## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of T exas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00026

- CR

__ _________________________

On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1586227D
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ.

M emorandum Opini on by Justice Wallach 

### J EFFERY 

### W ARREN 

### C ORY 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introdu ction Forty

- year

- o ld Appellant J effe ry W arren Co r y was having a bad day at work on
W e dnesday, February 27, 2019 , when he received a t ext f r om his roommate Erik
Fernandez with a n ultimatum about the rent he owed

. Late r that evening, Cor y a nd
Fe r nandez had an argument that resu lted in Fernandez ’ s death fr o m a gunshot wound
to the back of his neck. Cor y then disposed of the gun in Lake Weather f o rd , move d
Fe r n and ez ’ s vehicle to a nearby high

- crime ap artment complex

— where he left the keys on the console and the driver ’ s

- side door ajar

— roll ed Fernandez ’ s bod y in the living

- room rug to move it into Fern andez ’ s bedroom , 1 mo pped up the blood , sp ent his day off with friends, went to work on Friday , and got fired

. H e call ed 911 on Friday night

. When the police arrived , Co ry told them that he had not see n Fernandez in a couple of days an d then found the body

. However, a fter fourteen hours in a police

stat i on interview roo m , Cory confessed to having shot Fernandez. A week l ater, Cory
g ave a televi s ion interview in which he state d tha t he had put a bullet in the back of
Fernandez ’ s head “ to make sure that he was dead so he would n ’ t suffer

. ” Although Cory clai med self

- de fense , a jury found him guilty of murder wit h a de adly weapon

1 Cory w rapped the rug with a tar p and us ed Christmas lights to secure the wrappings.3 and assessed his pun ishment at confinement f or li fe

. See Tex. Penal Cod e Ann. § § 12.32 ( f irst

- degree felony punishment ) , 19.02 (c ) (murder)

. In eleven issues, Cor y comp lains that the e vidence is insufficient to sup port his

conv iction ; that the trial c o urt should have granted a direc te d v er dict for him a t the
close of the State ’ s case ; that the trial court abuse d its discretion by denying his
mistrial request; that the t rial court abused its discretion regarding a variety of
evid entiary comp laints ; and t hat the cum ulati ve effect of th ese e rr ors de p rived him of
a fair trial. Conclu ding that the evidence is sufficient to support his convicti on , that
the trial court did not abuse i ts discret ion by denying his mistria l request, th a t

— to the extent he preserved hi s evi de n tiary compl aints

— the trial court did not abuse its
discretion , and that he was not de prived of due process based on cumulative error , w e affirm. II. Sufficiency
In his first tw o issues, Cory complains th at th e e vide n ce is insu fficient to
support h i s c o nvict ion and t hat the trial court erred by denying his motion for a
directed verdict based on his self

- defense theory

. Because a motion for directed
verdict is essential ly an evide n tiary

- s u ffic i ency c hallenge , we will analyze both issues togeth er. See Madden v. State , 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
A. Standard of review
To convi ct Cory of murder , the jury had to determine beyond a reasonable
doubt that he had intentiona l ly or k nowin g ly c au sed Fernandez ’ s death by shoo t ing4 him with a dea dly weapon or that he had intentionally, with the intent to cause serious bodily injury to Fernandez, committed an act clearly dangerou s to human life by
shoot ing him with a dea d l y weapo n , whi ch cau sed Ferna ndez ’ s death. See Te x. Pe nal
Code Ann. § 19.02(b) (1)

– (2)

. Further, the jury had to determine that Cory ’ s actions
were not in self

- defense. Saxton v. State , 804 S.W.2d 910, 913

– 14 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1991) (stating that sel f

- d efense is a f ac t is sue for t he jury).
Under the Penal Code, a person is justified in using force against another when
and to the degree he “reasonably believes the force is immediately nece ssary to protect [him self] against the other ’ s u se or atte mpted u s e of unlawful fo rc e.” T ex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.31(a). To justify the use of d eadly force , the person using it must reasonably believe t hat deadly force is immediately necessary to protect hi mself from
another ’ s use or at tempted use of deadly force

. Id. § 9. 32(a); L o zan o v . State , 63 6 S.W .3d 25, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021 ). Af ter a defendant has introduced some
evidence of self

- defense, the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove it. Se e Braughton v. State , 569 S.W. 3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. App . 2018); Zulia n i v . State , 9 7 S. W.3d 589, 594 & n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003 ). Th e State ’ s burden does not require it to introduce evidence disproving the defense; rather, it requires the State to
prove its case beyond a reasona ble d oubt. Braughton , 569 S .W.3d at 6 08

. In o ur evidenti ar y
- su ffici ency review, we view all the evidenc e in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found
th e crime’s essenti al elements beyond a reaso nable doubt. Jackson v. Vir ginia , 443 U .S.5 30 7 , 3 19, 99 S

. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979) ; Queeman v. State , 520 S.W.3 d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard gives full play to the factfinder’s responsibility to
resolve conflicts in the tes timony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
i nferen c es from bas ic fac ts to ultimate facts. See Jackson , 443 U. S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Harrell v. State , 620 S.W.3d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)

. The factfinder alone judges the ev idence’s weight and credib ility. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

a rt. 38

. 04; Martin v. Sta te , 6 35 S.W.3d 672, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)

. We may not

re

- evaluate the evidence’s weight and credibility and substitute our judgment for the
factfinder’s. Queeman , 520 S .W.3d at 622. We mus t presume that the factfind er

re solve d any co n fli cting in fe renc es in favor of the verdict, and we must d efer to that
resolution. Braughton , 569 S.W.3d at 608

. To determine evidentiary sufficiency to disprove a self

- defense theory, we ask
whether after view ing all the evidence in the light mos t favora b le to the p ro secu tion, any rational trier of fact would ha ve fo und the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against the appellant on th e defensive issue beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 6 0 9; see Jack so n , 443 U. S. at 3 19, 99 S.
Ct. at 2789

.6 B. Di recte d verdict 2
1. T he State ’ s c ase The State offered many witnesses and exhibits to illustrate how Cory had repeatedly lied about Fernandez ’ s death and his role in it , and the t rial court admitted

most of t h e exhibits and all owed their publication to th e jur y.

a. 911 calls
T he State ’ s first two wit nesses , records custodians , sponsored Cory ’ s 911 calls

. I n the first call , Cory told t he Fort Worth Po lice Depar tment his address and said t hat
his roomma te ha d be en gone for two da ys before hi s call was transferred to the White Settlement Police Department

. In the transferred call , C ory repor ted that he h ad thought his roommate was in Denver, and when he let the ir do gs into the roommate ’ s
room, he found him rolled up in a carpet. Th e call was transfe rred to “ medical 911 , ”
and then C ory stated that he had c o m e h ome and found his ro ommate , who had been missing for the last few days.
b
. Former White Se ttlem en t Police Officer J oshua Greer
Greer was the firs t p erson o n the s cene and en countered Cor y in the driveway

. When he asked C ory what was going on , Cory took him “ str aight to th e vi ctim ’ s bedroom, ” where he saw an “ object wrapped in a rug, a tarp, and some Chr istmas lights

. ” Greer ’ s body camera recorded everything, including t he liv ing roo m tele vis ion ,

2 W e combine o ur evidentiar y review wit h our a nalysis to avo id repet iti on.7 which showed 7: 17 p.m. when he entered the home. 3 At 7:23 p.m., emerge ncy
p erso n nel confirmed the time of death

. C ory told Greer and other o fficers that he had seen neither Ferna n dez nor
Fernan dez ’ s Jeep for several d ays and that he h a d been home from wor k for a few
minutes before he saw the bo dy an d called 911. Cory was c ooperative and ans wered their questions.
Greer took photos of the home ’ s interior and did not see any signs of forced

ent ry or blood

. One of his pho to s wa s of the hom e ’ s therm ost at , which had been set on 60 degrees desp ite the day ’ s chil l. Cory gave the police cons ent to search the ho me , but the sear ch was delayed by the home ’ s bed bug infestation. Cory also gave a voluntary statemen t , wh ich set out a dis join ted , rever se chron olog ical narrative : Woke u p at 8:30 a.m. this morni ng, March 1st, and drove t o work in Dalla s by 10:0 0. I als o took the dogs out to go potty. Arri ved at the hou se at 7:00 p.m. A nd after dogs scratched by his bed room door, I opened and called 911.
I went t o work on Wednesda y [Feb ruary 2 6] as well as the last ti me I saw his car and retur ned around 12:0 0 a.m. Fe bruary 2 7th, Thursday, and February 28th, Fri day, took care of dogs and star ted to
wo nder where his car had be en. H e told me he was going to dr ive Set h ’ s dog and truck to Denver and fly back. February 25th, Tuesday, went to work like usual at 9: 00 a.m. Got back from work by 8:00 p.m. where we talked in passing and then I went to my room.

