In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00096-CR 

NGA LONE AUNG, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 108th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 072,330-E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding 

 

March 5, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Nga Lone Aung appeals his conviction for capital murder. The jury found that he 

intentionally shot and killed a husband and wife in their yard and home during the same 

criminal episode. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress 

evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional right prohibiting unlawful searches and 

seizures. The evidence in question was obtained while law enforcement officials

searched 1) his bedroom after being given access to the apartment by his roommate and 

2) his car. We affirm.
2

For purposes of this appeal, we assume, arguendo, that appellant is correct and 

focus only on harm. When error implicates evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment, we must reverse unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that it did 

not contribute to appellant’s conviction or punishment. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a); Gibson v. 

State, 253 S.W.3d 709, 716–17 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, pet. ref’d). This test obligates 

us to ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed 

to the conviction. Id. at 717. And, our answer is influenced by indicia such as the 

importance of the improperly admitted evidence to the State’s case, whether it was 

cumulative of other evidence, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or 

contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence on material points, and the overall 

strength of the State’s case. Biera v. State, 391 S.W.3d 204, 211–12 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2012, pet. ref’d). 

The record reveals that searching appellant’s bedroom and car resulted in the 

discovery of miscellaneous evidence such as a gun case in the bedroom, cigarettes that 

were consistent with the cigarette butt located at the shooting scene, a bullet hole in the 

dashboard of the car, and a bullet in the car. Yet, it was of little import given other 

evidence admitted at trial. For instance, appellant’s DNA was discovered on the cigarette 

butt located at the scene. Furthermore, shell casings, footprints, and tire tracks at the 

scene compared favorably to the gun appellant owned, shoes appellant wore, and the 

tires on appellant’s car, respectively. But, most importantly, appellant told the jury during 

the guilt/innocence phrase of the trial not only that he shot the husband and wife but also

how he did it and why. 
3

Simply put, the only real issue raised at trial was whether appellant shot his victims 

with the requisite mens rea. The evidence garnered as a result of the searches in 

question had little relationship to that topic. So, the evidence about which appellant does 

not complain coupled with his own trial testimony prevents us from finding a reasonable 

probability that the searches of his car and bedroom contributed to appellant’s conviction. 

We overrule the point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.