T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19. 02 (Ve rnon 199 4). 1 NO. 07-08 -028 9-CR

IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A AU GU ST 26, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ CASEY NELSON, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 16 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF DE NT ON COU NT Y; NO . F -2 006- 1749- A; H ON ORABLE C. R IVERA- W OR LEY , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION App ellant , Casey N elson , w as con vic t ed o f murd er and sente nced to 25 years

1 conf inem entin the In stitutio nal Div ision of the T exas Departm entof Cri min al Justice (IDTD C J )
. I t i s from t hi s j ud g me ntt ha t ap pe l l an t ap pe al s . W e affi r m.2 Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und In 1999, w hil e cl ear ing lan d in Lew is v il le, Tex as, D on Pi ttman found w hat h e tho ug ht w as a human bone. After the loc al pol ic e depar tment w as noti fied a n d t h e b one w as deter mi n e d t o b e o f h u ma n o r i g i n , a c o mp l e t e s e a rc h o f t h e w o r ks i t e re s u l t e d i n t he re cov er y of a pa rt ia l h u m a n s kel eton. D r. D ana Au sti n, a forens icanth ro pol og is t for the Tarrant C ounty

M edi cal Ex aminer ’s Office w as ask ed to assi st. Onc e D r. Aus ti n ex amined the remains , s he deter mined that they bel ong ed to a w hit e or H is pani c mal e betw een 18 and 20 y ears o f age
. Later ex aminat ion of the remains , by other members o f the Tar ra nt Cou nty M edi cal Ex aminer ’s off ic e, re v eal ed that the decea sed had s uffered a per imor tem blun t force traum a to the h ead
. Th e rem ains lan guished u ntil 200 6 w hen Detective Richard Anders o f the Lew is v il le Pol ic e D epar tment re cei v ed a phon e c a ll f ro m Di ana Sc hraer abo ut th e skelet al rema ins. Mrs. Schrae r advi sed An ders tha t her son , San tino Sch raer, had b e e n m is sing si nce 1 997 . Af ter obt aining the den tal records of Schrae r and a DNA sw ab f rom Mrs. Schrae r, the de cease d w as con f irmed to be Sa ntino Schrae r. Onc e the name of Schraer w as confir med, Det
. Anders beg an tr y ing to deter mine the fact s s ur ro undi ng the death of Schraer . By hi s i nv est ig ati on, A nders d e veloped a picture of

a group o f

y oun g peo ple w ho loite red arou nd th e ho me of Danny Smith in Lew is v il le. Atthi s h ome, t he y oung peopl e w ere abl e to use dr ug s, dr ink al cohol , and socialize as they w ished w ithou t any adult sup erv ision. In 19 97, sev eral me mb ers of this gro u p had a par

ty at a motel i n Lew is v il le. W hil e att endi ng the par ty , Sc hraer

w as acc ompani ed by , or

met u p w it h, a you n g 12 y ear ol d female. Itw as lat er al leg ed th at, w hil e at the mot el, Sc hraer had ra ped t he 12 y ear ol d. W hen w ord o f

t h e a lle ged rape3

sprea d arou nd th e group, m em bers be cam e incen sed a nd a n um ber of sugg estion s w ere made reg ardin g Sc hraer . No pla n of act ion w as d e cid e d on b ut s ev eral of the g ro up thoug ht t hat S chraer

sh oul d be, at lea st, beatup. O n S e p t e m b e r 20 , 1 9 9 7 , a p p e ll a n t , Ma rs h a ll Ma s h b u rn , S c h ra e r, Je f f re y S t e a le y, Rand all Horton, a nd Alisha Fow ler w ere all gathere d at Dan ny Sm ith’s back yard. W hile Schraer w as seat ed ata t abl e, M ashbu rn approache d from the re ar w it h a t hree foot l eng th of metal pip e in his hands
. Ma shbur n str uck Schraer on the back

of the head and Sc hraer sl umped forw ard. Immedia tel y , appel lan t g ra bbed Schraer by the leg or leg s a nd drag g ed him o u tt h e d r i v e w a y

t o a p i c k u p t r u c k
. T h e t e s t i mo n y a tt r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a ta ppel lan t load ed Sch raer into th e be d of the picku p truck
. Aft e r S c h ra er w as load ed in th e truck, Ma shbur n and Steal ey

g ot i n the back of

the tr uck w hil e appell ant g ot be hin d the w heel and drov e off
. Appel lan t ev entual ly drov e to a fiel d near Intersta te 35 in Lew is v il le w here the bod y of Schrae r w as lef

