Lizpac ked the ir bags[,] and I took m y w ife’s Jeep and w entto the [b]u s st a t io n in M cA l l e n t o d ro p t h e m o ff. On Th u rs d a y , J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 [ , ] F a v i o t o l d me w e n e e d e d t o l e av e to M e x i c o . M y

w i fe t o o km e and F a v i o t o t h e b u s s t a t i o n i n M cA l l e n . W e l e ft to M onter re y [,] N uev o Leon. O n c ro s s - e x a mi n a t i o n , I n v e s t i g a t o r Ta n g u ma t e s t i fi e d t h a t h e h a d c o l l e c t e d no ev ide nce that Zamora fired s hots at Varg as’ s V olk sw ag en on Jul y 29, 2008.5

Vargas testif ied th at som etim e before the July 29, 200 8 sho oting, he r frien d, Jose Si lv a, w as inv olv ed i n a s hooti ng at a “ coc k f igh t. ” B e lsario M endoz a, a member of Zamora’s brother-i n- law ’s famil y , bel ie ved t h at S il v a had shotat him dur ing the fig ht. Varg as tes ti fied th at S il v a had been ar re ste d and that she and G ar iba y bai led hi m out and hel ped hi m find an attor ney . Varg as sta ted t hat o n the Thursday ev eni ng b e f o re the
s ho ot i ng , M en do z a ap proa c he d he r a t th e s oc c er fi el d an d as k ed i f s he h ad a “ prob l em ”
w it h hi m. V arg as re pli ed th at s he d id n o t. Varg as tes ti fied th at M endoz a pl aced a tel ephone cal l to someone, thoug h she w as not sure to w hom, after thei r encou nter

. Later that ev eni ng , Va rg as noti ced a man si tti ng alone in a tr uck i n the par ki ng l ot of the so cc er field “ w atc hin g ” her

. Varg as tes ti fied th at s he di d notrecog niz e the man, but t hat s he l ater
saw a pi ctu re of Zamora on tel ev is ion and ide nti fied him as the man w ho had w atc hed her in the p ar ki ng l ot. Varg as tes ti fied th at s he di d notkn ow Z amora but that she had bee n acq ua i nt ed w i th hi s fr i en d, F av i o. Ac c ordi ng to Va rg as , s he ha d no t s po k en to Favi o in nin e or ten y ears, but s he thoug ht that she re cog niz ed him as one of the ind iv idu als w ho shotat her

Vol ks w ag en on Jul y

29, 2008. On cross-examina tion, Vargas stated thatshe gav e tw o af f idavits to inv estigators and t hat the s econd aff ida v itdoes not ide nti fy Fav io as a g unman or menti on her

enc ounter
w it h M endoz a. The Stat e present ed th e tes ti mony of ele v en addi ti onal w it ness es. N o w it ness es
w er e p r e s e n t e d b y

t h e d e fe n s e . Aft e r

d e l i b e ra t i o n , t h e j u r

y fo u n d Z a mo ra g u i l t y

of attempt ed c api tal murder and capi tal murder

. This appeal ens ued. II. I N EFFEC TI VE A

SS I ST A NCE OF C OU N SEL In issue s one t hrou gh four, Zam ora cont end s t hath e received inef fective assistance6

of couns el dur ing the g uil t- inn ocenc e s tag e of tr ial

. A . St and ard o f Rev iew A lt h o u gh t h e c o n s t it u t io n a l ri gh tt o c o u n s e l e n s u re s t h e ri gh tt o re a s o n a b ly e f fe c t ive
couns el, i t doe s n ot g uarantee er ro rl ess co unse l who se competenc y or ac curacy

of
re present ati on i s t o be jud g ed by hi ndsi g ht. Ry

lan der v. Sta te , 1 0 1 S

. W

. 3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2003) . To prov e ineffect iv e assi sta nce of couns el, Z amora mustsh ow that( 1)
coun sel’s performa nce fell b elow an o bjective stand ard of reason able ness, and (2) there is a re a s o n a b le p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , b u tfo r c o u n s e l’ s e rr o r, t h e re s u lto f t h e t ri a l wo u ld h a ve been di ff erent. Str

ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U.S. 668, 687 ( 1984) ; Thom pson v. State , 9 S. W .3d 8 08, 8 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; Jay nes v. State , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 9 , 8 5 1 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.)