3 Greer ’ s body ca mera f ootage m atched his testimony

.8 Cory told Greer t hat he had known Fernan dez for five or si x years , that the last
time he saw Fernandez was on Tuesday morning , and that it was normal for them to

not see eac h o ther because C ory had fi ve jobs and onl y cam e h ome to sleep

. The trial court admitted MedStar ’ s report through Greer ove r Cor y ’ s objection
and allowed the Sta te to publish by su mmarizing the repo rt
. 4

c . White Settle ment P olice Sergeant Brad Bukowski Sergeant Bu kowski arrived at the scene after the emergency responders. Cory
initi ally told S ergeant Bukow ski th at he had la st s een Fernandez on Wednesday

mor ning

— two days before

— and , to account fo r the absen c e of F er na ndez ’ s Jeep , told him that Ferna ndez might have lo aned it to someone
. Co ry told the sergeant that
his last conversation with Fernandez woul d ha ve been on the nig ht of Tuesday,
Feb ruary 26, and th at Fernandez had b een sleepi ng on the liv i n g

- ro om couch because of the bed bugs. He told the sergeant that Fer nandez ha d purchas e d the living

- room
rug he was wrapped in

. When Se rgeant Buk owski asked Cory why he ha d not not iced
that the l ivi ng

- room ru g was missi ng, Cory told him t hat he had thought Fernandez was goi ng to do something with i t. T h e police t ook Cory to t he police station because he h ad nowhere else to g o while they searched th e home , and they put him in an inte rview room because they

4 Wh ite Sett lement Firefighter T yler Reid ’ s report, State ’ s Exhibit 22, was admitted during h is testimony , was published by reading to the jury, and reflected the same inf o rmation as MedStar ’ s report. Because Fernande z ’ s death is undi sputed, we do not s et out these reports in our summary.9 had n o whe r e else to put him

. Cory stayed in th e intervie w room f or approximately
fou rteen hours because the medical examiner

— whose task it was to unroll th e body

— did not arr ive at the scene u ntil 3:21 a.m.
After a five

- hour search o f Cory ’ s re siden ce , Sergeant Bukowski went back to

t he interv iew ro om and read to Cory his Miranda warnings

. 5 State ’ s Exhibit 31, t he
fourteen

- hour reda cted recording of Cory in the interview room , was admitted into

e vidence without objecti on an d selected portions , summariz ed below , were play ed for
the jury

. (1) T he first hou r During the tw o

- minute clip, Cory sat in the in terview roo m w ith the door
open , and White Settlement Police Lieutenant Den ise Calla han told him that “ some of t h is m ay take a rea lly lon g tim e ” and ask e d him if he ha d somewhere to go for the

ev ening or for a coup le o f hours because he c ould not go back in to the house during
the searc h. Cory said he had no wh ere else to go. (2 ) The secon d ho ur During the seven

- minute clip, Cory sat with his h ead on the table until Sergeant
Bukow ski entered the room to ask some questio ns. Serge ant Buko wski recounted what Cory had already told him

— the last time h e spoke to Ferna ndez was on Tuesday
and the la st time he saw F ernandez or Fernandez ’ s Jeep was at arou nd 9 a.m. on

5 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 43 6, 444

– 45, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1 612 (1966).10 We dne sday wh en Cory left fo r work

— and then Cory told him that on Thursday, he
had been off from work and went to a friend ’ s house all day

— 10 a.m. to 10 or
11 p. m.

— a nd did not see Fernandez or the J eep
. (3) The eighth hour In a brief segme nt, S ergeant Bukowsk i r eturn ed , off er ed to charge Cory ’ s phone , and told him that they needed to take his clothes

. The police p rovided Co ry wi th some new clothes and a blanket. The jury did not see the portion of the video
wh ere Cory laid down on the interview room ’ s floor an d w ent to s lee p or wh en Sergeant Bu kowski entered the room without waking Co ry an d left him something to

e at. (4) The ninth hour During the eleven

- minute clip, a t a round 9:25 a.m., Sergeant Bukows ki entered
with an other office r, who took gun shot r es idue fr om Cory ’ s hands

. W hen a sked the
last time h e had fired or handle d a firear m, Cory sai d , “ A y ear ag o. ” He denied that he owned a gun or that the y would find bullets in the house. 6 (5) Interim search activities
While Cory waited in the intervi ew room, the po lic e se arche d his residence.
The medi cal exami ner ruled the death a ho micide after unrolling t he rug to revea l a

6 Not long a fter Sergeant Bukowski asked h im ab out gun owner ship, Cory be gan eating

. Three min utes later, he vomited

. H e drank some w at er and then vomi ted again. Sergeant Bu kowski testified about Cory ’ s vomi ting twice right after being aske d abo ut wh ether h e owne d a fir earm.11 sp ent .40

- caliber round and shell casing

. Contrary to Cor y ’ s having to ld the police that
he did not ow n a gun or ammunition , the police found s ome .40

- ca liber bullets in his
bedroom

. T he police also used Bluestar luminol, which shows the presence of blood , and which re vealed some of w hat Cory had tried to conceal. ( 6) The tenth hour , p art one
In th e first twelve

- minute segm ent of t he te nth h our , Ser geant Bukowski again read to Cory his Mira nda warnings and then asked him for another chronology , starting with Thursday morning

. (7) The tenth hour, part two
In the tenth hour ’ s se cond segment , which la sted a little over an hou r, Sergean t Buk ow s ki aske d C ory about his relationsh ip with Fernandez , and Cory told him that they had known each other for five or six years becaus e they had bar tended to gether

a nd th at he ha d considered Fernande z a good fr iend. Sergeant Bukowski continued to quest ion Cory about his activities , what he rem embered ab out any veh icles near the

a partment on Friday when he left and when he came home , the body ’ s p osition ing
when he o pened Fe r nandez ’ s bed room door , what his last conversation with
F ernandez had b een about, and where F ern a nde z had worked

. Sergeant Bukowski
also asked questions about Fernandez ’ s daughter and about who might h ave Fer n and ez ’ s Jeep

. Li eutenant Callahan a sked Co ry what happened to his face and
head , noticing that he ha d scratches , and he replied t hat some o f t he ma rks were
caused by bed bugs and o thers from shaving his head

. When she asked about the12 scra tch es under his ey e , h e said the y were fro m his cats. He denied that any person
had ca used the sc ra tches on hi s face or t hat he an d Fernandez had e ver physically
fou ght

. C ory t old Sergeant Bukowski and Lieutenant Callahan that Mon da y or Tu esday
had been the las t time he and F erna ndez had exchanged cross words and that the
conversation had been about money . He ga ve the m consent to re view his phon e . Th ey l eft him alo ne in the ro om for a mi nute before Serg eant Bukowski returned , asked hi m about Ferna ndez ’ s ex

- wi fe , and told him that th ey wanted to giv e hi m the
chance to add to his statement because his story d id not match the evide nce the police
h ad foun d

. Cory twice m ore denied that there wer e guns or ammuniti on in the house.
When Sergeant Bukowski asked him wh en he had la st been around a firearm , Cory
told him that it had b een a long time. When L i eutenant Call ahan asked him why the y

wo uld f ind ammunitio n in his bedroo m , Cory re p lied, “ I don ’ t know , ” and said that
he did not have anything w ith which to shoot it

. Sergeant Bukowski asked about blood in the house, and C or y referenced the
be d bu gs. When Sergeant Buko ws ki sa id that there was an inc onsistency w ith Co r y ’ s clot hi n g as to blood , Cory said that he w as always making himself bl ee d and that he
did not know that there had b een blood on his clothe s or how it coul d have gotten

t here

. When L ieutenant C allah an aske d wheth er h e had e ver harmed Fernandez, Cor y replied, “ No. ”13 (8) The tw elfth hour, part one
When Sergeant B ukowski returned to the interview room after a short break , Cory prefac ed his statemen t by saying, “ I know that l a wyers always sa y ne ver do thi s . ” Cory th en to ld h im t hat he had been having a bad day at work o n Wednesday when
he received a text from Fernan dez telling h im to pay $70 0 by March 4 or Fernandez

w as going to change t he locks.
After r e ceiving the text, C ory we nt o ut and had a few d ri nks. Whe n he got
home betwee n 11:30 p.m. and midni gh t , he tried to be quiet, but Fernandez aros e from the c ouch and fo llowed him , stepped int o Co ry ’ s room , grabb ed Cory by his shoulder, an d yelled at him that “ some o f us h ave to be at work at 6 o ’ cloc k in the

morn ing. ” Cory said tha t h e had had enough, so h e gr abbed his . 40

- caliber Smith &
Wesson gun from a bo x in his room , entered t he hallway , point ed the gun at
Fern andez , and told him , “ T h is is bullsh

- t , man . ” Cory told Serge ant Bukowski and Lieutenant Callahan that the first shot mis

clipped because it wa s not ch ambered ri ght , and then Fer nand ez grabbed him and said, “ Re al ly, [Cory] ? ” Fer nandez hit him in the face , causing the injury under his eye , and they struggled over the gun

. Cory said tha t he h it Fernandez with the blunt side of the gun , gesturing at a height

. He f ire d a gain when he regained co ntrol o f the gun

. Cory sai d that Fernandez hit the grou nd face first and , thinking that he had
shot Fernandez in the abdomen , h e did not want Fe rnandez to suffe r , so he shot him again

. Cory sai d th at he had not kn ow n w hat to d o a nd “ freaked. ” H e rolled14 Fernandez up in the living

- room rug , left him in front o f the television, and went to Weather ford to gather his thoughts. On Thursday morning , he spent time w ith his
friends in Wea therford because he did not want t o be in the hou se. Cory threw t he gun in the la ke before going to see them , and he did no t tell t hem what had happened

. Wh en he came ho me, he had not known what to do , bu t he moved
Ferna ndez ’ s body into the bed room because of the dogs

. H e mopped up th e blo od
with Mr. Cle an, wh ich h e left under the kitchen sink, and he left the m op ne xt to the refrigerat or . H e left Fe rnandez ’ s Jeep parked “ down th e st reet , ” and he drew the police a m ap to the J eep
. Cory confessed that he had called the police bec ause h e “ had to , ” because
F ernande z had been his fri end and deserved a proper burial , and because i t w as th e

r ight thing to do. Cory sa id that he wi shed he had done the r ight thing on W e dn esday
and that the fight had never happened; he pointed to his wound under his eye as havi ng be en from the struggle. Cor y said that he wish ed he had “ finished himself at
the same time , ” a nd he observed t h at he would “ serve [h is] time now ” and that his sentence would probably be life. Cory stated th at he had not intended to s hoot Fernandez that night , but h e

