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

NO. 03-05-00416- CR

Le sli e Ra y Tur ne r , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF SAN SABA COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. 5408, H ONO RAB LE LLOY D DOUGLAS SHAVER, JUDGE PRES IDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant L eslie Ray Turner g uil t y o f ca p i t al murder

in the course of committing or attempting to c ommit ag g ravated sexual assault or burg lary of a ha bitation. See T e x. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.03(a )(2) (West Supp. 2005). The Stat e d i d not seek the de ath pena lty . The district court asse ssed punishment at life i mprisonment. I n six issues on appea l, Turner contests the leg al and fac tual sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to sustain his conviction. We will affirm the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. BACK GR OUND

Turner was indicted f

or the murder of Rhonda J o Ward, who wa s found dea d in her burn ing mob ile ho me . A c c or din g to t ri a l te sti mony , th e fi re wa s d isc ov e re d b e tw e e n a pp ro xima te ly2

7 and 8 a.m. on the mor

ning of J une 17, 2002. Passing motorist s Michae l and S herida n Cradduck noticed sm oke coming out of t he roof and windows of t he mobi le hom e. They stopped, and Micha el Cr a dd uc k e xite d the ir ve hic le a nd tr ie d to e nte r the ho me thr ou g h the fr on t do or to a sc e rt a in if any one wa s inside and nee ded help. Micha el testified that the front door was unlocked and he w as able to open it, but was turne d back by the smoke and heat. Micha el then tried the back door , which
was a lso unlocked, and te stified that he wa s able to g o inside “four or five steps” bef ore the smoke
a nd he a t f or c e d h im b a c k o ut. Severa l residents of the street wher e Ward lived g ather ed nea r her burning trailer a

nd
o b s er v edt h e f

i re . C i n dy Br ad l ey t es t i fi ed t h at s h e ob s er v ed M i ch ae l C ra d d u ck t ry t o get i n t h ro u gh the front door . When he was turne d back, B radle y followed him around to t h e b ac k d o o r. She
concur red w ith Michael’s testimony that the bac k door wa s not locked. Henr y etta L ong rec ounted that she wa s standin g n ex t to Turner and Turne r’s g randmother , I reta , while t hey observe d the fire burning . L ong testified that she he ard Tur ner sa y that “somebody

had tried to burn he r [W ard], somebody had tried to stra

ng le her and tried to burn her house .” When L ong was later i nterview ed by Texas Rang er J oey Gordon, she told Gor don that Turner had told her “ that the lady had been strang led and r aped.” L ong also testified to telling G o r d o n t h a ts h e h a d

s e e n a n u n i d e n t i f

i e d “ S p a n i s h k i d ” r

u n n i n g f r o m t h e p r o p e rt y. Henr y etta L ong ’s daug hter, Mitzi, recounted that Tur ner c ame ove r to their re sidence and aske d Mitz i what was being repor ted on their police scanne r to “see if we kne w what wa s g oing
on .” Mit zi t esti fi e d th a t sh e saw T ur ne r t wi c e that mo rn ing ; th e se c on d ti me , h e ha d c ha ng e d h is clothes and “ appar ently

had bathe d or cle aned up.” Mitz i also testified to an incident in which3

Turner had cla imed that if he e ver c aug ht his wife che ating on hi m , “h e wo u l d p u t one bullet be tw e e n th e bo th o f t

he m and say th at he thoug ht h e wa s r a pin g he r a

nd that he wa s ju st t

ry ingto protec t her.” Cody

Sanderson, a

firema n who also ser

ved as the depar

tment’s chapla in, responded to th e f ir e . H e a n d a n o th e r f

ir e ma n e n te r e d th e b u r

n in g tr a il e r th

r o u g h th e b a c k d o or and be g an
sear ching the back end of the tra iler for any one inside. Sander son rec ounted that most of the flame s
wer e in the front of the tra iler. As the f ire wa s broug ht under c ontrol, Sanderson wa s told that a body had bee n found in the bedr oom, which was loc ated at the fron t o f the trailer adjac ent to the front do or . Sa nd e rs on e nte re d th e be dr oo m, d isc ov e re d th e bo dy , a nd de sc ri be d it