t to be foun d tw o y ears late r. Dur ing the tr ial , tes ti mony re v eal ed that Schraer w as not d ead w hen he w as pla ced in the t ru ck
. Both Ma shbur n and Steal ey beathi m after he w as pla ced in the t ru ck
. Hor ton further tes ti fied th at, w hen app ell ant, Ma shburn , a n d Stealey l eft w it h the body , he and Fow ler l eft in a c a r and attempted to find appel lan t and the pic kup. H av ing fail ed to find the p ic kup, Hor

ton and Fow ler re tur ned to the Smit h house , w here the i nit ial as saul t t ook pla ce, and aw ait ed th e retur n of the pic kup. W hen t he p ick u p tr uck ca me bac k, Hor

ton w ent w it h the ot h e r

t h re e t o w a s h o u tt h e b e d o f t h e p i c k u p . A c o u p l e o f d a y s a ft e r

the attac k o n Sc hraer , St eal ey took H orton t o the si te w here the body w as left.4

Pr ior to beg inn ing the tr ial , app e lla n t f ile d a mot ion for c onti nuanc e al leg ing that there w ere three out- of-st ate w it ness es that w ere mater ial to ap pel lan t’ s d efense. A furt her moti on al leg ed th at t here w as an addi ti onal w it ness l o ca ted out- of-st ate t hat w as not av ail abl e for tr ial on t he s chedu led day s. The tr ial co urt hel d a p re -t ria l hear ing on t he moti on and, after hear ing the arg ument of c ounse l for bot h appel lan t and the Stat e, de nie d the mot ion for c onti nuanc e and beg an th e tr ial as sc hedul ed. At t he tr ial , H orton a nd St eal ey both tes ti fied ag ain st appel lan t. At the c oncl usi on of t he tes ti mony on g uil t or inn ocenc e, appel lan t re q uest ed that the jur y be charged th at b o th w e re ac co m p lic e s a s a m a t t e r of la w. Th e tri a l co u rtgran te d th e requ e st e d ch a rge as to S teal ey

and deni ed th e req uest ed charg e that Hor ton w as an accompl ic e as a matter of l aw . Appel lan t then re q uest ed that the jur y be g iv en a charg e all ow ing the jur y to find Horton an acco mp lice as a ma tter of fact, which the cou rt also den ied
. Appe llant also obj ect ed to the cour

t’ s c harg e for failu re to proper ly appl y the law of pa rt ies and cr imi nal re sp o n sib ili ty to th e fa ct s o f th e ca s e . T h e ap p lic a ti o n pa ra gra p h of th e co u rt ’s c h a rge app lied the abstractlaw of parties an d crimina l responsib ility in a general sen se bu t notin detai l. The t ri al cour

t ov er ru led the obj ect ion
. The ju ry found appellan t guilty of murde r and as ses sed his puni shmentat confine ment i n the ID -TD CJ for 25 y ears. Appel lan t has appeal ed th e j udg ment of the tr ial cour t v ia si x i ss ues that all eg e: 1) the tr ial co urt c ommitt ed er ro r in not c harg ing the jur y that Hor ton w as an ac compl ic e as a matter of law ; 2) t he tr ial co urt c ommitt ed er ro r in not subm it t in g a n issu e to th e jury inquiri ng as to w het her Horton w as an accom plice as a matter o f

f a ct ; 3) the ev ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y v erdict; 4) the5

ev ide nce w as factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he jur y v erdict; 5) the t ri al cour t c ommitt ed er ro r in deny ing appel lan t’ s moti on for c onti nuanc e; an d 6) the tr ial co urt c ommitt ed er ro r in re fu s i n g t h e re q u e s t e d a p p l i c a t i o n p a ra g ra p h fo r t h e l a w o f p a rt i e s a s appl ied to appel lan t. D is ag re ein g w it h appel lan t’ s conte nti ons, w e w il l aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial cour t. Accom plice W itness By his f irst tw o i s s u e s , a ppe llant con ten ds tha t Horton was an accom plice as a matter of law or , i n the alter nati v e, there w as a factques ti on about Hor ton’ s s tatus as an acc ompli ce and t he tr ial co urt s houl d hav e s ubmitted t he i ss ue to the jur y . W e re v iew

the deci si on of the tr ial courtdeny ing a req uestfor a cc ompli ce w it ness i nst ru cti ons under an abuse of dis creti on s tandard. See P aredes v . St ate, 129 S. W .3d 5 30, 5 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. A tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on w hen i ts ru li ng is not w it hin the z one of re asona ble di sag re ement. M ontg omery v . St ate, 810 S. W .2d 3 72, 3 91 ( Tex .Cri m.App. 1990) (o p . o n reh’ g ). H orton’ s s tatus as an a cc ompli ce is cr it ic al becau se of how acc ompli ce w it ness tes ti mony i s v iew ed by

the cour ts. Be fore a conv icti on can be bas ed on an a c c o mp l i c e ’ s t e s t i mo n y , t h e t e s t i mo n y m u s tb e c o r ro b o ra t e d b y i n d e p e n dent ev ide nce tendi ng to conne ct the acc used to the c ri me. T EX . C R IM . P ROC . C OD E A NN . ar t. 38.14 (V er non 200 5) . An ac compl ic e i s s omeone w ho par ti ci pates w it h the defendant before, during, or af

ter the com mission of a crime and acts w ith the requir e d culpab le m e n tal st ate. See Dr uerey v . St ate, 225 S. W .3d 4 91, 4 98 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. The acc ompli ce w it ness par ti ci pati on w it h the defendant must inv olv e some aff ir mati v e ac t t hat prom ote s the com mission of the of fense w ith w hich th e def end antis charg ed. Id. Simply6

hav in g k now led g e of the offense and notdi sc los ing thati nformati on, o r ev en tr y ing to c on c ea l th e i nfo r ma ti on , do es no t ren de r a w i tn es s an ac c om pl i c e. Id
. F i na l l y , me re prese nce a t the scene doe s not ren der a w itness a n acco mp lice. Id. In the f inal an alysi s, if the w it ness co uld not b e prosec uted for th e offense w it h w hic h the defendant is ch arg ed, o r a le s s e r i n c lu d e d o f

fe n s e , t h e wit n e s s is n o ta n a c c o m p li c e wit n e s s a s a m a t t e r o f la w. Id. W e w il l firs t rev iew the re cord to deter mine w hether or not Hor

ton w as an acc ompli ce w it ness as a matter of law
. The tes ti mony at tr ial re v eal s that, pr ior to the d ate of the death of S chraer , Hor ton had lea rn ed of the all eg ed rape by Sc hraer of the 1 2 y ear old
. Testi mony

i ndi cat ed th at t he remaind er of the g ro up w as infor med of the all eg ed rape eit her di re ctly o r in direct ly

from H orton. The tes ti mony rev eal ed th at t here w as no ag re ement ab out w hat t o do to Schraer ; at bes t t here w as an ag re ement t hat s omethi ng shoul d be done. On t he day of Schraer ’s deat h, t here had been no ag re ement an d, i n fact, no one t e s t i fi e d t h a tk i l l i n g h i m h a d b e e n d i s c u s s e d
. T h e t r i a l t e s t i mo n y re v e a l e d t h at Hor ton did not know

in adv ance of Mas hbur n’s pl an to st ri ke Schraer w it h the pi pe. After Ma shbur n del iv ered th e i nit ial blow to Schraer ’s head, appell ant drag g ed Schraer dow n the driv eway and placed him in the back of a pickup truck. Horton w as no t in vo lv ed in th is. From that poi nt, the tes ti mony show ed that appel lan t drov e the tr uck w hil e Ma shbur n and Steal ey w ere l ocat ed i n the bed o f the pi ck up w it h Sc hraer . Hor ton w as not t here nor inv olv ed w it h the co nti nued be ati ng of Schraer . The tes ti mony at tr ial sh ow ed th at H orton and F ow ler

l eft the sce ne of

the ini ti al atta ck

and attempt ed to foll ow appel lan t but , H orton and F ow ler

nev er found appel lan t or

the pic kup. After Hor

ton and Fow ler

retur ned t o the7

house , app ell ant, Ma shbur n, an d St eal ey ca me bac k w it hout Schraer . After appel lan t and the o thers retur ned t o the hous e, t here w as a c onv ersat ion thatal l of those there tha t evening should keep q uiet a bou t w h a twe nt on . Th e record ref lects tha t followi ng this conv ersat ion , H orton w ent w it h appell ant, M ashbu rn , and Stealey to a c ar w ash w here the bed of the tr uck

w as thoroug hly w ashed
. Hor ton tes ti fied that, a coupl e of da y s a fter t he i n c i d e n t , h e g o tS t e a l e y t o t a k e h i m t o t h e s i t e w h e re t h e b o d y w a s and t h a tH o rt o n l e ft Schraer ’s dr iv ers l ic ense near the body
. Hor

ton t est ified thathe remaine d qui et about t he offense unti l q uest ion ed abou t i t by l aw enforc ement. Appel lan t w oul d hav e us conc lud e that Hor ton w as an acc ompli ce as a matter of law beca use h e w as involv ed in th e plan n in g, e xecut ion, a nd co v ering up of the m urde r. Appel lan t’ s a nal y si s fai ls bec ause the record demons trates thatthe pla nni ng w as nonex is tent. Atbes t, Hor ton informed the g ro up abou t t he al leg ed rape and the g ro up thoug ht s omethi ng oug ht t o be done ab out i t. H ow ev er , t here was no pl an and no ev ide nce of a pl an. The ev ide nce re flect ed th at H orton d id not p ar ti ci pate in the e x ecut ion of the murder

of Schraer . At best , Hor ton w as present
. Fi nal ly , t he c ov er up i nv olv ed th e poss ibl e des tr uct ion of ev ide nce by w ashi ng th e t ru ck

at a ti me w hen t he murder w as already co mplet ed. Base d upon the re cord, it appears t hat H orton w as presentat the s cene w hen t he firs t blo w w as str uck , how ev er , the tes ti mony of ot her w it ness es inc lud ing th e m e d ic al ex a mi n e r

re v e a l t h a tS c h ra e r

w a s n o tk i l l e d b y

t h a tfi rs tb l o w . N o o n e t e s t i fi e d t o any act ion by H orton u nti l the v ehi cl e retur ned w it hout Schraer . Hor ton’ s a cti ons in ass is ti ng in the w ashi ng out of the pic kup tr uck bed mig ht be des cr ibe d as tamper ing w it h phy si cal8

evidence in violation of section 37.0 9 of

the T exas Pena l Code. How ever, such cond uct doe s not m ak e H o rt o n an acco mp lice as a ma tter of law to Schrae r’s murder. Horton ’s condu ct in assist in g i n the w ashi ng of the p ic kup tr uck bed w as not d one w it h req uis it e culpa ble m ent al state inv olved in the of fense of Sch ra e r’s m urde r as charged against app ellant . Th at is, Horton ’s actions in assistin g w ith the w ashin g of the picku p truck w ere not done w it h the intent to caus e Schraer ’s death nor w it h the know led g e that s uch act ion w ould cause the de ath of the Schrae r. Unde r the se facts, Horto n w as no t an acco mp lice to murder

as a matter

of law
. Id. W e next turn to the is sue of w hether the tr ial courterred w hen it failed to g iv e the jur y an i ss ue to dete rmi ne w hether or not Hor ton w as an ac compl ic e as a matter of fact. In review ing the testim ony reg arding the a ctions o f Hort o n , we a re convinced th at th ere w as not a fact i ss ue rais ed as to his st atus as an a cc ompli ce. Pa re d e s, 1 2 9 S.W .3d a t 538 -39. T here fore, th e trial court did no t abu se its discretion in den y ing appe llant’s request to s ubmitthe q uest ion to the j ur y reg ardin g Horton’ s stat us as an accompl ic e. Id. at 538. How ev er , w e not e tha t ev en w ere w e to deter mine the t ri al cour t er re d by

not inq uir ing of the jury as to w het her or notHorton w as an accom plice, such error w as ha rmless. T his is so be c a u s e t here is suff icient no n-acco mp lice ev iden ce existing tend ing to conne ct app ellantto the of

fense . See Bie ra v . Stat e, 28 0 S
. W
. 3d 3 88, 394 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 200 8, p e t
. r e f ’d) (ci ting Herron v. State , 86 S. W .3d 621 , 632 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 2)). Spec ific all y , app ell ant t old hi s si ste r, Jolene Nels on H ershner , abo ut hi s p arti ci pati on i n the mu rder and she testif ied before the jury
. Furthe r, app ellant told Robert T edford ab outhis par ti ci pati on i n the offense. Al ic ia Fow ler tes ti fied th at, after Schraer w as str uck

by9

Ma shbur n, s he heard the tr uck l eav e and appel lan t w as w it h Ma shbur n and St eal ey w hen they retur ned i n the pi ck up tr uck
. W e hav e det er mined that Ho rt on w as not an ac compl ic e w it ness as a matter of law or fact. Addition ally , w e have det ermin ed that, if th e trial court sho uld ha v e giv en th e jury an inst ruction on acco mp lice as a ma tter of fact, th at th e failure to so charge w as ha rmless. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s first and s econd i ss ues are ov er ru led
.

Legal an d Factu al Suf

f iciency of

the Evidence In appel lan t’ s thi rd and fourth is sues he cl aims the ev ide nce w as nei ther l eg all y nor factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s ust ain the jur y ’s v erdict. Si nce appel lan t c hal len g es both leg al and factual su ff ic ien cy , w e are req uired to co nductan a nal y si s o f the l e gal s u f fici ency of the e vid e n c e f ir s ta n d t h e n , o n ly if we f in d t h e e vid e n c e t o b e le ga ll y su f f ic ie n t , d o we a n a lyze the fact ual su ff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce. Se e C lew is v . St ate, 922 S.W .2 d 126, 133 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 96). In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce, w e rev iew all the ev ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r an y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa c tco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f f e n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t
. Ja c k s o n v. V i rg i n i a , 4 4 3 U
. S
. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S
. C t
. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 5 6 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; R o s s v . S t a te, 133 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex.Cr im .App. 2004)
. In c onduc ti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , an app ell a t e c o u rt may not sit as a thirtee nth juror, but rath er mu st uph old th e jury ’s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or unsup por ted by more than a mere modic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . Stat e, 755 S.W .2d 866 , 867 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1988 ). W e me asure the legal suf f iciency10

of t h e e vide nce ag ain st a hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. See M ali k v . St ate, 953 S.W .2d 234 , 240 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7). W hen an app ellantch allenges the factu al suf f iciency of

t he evidence su ppo rting his conv icti on, t he rev iew ing courtm ustdetermi ne w hether , consi der ing all the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, the j ur

y w as ra ti onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. See W ats on v . St ate, 204 S. W .3d 4 04, 4 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. In performin g a fact u a l s u f f iciency rev iew , w e mu st gi v e de feren ce to th e fact f inde r’s d e t e rm in a t io n s i f

s u p p o rt e d b y e vid e n c e a n d m a y n o to rd e r a n e w tr ia l s im p ly b e c a u s e we maydi sag re e w it h the v erdict. See id. at 417. As an appe ll ate c our t, w e are notj ust ified in order ing a new

tri al unl ess there is some obj ect iv e basis in the record demons trati ng that the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s ve rd ict. See id. Addi ti onal ly , an appel lat e opi nio n address ing factual su ff ic ien cy musti ncl ude a dis cus si on of t he mo s t i mp or

ta nte v i de nc e th ata pp el l an t c l ai ms u nd er mi ne s th e j ur y ’ s v erdi c t. S i ms v . St ate, 99 S.W .3d 600, 603 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003)
. The Co urt of C ri minal Appea ls has re ce n tly dec lared th at w hen rev iew ing the ev ide nce for factua l suffici ency , t he rev iew ing cour t shoul d measure the ev ide nce in a neutral manner “ag ain st a hy pothet ic all y co rrect ” ju ry c h a rg e . V e ga v. S t a t e , 2 6 7 S
. W
. 3 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 5 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c it in g W o o le y v. Sta te, 2 73 S. W .3d 260 , 268 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 8)). Legal Suf

f iciency Ana ly sis Appel lan t c ontends that the ev ide nce w as leg all y ins uff ic ien t to show that he had t he int ent t o promote or

as si st in the c ommis si on of the offense o f m u rd e r. See T EX . P ENAL11

C OD E A NN . § 7.0 2( a) ( Ver non 200 3)
. Therefore, acc ordin g to appel lan t, the S tate faile d to prov e that he w as cr imi nal ly respo nsi ble for

the murde r of Schraer . See T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 7.0 1(a) (Vernon 200 3). W hen w e rev iew

the ev ide nce w e find the fol low ing : 1) appel lan t w as in the backy ard at the t ime Ma shbur n first s tr u ck Sc hraer , 2) w it hout any prompti ng from any other par ti ci pant, i mmediat ely

after t h e b lo w w as str uck , app ell ant g ot t o hi s feet and g ra bbed S chraer

by t h e l eg or

l eg s a nd drag g ed hi m to t he pi ck up tr uck , 3) appel lan t pla ced Schraer

i n the bed of the pi ck up tr uck , 4) appel lan t already had the k ey s t o the pic kup tr uck , ev en thoug h the tr uck bel ong ed to R ober

t Tedford, 5) no o ne g av e appel lan t any inst ru cti ons about w here to tak e the bodyof Schraer , 6) appel lan t app arentl y pi ck ed out t he l ocat ion w here the body shoul d be left, 7) appel lan t made inq uir y about w hether

or not St e a le y

co uld be t ru ste d to keep his mouth shutor sh oul d he be el imi nated, 8) appel la n t a dmitted h is par ti ci pati on i n the cr ime to R ober t Tedford, and 9) appel lan t a d m it t e d h is p a rt ic ip a t io n in t h e cr im e t o h is si s t e r , J o l e n e Ne ls o n He rs h n e r. W h e n we re v iew al l of the abov e ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the jur y ’s v erdict, w e c annot say thatthe jur

y ac ted i rrati onal ly

i n findi ng that the appell ant w as g uil ty of the o ffense of mu rder. Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319 ; Ross, 133 S.W .3d at 620. Accordin gly , a p p e llant’s is sue re g ardin g the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce is ov er ru led
. Factu al Suf

f iciency Ana ly sis W hen w e rev iew the abov e re ferenc ed ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, w e s ti ll find t hat the ev iden ce is such tha t a ration al jury could h a ve foun d ap pellan t guilty of murd er.12

W atso n, 20 4 S. W
. 3 d a t4 1 5. Appe llant po ints to no specif ic ev iden ce tha t w ould under mine our

co nfidenc e i n the v erdict retur ned by the jur y . See S ims , 99 S.W .3d a t 603
. Therefore, ap pel lan t’ s i ss ue reg ardin g the factual suffici ency of the ev ide nce is ov er ru led
. Motion for Continu ance Appel lan t c onte n d s th at t he tr ial co ur t c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r w hen i t den ied app ellan t ’s subseque nt m otion for contin uan ce f iled on April 8, 200 8. T he trial cou rt condu cte d a h ear ing on t he moti on for c onti nuanc e on Apr il 9, 2008. Appel lan t’ s mot ion for cont inu ance w as based upon the decl ared neces si ty to obtai n the atten dance of three out -of-state w itnesse s. I n the m otion , app ellanta sserted t hatt he trial cou rt had p rev iously found the t hree out -o f-st ate w it ness es’ tes ti mony to be mater ial and ord ered s ubpoenas for eac h to be i ss ued by the cour t’ s c ler k. Appel lant furt her al leg es that the c ler k o f the cour t had fail ed to i ss ue th e s ubpoenas and, therefore, the w it ness es had notbeen ser v ed and w oul d not appear. Additi onal ly , appell ant all eg ed there w as a four th w it ness w ho w as g oin g to be outof the c ountr y at the t ime of tri al. Ba sed upon t hese all eg ati ons, appel lan t cont ended a co nti nuanc e w as re q uired. W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of a moti on fo r cont inu ance under an a buse of di s c retio n s ta nd ard. G al l o v . St at e, 2 39 S .W .3 d 75 7, 7 64 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 2 00 7)
. To esta blish ab use o f

discretion, there m ust be a s h o wing tha t the app ellantw as actu ally preju dic ed by

the d e n ia l o f

t h e moti on. Id. W hen t he moti on for cont inu ance is bas ed upo n an abse nt w itness, app ellant mu st show 1) tha t the app ellanthas exercised diligence to procure the w it ness ’s att endanc e, 2) thatthe w it ness i s n ot ab sentby the procurement13

o r c o n s e n t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , 3 ) t h a t t h e mo t i o n i s n o t ma d e fo r d e l a y , a n d 4) the facts ex pect ed to be prov ed by the absen t w it ness . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 29.06 (Verno n 20 06); Harrison v . Stat e, 18 7 S.W .3d 429 , 434 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 5). Further, it mustapp ear to th e trial court tha t the facts w hich th e ab sentw itness would testif y to are mater ial
. Id. F ina ll y , mere c oncl usi ons and g eneral averment s a re not suffici ent for the tr ial co urt t o det er mine thei r mater ial ity . Har ri son, 187 S.W .3d a t 434
. Appel lan t’ s mot ion for c onti nuanc e, da ted A pr il 8, 200 8 , co mplai ns about the abse nce o f

three wi tne sses for whom o ut-of-state subp oen as ha d be en o rdered . How ever, the A pr il 8 mot ion nev er l is ts the names of the se w it ness es nor the name of the all eg ed fourth w it ness . Appel lan t t hen fil ed a subs eq uent moti on for cont inu ance, date d Apr il 10, 2008, compl ain ing about the absen ce of t hree w it ness es, Kather ine Py att, Rob bie C har les Cordes, and Kennet h D. Anci cc o. No attempt to ex pla in w hy there w ere four w it n e ss es w ho w ere al leg ed to be mater ial in the firs t moti on and onl y three i n the se cond moti on fil ed only tw o da y s later. Now on ap pea l, app ellantapp ears to b e con t e n d in g t h a tthe on ly act ion by the tr ial co urt that mig ht be an abuse of di sc re ti on w as the deni al of the moti on for contin uan ce ba sed o n the abse nce of w itness Ancicco. Accordin gly , w e w ill add ress onl y the moti on for cont inu ance as appl ied to the t est imony of Anci cc o. T he reco rd ref lects tha t app ellant ’s trial coun sel did no t see kt o h a ve Ancicco subpo enaed a s a n out -o f-st ate w it ness , rather , as appel lan t’ s t ri al couns el ex pla ine d i n the subs eq uent moti on fo r

c o nti nuanc e, he w as re ly ing on t he as surances of appel lan t’ s for mer attor ney and the w it ness that Anci cc o w oul d come to Tex as v olu ntar il y . The fail ure to seek a s ubpoena for th e out -o f-st ate w it ness , An ci cc o, or to e ven bri ng the matter to the t ri al14

cour t’ s a ttent ion un ti l Ap ril 10, 2008, does not demonst ra te di li g ence on th e par t of appel lan t. See Dew ber ry v . St ate, 4 S. W .3d 7 35, 7 56 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. F urther , as to t he q uest ion of the mater ial ity of t he propose d tes ti mony of Anci cc o, t he record reflect s that, i n Anc ic co’ s s tatementatt ached to the mot ion for c onti nuanc e, th e witness st ated Hor ton made the sta tement w hic h w oul d hav e cont ra dicted his tes ti mony at tr ial in Jul y or Aug ust1996. The murder for w hic h app ell ant w as conv icted o cc ur re d i n Sept ember of 1997. Therefore, the tr ial cour t w as cor re ct in ru li ng thatthe tes ti mony of Anci cc o w as not mater ial
. For

the re asons st ated, appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue i s o v er ru led
. Pa rt ie s Ch a rge Appel lan t’ s fin al is sue all eg es that the t ri al cour t c ommitt ed revers ibl e er ro r w hen it d e n i e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s re q u e s t fo r a mo re s p e c i fi c a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w o f p a rt i e s, as cont ain ed i n the appl ic ati on parag ra ph of the cour t’ s charg e, to the fact s o f the c ase. The charg e i n q uest ion co ntai ned a defini ti on of the law of parti es in the a bst ra ct por ti on of the charg e, t o w hic h appel lan t di d notobj ect
. In t he appl ic ati on parag ra ph, t he c harg e of the co u rtst a te d th e fo llo wing: Now , i f y ou find from the ev ide nce bey ond a re aso n a b le d o ubt t hat o n or about the 20 day

of September , 199 7, i n D enton Cou nty , Tex as, the th defendant, CA SEY

N ELSON , di d then and there, eit her as an i ndi v idu al or as a pa rty , inten tiona lly or know ingly

cause t h e dea th of

an individual, Santi no Sch ra e r, byst ri ki ng Sant ino Sc hraer w it h a p ipe ; or

di d the n and the re, eithe r as an individual or as a party, w ith inte nt to cause se rious bod ily inj ur y to an i ndi v idu al
. . . .15

Appel lan t o bje ct e d to th is a p p lic a ti o n pa ra gra p h requ e st in g an in st ru ct io n ap p lyin g the facts of the c ase to t he g eneral par ty i nst ru cti on. No sug g est ed c harg e w as g iv en to the tr ial cour t, jus t an obj ect ion to the w ay the tr ial co urt had the parag ra ph w orded. The rev iew

of an all eg ed charg e er ro r is a tw o ste p proces s. See Abdnor v . St ate, 871 S. W .2d 7 2 6 , 7 3 1 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994)
. W e mustfirst deter mine w hether er ro r occ ur re d; an d i f s o, w e then ev alu ate the er ro r to de ter mine the d eg re e of har m. I d. at731- 32. W hen ev alu ati ng the har m, the deg re e of har m req uir ing rev ersal i s d ependentupon w hether or not appel lan t obj ect ed to the charg e. Id. A proper ly preser v ed er ro r w il l cal l for rev ersal as long as any harm is shown, thatis to say , as long as the error is notharm less. Al manz a v . St ate, 686 S. W .2d 1 57, 1 71 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1985) (op. on reh’ g ). If the er ro r is ca lc ula ted t o i nju re the ri g hts of the defendant, then some harm has be en demons trated. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 36 .19 (Vernon 200 6). T he State cont end s tha t the obje ction of app ellant to the charge w as not sp e c if ic enoug h to proper ly

preser v e any er ro r, i f there w as any . To suppo rtthis proposi ti on th ey ci te t he c ourt to Vi ll areal v . St ate. See Vi ll areal v . St ate, 116 S. W .3d 7 4, 82 -8 3 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t] 2001, no pet.)
. W hil e the cou rti n Vi ll areal di d find that the th obj ect ion i n tha t c ase w as not spec ificenough to preser v e error , the court rel ied upon the Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls dec is ion i n C hatman v . St ate, 846 S. W .2d 3 29, 3 32 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993)
. Id. The probl em i s t hat i n Chatman there w as no obj ect ion to the charg e, i n fact w hat t he c our t s aid w as, “ If a defendant desi re s a more ex pli ci t app li cat ion of a par ti cul ar method of acti ng as a par ty , i t i s h is burden t o req uestsu ch or obj ectto the charg e.” ( emphasi s a dded) C hatman, 846 S. W .2d a t 332
. Appel lan t did e x act ly w hat t he16

court in Cha tm an re quired . Accordingly , w e mu st f ind th at th e objection w as spe cif ic enoug h to preser

v e er ro r, if w e ass ume, for the p ur poses of thi s o pin ion , t hat t he fail ure to g iv e a more s peci fic a ppl ic ati on parag ra ph w as, i n fact, er ro r. Si nce er ro r w as preser

v ed, w e must now

ex amine the record i n order to deter mine if the er ro r is “‘c alc ula ted to inj ure the rig hts of defendant,’ w hic h means no more tha n tha t there mustbe s ome har m to the acc used from the er ro r. ” Al manz a, 686 S.W .2d a t 171
. In s hor t, w hen er ro r has been proper ly preser v ed th ere w il l be a re v ersal unless the er ro r w as har mles s. Id. The deg re e of harm is ex amined in lig ht of the enti re j ur y ch arg e, t he total ity of the e v ide nce, to inc lud e the co ntes ted i ss ues and w eig ht of probati v e ev ide nce, the a rg ument of c ounse l and any othe r re lev ant fact or

rev eal ed by

the re cord. Id. Our rev iew of t he re cord re flect s that the tr ial cour t g av e a cor re ct abst ra ct defini ti on of the c oncep ts of pa rt ies and cr imi nal re spons ibl ity . In fact , s uch w as sta ted b y co unsel for appe ll ant d ur ing the charg e c onferenc e. Fur ther , t he app lic ati on parag ra ph c ontai ns an appl ic ati on of the par ti es conc ept, alb eitnot as spec ific all y as req uest ed, to both of the Sta te’s the ories of

how the murd er w as com mitt ed. The refore, th e cha rg e d id prope rly define pa rty

and how

a pe rs on bec omes c ri mina lly respon si ble for a nother ’s co nductas a par ty
. Next, w e note that the a ppl ic ati on parag ra ph us es the t er m par ty i n appl y ing the condu ct of appell ant t o the theor ies all eg ed by the Stat e’s i ndi ctment
. Thus, the j ur y w as g iv en s o m e guidanc e i n appl y ing the law of par ti es to t he facts
. The ev ide nce w as cons is tent from the beg inn ing that appel lan t’ s c onduc t w as int eg ra ll y rela ted t o the ul ti mate death of Schraer . Al l of t he w it ness es desc ri bed appel lan t as hav ing g ra bbed Schraer by the l eg or

l eg s a s s oon as he s lumped forw ard after bei ng st ru ck
. The arg um e n t o f the17

State ’s attor ney s w as cons is tent about the a cts of appel lan t and thei r impact upo n the dea th of Schrae r. N oth ing i n this record d em ons t ra t es ho w app ellantw as ha rmed in anyw ay by the tri a l co u rt ’s fail ure to g iv e the more s peci fic c harg e i n the appl ic ati on parag ra ph. Therefore, w e c oncl ude t he er ro r w as h a rm le ss . Id. Appel lan t’ s s ixth i ss ue is ov er ru led
. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Publ is h.