“ to ok it for so long, ” and when Fernandez ste pped into his room and gra bbed him,
he react ed and grabb ed the gun . Cory said th at the clothes they had taken f rom h im
were the sam e on es h e had worn that n i ght and that he had not showered s ince th at

n ig ht an d had been unable to eat
. He then began cr ying

.15 (9) The t we lft h hour, part two
In the last f our

- minute segment shown to the jury , Cory signed another

c onse nt to searc h, and t he p olice handc uffed him to drive him to his h ome an d then
to Lake Weatherf ord so h e could show them where he t hrew the gun. (10 ) P ost - interview activities The police collected the mop and th e bottle of Mr. Clean from where Cory said they woul d b e . (11) WFAA interv ie w Sergeant Bu kowski testified that he became aware after Cory ’ s a rr est tha t Cory
ha d give n a n interview to WFAA , a l ocal television station

. The t rial court admitted
State ’ s Exhibit 35, the interview , into evidence over Cory ’ s authentication o b je ct ion and allowed the State to publ ish it

. The news segme nt , which la sted 2 m inutes and 21 seconds and which was filmed a we ek after the shooting, beg an with the introduction, “Tonight, a man admits to killing his roommate and living with t he c orpse for days

. ” Cory , who was in the
Tarrant Count y Jai l, told the report er that it was “som e th ing [he] would reg ret for the rest of [his] life.” Cory stated that he had known Fernandez for six years and that
Fernandez had been one of hi s b es t friends , and the reporter recou nted in a voice

over that Cory had told him that Fernandez had n agged h im ab ou t his drinking , had
threatened to kick him out , and had not liked that Cory kept a gun for safety.16 The reporter recoun ted, “Last Wed n e sd ay , they got in a fight after [Cory ] came
home late ” ; Fernand ez g rabbed Cory’s shou lder , and Cory grabbed his g un . Cor y stated, “We wres tled in the hallway,” and the rep orter added, “He claims it misfired, hit [Fernandez] in th e stomach. B ut what h ap pe ned next was no acc ident. ” Crying, Cory t old the repo rter that he had not w anted Fernandez to suffer beca use Cory h ad
“f

- c ked up,” so he put a bullet in the back of Fe rnandez’s head “to make sure that he
was dead so he wouldn’t suffer .”
In an ot her voiceover, s howing the home ’ s exterior , the reporter st ate d , “[Cory]
didn’t c all 911. He says he dragged hi s friend’s body back to his room in a rug , then
drove to the l ake to toss his gun

. The next day, he went to work. ” Cory told the
repor t er , “I was scared.” O n location outside of the home , the repo rter stated, “On
F riday, [Cory] finally called 9 11, and when police arrived here , a t first , he told t hem [Fern andez] had been missing fo r several days and that he found his body inside his

ro om . But after he was q u estioned, it didn’t take long for him to c onf ess.” Bac k in the jail, Cory stated, “H is daughter is really going to wan t to kn ow, for closure.” In

an other voiceover, the repo rter stated, “He’s now charged with murder fo r a m oment he can’t tak e back.” Wh en asked by the reporter wha t he wanted t o say to Fernandez’s family if th ey were watching the report , Cory replied, “ I’m sorry. It shou ldn’t have happened.” T he reporter concluded the s egment with another voice o v er, stating, “ A confession served by a killer.”17 (12) Se lf

- d efense questions
After the WFAA v ideo , the prosecutor asked Sergeant Bukowski a series of
self

- defense

- rel ated qu es tions

. Q.

. . . [ During the interview at the police station , Co ry ] s ays he walked into his bedroom , reached up and grabbed the fir earm, walked bac k out, got in the hallway, raised the firearm, and that ’ s when he said it mi sc lipped; correct? A. Cor rect. Q . Up until that po int of the story, had [Cory] ever describ ed b ei n g presented with deadly force? A. No. Q. Okay. Up until th is p oint of the stor y had he descr ibed being in imminent danger from [Fernandez] or anything? A . No. Q. In fact, what he said when h e raised the firea rm

-- pardon my language. He said, “ T his is bu llsh

- t, man. ” Is that what he to ld you? A. Corr ect. Q. Okay. Sayin g “ This is bul lsh

- t, man, ” for being asked not to be loud in the middle of t he night is not a cause to kill someone in the Sta te of Texas, is it ? A. It is not.

. . . . Q. Okay. Let ’ s assume fo r a minute that [i t i s ] true
. . . that there
was a str uggle for the firearm, and that the firearm went off and hit [Fernandez] in the stomach. Let ’ s assume that. Shooting him again i n the h ead is still a cri me; correct? A

. Yes

.18 Q. Okay. Shooting him

-- what he s ays in his own wor d s in the WFAA video

-- . . . in th e back of the head, that ’ s murder; correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I mean, intending to end someone ’ s life at that point, regardl ess of whether it was for merc y or s o me o ther reason, is not justified in th e State of Texa s; cor rect ? A. Correct. Q. . . . He references getting control of the firearm and hitting the victim twice in the head with it. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Ok ay . And th en he s a id that

-- that he shot the vi ctim in the head after that; c orre ct? A. Yes. Q. Ok ay. At any point did he provide a justifi able reason to point t he firearm at Erik Fernandez? A. No. During cross

- examination, Sergeant Bukow ski a gre ed th at Fern andez was
about si x feet t all and 200 poun ds, while Co ry w as not quite six f eet t all. He acknowledged th at i f someone is attacked and suffers injuries from someone lar ger , he
could fear for his life. He also ac knowledg ed th at Cory had said that Fern andez c ame into his roo m and grabbe d hi m, and that if tha t were true, then Fernandez would have
been the ag gressor. He agreed that Cory ’ s story about being attacked as the reason for
the s hooting had stayed consistent.19 On redirect, t he pr osec utor asked Ser geant B uko wski abo ut inco nsisten cies in Cory ’ s accoun ts and then abou t self

- defense , stating, Q. Okay. You mentioned

-- or rather, [Defense Counsel] asked you about the scratch

. . . in the corner

. . . of [ C o ry ’ s] r ight eye. Do you remember? A. Yes. Q . Ok ay. Wou ld yo u ag ree with me that t he first time tha t you asked [him] about the scratch, he sai d he didn ’ t know how he got it? A. Yes. Q. And then the second time that he was asked, he talked about the cats and th e dog s; right? A. Correct. Q. And then the t hird ti m e he was asked, h e sai d that it happened after h e tried to shoot [Fernandez] and [ Fernandez ] grabbed the firearm? A. Correct. Q. Okay. If someone is trying to kill you in the State of T exas, yo u get t o def end yourself; correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Up unti l t h e point where [Co r y] said he walked into the hallway and tried to shoot [Ferna ndez ] and it misclipped, did [Cory ] describe receiving deadly force from Erik Fernandez? A. No. Q. Oka y . Was he in any imme diate harm? A. No. Q. Ok ay. Is [Fernandez ’ s] st atem ent of saying, “ So me of us h ave to be up at 6:00 in the morning, [Cory ], ” is t hat justification to kill someone in the Stat e of Texas?20 A. No. Q. [ Def ense Counsel] asked you about a size dif ference

. Jus t perceiving that someone is larger than you is a ls o, in t he State of T exas, not cause to kill so meone; is it? A. No. d
. White Set tlement Police Lieutenant De nise Cal lahan
Lieutenant Callahan testified that aft er the polic e locat ed Ferna ndez ’ s J eep, they
found a lunc h box on the floor board tha t contained hi s pas sp ort, soci al securi ty card,
driver ’ s license, and cell phone. Through her testimony, the trial court admitted into
evide nce the Smith & Wesson .40

- caliber bullet casing that had been found with the
bo dy, two Smith & Wesson .40

- caliber bullet s t hat ha d bee n found in Cory ’ s ro om , the 48

- ounce bott le of Mr. Clean, the m op, and the map s that Cory had drawn t o where he had left Ferna ndez ’ s Je ep and to the lake w here he had thr own t he gun , which they had be e n unable to find after sea rching the lake

.

e . Whit e Settl ement P olice Serge a nt Lana Cook Sergeant Cook testified that Fernandez ’ s Jeep was found at an apartment complex in White Settlement to which she had pre vious ly be en called abou t stolen
vehicles

. It had been parke d in a reserve d parking spot , and the driver ’ s door had been
l e ft ajar with the seat belt partially sticking out and the keys inside, in plain v iew. The
trial court a d mitt ed into evidence maps of the apartment comp lex ’ s loc ation in
relation to Cory and Fe r nandez ’ s h ome and th e photo graphs tha t Serge ant Cook had21 taken of the Jeep

. During cross

- exami nation , Sergea nt Cook testified that one could

“ a bsolutely ” walk from wh ere t he Jeep was found to Co ry ’ s home.
f

. Fo rmer White Settleme nt Police CSI Laura Simmons S immons stated that on the first unr oll of th e rug, they foun d the Smith &
Wesso n .40

- calib er shell casing

. The re wer e visible blood stains on th e rug, particularly
in the area a roun d t he h ead.
Simmons testified that “ [i ] mmediately upon entering [Cory ’ s] room, [she] noticed a casing from a . 40 cali ber Smith & Wesson laying on the cor ner of a blanket
on hi s bed

. ” T hat c aliber matched the one that w as l oca t ed with the victim , and she
collected it bef ore she was called ba ck to the police station to photograph Cory ’ s clothing

. Wh en Simmons spraye d l umin ol on Cory ’ s jacke t, it lumine sced, which
indicated t he po ssible presence of blood. S he also sprayed lu mi nol at the crime scene
and testified a s follows about the lumniscence : Q. Okay. Anything in particular that luminesced in the li ving roo m area? A. Yes. Q. What was it? A . Well, obviously, the

-- what we assumed w a s the blood on t he f loor that yo u coul d visibly see with the naked e ye already. And then once we spra yed the luminol, you could see what appeared to be dog prints and/o r cat pr ints in blo od

.22 Q. Okay. So that is i n the living room where you ’ ve got what ap p ears to be dog o r ca t prints wal king i n blood or what appears

-- wha t is luminescing as apparent bloo d? A. Yes. Q. And then do you also spray down the hallway? A. Ye s. Q. A nd that's leadin g up in to the vic ti m ’ s be droom? A. Yes. Q. Does the hallway a l so lu minesce ? A. Y es. Pho tographs of the scene, the Jee p, and everything she had collected and processed were admitted in to evidence without objection and publis hed to the jury.
g . Gayla Fernand ez
Fern andez ’ s ex

- wife te stified that she an d Fe rnandez had been m arrie d for fourteen y ears , had a daug hter together , 7 and h ad rema ined friends

. She stated that
Fer nandez had been generally in poor health

—he struggled with dia betes and had

st ents in his he art. Sh e also state d that she had to give F ern andez money to cov er Cory ’ s share of the rent “ [ m]ost of the time. ” Fernandez had talked with her a bout
confr onting Cory about the rent , but he ha d not wanted t o have a difficu lt
conversation

.