. A fail ure to make a show ing under eit her prong of the Str ickl and sta ndard defeats a cl aim of i neffect iv e ass is tanc e of c ounse l. W il li am s v . St ate , 301 S.W .3d 675 , 687 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09). Z a m o ra m u s tp ro ve h is cl a im o f in e f fe c t ive a s s is t a n c e o f

co u n s e l b y a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. S e e S ta f f o r d v . Sta te , 8 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 6 n . 1 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 1). “In assessing a claim of inef fective assistance , an ap pellat e cou rt ‘must ind ulg e a s tr ong presumpt ion thatco unsel ’s co nduct[fell ] w it hin the w ide rang e of
re asona bl e p ro fe s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e ; t hat i s, the [ appel lan t] must ov er come t he presumpt ion that, under

the ci rc umstan ces , t he c hal len g ed ac ti on mi g ht be co nsi dered s ound t ri al strate gy .’” W

il lia ms , 30 1 S. W .3 d a t 68 7 (quo ti n g Gar ci a v . St ate , 5 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2001) ). W hether the Str ickl and tes t has been met i s t o be ju d ged on appeal by the totalit y o f

the ci rc umstan ces , notby any i sol ated act s o r omis si ons. Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

.A def endan t i s ent i t l ed t o an i nst r uct i on ofev er y def ensi v e i ssue r ai sed b y t he e v i dence, r egar dl ess 1 o f th e s tre n g th o f th a t e v i d e n c e . H a y e s v . S ta te , 728 S. W

. 2d 8 04, 807 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 198 7)

. T he d ur ess def ense i s app l i cabl e t o a case i n whi ch t he def endan t “ engag ed i n t he pr oscr i bed conduct because he was c om pe l l ed t o d o s o b y th re a t o f i m m i ne nt de ath or s eri ou s bo di l y i njury t o h i m s el f or an othe r. ” T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. § 8 .0 5 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 )

. T h is a ff ir m a tiv e d e f e n s e is n o t a v a ila b le to a d e f e n d a n t ifh e in te n tio n a lly, k n o w i n g l y , or r ec k l es s l y pl ac ed hi m s el f i n a si t ua t i on i n w hi c h i t w as prob ab l e t ha t he w ou l d b e s ub j ec t to c o m p u l s i o n . I d. § 8. 05( d)

. Com pul s i on e xi st s onl y i ft he f or ce ort hr eat of f or ce woul d r endera per son o f re a s o n a b l e fi rm n e s s i n c a p a b l e o f re s i s ti n g th e p re s s u re . I d. § 8

. 05 (c).
7 Di re ct appeal i s u sual ly an i nadeq uate v ehi cl e for ra is ing su ch a c lai m becau se the
re cord i s g enerall y

undev elo ped. Good

speed v. Sta te , 18 7 S. W .3 d 39 0, 3 92 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2005) ; see Rob ins on v . St ate , 16 S. W .3d 8 08, 8 13 n. 7 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ( noti ng tha t “only in rare cases w ill the reco rd o n direct app eal be suf f icient for an ap pellat e cou rt to fairly ev alua te th e claim”). Tri al coun sel should ordi nar il y be a fforded an oppor

tuni ty to
ex pla in his or her act ion s before bei ng denounc ed as ine ff ect iv e. Goods peed , 187 S.W .3d at 39 2. T o w arrant rev ersal w ithou t af fording co unse l a n opp ortun ity t o explain his action s, “t h e ch a ll e n ge d c o n d u c tm u s tb e ‘ s o o u t ra ge o u s t h a tn o co m p e t e n ta t t o rn e y wo u ld h a ve engaged in it.’” Rob er

ts v. State , 2 2 0 S .W .3 d 521, 533 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ( q uoti ng Goods peed , 187 S.W .3d at 392 ). B. Failure to See k Duress Instruction In hi s first is sue, Zamora cont ends that he recei v ed i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el by trial counse l’s fa ilure to request a jury instructio n on the aff irmative def ense of duress. 1 Za m o ra argu e s t h a t b e ca u se tri a l co u n se l d id no t u rge a m o ti o n t o su p p re ss or c h a lle n ge the a dmis si on of Za mora’ s s tatement , “ tr ial co u n sel’ s t ri al strateg y must hav e been to add uce th ese facts in orde r to entitle Appe llant to a jury instructi on o n du ress.” Zamora als o arg ues that tr ial couns el’ s subs eq uent failu re to seek an i nst ru cti on on duress w as not
acc eptabl e tr ial st ra teg y . By as ser ti ng that c o u n sel al low ed Z amora ’s st atement to be admit ted i n order

to pr esentthe ev ide nce neces sar y to su p p o rt a duress i nst ru cti on,8

Zam ora en coura ges us to s p e c ulate as to the reason s coun sel opt ed n ot to conte st Zamora’s st atement. He then ask s u s t o as sume, based on t he prev iou s s pecul ati on, t hat he w as enti tl ed to an i nst ru cti on on duress and that tr ial counsel w as ineffecti v e for faili ng to ask for a duress i nst ru cti on. W e w il l not e ng ag e i n s uch spec ula ti on. See Bone v . St ate , 77 S. W .3d 8 28, 8 35- 36 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002)