fo r t he jur y :
Th e bo dy wa s la y ingon the be d o n— sh e was on he r b e lly , b a c k w a s in the be d; i n other words, her fee t w ere up at the head part, he r hea d was at the other e nd. She was totally nude, and he r hea d was wr apped up w ith the cover s. . . . Right in the small of her ba c k , th e r e w a s a p la c e a b o u t th is b ig a r o u n d th a t w a s b u r n t thr o u g h to he r backbone
. Sanderson opined that the appea ranc e and c ondition of the body “indicate d that there was some ty pe of foul play

involved,” and that the burns on Ward’s back indicated “that there was something put on her, some ty

pe of a cce lera

nt or something, a

nd set on fire at that time.” The body was later identified as that of Rhonda J o Ward, the occ upant of the tra iler. Dr. Randa ll Frost, the deputy chief medical examiner with the Be x ar County Medica l Ex aminer’ s Offic e, per formed a

n autopsy
. He testified that he found fr actur es to the nec k and an a bsence of soot in the respiratory trac t that were consistent with a strangulation death. F rost also examined Ward’s g enitalia and observe d redne ss on the bac k are a of the vag ina that appe are d to “re prese nt some kind4

of trauma to that a rea ” that was consistent with pe netration. On cross-e x amination, Fr ost admitted that the trauma

could be indicat i v e of e ither sexual assault or conse nsual sex, but emphasiz ed on redire ct that there was no e vidence of trauma in approxim ately

80 perc ent of the sex ual assault ca ses he has e x amined.

C h i ef o f P o l i ce R ay

R i ggs i n v es t i gat edt h e s ce n e i n t h e a ft er m at h o f t h e f i re . R i ggs testified that two g asoline ca ns were found behind the tra iler and that one of the cans was not sitting uprig ht. Rigg s further

testified that the dea d bolt of the fr o n t d o o r h ad b een force d open. Janine Mather, a n officia l with the S tate Fire Marshal’s Office, te stified that the fire was de termined to be the re sult of arson. Mathe r also testified that, in her opinion, the fi re wa s s t ar t ed “to concea l the crime of homicide.” Rig g s called in Te x as Rang er Joey Gordon to assist with the investigation. Gordon t e s ti f

ie d th a t h e f ir s t i n te r v ie w e d H e n r y e tt a L o n g to f

in d o u t i n f o r mation about the male that she had see n running from the pr operty . Gordon investig ated a nd deter mined who this indivi dual was, but did not find any thing that would le ad h i m to suspect that this person was involved in the crime. Gordon went back to L ong to see if she had any additional information. L on g t o l d

G o r d o n a

b o u tT u r n e r ’ s s t a t e m e n t s t h a tW a r d h a d b e e n s t r a n g l e d

a n d r a p e d
. Th is information “per

ked” Gordon’s interest, beca use “at the point that she said she hear d t h i s , n o o ne should have known this bec ause we didn’t know. L aw e nforc ement didn’t know it; the fire depar tment didn’t know it. . .
. So at t he ti me Henry etta say s that L eslie Turner tol d her that, no one should have known a

ny thing a bout a strangulation or a murde r or a ny thing a bout any kind of rape or sexual activity

of any kind.”5 As the investig ation continued, at Gordon’s direc tion, Ri g g s reque sted and obtaine d
a DNA saliva sample from Turner
. Gordon a lso decided to intervie w Turne r. Gordon te stified that Turn e r t old

him tha t he kn e w Wa

rd wa s h a vin g a

rel ati onsh ip w itha

man n a me d Sc ott

y Pe e l. Gordon investig ated this, but could find no evidenc e to corroborate what Tur ner ha d told him and that there was n o t h i n g co n n ecting Peel to Ward. Gordon r ecounte d that he beg an to believe that Turn e r w a s ly