7 A photograp h of Fernandez with his daughter was admitted into evide nce and published to the jury.23 On cross

- e xamin at ion , Ga yle stated that s h e had pro babl y helped Fern andez pay for Cory ’ s share o f the rent tw o or three times and that it had upset Fernandez to have to ask her for money

. She stated t ha t Fern andez would get frust rated w hen Cory

came home l ate a n d dis rupt ed his sl eep. It had been c le ar to her that the r oommate relati onship was deteriorating.
h
. Tarrant County Deputy Chief Medical Examiner
Dr. Tasha Greenburg perfo rmed the M a rch 2, 2019 a utopsy an d testi fied th at
F ernandez ’ s p rimary cause of d eath w as a gu nsh ot woun d to the head and neck.
Other conditio ns that were not a dir ect cause of death were a gunshot wound to the right e ar and blunt force in juries to t he head. She stated t hat , ge nera lly, m arks on the
skin

— m uzzle pa ttern, soot deposition, stippling or ta ttooing from burning
g

unp owder

— c ould be used to determine range ; that , here, there was no muzzle imprint, soot, or gunpo wder on Fernandez ’ s corpse ; th at b oth gunshot w ounds were
fro m ba ck to front , from two to f our fee t awa y ; and that Fernandez d id not hav e a
gun shot wound to his abdomen.
Dr. G reenburg noted that there were various blunt force injuri es present on
Ferna ndez ’ s body that in cluded two small lacera ti on s o n the head

. She was unabl e to say whether the se injuries were defens ive but agreed , over def ense co unsel ’ s objection, that the injuries on top of the head were consistent with Co ry ’ s admission
to strikin g h im on the head with the firearm. Fernandez h ad also had a previo us toe

am putation and suffered from nephro sclerosis, consistent wit h diabetes, and24 hy pertensive a theros cl erotic cardiovas cular d i sease , neither of which contribut ed to
his death. Fernan dez had an inact iv e m et abolite of coca ine and Ga bapenti n

— a n a nti

con vuls ant used for seizures or nerve pain

— i n his blood , and his urine contained

can nabinoi ds, an inactive co caine metabolite, Bena dryl, and Gabap entin. Dr. Greenburg said that none of these h ad c a used F ernandez ’ s d ea th.
Fern andez ’ s prescription medications, which were found at the scene, included
C l opidogrel ( a blood thinner) , L isinopril and A m lodipine ( which tr eat bl ood pressure),
D o xycycline ( an antibiotic), C arvedilol ( w hich t re a ts heart disease) , A torvastatin ( wh ich t reats high cholesterol), P antoprazole ( which treats stomach issues li ke reflux),
M ontelukast ( which treats asthma), and G abape ntin

. Dr. Greenbur g testif ied that
none of these medicines had cause d his dea th

. The t rial court ad mitt ed ten auto psy photo graphs into evidence despite defense counsel ’ s objections to State ’ s Exhibit
202 and State ’ s Exhibit 209 as “ more prejudi c ial than pr obative ” afte r the pro secutor explained that S t a te ’ s Exhibit 209 w as th e “ more sanit ized , c leaned

- up ” photo of
Ferna ndez ’ s face s howing the exit wound , and S tate ’ s Exhib it 202 was “just the overall appearance of the body as it came to the Medical Ex aminer’ s O ffice.”
On cros s

- examinati on, D r. Gr eenburg test ified that nothing abou t the wounds
on the head would tell her if there had been so me sort o f struggle , although the
wound s ’ non

- he aling nature indicated that they were fair ly fresh.25 2
. Analysis
At the co nclusion of the St ate ’ s case, the trial court denied Cory ’ s motion for a
directe d verdict

. I n his second issue, Cory argues that this was error. Specifically, C ory

a rgues that wh en the State rested, the evidenc e sup porting his self

- defense the ory wa s

“ c lea rl y c ont ained in S t ate ’ s Exhibit 31 , ” his p o lice confession

. He asserts that Dr. Greenburg ’ s con c lusions that Cory fired from fee t away inst ead of inches d id no t contradict his story because “ [s]te pping one o r two feet aw ay w hile reeli ng b a ck from
g rabbing the gun

— b efor e fi ring

— w ould have be en l ogically consistent with Dr. Greenburg ’ s findings. ” He further contends that his statement that he shot F ern andez
the second time so that he wo uld not suffer “ w as c learly a s tatem ent of emotion and
did not reb ut any of the e vidence of self

- de fense. ” However, Dr. Greenburg ’ s testi mony was that the second gunshot killed
Fe rnandez, and the tri al court could have determined t ha t there were self

- de fense fact question s for th e jury t o determine when there was evidenc e that there had been an
alter cat io n between t he two men b ut also evidence that Fernandez had already le ft the

ro om when Cory grabbed his gun and went after him , t he y s t ruggled ag ain, and then Cory intentionally sh ot him twice

. Cory ’ s confession to the pol ice and his WFAA
intervie w both support this interp retation. And, as pointed out by the State, the evide nce also showed C o r y ’ s strong
conscio usness of guilt base d on h is actions i n the of fen se ’ s immediate after m ath

. We

note particularly Cory ’ s disposal of the gun in the lake , his attempt to di spo se of the26 J eep in a high

- crime area befor e he called 91 1 over a day a fter the shooting , and his
lies to the poli ce in his 9 11 call, at the sc e ne , and initially in his police interview

. T he
trial court correc tly deni ed the motion f or di recte d ve rdict

. See Martinez v. State , No. 04

- 0 9

- 00458

- CR, 201 1 WL 1402845, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Sa n Anton io Apr. 13,
20 11, no pe t.) ( mem . op., not des ignated for publ ication ) (reaching same conclusion on similar facts) ; see also Padilla v. State , 326 S.W .3d 1 95, 2 01 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (stating that a rational t rier of fact cou ld consider a n appella nt ’ s un truth ful state ments ,

“ i n c o nnec tion with the other circumstan ces of the case, as affirmative evidence of appellant ’ s guilt ” ) ; Johnson v. Stat e , 452 S .W.3d 398, 40 3

– 0 4 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2014, pet. ref’d) (noting t hat t h e appellant ’ s statements did not conclu sively prove a
claim of se l f

- de fense and that the fact th at t he appellant “ wa lked up to [ the victim]
after the first shot and shot [him] a second tim e in th e back while he lay on the floor,
if believed by the jury, i s evidence negating his claim of self

– de fense ” ) ; Kirk v. State , 4 2 1 S.W .3d 772, 781 ( Tex. App.

— Fort W orth 20 14, pet. ref ’ d) (noting that , as the sole ju d ge of credibility, a jur y is free to disr eg ard the defendant ’ s testimony)

. W e overrule Cory ’ s second i ss ue and turn to Cory ’ s first iss ue cha llenging the s ufficiency

o f all of the evidenc e

— including tha t presented in his own case

— t o sup port his
conviction

.27 C. Sufficiency
1. The De fense ’ s c ase Cory was t he on ly defense witness du ring the trial ’ s guilt

–

inn oce nce phase

. He
testified tha t he had an associate ’ s d eg ree in libera l a rt s and a b ach elor ’ s degree in political science and that he had mov ed to Texas after his mother d ie d

. He h ad lost a few jobs due to his alcohol u se , and he had lived with Fernandez for s i x months but
had known h im lo nge r from the ir ba rte nd ing work

. He had driven Fe rnand ez to the
ho spital a couple of times. On Wednesday, Februar y 27, Cory was at work wh en he r ec eived a t ext fro m Fernandez about re nt. He cu rsed aloud when he read t he te xt , and his man ager told
him to go hom e. Instea d, Cor y went to a friend ’ s house and had a few drinks first

. It

was late

— “ p robably arou nd 1:00 o ’ clock in the morning ”

— when C ory arr ived home,
and he wo ke Fernandez, who had been s l eep ing on the l iving

- room cou c h

. He
testified that Ferna ndez y elled from the couch, “ Damn it, [Cory , ] I have to get to
work in the morn ing. Can you be more quiet?” Cory stated that Fernandez then
walk ed into his room and grab bed h im and that, although thi s was the first time Fernandez had go tten physica l with him, he re c alled that i n December, Fernandez

“ told [him] that he [ had] talked to his friends about . . . the [ir] situation, and they told
him he should beat [ Cory] with a bas ebal l bat. ” Cory testified th at when Fernandez grabbed him, he said , “ Man , I ’ ve had enough. This is BS, ” a nd then he re ached into the box at the end of the bed and got out his pistol.28 Co ry went out into the hallway, where Fe rn andez w as b locking his en tra n ce to the living room

. Cory t estifi ed, I know I said before that I pointed [the gun] , but if I w ould have pointed it at him, he would have ran, most likely. I me an, any normal person would have. But I had [the gun] to my s ide. And at that tim e, you

-- you see the s crape on my eye. As I go by hi m, he kind of turns sideways to kind of let me walk by, w hich that ’ s good. And then he grabbed the gun out of my hand, a nd we start wres tling o ver it at tha t point. Cor y said that Fernan de z point ed the gun at him a nd “ it cl icked ” and then Fernandez cocked the gun while they were str uggling

. Cory said that h e had tho ught Fernandez
said he was shot and th is was why he had be lieved Fernan dez had been shot in the
stomach

. Fernan dez then grabbed the gu n ’ s bar rel a nd mov ed a bi t, resu lting in the
gu nshot to his ear , and then as Fernandez spun in response to t he hit, Cory fired the
shot th at hit Fer n andez in the back o f the neck. Cory te stif ied that he had be en in fear for hi s life after Fernandez gr abbe d him , and then he testified as fo llows. Q. N ow , as y ’ all are wrestling for the gun, as you ’ re walking out, you say he grabs i t. Are you still in fear for your life then? A. Mo re s o than ever. Q. W hat about when yo u say that he pointed the gun at yo u? Were you in fear for y our life then? A . Absol ut ely. Q. Okay. And so then are you telling this jury that as y ’ all wr estled for the gu n, the gun we nt off?29 A. Yes, sir. Q. And t hat ’ s the first one to the ear? A. Yes , sir. Q. And then when you told this jur y that at some point you got con tr ol of the gun

-- A. Yes, sir. Q.

-- as he tried to spin away from y ou

-- or

- - or wh at ’ s going on at that

-- A. As

-- as

-- as the

-- as I had the gu n and he grabbed it, it fired and hit him in th e ear. And as it hit him i n the e ar, he spun at tha t po in t. So I thought it was like a more

-- I didn ’ t know wh ere it hit. I t hought it was mor e of a direct shot, like, in this area. I di dn ’ t know it was in th e ear at this poi nt. Q. But then that ’ s w hen t he gun goes off again? A. Y es. Q. Or how does the gu n g o off on the second shot? A. When he grabbed it like that , it came

- - it stoppe d me, a nd I came ba ck down, and I pulled it. And t hat ’ s why you see it c oming from the lo wer to the upper part. Cory testified that after the shooti ng, he freaked out , left, and went home only
to check on th eir pets

. He fi nally called 911 because he could not just leave
Fe rna n dez ’ s body ther e, and he admitted that when the poli ce came, he lied to them
and then kept l ying

. Cory claimed that when he con fessed to the police, he “ t old the m what [he] thought they wanted to hear. ” Cory stated that he suffere d fr om a rare f orm of sleep disorder and that h e had been unable to rest between the shoo tin g and his
confession. He claimed that he had blacked out du ri n g his W FAA intervie w .30 D uring cross

- examination, when the prosecutor a sked , “ Yo u said you shot a second time in the head t o end his life because he was in pain and gu t shot wounds to the stomach are more painful; correct? ” Cory replied, “ Cor rect. ” Cory con tend ed that
it was n ot wr ong to protect himself but that it was w ro ng for him t o have w aited a
f

ew days after th e sho oting to confess

. He acknowledged that he said nothing in the
fourteen

- hour police interview about hav ing be e n in fear for his life or afra id of
F ernandez

. Cory ass erted that he did not recall s aying anythi ng in his p olice interview
about hitti ng Fe rnandez with the firearm

. Co ry ackn owledg ed that his testimony did not match D r. Greenburg ’ s that the
bullet tr avelled from Fernandez ’ s b ack to h is fron t and that th ere w er e no burn marks

or soo t on Fernandez ’ s face. He insisted, “ We f ou ght over a gun . . . and I did everythin g to sa ve my life. ” On redirect, Cory a dmitted that he had lie d and had given differ ent ver sions of
wha t happened tha t nigh t, and then he gave the f ollowing testimony: Q. Were you freaking o u t?
A . Yes. Q. Were you thinking straight?
A. No. Q. Were you sleeping?
A. No. Q. Were y ou eating?31 A . No. Q. As a mat ter of fact, whenever you got something to eat, you threw it up; right? A. Yep. 2. Analysis Cory directs us to his testimony t h at h e had been in fear for his life and that , at

o ne point, F ernande z had co ntrol of the gun during their s trugg le

. He argues th at the State presented no evidence that he had not been in fear for his life or t h at h e had n ot

s truggle d with F ernandez, al though he acknowledg es that the State s howed t hat he
had c hanged his story , had h id den F e rnand ez ’ s Jeep , and had not c all ed the police for three days after t he shooting

. Cory argues that the S t ate ’ s evide nce mer ely “ show s
pan ic a fter the ev ent. ” Cory disregards that the jury

— as the judge o f the evide nce ’ s weight and
credibil ity

— was free to disbelie ve a ll or any part of his testimony, particularly when compared to his videotaped confessions and the physi c al e v iden ce. See M a rtin , 63 5 S.W.3d at 67 9. Further, we must presume that the jur y reso l ved any con f licting
inferences in th e verdi ct ’ s favor and de fer to that resolution

. Braughton , 569 S.W.3d at
608

. T he evidence shows that Cory killed Fernandez, an una r me d man w hos e body

was wrac ked with dia be tes and heart problems, by shooting him in the ear and the n in
the back of the head. T he jur y could have de term ined that Cory mur d ered Fernandez
without justification and then took several actions, including lying n um er ous t imes , to32 avoi d res ponsibility . O r the jury could have believed Cory ’ s accou nt

— t hat Fernandez grabbed his should er

— b ut nonethe less found aga inst his self

- defense claim because it
determined that his belie f that deadly force was imme diately necessa r y wa s not reasonable either a fter Fernand ez left the room or during their sub sequent st rugg le

. Bec ause there was ample evidence upon which the jury coul d resolve any conf licts , determine the witnesses ’ credibility, and find Cory guilty of murder, we concl u de t hat

t he evidence is suf fi cient to sup por t his conviction, and we overru le his first issue. See
Mat thews v. State , No. 02

- 21

- 00182

- CR, 2022 WL 16 8451 12, at *1 1 (Tex. A pp.

— Fort Worth Nov. 10, 2022, pet. ref’d) (mem. op. , not designated for publication ) ( re ac hing
same conclusion on similar facts )

. III. Mistrial Cory a sserts in h is seve nt h i ssue that the t rial court abuse d its discretion by denying a mist ri al after the pro sec utor speculated that he had lived with the corpse for three days , which he contend s i mp roper ly reinforc ed the ide a that he h ad l ived with a
de ad body for mult iple da ys . H e refers us to a portion of Sergean t Bu kowski ’ s testimony that occurred after th e WFAA video ’ s publication

. The complained

- of port ion o f the re cord sets out the fol lowing : Q. Oka y. I want to ask y ou a little bit about [C ory ’ s] actions afte r the fact. Would you expect someone who acted in either self

- d efense or someone wh o made a mistake or was part of an accident to live with a dead body for several days ? [Empha si s added.] A. No.33 [Defense counsel] : Obje ction, speculatio n, Judge. THE COUR T: Excuse me. Coul d yo u repeat your ques tion? [Prosecut or ] : Su re. Q. ( [ P ros ecutor ] ) Based on your ex perie nce and training as a peace officer in the State of Texas for approximately 1 7 years , would y ou expect that som eone w ho acted in s elf

- defense or had made a mistake []
o r wa s involved in a n accident, to l ive wit h a dead body for multi ple days with the t hermo stat at 60 degrees? [Emphasis added.] THE COURT: Just a second. What ’ s your object ion? [Defe n se counsel ] : Specu lation. THE COU RT: Okay. Susta i ned

. Go ahead. [Def ense counsel] : I as k that you instr uct the jury to disregard. TH E COURT: Jur y will disre gard the most recent question by the p rosecutor. [Defense counsel ] : Move for a mist rial. THE C OURT: Denied. Cory comp lains that the S t at e ’ s speculati ve q uestion “ directly contradicted ” his testimony that he left immediately after sho oting F e rnandez “ and thus gave the
ap pea rance that [he] w as testifying fals ely. ”
The S tate res pond s that th e there was no abuse of d iscre ti on based on the
nature of the complained

- of question, the other evidence on the same issue, the34 rema ining evidence demonstrating Cor y ’ s guilt, and the t ri al cour t ’ s instruction to dis r egard

. The State also p oints out that dur ing c r oss

- exa minat ion, Sergeant Buko wski confirmed that Cory never told him that he had lived wit h th e cor pse and that t he
que stion that elicited the confi rm ation had refe renced the WFAA news clip

. 8 T he
S tate also not es that C ory nev er objected to the admission of the WFAA news clip on
the g round that it contain ed im proper s peculation about his livi ng with Fernandez ’ s

8 D uri ng cross

- examination, defen se counse l asked Sergeant Bukowski , Q.

. . . When we saw the WFAA video a nd also the video that my client did wit h you at the police s ta ti on, there were a c ouple of thing s that were small things that were different. For ins tanc e, he n ever
-- he never lived in there with that corpse, right? I mean, wh enever he spok e to you, he said that he had just come home and that ’ s when he found him; i s that correct? [Emp hasis added.] A. Correct.

. . . . Q. One last thing. With the exc ept ion of the mino r dif ferences betw een the story he told at the police station a nd th e one on WFAA

-- and when I say the minor except ion, I ’ m talking abou t th e new s kind of gla morized it and made it seem like he was livi ng there with a c orpse for t hree da ys. Other than tha t, th e stories pre tty much matched up from what he told you and what he told the news station; right? [Emphasi s adde d.] A. I don ’ t belie ve s o. I believe when he was telling us at the PD, he said one sho t to the head.35 dead body. 9 See Mosley v. State , 983 S.W.2d 249 , 258 ( Tex. Crim. App . 1998) ( op. on

re h ’ g) (n oting that the admission of other similar evidence can render error harmless).
W e rev iew the denial of a motion for mis trial f or an abuse of discretion , and
the rulin g must be upheld if i t was within the zone of reasonable disa gree ment. Cob le
v. S t a te , 330 S.W.3 d 253, 292 (Tex. Crim . App. 2010)

. A mistrial is the tr ial court ’ s remedy for i mproper conduct that is so prejudi cial th at expenditu re of further time and expen se would be wasteful and futile. Hawkins v. State , 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex.
C rim. Ap p. 2004 )

. W e balance three factors in reviewing wh ether a mis trial w as warranted: (1) t he mi sconduct ’ s severity (the magnitu de of the pre judicia l effect of the
pr osec utor ’ s remark) ; (2) the m easures adopted to cure the misco n duct (the eff icacy of any cauti on ary i nstruction by the judge) ; and (3) the ce rtainty of con viction absen t the mis con d uct ( the stren gth of the evidence supporting the c onvicti on). Archie v.
State , 221 S.W .3d 695, 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

. Ordinarily, a promp t ins truc tion to disregard wi ll cu re error associated with an improper q uestion and answ er. Ova lle v. State , 13 S

. W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (holding that a pro m pt instruction to disregard , coupled with t he case ’ s circumstances, may re nder an err or ha rmle ss). T his is becau se a ju ry i s presumed to
follow an instructio n to disregard u nless s omething in the re c ord s uggests that it could
not follow th e i nstruct ion

. Co ble , 330 S.W.3d at 292

– 93. So mething in the record that

9 Cory ’ s sole obj ection t o the WF AA vide o was lack of prop er predic ate based on aut hent i cati on.36 m ight suggest that the jury could not follow the in struc tion wo uld inc lude prosecutorial misco nduct. Se e Stahl v. Sta te , 749 S.W.2d 826, 831 ( T ex. C rim. App. 1988) (listing three fact ors that m ight in dicate prosecutorial miscondu ct

— objections,
deliberate violation of e xpress c ourt orders, and blatant misco nduct “ b order [ ing ] on being contumacious ” ).
The re cord here reflec ts neit her blatant prosec ut o rial misconduct n or the
deli berate violati on of e xpress court orders. Further, even without the prosecutor ’ s question to Sergeant Bukowski, the WFAA video had alr eady introdu ced

— without objection

— t he state ment about Cory ’ s “ livi ng with a corpse for days , ” a n d as set out in our suffi ciency review , Cory ’ s statement in th e WF AA inter view about having put a
bullet in the back of Fernandez ’ s hea d “ t o make sure that h e was dead ”

— in addition

to ample other evidence

— e ffectively killed h i s self

- defense arg ument a nd made his
murder conviction certain regard less of how long he mi ght hav e stay ed in the apartment wit h the corpse. See Archie , 221 S.W.3d a t 70 0. T he j ury is pre sumed to
have followed the trial court ’s instruction to d isregard , s e e C oble , 330 S.W.3 d at 29 2

– 93 , and that instruction

— along with the case ’ s remain ing cir cu mstances

— r ender ed any

error harmless and mistrial inapp ropriate. See Ovalle , 13 S.W.3d a t 783

– 8 5

. We

o verrule Cory ’ s seventh issue.
I V. Evidentiary co mpla ints
In his t hird, f ourth, fift h, si xt h, eig hth, ninth, and tenth issue s , Cory raises a
varie ty of e videntiary compla ints. We review a trial court ’ s evidenti ary ruling s for an37 abu se of discretion and must uphold the m if they were within the zone of reasonable disag r eem en t. Se e W e lls v. State , 611 S.W.3d 396, 427 (Tex. Crim. App . 2020)

. Further, t o pr eserve a complaint for o ur review, a party must have presente d to
the tria l court a ti mely re quest, objection, or motion su fficient ly stating the specific grounds, if not ap pa rent fro m the cont ext, for the desired ruling. Tex. R. App. P.
33. 1(a)(1); Montel ongo v. State , 623 S.W .3 d 819, 822 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2021)

. Wh ile
p reserva t i on does not requir e “magic language,” it must be clear f rom the record that
the trial court und ers to od th e b asis of th e obj ection , Vasquez v. State , 483 S.W.3d 550,
5 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) , and an obj ec tion preserv es only the specific grou nd c ited.
Tex

. R. App. P. 33.1(a )(1)(A); Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)( 1)(B). T hat is, w hile no “hyper

technical or fo rma li stic use of words or ph rases” is required for an objection to
pres erve an er ror, the objecting party mu st still “let the trial judge know what he wants, wh y he thin ks he is e ntitled to it, and to do so cl early en ough for the judge to
understand him at a ti me wh en the judge is in the proper position to do something
about it.” Clar k v. S tate , 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim . App. 2012) (quoting Pen a v. State , 285 S.W.3d 45 9, 464 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2009))

. And, g enerally , a party must object each time object ion ab le ev idence is offered , and a trial court ’ s erroneous admission of evidence will not req uire re versal when
other such evidence was received wi thou t obje ction, eithe r before or after the compla ined

- of ruling. C lay v. State , 361 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Tex. Ap p.

— Fo rt Wo rth 2012, no pet.) ; see Le day v. State , 983 S.W. 2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).38 A. Hea rsay In his third iss ue , C ory a rgues that the t ria l court abused its discretion by admitting ina dmissible hearsay about Fernandez ’ s time of death because G ree r, who
testified about it , was no t a m edical examiner and w as merely rep eating an o ut

- of

court statement he had heard f rom MedStar personnel

. B ut Cory did not object to the
same information that was ad mi tt e d into evidence without obje ction a nd published to the j u ry in State ’ s Exhi bit 19, Greer ’ s body camera footage

. Because Cory failed to object to the same evidence on the body camera footage, he has fa il ed to preserv e this complaint for our review

. S ee T ex. R. App. P. 33.1 ; Leday , 98 3 S.W.2d at 718; Clay , 3 61 S.W .3d at 76 6

. We ove rrule his thi rd i ssue . B. Busines s record
In his fourth issue , Cory argues that the trial court abused its discreti on by admitting into e vidence State ’ s Exh ibit 20 , the Me dSta r report sponsored by a
busin e ss rec ord affidavit , with out the proper pre d i cate
. He complains t hat “ [Gree r] only testified to k nowledge of a few of the facts ”

— specifically, the d ate , time, a nd
location

— “ b ut not the majority of fac ts, ” making him unqualifi ed , and he re fer s us to Rule of Evidence 803( 6)

. The tri al cour t admitt ed the rec ords after the prosecutor
informed the trial court, “ This bu siness record a ff idavit has been on file for 14 days
and provide d to defense counsel. So these r ecords are self

- au thenticating. Th is

w

itness has identified and mad e th em r elevant by the victim ’ s n ame, his date of birth, address, and the date and time. ”39 Rul e o f Evidence 803(6) provides that records o f a regularly c onducted a c tivity

“ are no t excl uded by the rule against hearsay , regardless of whether the d ecla ra nt is
availab le as a witness , ” if (A) the record was made at or near the time by

-- or from information tr an smitted by

-- someone with k nowledge; ( B) the record was kept in the cours e of a reg ularly conducted busines s activity; (C) making the record wa s a regular practice o f that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the cu stodian or a nother qualified witness , or by a n affi davit or unsworn declaration that compli es with Rule 902(10) ; a nd ( E) the opp onent fails to demonstrate tha t the source of in f ormatio n or the method or circumstances of pre paration indicate a l ack of tr ustworthi nes s. Tex. R. Evid. 803(6) ( emp hasis added)

. As referenced in Rule 803(6), a n item of
evidence is self

- authenticating and requires no extrinsic evi denc e of authenticity to be
adm itted if it is a b usiness record accompanied by aff idavit that has been serve d o n each party at least four teen days befor e trial and includes the appropri ate bus ine ss

records affidavit language . Tex. R. Evid. 902(10). State ’ s Exh ibit 20 was accomp an ied by a business record affidavit , and Cory did not challenge th e a ffida vit ’ s suffi cie nc y under Rule 902(10)

. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1

. F urther, as poin ted out by the State, the report “ mere ly summarized the action

o f th e param edics who r esponded to Cory ’ s apart men t ” an d c ontaine d most of the
same in formation as Gree r ’ s te sti mo ny abo ut the scene and his body camera footage ,40 which was adm itted without objec ti on . See Leda y , 983 S.W.2d a t 71 8 ( “ [O] verruling a n objection to evidence will not result in reversal when o ther such evidence was recei ved w ithout objec tion, either before or after the complaine d

- of ru ling

. ” ). Accordingly, we overru le Cory ’ s fourth issue.
C. Optional completeness
In his fifth issue , C or y argues that the trial court a bused its discreti on by fai ling
to admit the unredac t e d po lice inte rview under Rule of Evidence 107, th e rule of optional completeness , which provide s that if a party introduces

— a mong other things

— part of a recorded statement, an adverse p arty may inqu ir e into any other part
on the sam e subject a nd “ may also introduce any other . . . r ecorded statement that is
necessary t o explain or allow the trier of fact to fully understand the part offered by the op ponent. ” Tex. R. Ev id. 107. This evidentiary rule i s designed to reduce the possib ili ty of the j ury ’ s receivin g a false impression from hearing only a part of some
act, conv ersation, or writing. Pena v. S tat e , 353 S.W.3d 797, 814 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2011)

. To be admitted under Rule 107, the omitted portion of the statement must be

“ o n the sa me subject ” and must be “ necessary to make it fully unders tood. ” Id. Here, t he State of fered the redacte d copy of the interview (State ’ s Exhibi t 31)
for a ll purposes and the unredacted copy ( State ’ s Exhibit 30) for t he record only. At that po int, Cory s tated that he had no objections but asked for State ’ s Exhibit 30 “ to be admitted for all purposes as well. ” Afte r the prosecutor ob ject ed to the ad missio n of State ’ s Exhibit 30 “ for all purposes subject to the Texa s Rules of Evidence a nd o u r41 convers ation o utside the presenc e of the jury, ” t he trial court stated, “ Fo r now, I will admit 30 for record purpos es only. We can talk about tha t at a break further. ”
The re c ord reflects that Cory did not raise an y objec tion b ased on Rule 107 , did not identify a specif ic unre da cted ex ce rpt unde r that rule , an d did not later seek to admit State ’ s Exhibit 3 0 or any unredac ted e x cerp t on that ba sis or any other