. Beca use Zamora di d notfil e a motion for newtr ial and did not eli ci t any tes ti mony regarding tri al coun sel’s reason s for taking the com plaine d-of action s, the re is no evi den ce in the record tha t th e a ct io n s o f Z amora ’s tr ial co unsel w ere notthe re sul t of so und and
re asona ble tr ial st ra teg y . See Jaynes , 216 S .W .3d a t 855

. W ithou t this spe cif ic ev iden ce of trial counse l’s decision-m aking process an d strate gy , w e can notconclud e tha t Zam ora has o v ercom e the strong presum ption thathis trial counsel provided p rofession al, obj ect iv ely

reason abl e as si sta nce. See Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d at 813 . Becau se Zam ora did no t esta blish tha t his trial counse l’s performa nce fell below an object iv ely reaso nab le
s t a n d a rd , h e h a s n o tm e tt h e fi rs tp ro n g o f Str ickl and

. See Jaynes , 216 S.W .3d a t 855

. Zamora’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. C. Failure to Ques tion Juror Number 3 Regarding U nauthorized Communication In hi s s econd i ss ue, Z amora asser ts that he re cei v ed ineffect iv e assi sta nce by tr ial
couns el’ s fai lure to throug hly i nv est ig ate a n unaut hor iz ed communi cat ion ’s aff ect on J uror Number 3. During the lunch b reak on the f irst day of testim ony, a me mb er of Zamo ra’s fa mily ask ed J uror

N umber 2 i f she c oul d bor ro w

Ju ro r Number

2 ’s cell phone. A hear ing w as co n d u ct e d to de te rm in e th e co m m u n ica ti o n ’s a f fe cton Ju ro r Nu m b e r 2. Atth e he a rin g, Ju ro r Nu m b e r 2 state d tha t she was w ith Juror Num ber 3 du ring a brea k w hen a fem ale9

a s k e d t o u s e h e r p h o n e . No tre a li zin g t h a tt h e fe m a le wa s a m e m b e r o f Za m o ra ’s fa m il y, Juror N umber 2 c ompli ed; h ow ev er , upo n real iz in g t h a t s he had spok en to a member of Zam ora’s fam ily , Juror Numb er 2 not if ied the co urt. Ju ror Num ber 2 informe d the trial court that becau se a c all had been pl aced from her phone she felt “ner

v ous. ” She al so ask ed t o b e re m o ve d f ro m t h e ju ry b e c a u s e sh e “r e a ll y [ d id n ’t ] wa n tt o b e id e n t if ie d , o r h a ve any body be a ble to conne ct [her ] w it h a s er iou s c ase lik e thi s o ne.” Tr ial co unsel requeste d tha t the trial court disable Juror Num ber 2, the Sta te agreed , and the trial court replace d he r w ith an alterna te juror. T he trial cou rt then called Juror Num ber 3 an d question ed h er as follows: The Cou rt : Di d y ou hav e any ty pe of probl ems du ri ng lunch? Yo u forese e any

probl ems du ri ng l unch? Juror [N umber

3]: Not re all y . Ju st somebody ca me up t o me and tal ked to me aboutmy

hai r. That itw as re al nic e and— T h e Co u rt : B u tt h a t ’s n o tgo in g t o in f lu e n c e yo u in a n y wa y? Juror [N umber

3]: No. T he Cou rt: You don ’t know w ho it is? Juror [N umber

3]: No. T h e Co u rt : Yo u d o n ’th a ve a n y co n n e c t io n a b o u ta n yb o d y? Juror [N umber

3]: No. The Stat e and tr ial co unsel i nformed t he tr ial co urt t hat t hey d id not hav e any q uest ion s for

Ju ro r Number

3, and no one req uest ed th at s he be dis abl ed. On ap peal , Z amora arg ues that tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e for faili ng to q uest ion Juror N umber

3 t o det er mine w hether s he w as aff ect ed by the unautho ri z ed10

communi cat ion

. Acc ordin g to Zamora, tri al coun sel ’s “fail ure to inv est ig ate” Juror N umber 3 al low ed her “t o tai nt the restof the j ur y by the same fear

and bia s t hat d is abl ed [J ]uror [N ]umber

2.” The record reflect s that Juror Number 3 tol d the tr ial co urt t hat s he had not
s e e n a n y p ro b l e ms d u r i n g l u n c h a n d g a v e n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a ts h e s h a r e d , o r w a s a w a r e o f, Juror N umber 2’s fear or bias