ingto h im. Cassie Carra ding, supervisor for the DNA la b at the Austin Police Depa rtment, tested DNA obtaine d at the cr ime scene . Carra ding e x amined the be dding f rom the mattress on whic h Ward was f

ound and “f

ound some stains that had the appea ranc e of semen.” Car

radingtested the bedding to confirm the pr esenc e of se men, and the te sting re veale d a DNAprofile that matc hed that of L eslie Turne r and that did not match that of any other suspec t in the case . Carra ding a lso tested a nig htgow n that was found near Ward’s body
. Carra ding te stified that there wer e four semen stains
on the nig htg ow n, a nd

tha t te sti nga g a in r e ve a led a DNA prof ile c on sis te nt w iththat of L e sli e Turner . Carra ding f

urther te stified that Turner ’s DNA was found on one of the g asoline ca ns. On
c ro ss- e xami natio n, Carr a din g a dmi tte d tha t DNA fr om an un kn ow n p e rs on wa s f ound un de rn e a th one of Ward’ s fing erna ils. Car rading explained on redire ct that this was not unusual beca use “your hands come in contact with so many differ ent things.” Turner ’s wife L y dia testified that Turne r spent the e ntire nig ht before the fire in bed with her. Tur

ner a lso testified, expl aining the pre sence of his DNA a round Ward as the product of
a surr eptitious sex ual af

fair b et we en the two that he reve aled f or the fir st tim e whe n on the stand. He state d that he knew

Ward and ha d done y ard w ork for her, an d h ad d evelope d a sexual6

relationship with her. Turner was 31; Ward wa s 54. When asked if Ward ha d a proble m with the
a g e d i f f e r e n c e , T u r

n e r r e p l i e d , “ N o . I tw a s n ’ t

— i t w a s n ’ ta l o v e r e l a t i o n s h i p o r

n o t h i n g l i k e t h a t. I t was strictly

on sex.” Turner te stified that the last time t h ey had sex was the day

befor e the f

ire. Turner explained:
Iwa s at ho me c oo kin g . Ly dia and the m w a s a t w or

k. Ki ds we re a ll— I wa s a t ho me g etting the barbe cue r eady to barbe cue, a

nd s h e [ Ward] drove by , honked her horn a nd a sk e d me if I wa

nte d to c ome do wn . We ll, Iwa s g oin g to l e t th e c oa ls t ur n in to coals, so I g ot in her vehic le and r ode down to her house.
Turner went on to testify

that once the y

arr ived at Ward’s house they “per formed or al sex on each other.” When asked why he had not informed Range r Gordon of his sex ual re lationship with W ard, Turn e r r e pli e d, “ B e c a

us e thi s is San Sa

ba . Y ou do n’ t sa y no thi nglik e that to no bo dy .” Turn e r a lso d en i edm ak i n g s t at em en t s re gar d i n g h o w W ar d d i edt o He n ry et t a Lon g, cl ai m i n g L o n g wa s l y i n g. Turner said, “I ’m g uilty

of havingsex wit h her, a nd I ’m g uilty

of ly ing to J o ey [ Gordon] about having sex wit h her,” but he denied killing her.

Evidently reje cting Turner ’s explanation, the jury convicted him of murde ring Ward during the course of committing or attempting to c ommit agg ravated sexual assault or burg lary of a habitation. The district court asse ssed punishment at life imprisonment. This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N I n six issues on appea l , Turner contests the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the evidenc e to sustain his conviction. I n issues one and two, he asser ts that the evidenc e is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to support a f inding that he strang led Ward to death. I n issues three and four ,7

he asser ts that the evidenc e is le g ally and fac tually insufficient to e stablish that he commit ted
a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult . In is su e s f

ive and six, h e a sse rt s th a t th e e vid e nc e is le g a lly and fa c tua lly i n s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t a

b l i s h t h a th e c o m m i t t e d

b u r g l a r y.
Stand ard of review

When there is a challeng e to the leg al sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to sustain a cr iminal conviction, we c onsider whe ther a rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essential e lements of the o ffense beyond a re asonable doubt. Vo do c ho ds k yv . S tat e , 1 58 S.W. 3d