. See Tex. R. App. P. 33 .1. Further, Cory failed to argue that State ’ s Exhibit 30 or a specific
unred acted excerp t from it w as neces sary to explain or to all ow t h e jur y to fully

u nderstand h is interview and to prevent the jury f rom rec eiving a fals e im p ression

. Cf.
Tex. R. Evid. 107 ; Pena , 3 53 S.W.3d at 81 4. Because Cory did not preserve a Rule
107 c o mplaint fo r our r eview , we overrule his fifth issue

. See Tex

. R. App. P. 33.1.
D. WFAA interview
I n his sixth issue , Cory argu es that the trial court ab us ed its discretion by admitting i nto evidence the WFAA interview because it failed to take judic ial no t ice of
WF AA ’ s F e deral C ommunicatio ns C ommission (FCC) lice nse . When the prosecutor sought to adm it the WF AA video durin g S er geant Buko wski ’ s testimo ny, Cor y stated , “ We object to that as just no t being the proper predicate. Th is would n ’ t be the wi tness to authentic ate that. I t would hav e to be s ome bod y fr om WFAA

. ” [Emp ha sis added.] The prosecutor then replied that the video was self

auth enticating under Code o f C ri minal Procedure Article 38.111

. See Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. A nn . art. 3 8.111 ( “ Extrinsic evidence of the au t hen t icit y of ev ide nce as a condition precedent t o th e admiss ib ility of the evidence in a cri minal proceeding is42 not requir ed with respe ct to a recording that purpo rts to be a broadcast by a r adio or
television station that holds a license issued by the [FC C] at th e time of the

re co rding. ” ). The trial co urt overruled the obj ection

. On appeal, Cory complains that t he trial court di d no t take judicial notice of
the FCC license

. See i d

. ( “ The cour t may take judici al notic e of the recording licen se a s provid ed by Ru le 201, Texas Rule s o f Evidence. ” ). Beca use Cory failed to raise this objection in t he trial court, this complaint is not preserved, se e Tex. R. App. P. 33.1,
and we overrule h is sixth issue.
E. Exp e rt testimony
In h i s eigh th issue , Cory argues t ha t the trial co urt abused its discretion by
allowi ng Dr. Gree nburg t o testi fy abou t th e c au se of Fernand ez ’ s blunt

- force inj ur ies without layin g foundation

. The State responds t hat Dr. G r e enburg ’ s te sti mony regarding a pos sible cause of an inju ry was a p rop er expert o pinion based on a hyp othetic al that mirror ed th e

c as e ’ s facts , pa r ticularly in ligh t of he r earl ier testimony that Ferna ndez ’ s cause of
d eath was a g unsho t wound to hi s head or neck and tha t he had blunt force i njuries on his body, includ ing an abrasion on the ri ght side o f his fore hea d

. The Sta t e furt her

ar gues that any error was harmless because of Cory ’ s o w n re c o rded stateme nt that he
hit Ferna nd ez in the head with hi s f irearm. Dr. Greenburg explained the autopsy proce ss ge nerally before turni ng to her

a utop sy o f Fern ande z , in which she determined that his primary cause o f d e ath was a43 gunshot wound to the head and ne ck

. She noted that in addition to the primary gunsho t w ou nd, Fernandez had a secondary gunshot to the right ear and “ blunt force
i njurie s of the head ” that wer e not a direct cause of death. She then disc uss ed the fatal
and nonfatal gunshot wound s before generally explaining de composition and ot he r post mortem changes and their r ol e in de termining when a person died

. The prosecutor the n asked, “ S o i f I represente d to you that this def endant said that . . . he killed this victim on Wednesday, a nd his body was di scovered by law enfor cem en t on Friday night, would [ Ferna nde z ’ s] de composition and th e appearance o f his body be
consistent with that? ” Dr. Greenburg opin ed that the time f rame “ c ould be
consistent. ” The prosecutor then asked Dr. Gre enburg about other in juri es to t h e ex terior
of Fernandez ’ s body , a nd she again noted that there w ere “ blunt force injuries pr esent on the body as we ll as the guns hot wounds

. ” Regar ding the time frame, s he ex plained
that if a wound had started healing, then it was older tha n o ne that was still fresh.
Be cause there were no hea ling wou nds noted on Fernandez ’ s body , she opined that
the wou nds “ we re m ore rece nt, but ex a ctly when they occ urred is difficult. ” Dr. Greenburg discussed Fernandez ’ s other condit ion s

— s uch as diabetes and
card iovascula r disea se

— that had no effect on his death b efore reaching the portion of
her testim ony to which Cory refe rs us r egardin g whether F ernandez ’ s blunt f orce injur ies were consistent with being struck by a fir ear m:44 Q. Ba ck to the blunt force injuri es on his head, I wanted to ask you, if I repre sented to you that this defendant, J effery Cory, stated that he hit Erik Fernandez in the head w ith a firearm, cou ld those abrasions be co ns i stent with that? [Defense counsel] : Ob jection , speculation

. [Em phas is ad ded.] THE COURT: Could you repeat th e question? [Prose cuto r] : Sure. Q.

. . . Bas ed on your training and experience as the Deputy Chief Medi cal Examiner, if I represented to yo u t hat this defendant, Jeffery Cory, had ad mitted to striking Erik in the head with a firearm, could the inju ries on t he top of his he ad b e consistent with that? THE COURT: What ’ s your objection? [Defense coun sel] : Specu lation as to the t ype of weapon used

. [E mp h asis added.] THE COURT: Overrule d. Q.

. . . You can answer. A . That could be consistent, yes.
Later in Dr. Gree nburg ’ s testimony , Cory raised no objection to the trial cour t ’ s admitt ing a diagram of Fer nandez ’ s in juries , showing, a mong other injuries, two abrasions on Fer nandez ’ s forehead

. During cross

- examina tion, Dr. Greenbur g

te stified that she w as unable to tell from the other wo unds if there was a str uggle, stating, “ There ’ s . . . noth ing a bout thos e wounds th at would tell me t hat. ”
Before Dr. Greenbur g ’ s testim ony and d uring a portion of his police interview,
Co ry t old the pol ice tha t in the struggle over the gun, he h a d h it Fernandez with the
blunt side of the gun , a nd he ge stured at a height

. Duri ng Sergeant Bukow ski ’ s45 testim ony , t he sergeant answered , “ Yes, ” when the prosecutor asked, “ He ref eren ces getti ng contro l of the firearm and hitting the victim twice in the head with it . Do you
recall that? ” In contrast, during his test imony during the def ense ’ s case

— after Dr.
Gr eenb u rg ’ s testimony

— C ory asserted that he did not recal l sayi ng a nything in his
p o l ice interview about h itting Fe rnandez with the firearm

. A n expert may respond to hy pothe ticals to apply h er knowledge to the facts of
the case and ma y offer an o pinion based sole ly on hypothetical questio ns posed at
trial

. Til lman v. State , 354 S .W.3d 42 5, 439 (Tex . Cri m. App. 2011). A hypothetical question based upon facts in evidence or an expert ’ s per sonal kno wledge m ay form
the basis for an expert ’ s opinion t e stimony. See Mays v. State , 726 S.W.2d 937, 95 0

– 5 1 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1986) ; see also Bl asdell v. State , 384 S.W.3d 824, 830 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ( “ If a hypothetical question fails to echo any parti cular ‘ ev ent ’ tha t

‘ occurred in that particula r case[,] ’ it w ould result in expert testimony that is not relevant for purp oses of Rule 702 becau se it does not ‘ fit ’ the facts of the case and
therefore canno t help the jury. ” )
Because the hypothetical ques t ion here wa s b ased on facts in evidence and th e results of th e auto psy that Dr. Gree n burg had performed , she could opine that the
nonfa tal inju ri es to Fern an dez ’ s h ead could be con sistent with being struck with a
gun . T he trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Cory ’ s objections to
specu lation, an d w e overrule his eighth issue.46 F. Autopsy photos
In his nint h issu e , Cory argues tha t the tria l court abused its d isc retio n by
ad mitting cum ulative photos that were more prejudicial than proba tive

. Spe cifical ly, he complai ns that St ate ’ s Exhib it 202 ( th e pho to of F ernand ez ’ s bod y ’ s ov erall
ap pea r ance when it arriv ed at the M e dical E xaminer ’ s O ffi ce ) a nd State ’ s Exhibit
209 ( the photo of F ernandez ’ s face sho wing the e xi t wound ) we r e unnecessary and
gruesome when “ a myriad of oth er p ho to s had alr eady been admitted

. ” The St a te
respo nds that the probati ve v alue o f State ’ s Exhibits 202 and 209 was not substanti ally out weighed by th e danger of unfair prejudice. See Tex . R. E vi d. 403.
When u ndertaking a Rule 403 analysis, the trial cour t mu st balance (1) the
in herent probative f orce of t he profe rred item of evidence along with (2) the
proponent ’ s need for tha t evi dence against (3) any ten d ency of the evidence to suggest

a dec is ion on an improper basis, (4) any ten dency of the evidence to con fuse or
dis tract t he jury fr om the main issues, (5) any tendency of the evidence to be given undue weight by a jury that has n ot b ee n equipped to evaluate the probative force of
the evidenc e, and (6) the likelihood that presentation of the evidence wil l co nsume an in ordinat e a mount o f time or m erely rep eat evid ence a lready admitted. Gigliobianco v.
State , 210 S.W.3d 637, 641

– 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)

. F urther, a court may consid er th e followin g nonexclusive factors in determining whether a ph oto graph ’ s prob ative value is sub sta ntially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice: the numb er of photographs, t hei r gru esomeness, their47 detail, their size, whether they are black and w hite or color, whether they are close

- up , whether the body is na ked or clo thed , and whether the body has been altered b y autopsy in some way that might enhan ce the p ho tograph ’ s g ru esome ness to the

a p pellant ’ s detriment

. Williams v. State , 301 S.W.3d 675, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Erazo v. State , 144 S.W.3d 48 7 , 4 8 9 (Tex. Cri m. App. 20 04) ; Rees e v. State , 33 S.W.3d 238, 2 41 (Te x. Crim. App . 2000)

. Overall, the photograph must be helpful to the jury; “[i]f there are eleme nts of a photograph t ha t are genuinely helpful to the jury in making its decision, the photog raph is inadmis sible only if the e motional a nd prejudici al asp ects s ubstanti ally outweigh the help ful aspects.” Erazo, 144 S.W.3d at
491

– 92.
T he pho tos were in co lor

. St a te ’ s Exhibit 202 showed Fernandez ’ s cl othed body in the condition it was b rought int o the M edical E xaminer ’ s O ffice

— his bloody
fac e and s hirt and ba g g ed hands

. State ’ s E xh ibit 209 show ed Fernandez ’ s face after
the blood h a d b een cleaned o ff to s how where the bullet e xited.
The State offer ed and the tr ial c ourt admit ted 14 photos, State ’ s Exhibits 202

– 2 15 , d uring Dr. Greenbu rg ’ s t esti mon y, and Dr. Gree nburg expla ine d the contents of

eac h one. T he trial court had previously admitted 29 photos showing the body or related images in sit u. 10

10 The trial court admitted State ’s Exhibit 12 , which sho wed the r olled

- up rug , and State ’ s Exhibit 13, which showed the rolled

- up rug with a hand sticki ng ou t, during Greer ’s testimony

. During Simm ons ’ s testimo ny , t he t rial court admitted State ’s Exhibits 79

– 84, 86

– 8 7 , 89 , 106 , and 1 08 , showing the rolled

- up rug at the48 As to Stat e ’ s E x hibit 202, Dr. G reenburg testified that the photo documented
the body ’ s con dition whe n the M edical E xam iner ’ s O ffice received it for the aut opsy
. The trial court could have de termined that this photo was substantially more probative than p rej ud i cial in that it allowed the jury (1) to ev a lua te t he me dical

exa miner ’ s testimony and credibilit y as she guided th e m through the remain ing

auto psy photos and testif ied abou t the autopsy resu lts a nd (2 ) to evaluate Fernandez ’ s body outside the framework of t he cri me sc ene ’ s blood y rug . See Chamberlain v. State , 998 S.W. 2d 230, 237 (Tex. Crim

. App. 199 9) ( “ Visual eviden ce a ccompanying testimony is most persuasive and often gives the fact finder a point of comparison against which to test the credibility of a w itness and the validit y of his conclusions. ” )

. Accordingly, w e cannot say that th e tr ial court abus ed its discret ion by admitting
State ’s Exhibit 202 , an d we overrule this portion of Cory ’ s n inth issue.
As to State ’ s Exhibit 209, Dr. Greenburg testified t hat it show ed “ the ex i t defect of the Gunshot Wound A of the bac k of the neck ” as well as a lace ration next
to it , which was as sociated with the fracture of Fernandez ’ s cheekbone, and some
abrasions on his forehead, nose, and lips. Autopsy phot ographs are gener ally
admissible unless they depict muti latio n ca used by the autops y itself , Rayfo rd v. Stat e , 125 S.W.3d 521, 5 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) , which is not the case here. And

c rime scene ; State ’ s Exhibits 8 5 , 8 8 , 98

– 100, 102 , 107 , and 115 , show ing a bloodstain on the r ug ; State ’ s Exhibits 90

– 92 and 94

– 96 , sh ow ing the body unrol led on the r ug ; and State ’ s Exhibits 116

– 117 , showing the rolled

- up rug wi th a hand sticki ng out.49 p hoto graphs that depict the nature, location, and extent of a wound h ave been
de clared prob ative enoug h to outweigh any preju dicia l ef fect. Frank v. Sta te , 183 S.W.3d 63, 77

– 78 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rt h 2005, pet. ref ’ d)

. The refore, the tr ial
court did not abuse its discretio n by admitting State ’ s Exhibit 209, and we overrule

t he remainder of C ory ’ s ninth issu e. G. Punishment evidence
In h i s ten th issue , Co ry arg ues that t he trial c ourt abused its di s cretion by admitting State ’ s Exhibits 236

– 239, photos of tw o guns

— one with a sil encer

— duri ng the trial ’ s punis hment phase withou t adequate notic e to t he defense

. S ee T ex. Code
C rim. Pro c. Ann. art. 3 9.14 (addressing discovery r equ irement s ). Cory compl ains that
the State failed to co mply with Articl e 39.1 4 because the S t ate ’ s ex traneous

- offense
notices did not include State ’ s Ex hibits 236

– 239

. Cory asserts that he wa s harme d
because the lac k of adequate notice of the pho tos preve nted him f rom bein g able t o
prese nt an adequate r e sponse
. Outsi de the jury ’ s presence, th e prosecutor informed th e tr ial court that the State had received the photos the day before

— the same day that the State gave notice to Cory ’ s counsel

— and Cory ’ s couns el argued that admitting t ho se photos was “ ak in

to tr ia l by ambush. ” Because the State had previously gi ven notice of extr aneo us off enses pertaining to Cory ’ s posse ssion of firearms a nd his possession of a firearm50 with a homemade supp ressor on it, 11 the tri a l court n oted, “ the only i s sue is really t he production of the photos. ”
Duri ng Co ry ’ s ste pmot her ’ s testimon y, s he testified that she had taken the photographs in State ’ s Exhibits 236, 237, 238, and 239

. Cory objected to the photographs ’ admission based on his pri or obje ction , an d the tri al court o verru led the

o bjection. Cory ’ s s tepm other then tes tifi ed tha t she had found the guns when she was cleaning the living room and that when she ha d asked Co ry ’ s father if the y were his , he said no , and Cor y had bee n the only other person to liv e in the h ouse with them

. Under A rtic le 39.14(a), t he S tate is required to produce photographs “ material

to an y matter in volved in the action and that are in the possession , custody, or control of the [S]tate or any person unde r contract with the [S] tate. ” Tex

. Code Crim. Pro c. Ann. art. 39.1 4(a)

. The phot o gra phs were not in the State ’ s control until the day

11 The State file d an original and three supplemental extra neous

- offense notices , beginning in May 2022

. T he original M ay 9, 20 22 notic e liste d

“ P ossess/ Ma nufac ture/ S ell a D angerous W eapon , ” on or abou t June 26, 20 02, i n Fres no, Calif ornia , as well as three oth e r offens es : “ F elon or Addict in Posses sion of a Deadly Weapon , ” “ Proh ibit ed Owne rship of A mmunition, ” and “ Posse ssion of a Sil encer, ” da ted on or about Ju ne 8, 2014, with the State of Calif ornia listed as the victim

. In the State ’ s first suppl emen t al notic e, filed the same day as the original, the State change d the coun ty of t he deadly

- weapon, si l ence r, and ammunition charge s to Fresno Cou nt y . In the State ’ s second supplemental notice, filed on January 18, 2023, the State notified Cory that on or ab out Jan uary 1, 201 4, or January 1, 2015, when Cory lived in F resn o County with his father and ste pmother , his ste pmother “ found t wo loaded revol vers, including on e with a silencer, ” she called the police, and C ory was arrested. In the State ’ s third supple mental notice, filed on January 24, 2 02 3, in ad dition to a laundry list of other bad a cts, the notice again listed the two loaded gu ns found by h is stepmother

— a re volver and “ another typ e of gun with a sil encer. ” Cory ’ s trial be gan o n Februa ry 6 , 2 023.51 before the trial ’ s punishment phase

— the same day that the State n otified Cory ’ s

c ounsel about them

— a nd ther e is no evidenc e that Cory ’ s s tepm ot her was unde r contract with the State. Se e id

. Accordingly, the re was no violation of Article 39.14 or any corresponding abuse of d iscretion in the photographs ’ admission. We overrule Cory ’ s ten th issue

. V. Cumulative e rro r In hi s fin a l issue , Cory c omplains t hat the cumulati ve eff ect of the err ors in his
third throu gh tenth issues de prived him of a fair t rial.
T h e doctrine of cumulative error provides that the cumulati v e effect of several

error s can, in the ag gregate, constitute revers ib le er ror, eve n though no single i nsta nce of error would

. Schmidt v. State , 612 S.W.3d 359, 372 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d)

. Although “ [i]t is conceivable that a numb e r of errors may be found
harmful in their cumulative eff ect, ” there i s no authorit y holding that non

- e rror s may , in their cu mulative effect, cause error. Chamberlain , 998 S.W.2d at 238 ; see Jenkins v.
State , 493 S.W.3d 58 3 , 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 16) (o v erruling appellant ’ s cumulative

error comp l aint when he failed to sho w that the tria l court erred “ wit h resp ec t to any point o f error ” ). That is, in a cumulative

- error analysis, we consider only errors that
were p reserved f o r appeal and are actually errors . Schmidt , 612 S.W.3d at 372.
As set out a b ove, there are no errors i n this case to cumulate

. See id. ; s ee a lso Bell
v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 00244

- CR, 2019 WL 1967538, at *9 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 2, 2019, pet. ref ’ d) (mem. o p., not designated for pu blicati on) ( noting that there was52 no error t o cum u late when appellant ’ s “ ind ividual points either d [id] not d em onst rate

rev ersible er ror or d [id] not show that he was harmed ” )

. Accordingly, we overrule Cory ’ s eleventh issue.
V I. Conclus i on Having overruled all of Cory ’ s issues , we affirm the trial co urt ’ s jud gment.

/s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wall ach Justice
Do N o t P ublish Tex. R. Ap p. P

. 4 7.2(b)
Deliver ed : June 6, 2024