. The re cord is si len t reg ardin g tri al coun sel ’s reaso n for not q uest ion ing Ju ro r Number 3, and Zamora has faile d to ov er come t he s trong presumpt ion that tr ial co unsel ’s co nductfell w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e professi on a l ass is tanc e. See Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851 . Zamo ra’s second issue is
ov er ru led

. D. Ext ran eou s Of

fe nse I n h i s t h ir d a n d fo u rt h is s u e s , Za m o ra co n t e n d s t h a th e re c e ive d in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of tr ial co unsel bec ause couns el “o pened the door” to the S tate’ s i nq uir y about a prev iou s a ttempt ed murder co nv ic ti on a n d fail ed to se ek an “ adeq uate” l imi ti ng ins tr uct ion

. 1. Pertine nt Facts Dur ing i ts cas e- in- chi ef, the S tate cal led Veroni ca Sanc hez , w ho te sti fied th at someti me after Jul y

29, 2008, she g av e c onsen t t o pol ic e to se a rc h her home for

g uns bel iev ed to hav e been used in the s hooti ng . Dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , tri al coun sel as ked Sanc hezi f she k new

Z amora to be a v iol ent person. On re -d irect ex aminat ion , t he St ate ask ed San chez whether she w as aw are tha t Z amora had been c onv ic ted o f attempted murde r. Tr ial co unsel im m edi atel y obj ect ed, a nd th e St ate respon ded t hat t ri al couns el had “ opened the d oor” to t his line of q uest ion ing

. The tr ial co urt di sc uss ed th e obj ect ion
w it h c ounse l outs ide the ju ry ’s prese nce, and, at the State’ s req uest , t he tr ial co urt ag re edW e no t e t hat al t hough Zam or a arg ue s t hat t r i al coun sel was i neff ect i v e f or f ai l i ng t o r equest an 2 a d e q u a te in s tr u c tio n , h e d o e s n o t c o n te n d th a t t h e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in r e f u s in g to g r a n t a m is tr ia l. 11 to w it hdraw

the q uest ion , s tr ik e it from the re cord, and ins tr uctthe jur y to dis re g ard i t. Tri al
couns el re spond ed th at an i nst ru cti on to di sre gard w oul d notremedy the probl em and
re q uest ed a mis tr ial

. Tri al couns el’ s req uestw as deni ed. The t ri al cour t t hen i nst ru cte d 2 t h e ju ry: Ladi es and g entl eme n o f t h e j ur y , w e too k a break. There w as an issue th at alrea dy—that w as for me to det ermin e, an d b a s ic a ll y, w hatI’m going to te ll y ou rig ht now is t he question s are notev iden ce. I don ’t know if I m e n t io n e d t h a tt o yo u b e fo re . Qu e s t io n s ca n n e ve r b e e vid e n c e , o k a y? Lastq uest ion w as [si c] ask ed i s n ot ev ide nce. Y ou c annot— I’ m g oin g to i nst ru ct y ou y ou c annot infer any thi ng about i t. Y ou c annot spec ula te or guess anything abou t it. Okay . So get t hatque stion outo f your min d. T here wa s n o a n s we r a n ywa y. 2. A nal ysis Zamora c ontends that“ openi ng the door” does n o t co n stitu te reason abl e tr ial strateg y , and thattr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e for faili ng to “d emand a suffici ent l imi ti ng ins tr uct ion .” The S tate ag re es that tr ial co u n se l o p ened t he door to the a dmis si on of evidence of

Za mo ra’s p rior con v iction by asking San chez if she had ev er known Zamo ra to be v iol ent. H ow ev er , t he St ate arg ues that the t ri al cour t’ s i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard c ured any error ma de b y

trial counse l. Zam ora did n ot f ile a pos t -j u d gm e n tmot ion for new trial; there fore, th e record is silent on trial counse l’s reaso ns for asking Sanch ez w het her she w as aware of Zamo ra’s
cr imi nal hi sto ry . Ass uming , w it hout d e ci din g , t hat t ri al couns el opened the d oor to the Stat e’s que sti oni ng of Sanc hezand that tr ial co unsel ’s ac ti on c onst it uted defici ent performa nce, Zamo ra has no t shown by a prepo nde rance of

t he evidence tha t the re is a
reaso nab le proba bility

that , butfor co unse l’s de f iciency, th e result of t he p rocee ding w ould12

hav e been different. See Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7. The tr ial co urt i nst ru cte d the j ur y to dis re g ard the q uest ion after the Stat e q uest ion ed Sa nc he za bo uth er

k no w l ed g e of Z am ora’ s a l l eg ed p r i or c on v i c ti o n . W e g e ne ral l y p r es um e that an ins tr uct ion to dis re g ard c ures any har m flow ing from t he er ro r. See Thr if t v. State , 176 S. W .3d 2 21, 2 24 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ; Ma rt ine z v. Sta te , 1 7 S