50 2, 50 9 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2005). We re view all the evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the ve rdict, assume that the tr ie r o f f a c t r e so lve d c on fl ic ts i n th e te sti mony , wei ghed th e e vid e nc e , a nd dr e w r e a so na

ble infere nces in a

manner that supports the verdic t. Se e Gr iff in v . S tat e , 6 1 4 S. W. 2 d

1 5 5 , 1 5 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1981). I t is not necessar y that ever

y fac t point directly an d independe ntly to the defe ndant’s g uilt; i t is e noug h if the conclusion is w arr anted by the combined a nd cumulative for ce of all the incr iminating c ircumstance s. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 871 S.W .2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We consider even e rrone ously admitted evidenc e. Id
. The jury is the exclusive judg e of the
cre dibilit y

of witnesses a

nd of the we ight to be g iven their testimony
. J on es v . S tat e , 944 S.W .2d 642, 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Reconciliation of a ny conflicts in t h e ev i d en ce is withi n the exclusive province of

the jury
. Id
. I n a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we vie w the evide nce in a neutra l light and will set aside a verdic t only

if the supporting evidenc e is so weak that the ve rd ict is clear ly wrongor the contra ry evidenc e is so strong that the jury could not have f

ound all the elements of t he cr ime bey ond
a re asonable doubt. Pr ibl e v . S tat e , 1 75 S.W. 3d

72 4, 73 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). A v e rd ic t is8

clea rly wrongand unjust if the “jury ’s finding is ‘manifest l y u n j u s t ,’ ‘shoc ks the conscie nce,’ or ‘cle arly demonstrates bia s.’” Id
. (q u o t i n g Sa nte lla n v . S tat e , 939 S.W .2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). All the evidence is considere d equally , including the testimony of def ense w itnesses and the exis tence of alter

native hy potheses. Or on a v . S

tat e , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992,
no pe t.) . A lth ou g h d

ue de fe re nc e mus t be a c c or de d th e fa c t- fi nd e r’ s d e te rm inatio ns , p a rt ic ula rl y tho se c on c e rn ingthe we ig ht a nd c re dib ili ty

of the e vid e nc e , the re vie wi ng c ourt may dis a g re e wi th the result in or der to pr event a manifest injusti ce. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The e vidence will be deeme d fac tually insufficient to sustain the convic tion if the proof of g uilt is t oo wea

k or the c ontrary

evidenc e is too strong to support a finding of g uilt bey ond a
rea sonable doubt. Zun iga v . S tat e , 14 4 S.W. 3d 47 7, 48 4- 85 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); see J ohnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. Strangulation I n is su e s o ne a nd tw o, Tu rner con te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient that he murdere d Ward. Turne r does not dispute that Ward died of strangulation and not the fire ; he contends only that the evidenc e is insufficient to link him to the crime. We disag ree . Turner ’s DNA w as found in the same bed wher e Ward’s body was found, as we ll as
on a g a s c on ta ine r f

ound a t th e sc e ne . I nv e sti g a tor s c on c lud e d th a t th e fi re wa s se t by ars on , w ith the use of a

n acc elar ant, and W ar d ’s b o d y was pa rtly burned a s if to cover

up the cr ime. Fur thermore , Henr

y etta L ong testified that Turner claimed to know that Ward had been stra ng led. This statement, coupled with Rang er Gordon’s testi mony that no one knew the cause of death at the time Turner

made the statement, would enable a rational jury to infer that Tur ner w as the pe rpetrator.9

Viewing this evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the verdict, we hold that a rational trier of fac t could have found beyond a re asonable doubt that Turner cause d Ward’s death. We r e a c h th e same c on c lus ion wh e n c on sid e ri nga ll of

the e vid e nc e in a

ne utr a l li g ht. Turner denied makingany

statements to L ong about Ward beingstrang led and he denied killing War d. Turn e r’ s w if

e a lso pr ov ide d h im w itha n a lib i, t e sti fy ing that he wa s in be d w ithhe r a ll n ig ht. Turn e r a lso a tte mpt e d to e xpla in the pr e se nc e of his DN A a

ro un d th e c ri me sc e ne by

a ttr ibutin g it to an af fair that he disclosed only at trial. The jur y is the sole judge of the c redibility of the witnesse s and th e wei g ht t o b e g ive n th e e vid e nc e , a nd may c ho os e to b e lie ve a ll, so me , o r n on e of it. Ma rg ra v es v . S tat e , 3 4 S. W.3 d 9 12 , 9 19 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Ra c ha l v . S tat e , 917 S.W .2d 799, 80 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Sk ill e rn v . S tat e , 8 90 S.W. 2d

84 9, 87 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 91 , p e t.
re f’ d)
. Thus , the jur

y is pe rm itt e d to be lie ve or dis be lie ve a ny pa rt of the te sti mony of

a ny wi tne ss. J on es v . S tat e , 9 84 S.W. 2d

25 4, 25 8 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ). Re c on c ili a tio n of e vid e nti a ry

c on fl ic ts is solely a func tion of the trier of fac t. L os ad

a v . S tat e , 721 S.W .2d 305, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 86 ); Bo wde n v . S

tat e , 628 S.W. 2d

78 2, 78 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 82 ); Pe re z v . S tat e , 960 S.W .2d 8 4 , 8 6 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n 1 9 9 7 , n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Cha mb e rs v . S tat e , 8 0 5 S. W. 2 d

4 5 9 , 4 6 1 ( Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 )) . We fin d noth ing ir ratio na l abo ut the jur

y ’s de c isi on to r e so lve the c on fl ic ts i n the evidenc e in favor of the State. Se e Cai n v . S tat e , 958 S.W .2d 404, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (“Adecision is not manifestly unjust beca

use the jury

resolved the manifestly

conflictingviews of the e vid e nc e in f

a vo r o f t he State ” ). We o ve rr

ule Turn e r’ s f

ir st a nd se c on d is su e s. Ag gr av at e d se xua l as sa ult

I n is sues thre e a nd

fo ur , T ur ne r c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly a nd fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingthat he c omm itt e d a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult . A pe rs on c omm its10

ag g ravated sexual assault if he intention al l y o r knowingly cause s the pene tration of the a nus or sexual orga

n of anothe r per son by any means without that person’ s consent and if the person c auses serious bodily

injury or attempts to c ause the death of the victim or another person in the course of the same c riminal episode or use s or exhibit s a dea dly wea pon in the course of the same criminal episode. Te x . Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021(a) (1)( A)(i) , (2)( A)(i) (West Supp. 2005). Turner a sserts that the evidenc e only

establish ed that he had c onsensual sex with W ard a nd the State pre sented “ no evidenc e of f

orce , threats or use of a

deadly wea pon.” Dr. F rost testified that there was re dnes s o n t h e back a rea of Ward’s va g ina that
a pp e a re d t o “rep res ent som e kin d o f t ra uma to t hat are a .” Whil e F ro st d id a c kn ow le dg e that th is
e vid e nc e mig ht b e c on sis te nt w ithe ith e r c on se ns ua l or no n-con se ns ua l se x, a ratio na l jury

c ou ld infer f rom all the evide nce pr esente d that the sex was not consensual. The only evidenc e of
c on se ns ua l se x be tw e e n T ur ne r a nd War d w a s the def

e nd a nt’ s o wn

c la ims , f ir st d isc los e d at tr ia l, t h a th e h a d

a n a f f a i r w i t h W a r d
. T h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e c h o s e n t o n o tb e l i e v e T u r n e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y, espec ially in light of the f