. W

. 3 d 6 7 7 , 6 9 1 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2000) . To re fute thi s pres umpti on, the appell ant must pointto ev ide nce in the
re cord tha t demonst ra tes that the j ur y fail ed to foll ow

the tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru cti ons. Thr if t , 176 S. W .3d a t 224 ; see Phi ll ips v. Sta te , 130 S.W .3d 343, 356 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th Di st. ] 200 4, pe t. re f’d) ( hol din g thatw hen t he record s how s n o ev ide nce to t he c ontrar y , an app ellate court assu me s the jury followed t he trial co urt’s in struction to disregard). Zamo ra poi nts u s t o n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o rd t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e j u r y w a s i n a n y w a y p e rs u a d e d or af fecte d by the Sta te’s question

. T here fore, w e see no evidence thatbut for trial counse l’s openi ng the door

to the S tate’ s q uest ion and all eg ed fail ure i n requ e st ing an “ adeq uate” li miti ng inst ru cti on, the res ultof the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. See Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7. Zamora’s thi rd and fourth is sues are ov er ru led

. III . L ESSER -I NCL UDE D O FFEN SE In his f if th issue , Zam ora con ten ds tha t the trial court erred in den y ing his request for a jur y ch arg e i nst ru cti on on mansl aug hter as to the c api tal murder ch arg e. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e use a tw o- par

t test to deter mine w hether a defendant is enti tl ed to an i nst ru cti on on a lesser-include d of fense . “First, the lesser-include d of fense mustbe includ ed wi thin th e proo f ne c es s ar

y t o es ta bl i s h the o f

f ense c ha rg ed ; s ec on d, t he r e mu s t be s om e ev ide nce in the rec ord that if the defendant i s g uil ty , he is g uil ty onl y of the l ess er-i ncl uded13

of fense .” Young v. State , 283 S.W .3d 854, 875 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2009) . If the el ements of the l ess er

offense are “ ‘es tabl is hed by proof o f the same or

l ess than al l the fact s required to establish the com mission of the of fense charged, ’” the f irst pron g of the te st is sat is fied. Hal

l v. State , 2 2 5 S. W .3 d 52 4 , 5 3 6 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g T EX . C ODE C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 37 .09 (1) (Vernon 2 006 )). The sec ond prong as ks w h e ther there i s e v ide nce that suppo rt s g iv ing the ins tr uct ion to the jur

y ; anythi ng more than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce maysu ff ic e to enti tl e the defendant t o a c harg e on the les ser-i ncl uded of fense. Id. The ev iden ce prod uced must est abl is h the l ess er-i ncl uded offense as “ a v ali d, rati onal al ter nat iv e to the c harg ed of fense .” Id. (quo ti n g For est v. Sta te , 989 S.W .2d 365 , 367 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99)). B. A nal ysis The in dictment all eg ed th at Z amora i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly

ca used the d eath of Y ar it z a, an indi v idu al y oung er than six ye ars of ag e, byshooti ng her w it h a d eadl y w eapon. A perso n com mits m ansla ughter “if he recklessly cause s t he dea th of a n individual.” T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19. 04( a) (V er non 2003)

. Here, w hen t he el ements of capi tal murder
as all eg ed i n the i ndi ctmentare c ompared w it h the elements of mansl aug hter , i t i s e v ide nt that mansl aug hter

is “es tabl is hed by

proof of the sa me or

l ess than al l the fact s req uired to e s ta bl i s h th e c om mi s s i on o f t he o ffense cha rg ed. ” See Hall , 225 S.W .3d a t 536 ; see als o Car denas v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 384, 39 2- 93 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ( re cog niz ing that mansl aug hter

i s a les ser-i ncl uded off ense of c api tal murde r)

. Therefore, w e next c onsi der
w hethe r t h e r e w a s e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t r i a l t h a t s u p p o rt e d g i v i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t o the jur y . See Hall , 225 S.W .3d a t 536

.W e n o te th a t t h e tri a l c o u rt i n s tru c te d th e ju ry o n th e l a w o f p a rti e s . See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 3 7 .0 1 (a ), 7 .0 2 (a )( 2 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). Z a m o ra d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e th e i n s tru c ti o n i n th e tri a l c o u rt o r i n th i s C o u rt. T h e re fo re , t h e ju ry c o u l d h a v e fo u n d Z a m o ra c rim i n a l l y re s p o n s i b l e fo r F a v i o ’ s a c ti o n s . S e e i d

. § 7. 02( a) ( 2) (p ro v i d i n g th a t “[a ] p e rs o n i s c r im i n a l l y re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e c o n d u c t o f a n o th e r i f . . . a c ti n g w i th i n te n t t o 14 In orde r to m eett he secon d pron g, there mu st be som e evidence thatw ould perm it
a rati onal j ur

y to find that if Zamora is g uil ty , he is g uil ty onl y of mansl aug hter

. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 37.09; Hall , 225 S.W .3d at 536. The d is ti ng uis hin g el ement betw een mansl aug hter and capi tal murder i s t he req uis it e mental st ate. Ros s v . St ate , 861 S.W .2d 8 70, 8 75 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) ( en banc ). M urder i s sta tu tor il y

defined as int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

ca usi ng the deat h o f

a n indi v idu al. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19. 02(b )(1). “A person acts inten tiona lly , or w ith inte nt, wi th respe ct to t h e n a t u re of his
co n d u ctor t o a re su lt o f h is co n d u ct whe n it is his co n sc io u s o bje ct ive o r de sir e to en gage in the cond uct or cau se the result.” Id. § 6.03 (a) (Vernon 2003 ). “A person acts knowingl y
w ith respe ct to a result o f his condu ct w hen he is aw are tha t his c o n d u c ti s reason ably certain to cause the result.” Id. § 6. 03( b)

. Ma nsl aug hter i s d efined as reck les sl y ca usi ng the d e a th of

an i ndi v idu al. Id. § 19 .04( a)

. A person act s reck les sl y “ w it h respect t o ci rc umstan ces sur ro undi ng his condu ct or the re sul t of hi s condu ct w hen he is aw are of but
cons ci ousl y

di sreg ards a s ubst anti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk that the c ircums tanc es ex is t or the result w ill occur.” Id. § 6. 03( c)

. Ap pl y i ng t he s e de fi ni ti on s , th e s ec on d pron g o f th e te s t i s s at i s fi ed i f th ere i s s om e ev ide nce from w hic h a rat io n a l jury co uld find t hat Z amora co nsc iou sl y di sreg arded t he subs tanti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk that his condu ct w oul d cause Y ar it z a’s deat h, rather than findi ng that( 1) i t w as Zamora’s co nsc iou s o bje cti v e or des ire to caus e Y ar it z a’s deat h, or (2 ) Zamora w as aw are tha t hi s c onduc t w as re asona bly cer tai n to caus e Y ar it z a’s deat h. 3pr om ot e orassi st t he co m m i ssi on oft he off ense, he sol i ci t s, encour ages, di r ect s, ai ds, or at t em pt s t o ai d t he

othe r pers on t o c om m i t t he offen s e. . . ”)

. 15 See Young , 283 S .W .3d at 875 -76. On ap pea l, Zamo ra argues thatthere was no evi den ce that Zamora “ spec ific all y i ntended the death of Y ar it z a” and that Al caz ar ’s tes ti mony that Zam or a w as on e of th e g un me n th at fi r ed at Va rg as ’ s y el l ow Vo l k s w ag en s up po rts a findi ng thatZ amora “ act ed reck les sl y .” W e di sag re e. Inten t maybe inferred from a defendant’ s a cti ons, w ords, and condu ct. Pat rick v. State , 906 S.W .2d 4 81, 4 87 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995)

. “I ntentmay al so be as cer

tai ned or inferred f rom the mea ns use d an d the w oun ds inf licted.” Yanez v. State , 199 S.W .3d 2 93, 3 1 1 ( T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 6 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g W om ble v. State , 618 S.W .2d 5 9, 64 ( Tex

. Crim . App. 198 1) ). W hen a deadl y w eapon i s u sed in a deadl y manner , t he inference is alm o st conc lus iv e tha t t he appe ll ant i ntended to ki ll

. Gods ey v. State , 719 S.W .2d 5 78, 5 81 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) ( en banc ); Yanez , 199 S .W .3 d a t 311 n. 13. A fire ar m is a deadl y

w eapon per se. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1.07( a) (1 7) (A ) (V er non Supp. 2009) ; Ex par

te H usk ins , 176 S.W .3d 8 18, 8 20 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. The ju ry heard tes ti mony

thatVarg as’ s frie nd, S il v a s hot a t M endoz a, a re lat iv e of Zamora’s brother-i n- law , at a “c ock fig ht.” Varg as and Gar iba y bai led Si lv a out of jai l and found him an at tor ney . Varg as tes ti fied th at t h e T h ursday before Y ar it z a w as ki ll ed, M en do z a ap proa c he d Va rg as a t th e s oc c er fi el d, a s k ed h er

i f s he h ad a prob l em w i th h i m, and as ked w h y S i l v a h a d s h o t a t h i m. U p o n l e a v i n g t h e s o c c e r fi e l d , V a rg a s n o t i c e d a man, w hom sh e l ater

i denti fied as Z amora , s it ti ng al one i n a t ru cki n t he par ki ng l ot “wat ch in g” her

. The foll ow ing Tuesday , Va rg as noti ced a w hit e Taur us follo w ing her Vol ks w ag en as sh e l eft the s occ er fiel d. Ad d it ion al tes ti mony rev eal ed th at t he Taur usH owev er , cr oss- exam i nat i on r ev eal ed t hat Al caz ar nev er gav e a st at em ent t o po l i ce i dent i f y i ng 4 Zam or a as a gu nm an. 16 poss ibl y bel ong ed to F av io. Varg as tes ti fied th at t he Taur us pass ed her so on after

sh e tur ned ont o Suga r Roa d. Varg as sta ted t hat t he Taur us sto pped i n frontof her Volkswa gen and “tw o g uy s” ex it ed the Taur us and ope ned fire on her v ehi cl e. Varg as ide nti fied one of the g unmen as F av io, butw a s u n a b l e t o i d e n t i fy t h e o t h e r

g u n ma n . G a r i b a y

a n d M e z a w e r e u n a b l e t o i d e n t i fy eit her g unman, and Al caz ar

i denti fied one of the g unmen as Z amora . Va rg as tes ti fied th at 4 after the s hooti ng ce ased, sh e s a w the Taurus dr iv e aw ay and re ali z ed th at Y ar it z a had been shot in the h ead. Ei g hteen bul letca si ng s a nd one bul letw ere l ater found at the
sc ene, and mul ti ple bul let holes in the V olk sw ag en i ndi cat ed th at bu ll ets had trav ell ed throug h the frontpas seng er si de of the v ehi cl e to the b ack dr iv er ’s si de. In hi s s tatement , Z am o ra a d m its t hat o n J uly 29, 2008, he drov e F av io’ s w hit e Taurus to the s occ er

fiel d w it h F av io, Jo rg e, an d Li z . Shor tl y after leav ing the soc cer

fiel d, Zamora followe d F av io’ s i nst ru cti ons to “ sto p i n frontof the V olk sw ag en and blo ck i t.” Zamora s tated thatafter he s topped the Taur us, F av io and Li z“ g ot ou t of the car and sta rt ed to shoot at the Volks w ag en.” After the shoot ing , Zamora drov e to a gas stati on and fill ed th e Taur us w it h g asol ine and then dropped it off in a W al- Ma rt par ki ng lot

. Ac cordin g to Z amora ’s st atement, he a nd F av io re tr iev ed th e Taur us on J uly 30, and, lat er

that af terno on, Zamo ra t ook “tw o [.]3 8 Sup er p istols” a nd a shot gun to Gilbe rto Sae nz’s hou se so that Saenzco uld hi de th em. Z amora then sta ted t hat h e drov e J org e and Lizto a bus sta ti on. On J uly

31, he l eft for M ex ic o w it h F av io. W h e t h e r t h e ju ry b e li e ve d t h a tZa m o ra s h o tin t o t h e V o lk s wa ge n o r t h a th e d ro ve17

the Taur us in a suc h a manner so as to ass is t or aid Fav io in shoot ing at thos e ins ide the Vol ks w ag en, a j ur

y co uld reason abl y

i nfer an in te n t to ki ll

. See W om ble , 618 S.W .2d a t 64; Yanez , 199 S.W .3d a t 311. Mo re ov er , there is no ev ide nce that w oul d per mit a jur y to find Zamora gui lty

only of mansl aug hter

. See Yanez , 199 S. W .3d a t 311 -1 2. Bas ed on the e v ide nce cont ain ed i n the record , t he tr ial co urt di d noter r by refusing to charg e the jur y on t he l ess er-i ncl uded offense of mansl aug hter

. See A rn old v. Sta te , 234 S.W .3d 6 64, 672 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2007, n o pe t. ); Yanez , 199 S.W .3d a t 311 -1 2. Zamora’s fifth i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. L E S S T HA N U N A N I M OU S V E RDI CT In hi s s ixth i ss ue, Z amora co ntends that the tr ial co urt er re d by fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur y thati ts v erdict mus t be unani mous reg ardin g hi s g uil t as a pr imar y ac tor or par ty

. In c ount one, the j ur

y ch arg e prov ide d tha t t he j ur y co uld find Z amora guil ty of attempt ed c api tal murder i f eithe r: ( 1) Z am o ra , w it h the sp eci fic i ntentto commi t c api tal
mu rder, shot Mez a and Yaritz a and shot at or in the direction o f Garibay and Va rg as, w hich amounted to more than mere prep arati on that tended but fail ed to effectthe commi ss ion of the offense i ntended ; or ( 2) F av io, w it h the sp eci fic i ntentto commi t c api tal murde r, sh ot Me z a and Y ar it z a and shot at or in the direct ion of Gar iba y and Varg as, w hic h amount ed to mor e t h a n me r e p r e p a r a t i o n t h a t t e n d e d b u t fa i l e d t o e ffe c t t h e c o mm i s s i o n o f t he off ense int ended , and Z amora , t hen and there k new of Fav io’ s i ntentand act ed w it h the in te n t t o p r o m o t e o r as sis t t h e co m m iss io n of th e of fe n se by Fa vio b y en co u ra gin g, directing, aiding, or atte mp ting to aid Fav io to comm it the of fense . In coun t tw o, th e jury charg e prov ide d tha t t he j ur y co uld find Z amora gui lty of capi tal murder

i f eithe r: ( 1)18

Zamora i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

c a u se d the deat h of Y ar it z a by sh ooti ng her

w it h a dea dly w eap on a nd Yaritz a w as y oun ger than si x ye a rs of age; or (2) Favi o inte ntion ally
o r k n o win gl y ca u s e d t h e d e a t h o f Ya ri t za b y s h o o t in g h e r wit h a d e a d ly we a p o n a n d Ya ri t za
w as y oun ger than six

y ears of age, and thatZamo ra knew of the inten t of Favi o to cau se the d eath of Y ar it z a by

sh ooti ng her

w it h and deadl y w eapon, and Z amora ac ted w it h i ntent to promote or

as si st the o ff ense by

F av io by

enc ourag ing , di re cti ng , ai din g , or att empti ng to ai d F av io to c ommit the o ff ense. In rev iew ing a di sj unct iv e j ur y ch arg e, w e first deter mine whether the appl ic ati on parag rap h s c ontai n di ff er ent c ri minal ac ts or w hether they merely i nst ru ct as to di ff erent
means of commit ti ng a s ingle of fense. Hol

for d v . St ate , 1 7 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 6 1 (T e x. A p p . – Ho u s t o n [ 1 s tDi s t

. ] 2 0 0 5 , p e t

. re f ’d ). J u ry u n a n im it y is n o ta f fe c t e d if t h e d isju n c t ive charg e merely

address es different means of commit ti ng a si ng le off ense. See Jeffer son
v. State , 189 S.W .3d 3 05, 312- 13 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. Both appl ic ati on parag ra phs of countone per

tai n to the c ri minal ac t of att empted ca p it a l murde r, and both appl ic ati on para graph s of

coun t tw o ad dress the criminal act of capita l murde r. Th e t ri al court’s ins t ru c t io n on party liability in countone provi des a n alte rnate met hod byw hich th e jury coul d find that Zamora att empted t o c ommit capi tal murder ; i t doe s n ot s et forth a separate
cr imi nal ac t. See R andal l v. State , 232 S.W .3d 285, 294 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 07, p et.
re f’d) ( hol din g thatthe unani mity req uirement w as not vio la ted w here the j ur y w as instructe d tha t it could f ind th e de fend antg uilty of capita l murde r as a principal or as a par ty ); see als o R am os v. State , No

. 1 3 -0 6 -0 0 6 4 6 -C R, 2 0 0 9 W L 3 2 1 0 9 2 4 , a t*1 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti Oc t. 8, 20 09, n o p e t.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)19

(c oncl udi ng thatthe tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru cti on on par ty l iab il ity prov ide d an al ter nate method by w hic h the j ur

y co uld hav e found tha t app ell ant c ommitt ed th e offense of human traff ic ki ng and did not setforth a s eparate c ri minal ac t)

. Si mil ar ly , count tw o prov ide s a n alt er nate method b y

w hic h the jury

could find t hat Z amora co mmitt ed c api tal murder and does not setforth a s eparate c ri minal ac t. See Randa ll , 232 S.W .3d a t 294 ; see a lso Ram os , 2009 W L 32109 24, a t * 10. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt di d not er r by fail ing to ins tr uctthe jur

y thatit must unanimous ly determi ne w hether

Zamora w as the pri mary ac tor
or a pa rty . Zamora’s si xth i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Zamora’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 22nd da y

of Apr il , 201 0.