act that no other

witness testified that Turne r had a sexual or even a

social relationship with Ward. I n fac t, Ward’s daug hter testified that she and he r mother we re “ very close”
a nd that he r m oth e r h a d n e ve r i nd ic a te d th a t sh e ha d b e e n in vo lved i n an y so rt of ro manti c relationship si nce mo v i n g to San Saba. Other neig hbors testified that they had neve r see n Turner at Ward’s tra iler. F urthermor e, evide nce of Ward’s strangulation and forc ed entr y into her trailer , dis c us se d b e low , a lso c ou ld e na ble a ratio na l jury

to c on c lud e that th e se x wa s n ot c on se ns ua l. As for Tur

ner’ s assertion that ther e wa s no evidenc e of f orc e, t hreats, or use of a deadly wea pon, the pena l code r equire s the State to prove o n l y t h at t h e def endant c aused se rious bodil y i n j u ry t o o r attempted to cause the de ath of the vic tim. See Tex. P en. Code Ann.11

§ 2 2. 02 1( a )( 2) (A )( i) . T he evi den ce is suf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli shthat T ur

ne r s tr a ng le d Ward . F ro st testified that the strangulation cause d serious bodily injury and, in fa ct, death to W ard. Vi e wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the ve rd ic t, we c on c lud e that a rational trier

of fa ct could have found beyond a re asonable doubt that Turner committed ag g ravated
s e xu a l a s s a

u lt
. We r e a c h th e s a me c o n c lu s io n c o n s id e r in g th e a b o v e e v id e n c e in

a n e u tr a l li g h t. We
ov e rr ule Turn e r’ s th ir d a

nd fo ur th i ssu e s. Burglary I n h is f

if th a nd sixth iss ue s, Turn e r c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly a nd fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli shtha t he c omm itt e d th e of

fe ns e of burg lary . A pe rs on

c omm its the of

fe ns e of burg lary

if the per son, without the effe ctive conse nt of the owner , enter s a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony , theft, or a n assault. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02(a )(3) (West 2003). As was discusse d above, there is suf ficient evidenc e that Turner committed a fe lony
or assa ult ag ainst Ward in her tra iler. Our disposition of Turne r’s fif t h an d six th issues turns on whether there is sufficie nt evidenc e that Turne r’s e ntry into W ard’ s house was w ithout her eff ective consent. Ward’s daug hter testified that, most of the time, her mother ke pt her house loc ked. Mic ha e l Cr a dd

uc k te sti fi e d tha t, wh e n he a tte mpt e d to ent e r War d’ s tr a ile r a s th e fi re burn e d, bo th the front a nd back door s were unlocked. J anine Mather of the State Fire Marsha l’s Offic e examined the front door and testified that the “examination of the door frame reve aled that the door bolt had been br oken inwar d prior to this fire e vent.”12 Turner observe s that in Mather’s pr eliminary repor t, Mather ha d stated that the “exterior examination reve aled no indications of force d entry into the structure prior to the event.” Mather dismissed this inconsistency as simply

an over sight duringher p reliminary investigation. She explained that in her first re port, the door “wa s just ove rlooked” beca use she “ was c oncentr ating on the orig in and ca

use of the investigation.” When Rang er Gordon not ified Mather that “he w anted to ge t a better

look at the door,” she examined it more thoroug hly and conc luded t h at i t had bee n forc ed open. H oweve r, eve n discounting Mather’s te st i m o n y , C hief of Police Rig g s testified that he examined the door a s part of his own i nvestig ation, and he a lso concluded that the dead bolt of the front door

had bee n forc ed open. Vi e wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht mos t fa vo ra

ble to the ve rd ic t, w e c on c lud e that a
ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t T ur

ne r c omm itt e d th e of

fe ns e
o f b u r g la r y . We r e a c h th e s a me c o n c lu s io n c o n s id e r in g th e a b o v e e v id e n c e in a n e u tr a l li g h t. We
ov e rr ule Turn e r’ s f

if th a nd sixthiss ue s.
CO NC LU SION Having overr

uled Turne r’s issues on appe al, we a ffirm the judg ment of the district
c ourt
.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Pember ton, and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 11, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh