Ret i red J us t i c e D on W i t t i g assi gned t o t hi s C our t by t he Chi efJust i ce of t he Supr em e Cour t of 1 T ex as pu rsu an t t o T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. § 7 4.00 3 (V ern on S up p. 20 04 ). 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0071 2-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
DA LE RA

YM OND C RU NK , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 38t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d W it ti g

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e W it ti g 1 Dal e R ay mond C ru nk, appel lan t, appeal s h is co nv ic ti on fo r in tenti onal ly ca usi ng ser io u s b odily injuryto Javier Ortega causin g his dea th an d inte ntion ally or know ingly
conc eal ing Orteg a’s body

. In f iv e iss ues, appell ant arg ues doubl e jeopardy , error by not gr a n t in g a n in s t ru c t e d ve rd ic t , im p e rm is s ib le se n t e n c in g b y im p o s in g c o n s e c u t ive2

sent ences , ex cl usi on of hi s e x per t pathol og is t’ s tes ti mony , and fail ure to ins tr ucton s udden pass ion i n c onnec ti on w it h the tamper ing i ss ue. W e w il l aff ir m as modified

. 1. Bac kgr ound Acc ordin g t o a p p ell ant, his tr ial defense couns el appears t o hav e c onced ed th at appel lan t k il led hi s s tep s on, Or teg a. The is sue at t ri al w as w hy the homic ide oc cur re d and
w hy app ella n tb uried th e bo dy. T he e v iden ce sho w ed th ere w as a f ight and Orte ga hit app ellantman y

times wi th a pip e, followi ng an argume nt ab outmon ey. App ellantbrief ly
sec ur ed th e pi pe from O rt eg a and hithi m once . Appel lan t c onti nued t o tr y to w re st the pip e and the tw o fell dow n. Appel lan t then choked Or teg a unt il he d id not mov e. Appel lan t tes ti fied he pass ed outon t op of Orteg a. The Stat e’s patholog is t Dr . N or ma Jea n F ar ley found no c oncl usive e vi dence of strang ula ti on, g iv en th e y outh of Ort eg a and de c o mp osition of

the bo dy. Farley

opine d the cause of

dea th to be “hom icidal v iolence fo r a r e a s o n . ” A p p e l l a n t a d m i t t e d t o b u r y i n g t h e body aft erhe p ani ck ed. 2. Doubl e Je opar dy In his firs t is sue, appel lan t maint ain s that he shoul d not hav e been f u rt h er prose cute d after his f irst jury w as em pan eled , sw orn in, th en d ismissed

. Af ter his f irst jury
w as sw or n in, the prosec uti on noted that a juror w as impane led and sw or n w ho s houl d not hav e been there. Apparentl y , t he c ler k mi si nter preted a s tr ik e by the defense t hat w as chan ged to “it w as oka y .” As a result, the twelft h juror , M a ry Ann Gallegos, (originally
num ber 42 ) should h ave been seate d an d w as no t. In s t e ad, juror num ber 44 , Ignatio Jimine z , w as sea ted and swo rn . G a llegos w as excused f rom th e pa nel bu t w as still
av ail abl e to ser

v e and w as presenti n the co urtroom w hen t he error w as dis cov ered by

the Stat e. The Stat e ini ti all y obj ect ed, sta ti ng that an er ro r w as made, t he er ro r inv ali dated the3

pan el, an d the re sh ould b e a new pa nel. T he prose cuto r ad ded , “I really have no inte rest in doi ng so . How ev er , I don’ t s ee th at w e hav e an alt er nati v e.” The S tate al so obj ect ed to t he al ter nates

. T h e tri al cour t ul ti matel y

co ncl uded t here to be tw o approache s t o the prob lem . One w ould be to inclu de Gallegos as the tw elf th j uror, “or just call ano the r jury tomor ro w

mor nin g .” The S tate off ered a thi rd al ter native inv olv ing re- str ik ing the juror alt er nat e s to w hic h the defense obj ect ed. The tr ial co urt as ked both the S tate and appel lan t: “B oth of y ou are g oin g to obj ect ? O ne s olu ti on or the other ?” D efense c ounse l
re p li e d : “Ye s . ” T h e S t a t e m a d e n o re p ly. For the f irst time on ap p e a l, app ellantstate s thatseatin g a ne w jury pan el or a
sec ond t ri al w as bar re d under doubl e jeo pardy pr inc ipl es becau se jeo pardy attac hed w hen the first jur

y w as impane led and sw or n i n.

3. St andard of

R ev i ew W e w il l re v iew

the tr ial co urt' s fin din g of manifestnec ess ity for a mis tr ial by

appl y ing an abus e of di sc re ti on s tandard. Ar izona v . Washi ngton , 434 U.S. 497, 509- 14 ( 1978) ; Ex parte Little , 887 S.W .2d 6 2, 66 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994) ; E x p a rte W il lia ms , 870 S.W .2d 3 43, 346 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 94, p et. re f'd). A mis tr ial ordi nar il y req uires the ba lan ci ng of tw o com pet ing i nte rests: the def end ant 's rig ht to have the trial com plete d, and the pub lic's int er estin fair

tri als desig ned to end in jus t j udg ments . Ledesm a v . St ate , 993 S. W .2d 3 61, 364 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 1999 pet . ref’d.) ; Ex par te Hom ann , 7 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 3 , 9 3 5 (T e x. App.–A ust in 1989, no pet .) T he d efend ant 's "v alue d rig ht to have his trial com plete d by a pa rticular tribuna l" is
now w ithin th e prote ction o f the con stitutio nal guaran tee against dou ble j eop ardy, since it is that "ri g ht" t hat l ies at the foundat ion of the federal ru le that jeo pardy att aches w hen t heT h e p r o s e c u tio n n o te d to th e tr ia l c o u r t it h a d n o in te r e s t in s e a tin g a n e w p a n e l. 2 4 jur y i s e mpanel ed and sw or n. Cr is t v . Br etz , 437 U .S. 28, 3 6 ( U. S. 1 978)

. An ex cept ion to th is rule is ma de if

the def end antco nsen ts to a retrial, or if a retrial before a ne w jury is
man d ated by

so me form of mani fest nec ess ity . Tor re s v . St ate , 614 S.W .2d 4 36, 4 41 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 1) (citations om itted ). Beca use o f

the f und am ent al nat ure of dou ble jeo pard y

protect ions, a dou ble jeo pardy cl aim maybe rais ed for the first ti me o n a ppeal , or ev en for the first ti me by collate ral attack, w hen the und ispute d facts show the dou ble jeo pard y v iolation is cl early apparent o n the face of t h e r ecord and w hen enfor cementof usual r ule s o f proc edural default ser

v es no leg it imat e state int erest s. Gonz ale z v. Sta te , 8 S

. W

. 3 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 3 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 0). 4. Di sc uss i on Appel lan t c ontends , and w e ag re e, that a doubl e jeo pardy cl aim maybe rais ed for the first ti me on appeal , w hen the undis puted facts show that a d oubl e j eopardy v iol ati on is cl ear ly apparent o n the f ace of the rec ord and w hen enfor cementof the u sus al ru les of procedu ra l def a u lt s e rv e no leg it imat e s tate int erest

. See id. The tr ial co urt, and apparentl y the Stat e, k new or sh oul d hav e k now n of a pot enti al doubl e j eopardy i ss ue. 2 T he St ate conte nds o n ap pea l that ap pellan t conse nte d to the dism issal of the f irst pan el or tha t the dism issal w as prom pte d by app ellant ’s obje ction at trial. T h e re c o rd show s o ther

w is e. The appel lan t c lea rl y obj ect ed w hen t he tr ial co ur t offered t o ei ther

se at the e rroneous ly

ex cus ed j uror

Gal leg os “o r jus t cal l another j ur y tomor ro w

mor nin g .” The trial court inquired w het her bo th s id e s w ould objectto eithe r solution. The defense re spond ed: “Y es. ” The defense als o obj ect ed to the prosec uti on’ s a lt er nati v e to seat5

G a l l e g o s a n d t h e n b o t h s i d e s “ s e l e c t t h e tw o a l t e r n a t e s . ” A s w e u n d e rs t a n d the prosec uti on’ s o ff er , i t w anted to re- ex er ci se it s peremptor y chal len g es know ing the p ool of alt er nates after

the proper

se ati ng of Gal leg os. In ad dit ion , t he St ate a rg ues that the a ppel la n t impli edl y co nsent ed to be retr ied

. Co nsentneed not b e ex press ed, b ut may be i mpli ed from t he to tal ity of ci rc umstan ces atten dant to a decl arati on of mis tr ial

. Tor re s , 614 S.W .2d a t 441 -4 2. W hil e w e ag re e w it h the sta ted leg al pr inc ipl e, the facts do not suppo rt thi s conc lus ion as w e di sc uss ed abov e. W it hout ci ti ng any

auth or ity , t he St ate a rg ues appel lan t doe s n ot de monstrate h ow the enforc ement of t he usual ru les of procedu ra l default ser v e no leg it imat e pur pose. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( i) ; 38. 2( a) (1 ). T he St ate note s t hatin a dditio n to conse nt to retrial, ano the r exceptio n to th e rule is found w here it is mandate d by so me “ manifestnec ess ity ” ci ti ng , Tor re s , 614 S.W .2d a t 442. Appel lan t count ers that the S tate w aiv ed any er ro r in not s eati ng Gal leg os by fail ing to obj ectpr ior

to the j ur

y bei ng sw or n i n. Thus, the S tate created the p ro ble m by fail ing to time ly o bje c t

. Ho w ever, as the Sta te no tes, in certa in circumsta nces d oub le jeop ardy i s not v iol a te d unless the Stat e’s co nductg iv ing r is e to a mi str ial moti on w as “i ntended to goa d ” th e de fe n d a n t in to m o ving fo r a m ist ria l, cit in g Or egon v . Ke nnedy, 456 U. S. 667, 675 -76 (198 2). Accordin g to th e Sta te, retrial is barred on ly if th e prose cuto r intentio nally
ca u se d a m ist ria l, cit in g Ex parte Lew is , 219 S. W .3d 3 35, 3 5 8 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) (defend ant 's v alue d rig ht to comp lete h is trial before the f irst jury w ould be a "h ollow shell" if retr ial w er e per mitt ed after the prosec uti on, t hroug h i ts condu ct, i ntent ion all y preci pit ated a mistrial; the question is w het her the def end ant retain ed p rimary cont rol ov er the co urse to be foll ow ed) ( ci tati ons omit ted). T h e record does not demonst ra te t hat t he St ate6

int enti onally p re ci pit ated a mi str ial

. Nor i s t here a s how ing thatthe defendant retai ned pr imar y co ntrol re sul ti ng i n the mis tr ial

. S ee id. Bo th si des ag re e tha t t he er ro r in not seat ing Gal leg os w as an admini strati v e ov ersi g ht by the cl er k’ s o ff ic e. The er ro r aff ect ed both the State and app ell ant. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . 35.2 6 (clerk shall c a l l o ff the first tw elv e names on t he l is ts that hav e notbeen str ic ken) ( emphasi s a dded .) 5 . M a n if e s t N e c e s s it y “Fo r atle a st17 5 yea rs, Am e ric a 's co u rt s ha ve h a d th e so u n d d isc re ti o n to di sc h a rge a j ur y before ithas reach ed a v erdict w henev er a cour t concl udes, after

co nsi der ing al l of the c ircums tanc es, t hat t here i s a mani fest nec ess ity to decl are a mi str ial to prev ent t he end s of pub lic j ustice f rom b eing def eat ed. ” L e de s ma , 9 9 3 S. W .2 d at36 5 (cit in g Per ez , 22 U .S. at 58 0; Har

ri son v. State , 788 S.W .2d 1 8, 22 ( Te x. Cri m. App. 1990) ). An
ex cept ion to thi s ru le prohi bit ing the re -t ri al of a defendant ex is ts w hen th e de f e n d a nt
cons ents to a re -t ri al or a mis tr ial is mandated by "mani fest nec ess ity ." Ex parte Fierro , 79 S. W .3 d 5 4 , 5 6 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (ci ti n g W ashi ngton , 4 3 4 U. S

. a t 5 0 9 -1 4 ). W e h a ve deter mined that appel lan t di d notco nsentto a mi str ial or re- tr ial

. W e the re fore t ur n to the qu e s t io n o f

m a n if e s tn e c e s s it y. Ma nifestnec ess ity

ex is ts w hen t he c ircums tanc es re nder i t i mposs ibl e to ar ri v e at a fair v erdict, w hen i t is im p oss ibl e to cont inu e w it h tr ial , or w hen t he v erdic t w oul d be automati cal ly

rev ersed on appeal becau se of tri al er ro r . Som erville , 410 U .S. at 46 2- 64. A trial judge shou ld ma ke mo re than a perf unct ory r e citation of the alte rnatives before g ra nti ng a mi str ial , and sh oul d c arefull y and del ibe ra tel y

co nsi der

w hic h of al l the altern atives best bala nces the defend ant 's intere st in having his trial conclu ded in a single proceed ing w it h s oci ety 's "i nteresti n fair tr ial s d e sign a te d to end i n j ustj udg ments. " Ex7

parte Fierro , 79 S. W .3 d a t 56 -5 7 ( c i ti n g W ashi ngton , 434 U .S. at 51 6.) O ther w is e, consid eratio n of

le ss d rastic a lterna tiv es equate s t o little mo re than a pro forma ex ercise to mas k t he tr ial j udg e's preferred c ourse of acti on. Id. Ac co rd in gly, whe re th e tri a l ju d ge fails to explicitly or imp licitly rule outa less drastic alterna tiv e in favor of granting a mistrial, he has abus ed hi s d is creti on. Id. In rev iew ing the p ropri ety of the t ri al jud g e's ex er ci se of his di sc re ti on, t he U nit ed Stat es Supreme C our t, follo w ing M r. Ju sti ce Story, sc ruti niz es the c our t’ s a cti on to deter min e w hether , i n the co ntext of thatpar ti cul ar tr ial , t he dec larati on of a mi str ial w as dic tated by

"mani fest nec ess ity " or the "ends of publi c jus ti ce." Somervil le , 410 U .S. at 462- 64. “The int er est s o f the publ ici n s eei ng thata c ri minal prosec uti on pro ceed to
v erdic t, eit her

of acq uit tal or

co nv ic ti on, n eed n ot be fors aken by the formula ti on or app lication o f

rig id rules tha t nece ssarily preclude the vindication of thatinterest. ” Id. In Somervil

le , the high court lists multiple e x am ples of t he app lication of

the m anif est
n e c e s s i t y

t e s t

. I n Un it e d

S ta te s v . P e r e z, 22 U . S. 579, ( 1824) , and Logan v . U nited States , 144 U.S. 263 (1892 ), the Uni ted States Supreme C our t hel d tha t mani fest nec ess ity jus t if ie d the disch arge of juries unab le to reach v erdicts, an d, th erefore, th e do uble jeo pardy cl ause did not b ar

retr ial

. Somervil

le , 410 U .S. at 46 2- 64; Cf . Ke er l v. Mo ntana , 213 U .S. 135 ( 1909) ; Dreyer v. Illinois , 187 U. S. 71 (1 902)

. In Sim m ons v. Unite d Sta tes, 142 U.S. 148 (1891 ), a t rial jud ge d ismissed t he jury , over defend ant 's objectio n, be cause one of the jurors ha d be en a cquainte d w ith the defend ant , and , the re fore, was probab ly pr eju dic ed ag ain st the g ov er nment. Somervil le , 410 U.S. 458, 463. I t w as hel d tha t t he tr ial j udg e proper ly ex er ci sed his pow er "to prev ent the defeat of the ends of publ icj ust ic e." Id. I n Thom

pson v. United S tates , 155 U. S. 271 (1 894) , a mis tr ial w as decl ared after the8

tr ial j udg e l ear ned t hat o ne of the ju ro rs was di sq ual ified , hav ing been a member of the g ran d j u rythati ndi cte d the defendant. Si mil ar ly , i n Lova to v. New Mexico , 242 U .S. 199 (191 6), the def end antdem urred to the ind ictme nt, h is dem urrer w as overruled, an d a jury
sw or n. The d is tr ic t at torne y re a liz ed th at t he defendant had notpl ead t o the i ndi ctment after the demur re r had been ov er ru led , mov ed for the dis charg e of t he jur y and
ar ra ig nment of the defendant for pl eadi ng ; t he j ur y w as dis charg ed, t he defendant ple ad not g uil ty , the same jury w as ag ain impanel ed, and a v erdic t of gui lty rendered. Somervil

le , 410 U .S. at 46 4. The doubl e j eopardy cl ause did not bar

reprosec uti on. Id. W e cont ra st deci si ons w here no manifest neces si ty w as found. I n Tor re s , t he tr ial jud g e g ra nted a mi str ial i ndi cat ing hi s b e lie f thata w it ness had been i nti midat ed i nto chang in g his tes ti mony ; hi s c oncl usi on, h ow ev er , w as unsup por ted b y the ev ide nce. Tor re s , 614 S.W .2d a t 4 4 3

. T h u s, no mani fest nec ess ity w as present

. Id. In Ex par te Hubb ard , 7 98 S. W .2d 7 98, 7 99 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) , t he i ndi ctmentch arg ed th e def end antw ith tw o misjoin ed o f fense s. Hubba rd mo v ed to comp el the State to elect betw een t he of

f e n se s a fter th e j ur

y w as impane led

. In respon se, the Stat e mov ed to dis mis s t he jur

y becau se they had been infor med of bo th off enses dur ing v oir di re . Id. The trial judge g rante d the State 's mot ion an d de clared a m istrial. Id. The c our t hel d the re w as no mani fest nec ess ity

for t he mi str ial bec ause there w as an al ter nati v e av ail abl e to dis mis si ng the jur

y , namel y , t he St ate c oul d hav e el ect ed betw een t he c ounts

. Id. at 80 0. In Little , al thoug h the j ur y w as empanel ed and sw or n, due to the lat eness of t he hour , t ri al on th e merit s did not commence unti l the fol low ing day

. Ex parte Little , 887 S.W .2d a t 63. On the morni n g t r i a l o n t h e m e r i t s w a s t o c o mm e n c e , o n e j u ro r fa i l e d t o a r r i v e o n t ime. Id. After w ait ing approx imat ely three hours, the t ri al jud g e dec lared a mi str ial bas ed on9

manifestnec ess ity . Id. at 63- 64. The re cord demonst ra ted that the tr ial jud g e faile d to
co n sid e r a n u m b e r of

a l t e rn a ti ves in lie u of de cla rin g a m ist ria l, in clu d in g gran ti n g a cont inu ance or

i ss uin g a w ri t of att achment

. Id. at 66- 67. The cour t c oncl uded t hat becau se the t ri al jud g e fail ed to co nsi der and ru le out t he l ess drast icalte rn ati v es to a mis tr ial , t he record di d notsu ppor t hi s fin din g thatmani fest nece ss it y ex is ted, and
cons eq uentl y , t he tr ial j udg e abus ed hi s d is creti on. Id. at 67. In Br own , a w i t n e s s fo r b o t h t h e S t a t e a n d t h e d e fe n s e w a s n o ta v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i fy in order and w as unav ail abl e on cer tai n dat es . Ex

p ar te B r own , 9 0 7 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 5 , 8 4 1 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1995) . The de fense offered to al low the w it ness to te st ify o u t of order or subs ti tute the w it ness ’s su perv is or . Id. The court he ld tha t beca use less dra stic altern atives w ere available, th ere w as no man ifest ne cessity to de clare a mistrial. I d. T here fore, the trial judge nece ssarily abu sed his discretion in decla ring a mistrial. Ac co rd in gly, appel lan t' s retr ial w as jeo pardy bar re d. Id. at 844. In Fi er ro , a j uror

w as errone ously thought to be relate d to th e de fend antand challen ged f o r cau se . Ex par te Fierro , 79 S. W .3d at 57. T h e c h a ll e n ged juror w as no t, in fact, ch allengea ble for cause becau se of cons ang uin ity w it h appel lan t. Id. Therefore, the tr ial cour t er re d i n ex cl udi ng her for t hat reason and g ra nti ng a mi str ial bas ed upon mani fest nec ess ity . Id. A defendant charg ed w it h a c ri minal offense has the sta te cons ti tuti onal ri g ht t o a jur y . T EX . C ON ST . A RT . I , § 10; see als o T EX . C ON ST . A RT . 1.05 (Vernon 197 7). A jury in
a c ri minal di str ic t cour

t is defined as tw elv e persons . T EX . C ON ST . A RT . V, § 13 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . 33.01 (V er non 198 9)

. As the review ing court, w e mu st det ermin e w het her the t rial judge acted irration ally
or i rrespon si bly

and w hether

the mis tr ial order

reflect s t he ex e rci se o f sound di sc re ti on.10

L e de s ma , 993 S.W .2d a t 365 ( re v iew ing the tr ial co urt' s fin din g of manifestnec ess ity for mis tr ial by

appl y ing an a buse of dis creti on s tandard) ; see a lso Parrish v. State, 38 S. W .3d 8 3 1 , 83 5 (T e x. A p p . – Ho u s t o n [ 1 4 Di s t

. ] 2 0 0 1 , p e t

. re f ’d ). Mo re o ve r, if t h e re c o rd sh o ws th tha t the t rial jud ge e x ercised soun d discretion in f inding a ma nifest nece ssity for a retrial, the j udg e's su a s ponte decl arati on of a mis tr ial is not inc or re ct jus t becau se the rev iew ing
cour t mig ht hav e ru led di ff er entl y . W ashi ngton, 434 U. S. a t 514 -1 6; L e de s ma , 993 S.W .2d at 36 5.As w e di sc uss ed s upra, t he tr ial co urt c lea rl y co nsi dered th e al ter nati v es, i ncl udi ng the s eati ng of the cor re ct tw elfth juror Gal leg os, and proceed ing w it hout alt er nates

. The Stat e i mpli ci tl y

reje cte d the co urt’ s o ff er and the d efendant obj ect ed. Ap parentl y , t he tr ial court pro perly rejecte d the State ’s third alte rnative to re-strike the alte rnate s. Th e cou rt obv iou sl y

di d notch o o se to proceed w it hout the tw elfth j uror w ho had been s ele cte d by both par ti es, Gal leg os, number 42. N or

di d the co urt c hoose to proceed w it h the j uror mista kenly taken ou t of

order, Ji min ez, num ber 44 . Under the unique circumst ance s of this
c a s e , we c a n n o tsa y t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rta b u s e d it s d is c re t io n b y e m p a n e li n g a n e w ju ry. W ashi ngton , 434 U .S. 509- 14; Somm erville , 4 1 0 U

. S

. at 462- 64. 6. I nst r uct ed Verdi ct In hi s s econd is sue, appel lan t cont ends the tr ial cour t er re d bec ause itfail ed to g ra nt h is m o t i o n fo r

d i r e c t e d v e rd i c to n c o u n tt h r e e ( t a mp e r i n g ) a ft e r t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e i n c h i e f. Spec ific all y , he chal len g es the e lementof know led g e of murd er or ag g ra v ated ass aul t. At the pointof

his mot ion, a ppe llant ha d no t testif ied. T he p ertine nt cod e sectio n provides: ( d) A p erson commi ts an offense i f the person: (1 ) know ing thatan o ff ense has been c om m it te d , alters, dest ro y s, or c o n c e a ls a n y re c o rd , d o c u m e n t , o r th in g wit h in t e n t t o im p a ir i t s ve ri t y,11

leg ibi li ty , or

av a ila bil ity

as ev ide nce in any

su bseq uent inv est ig ati on of or off ic ial proceed ing rela ted t o the offense; or T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 37.0 9( d) (1 ). 7. St andard of

R ev i ew W e treat an iss ue complai nin g concer nin g a tr ial court 's f ail ure to g ra nt a moti on for direct ed v erdict as a c hal len g e to the leg al suffici ency of the ev ide nce. Will iam s v . St ate , 937 S. W .2d 4 79, 4 8 2 -4 8 3 ( T ex . C ri m. App. 1996) ; Coo k v . St ate , 858 S.W .2d 4 67, 4 70 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 3). Ev iden ce is lega ll y s uf f icient w hen , v iew ed in th e lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the v erdict, a ration a l ju ry c o uld hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the off ense bey ond a reason abl e doubt

. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 319 (1979 ). Th is court's du ty is not to reweig h the evidence from read ing a cold record butto "p osition itself
as a final , due proces s s afeguard ens ur ing onl y the ra ti onal ity

of the factfinder ." Ma tam or os v. State , 901 S.W .2d 470, 474 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ; Mo re no v . St ate , 755 S.W .2d 866 , 867 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 88). 8. Legal Su ff i ci ency After ki ll ing hi s steps on, a ppel lan t admi ttedl y pl aced the b ody

of the d eceas ed i nto a g oose pen. The ear ly m or nin g of

the next day , appell ant admits he re mov ed th e body and bur ied i t on a far m. H e retur ned t o the body on a thi rd oc cas ion to bette r bur y the
cor pse. Ap pel lan t admi tted in his se cond sta tement that he fabri cat ed hi s i nitia l st o ry t o inv est ig ators. In the s econd sta tement he sai d: “I knew thatI had k il led Ja rv i and I di d not
w ant t o g et i n troubl e.” M ult ipl e photos show ed the decomposi ng bodyof the dece ased. Appel lan t als o admit ted that he str uck the decea sed w it h a p ipe on t he head and chok ed him unti l he s topped breathi ng . “I hel d on to hi s throat and did not l et g o.” Ap pel lan t t hen cl eaned u p the bl ood from the w a ll s, floor , br ic ks , w or k b ench, door , and mopped the12

ki tch en floor

. Appel lan t l ied to his w ife and frie nds about the e pis ode. Appel lan t ac know led g es that if there is anyev ide nce to suppor t a v erdic t of g uil t, an is su e o f f a ct is co nsi dered to be rais ed and the c ase w il l be s ubmit ted t o the j ur y , c it ing Mc Kenz ie v. State , 617 S.W .2d 211, 218 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1981) (g iv e n th e immediat e cont ext i n w hic h the st a te m e n t was made and t he c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng the
o c c u rr e n c e , a n is s u e o f fa c twa s ra is e d t h a tp re s e n t e d a ju ry qu e s t io n , n o t a m a t t e r o f la w, w hic h t he cour

t ( proper ly ) deter mined to s ubmitto the j ur y ). I ntentmay

be i nferred from the a cti ons or condu ct of appell ant. Rob er tso n v . St ate , 87 1 S. W .2 d 70 1, 7 05 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1993) ; Mc Gee v

. St ate , 774 S.W .2d 229, 234 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1989)

. Es tabl is hment of cul pabl e mental st ates is almos t inv ar iab ly grounded upon i nferenc es to be draw n by the factfinder

f ro m the attenda nt c ircums tanc es. Lane v . St ate , 7 6 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 7 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1989)

. The threshol d of proof neces sar y to suppo rta (j ur

y ) findi ng of an
aw a r e n e s s t h a t s u c h a r e s u l t i s r e a s o n a b l y c e rt a i n t o o c c u r i s c o n c o mi t a n t l y l ow . Id. Me n t a l c u l p a b i l i t y

i s o f s u c h a n a t u r e t h a ti tg e n e ra l l y m u s tb e i n fe r r e d fro m t he ci rc umstan ces under

w hic h a prohi bit ed ac t or omi ss ion oc curs. Her

nandez v. Sta te , 819 S.W .2d 806 , 810 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91). W e f ind that direct and ci rcumst ant ial evidence a s w ell as logical inferen ces sup port the t ri al cour

t’ s deni al of t he moti on for ins tr uct ed v erdict. Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the S tate, w e find the e v ide nce to be l eg all y su ff ic ien t. S e e Ja ck

son, 443 U .S. at 31 9. 9. Conse cut i v e Sent enc i ng Appel lan t c omplains hi s s entenc es shoul d hav e r un c oncur re ntl y , and not
cons ecut iv ely

. At t he s entenc ing hear ing , the defense arg ued for concur re nt s entenc ing13

b ased upon t he appl ic ati on of sec ti on 3. 03 of the penal co de. T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 3.03. O n appea l, he c ontends the cour t’ s c onsec uti v e s entenc es of tw enty y ears o n c ount II and t en y ears o n c ount III ( tamper ing ) w ere i mprop er . At t he hear ing , t he tr ial co urt found
as a matt er

of fact th at t he c ri me of murder , a cr ime of pass ion , h a p p e n e d o n o r about Ma rch 17 , fo r whic h he se n te n ce d ap p e l l a n tt o t wen ty yea rs. Ch a rge d w it h ta m p e rin g, and found g uil ty

by the jur y , on a s eparate d ate of March 18, t he c our t s entenc ed appe ll ant t o t e n y e a rs , t h e s e n t e n c e s t o r un co nsecu t i v el y beca use o f t hese f i ndi ngs. 10. St andard of

R ev i ew A c omplai nt about cons ecut iv e sentenc es is rev iew ed unde r an abus e of di sc re ti on sta ndard. M

acr i v. State , 12 S. W .3d 505 , 511 (Te x . App .–S an Anton io 199 9, pe t. ref 'd). The tes t fo r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s a c t i o n fa l l s w i t h i n t h e z one of
re asona ble di sag re ement. Ma nni ng v. State , 114 S .W .3d 9 22, 9 26 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 3). Generall y , t he tr ial co urt has di sc re ti on to order thatse ntenc es be s er v ed
c o n s ecut iv ely

. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 42.08 (V er non 200 0)

. How ev er , w hen the a cc used is found g uil ty of m o re t h a n o ne offense ar is ing out of the s ame cr imi nal epi sode prosec uted in a si ng le cr imi nal ac ti on, t he s entenc es shal l ru n c oncur re ntl y . T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3.03 (V er non 1994). "Cr imi nal episod e" i s d efined as the commi ss ion of tw o or

mo r e offense s i f: ( 1) t he o ffens es a r e c om mi tt ed p urs ua ntt o th e s am e transacti on or

pursuantto tw o or

more t ra n sa ct ion s t hat a re co nnect ed or co nst it ute a
common s cheme or

pl an; or (2 ) the off enses are the re peated commi ss ion of t he s ame or si mil ar offenses . Id. § 3.01. I f sect ion 3.03 of the Tex as Penal C ode doe s n ot ap ply , t he tr ial co u rt r e ta in s the r ig ht t o c umulat e s entenc es under ar ti cl e 42. 08 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . See Lu m pki n v . St ate , 681 S.W .2d 885, 889 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth14

1984, no pet

. ) (ci ti n g Sm it h v . St ate , 575 S.W .2d 41 (Te x . Crim. App . 197 9)). 11

. Di sc uss i on The firs t q uest ion is w hether the Stat e prosec uted appel lan t in a si ng le cri m ina l action for mo re than one of fens e . He re, three charges w ere brou ght in a singl e trial. Reg ardle ss of w hether

a de fendant is charg ed purs uant to on e i nst ru ment or se v eral, any ti me the Stat e present s a ll eg ati ons and ev id e n ce o f m ult ipl e offenses i n a s ing le tr ial or ple a proceed ing , t he "s ing le cr imi nal ac ti on" prov is ion of s ect ion 3.03 i s met

. LaP orte v. State , 840 S.W .2d 4 12, 4 15 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992). The more d ifficul t q uest ion i s w hether the c ount II murde r by

pas si on and countII I t amper ing are a s ing le cr imi nal epi sode. T h e S t a t e c i t e s a n d a rg u e s f ro m G a r za t h a ta p p e ll a n t ’s co n d u c tco n s t it u t e s two ind ependentsc hemes, first to ki ll , t hen hi de, t he v ic ti m. Gar za v . St ate , 37 S.W .3d 1 30, 133 (Tex. App. – San Anto nio 20 01, n o pet .). “Po ssession of marijua na a nd a ssault a re not t he s ame or

si mil ar offenses ; t herefore, the off enses w ere not par t of the same c ri minal
e p is o d e u n le s s t h e y we re co m m it t e d p u rs u a n t t o t h e s a m e t ra n s a c t io n o r pu rs u a n t t o two transa ctions th at w ere con nect ed o r constitut ed a com mo n schem e or plan .” Id. How ever, the G a r za re cord did not cont ain any ev ide nce detai li ng the ci rc umstan ces su rroundi ng the commi ss ion of

the tw o of

fenses. Id. The onl y infor mati on that re motel y l ink ed th e offenses
w as the allegation th at bo th of fense s w ere com mitt ed o n o r a bou t the same date , w hich is not suffici ent e v ide nce from w hic h to deter mine that the off enses w ere pursuantto the same t ra nsac ti on or

w ere c onnec ted b y

a c ommon sc heme or

pl an. Id. In Hal ibu rton , t he c our

t t u rned first to t he pract ic e c ommentar y foll ow ing se cti on 3.03. Hal

ibu rton v . St ate , 578 S.W .2d 7 26, 7 29 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1979)

. The la ng uag e of that commentar

y i ndi cat ed th at s ect ion 3.03 does no more tha n treat "mul ti ple co nv ic ti ons15

re sul ti ng from prosecuti on of j oin ed offenses a s a si ng le conv ic ti on for sent enci ng pur poses ." Id. T h e p u rp o s e o f t h e st a t u t e a p p e a rs t o b e co n ve n ie n c e a n d e f f ic ie n c y, per mitt ing one tr ial on t he j oin ed c ounts , and treati ng the se parate o ffenses as one for sent enci ng pur poses . Id. N ext, w e not e tha t pass ag es of t ime, or cr imes commi tted on di ff erent d ates , do not pr ecl ude mul ti ple offenses from being a si ng le cr imi nal epi sode. See Her nandez v. Sta te , 9 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 8
- 0 9 ( Te x . A p p . –W a c o 1 9 9 7 , p e t

. r e f' d ) ( A p r i l 1 6 c o c a i n e s ale and September

22 mari huana sal e merel y repeti ti ous commi ss ion s o f same offense) ; Guidry
v. State , 909 S.W .2d 5 84, 5 85 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1995, pet. ref'd) (Sec ti on 3. 01( 2) of Tex as Penal C ode doe s not i mpose ti me di ff erenti al betw een c ommis si on of same or si mil ar off enses ). I n Guidry , the defendant w as ind ic ted i n C ause No. 92- CR -2 134- D for the f irst agg rav ate d robb ery , in Cause No. 92-CR-2133 -D for the agg rav ate d sexual assau lt
cas e, and in Cause No. 92-C R- 2135- D for the se cond ag g ra v ated ro bber y . Id. In a single
c r i mi n a l p ro c e e d i n g , G u i d r y p l e a d e d g u i l t y

t o a l l t h r e e i n d i c t me n t s w i t h o u tt h e b e n e fi to f a ple a barg ain

. Id. The tr ial co urt as ses sed a l ife s ent e nce in each cas e, bu t s tac ked the sent ence o f t h e fi rs ta g g r a v a t e d ro b b e r y o n t h e s e n t e n c e a s s e s s e d i n t h e a g g ra v a t ed
sex ual as saul t c ase and t hen s tac ked the s entenc e as ses sed in th e s e co n d ag g ra v ated
ro bber y on that ass ess ed for the first ag g ra v ated ro bber y . Id. W e hel d tha t s ect ion 3.01 (2 ) does n o t i mp o s e a t i me d i ffe r e n t i a l b e tw e e n t h e c o mm i s s i o n o f t h e s a me o r si mil ar off enses . Id. ( “H ad th e Legi sl ature w anted us to c onsi der a t ime differenti al in the appl ic ati on of thi s s ect ion of the C ode, itco uld hav e eas il y done so. ”)

. Id. In How ard , t he defendant w as charg ed in the same i ndi ctmentw it h pos ses si on of
coc ain e on tw o di ff erent o ccasi ons. Howar d v . St ate , 8 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (T e x.16

App .–W aco 1 994 , pet . ref 'd). Th at cou rt h eld, even tho ugh the t w o of fense s occurred m ore tha n a w eek a part, they w ere still p a rt o f t he sa me criminal episo de in th at th ey w ere merel y re peti ti ous commi ss ion s of t he same o ff ense. Id. at 171. In Bake r , each of three off enses i nv olv ed a different v ic ti m. Bake r v. State , 107 S.W .3d 6 71, 6 73 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2003, no p et.) The ag g ra v ated sex ual assaul t occur re d on September 29, 1999 at ap proximat e ly 5:3 0 a.m . nea r the v ictim's ho use o n Hope 's Ferry ; the sex ual assa ult
occ ur re d almostten months later on Jul y 22, 2000, in the ear ly

m or nin g hours insi de th e v ic ti m's hous e on Hop e's F er ry ; t he b u rg lar y of a habi tati on w it h i ntentto commi t s ex ual
ass aul t occ ur re d a month lat er on Aug ust29, 2000, at ap prox imat ely 3:00 a.m. ins ide the
v ic ti m's hous e a t t he c or ner of Prov is ion and Hop e's F er ry . Id. Tha t court con clude d all three offenses c onst it uted the s ame cr imi nal epi sode. Id. At the sent enci ng hear ing , t he tr ial co urt obs er v ed th at i f the tamper ing had occ ur re d on M ar ch 17, t he s ame day as the murde r, “

. . .c lea rl y , i t w oul d be one c ri minal epi sode here .” H owev er, beca use h e foun d bot h the indictm entand conviction for tam pering w ere for M ar ch 18, a se parate d ay , t he s entenc es shoul d run cons ecut iv ely

. W e disag re e. The
cr imi nal epi sode beg an w it h the ki ll ing and follow ed almostimmediat ely bypl aci ng the body in the n ear b y g o o s e p e n . A s t h e t r i a l c o u rt n o t e d , t h i s w a s t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f one transacti on. Onl y

hours later , at 2 a.m. the next morni ng , the same def endant mov ed th e sam e bod y , to a new, m ore remo te grave o f f p remise s. W e ho ld tha t such act ions w ere commi tted pursuantto the s ame transacti on or pursuantto tw o or

more transacti ons that
ar e c onnec ted. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3.03 ; Guidry 909 S.W .2d a t 585

. An i mprop er cumul ati on order

i s, in ess ence, a v oid sent ence, and suc h er ro r canno t be w aiv ed. Levy
v. State, 818 S. W .2d 8 01 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991). W e susta in appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue and17

re form the jud g ment to de let e the cu mulat ion order

. Appel lan t’ s se n te n ces are to ru n c o n c u rr e n t ly. 12. Expert Pat hol ogi st In hi s four

th i ss ue, a ppel lan t arg ues the t ri al cour t erred bycomplet ely

ex cl udi ng the tes ti mony

of the defense ex per

t pathol og is t, Dr . Car los M atti oli

. Ma tti oli w as board c erti fied in both cl ini cal and anatomi cal pathol og y . He ser v ed as Di re cto r of Laborator ies at Mi ss ion Hos pit al, M is si on, Tex as. M atti oli p e rfor med ov er 500 autops ies

. Appel lan t arg ues that
w hile Mattioli w as not perfect, he w as boa rd certif ied and could have imp each ed F arley’ s n e b u lo u s co n clu sio n s, th u s a llo wing a p p e lla n t t o pre se n t a de fe n se , c it in g Neg ri ni v. State , 853 S.W .2d 128, 130 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1993, no pet.) . Negrini set s out g eneral sta ndards for ex per

t w it ness q ual ific ati ons w hic h w e address bel ow . See id. F ro m sev eral fede ral and state ca ses, app ellanta rg ues for h is f und am ent al rig ht to prese nt w itnesse s. See Cham bers v. Miss ., 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1 973) (fewrig hts are more fundamental than that of an acc used to presentw it ness es in his ow n defense; i n the e xerc ise of thi s r ig ht, the accuse d, as is required of the St ate , mu st com ply w ith esta blished rules of proced ure and ev iden ce de signed to assu re b oth f airness and reliab ility in t he a scertain me nt of g uilt and i nnoce nce)

. A cour t s houl d notmec hani sti cal ly appl y r ule s o f ev ide nce to de feat the end s of justice w here const itution al rig hts directly af fecting the ascertain me nt of g uilt are impl ic ated. Id. Appe llant f urthe r asserts thatthe right to presen t a def en s ive t h eory i s cons ti tuti onal , and that ru les of ev ide nce must be flex ibl e and mus t s ometi mes be nd to the d u e -p ro ce ss righ ts of

th e de fe n d a n t, cit in g A lo n zo v . Sta te , 6 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 4 6 , 3 5 9 (T e x. App .–W aco 2 001 , pet . dism’d .) (decision to a dm it o t h e rwise ina dm issible evi den ce beca use o f

due -process conce rns is ma de on a case -by -case). Here, app ellantargues,18

Ma tti oli could hav e possi bly impeached Farl ey ’s specul ati v e c oncl usi on th at O rt eg a may hav e been strang led bec ause the Stat e’s ex per t coul d not ru le itout. The i mpeachment by M atti oli , i f all ow ed, w oul d hav e rais ed ot her pos si ble ca uses of death. Appe llant claim s he w as de nied the be nef it of a d efensive t heo ry

raising reaso nab le d o u b t, cit in g Davis v. Alaska , 415 U .S. 308, 317 ( 1974) (ju ro rs were enti tl ed to hav e the benefit of the defense theor y before them s o tha t they coul d make an infor med j udg ment
as to t he w eig ht to pla ce on w it ness ’s tes ti mony w hic h prov ide d "a c ru ci al li nk in the p ro of

. . . ” )

. F rom Rob ins on and Thom as , app ell ant a rg ues that g re at l ati tude shoul d be all ow ed
a def end ant in showing any fa ct w hich w ould estab lish bias, m otive or i ll fe eling on the part of anyw it ness for t he St ate. See T hom as v. State , 6 6 9 S

. W

. 2 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 3 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 stDist .] 19 8 4 , p e t. ref ’d .) (cit in g Robin so n v. St ate , 550 S.W .2d 5 4, 59 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1977) ); see als o Vi rt s v . St ate , 739 S.W .2d 2 5, 29 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1987) (the trial judge sho uld alway s allo w t h e a c c u sed great latitu de to show any relev antfact tha t might ten d to af

fect th e w itness's cred ibility ). App ellantf urthe r conten ds tha t a perso n ma y testif y abse nt de grees in che mistry
or medi ci ne w hen t he e xper t had ce rt ific ati on and ex per ien ce in an area ag ain ci ti ng Neg ri ni , 853 S.W .2d a t 130

. Negrini reit erates , how ev er , t hat the t rial c our t mai ntai ns dis creti on w hen det er mini ng w hether a w it n e ss h as been q ual ified as an e x per t. Id. Appel lan t c it es other

auth or ity

al low ing the tes ti mony o f an ex per

t w ho i s n ot c erti fied ba s ed u po n prac ti c al e x pe r ience

. S ee Ga tes v. Sta te , 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 4 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 2000, pet. ref’d. ). In Gates , the appel lat e cour t hel d tha t officer May es's experience w ith suicide s, bot h w hile w orking in a f une ral hom e, and as a peace of f icer, resulted in a specialized knowledge of su icid es tha t w ould help th e trier of fact19

understand t he ev ide nce re g ardin g w hether i t i s a n us ual oc cur re nce for a person w ho commi ts sui ci de to sh oot h ersel f in t he bac k o f the head. Id. A s we d i s c u s s b e l o w, appel lan t d id n o t d emonst ra te t o the trail co urt t hat M atti oli had any ex per ien ce w it h strangulat ions or de com pose d bo dies. 13. St andard of

R ev i ew A trial judge's ruling on ad missibility of expert testim ony is rev iew ed u nde r an abu se of dis creti on s tandard. Weatherr ed v . St ate , 15 S.W .3d 5 40, 5 42 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 0). The Tex as Rul es of E v ide nce setout three s eparate c ondi ti ons re g ardin g admi ss ibi li ty of
ex per t tes ti mony . Vel

a v . St ate , 209 S.W .3d 1 28, 1 30- 31 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. F irst, Rul e 104( a) req uires that preli minar y q uest ion s conc er nin g the q ual ific ati on of a person to be a w it ness are be deter mined by the cour t. Id. Secon d, Rule 70 2 stat es: "I f scientif ic, tec hni ca l, o r o th er

sp eci ali z ed k now led g e w il l ass is t t he tr ier of fact to understa nd th e ev ide nce or

to deter mine a fact in is sue, a w it ness q ual ified as an e x per t by kn ow led g e, sk il l, ex per ien ce, train ing , or educ ati on may

tes ti fy thereto i n t h e f o rm of an opi nio n or other w is e." Id. (cit in g T EX . R. E V ID . 702). And thi rd , Rul es 401 and 402 render tes ti mony admis si ble onl y

i f ittends to make the ex is tenc e of any fact t hat i s o f conse q uence to the deter minat ion of the a ction m o re p ro babl e or l ess probabl e tha n i t w oul d be w it hout the
ev ide nce. Id. (cit in g T EX . R. E V ID . 401, 402)

. Th ese rules require a trial judge to ma ke thre e sep arate inquiri es, w hich m ust all be met before a dmit ti ng ex per t t est imony : "(1 ) the w it ness q ual ifies as an e x per t by reason of his kn ow led g e, s ki ll , ex per ien ce, train ing , or educ ati on; ( 2) the subj ectmatte r of the tes ti mony

i s a n appropr iat e one for ex per t tes ti mony ; and (3 ) admit ti ng the ex per t t est imony
w il l act ual ly

as si st the fact -fin der

i n dec idi ng t h e c a se." Id. at 131 . Th ese co nditio ns are20

commonl y

referred to as : (1 ) q ual ific ati on, ( 2) reli abi li ty , and ( 3) rele v ance. Id. A w it ness mustfirst hav e a s uff ic ien t bac kg ro und i n a p arti cul ar fiel d , but a tr ial jud g e mustthen dete rmi ne w hether that back g ro und "g oes to t he v er y matte r on w hic h [t he
w it ness ] i s t o g iv e an opi nio n." Id. (cit in g Br oder s v . Heis e 9 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 3 (T e x. 1 9 9 6 ) (ci ti n g Christoph ersen v. Allied-Signa l Corp

. , 9 3 9 F

. 2 d 1 1 0 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1) ); see als o Gamm ill v. Jack W illiam s Chevrolet, Inc. , 972 S.W .2d 713, 719 ( Tex . 199 8) ( "Jus t as not e v er y phy si ci an i s q ual ified to tes ti fy as an ex per t i n ev er y medi cal mal pract ic e c ase, not e v er y mecha nic al eng ine er

i s q ual ified to tes ti fy as an ex per t in ev er y product s l iab il ity cas e.") The proponentof the tes ti mony

has the burden to show that the ex per

t "pos ses ses sp e cia l kn o wled ge a s to t h e ve ry m a tt e r o n wh ich h e p ro p o se s t o give a n op in io n ." 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVID EN CE : CI VIL AND CR IM IN AL § 1401, at 32 (Tex as Pract ic e 3d ed. 1980) ; Ma tso n v

. St ate , 819 S.W .2d 839 , 851 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91). Dr . M atti oli admi tted he w as not a forens ic pathol og is t. F orensi c p athol og y i s a su bspec ial ity

of pathol og y . Ma tti oli pract ice d i n the area of anato mic al pathol og y for a l ocal hospi tal , notas a forensi c p athol og is t. H e s tated hi s a utops ie s were conduct ed i n the
s a m e m a n n e r a s t h e S t a t e ’s e xp e rt F a rl e y. Ho we ve r, Ma t t io li d id n o t s e e t h e vic t im ’s b o d y. He did n’tor

w oul d notco nsi der

the pol ic e repor

t. M atti oli had not p er

formed aut opsi es on strangulat ions, d e-com pose d b o dies, o r any oth er criminal case s including hom icides in
ov er tw enty y ears. W hil e the w it ness had g iv en deposi ti on testi mony , he had nottes ti fied
as an ex per

t in a tr ial pri or

to thi s cas e. Hi s las t for mal train ing in performi ng auto psi es w as o ve r t h irt y ye a rs e a rl ie r, a lt h o u gh h e st u d ie d a n d a t t e n d e d m e d ic a l c o n fe re n c e s re gu la rl y. W e f ind th at th e trial courtc o u ld have reason ably conclude d tha t the defense did notdem onst rate th at Mattio li w as suf f icie n t ly qualif ied in the sub-spe ciality of foren sicAp pe l l an t a r gu es t ha t M at t i ol i ’ s t ec hn i qu es w ere n ev era l l ow ed i nt o t es t i m on y . Howe v er , a s we 3 n o te d in f r a , t h a t is th e b u r d e n o fth e p r o p o n e n t o fth e e x p e r t t o e s ta b lis h r e lia b ility.

Appel l ant ’ s pi n po i nt ci t e i s i naccur at e. 4 21 pathol og y . See M

ats on , 819 S.W .2d a t 851

. F u rt h e r, t h e t ri a l c o u rtco u ld h a ve re a s o n a b ly c o n c lu d e d t h a tMa t t io li ’s m e t h o d o lo gy, w it hout acc ess ing or v iew ing the cor pse, w as not s ci enti fical ly reli abl e. The proponentof

3
sc ien ti fic e v ide nce bears t he burden of prov ing to the tr ial cour t, by cl ear and conv inc ing evidence, thatt h e e v iden ce is suf f iciently relevant and reliable to assist th e jury in deter mini ng a fact in is sue. Layton v . St ate, 280 S.W .3d 235, 241 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) (c it ing , inter alia , Kel

ly v. Sta te , 824 S.W .2d 568 , 573 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 199 2)). The court als o i denti fied a nonex cl usi v e li st of fact ors that coul d i nfluenc e a t ri al cour t' s d eter minat ion of rel iab il ity . Thes e i ncl ude: (1) the extent to w hic h the theory and procedu re are ac cept ed
as v ali d by

the re lev ant s ci enti fic communi ty ; (2) the tec hni q ue's pote nti al ra te of er ro r; ( 3) the a v ail abi li ty

of ex per ts to t e st and ass ess the method o r tec hni q ue; ( 4) the cl ar ity and pr eci si on w it h w hic h the under ly ing sc ien ti fic p re mis e and approach can be e x pla ine d to the c our t; and ( 5) the know le d ge a n d ex per ien ce of the person( s) w ho appl ied the methodol og y

on t he oc cas ion i n q uest ion

. Id. Appel lan t c it es to Kelly and Neg ri

ni t o a rg u e t h a t i t w a s t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’s bur den t o under tak e a f u ll deter minat ion of re li abi li ty

. See Neg ri ni 853 S.W .2d a t 130 ; Kelly , 787 S.W .2d a t 548 ; W hil e i n one sens e thi s i s c or re ct, the burden of persuas ion i s u pon t he 4 proponent of t he ex pert t e st im o ny . Layton, 280 S. W .3d a t 241

. Onc e the proponent proff ers h er

ex per t, then the t ri al cour

t w oul d under

tak e i ts re spons ibi li ty

. Kelly s t a t e d , “ We need no t dec ide toda y w hat b urden of persuas ion i s a ppl ic abl e unde r Tex as Rul e of Criminal Evidence 7 02 when the scientif ic ev iden ce prof fered is not tru ly ‘novel.’” Kelly ,22

787 S.W .2d at 5 73. Kelly did hol d that in the cas e of nov el ev ide nce, the burden w as on the proponent

. Id. Neg ri ni hel d tha t t he burden of es tabl is hin g a w it ness 's q ual ific ati on as an ex per t l ies on t he party

seeki ng to off er

that w it ness 's tes ti mony . Neg ri ni, 853 S. W .2d at 13 1. W e reje ct appel lan t’ s a rg ument ab out t he burden of persuas ion

. W e c onc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by findi ng ei ther

the defense ex per

t w as not p ro v en to be q ual ified or hi s met hods re li abl e , o r b o th. See W eather re d , 15 S.W .3d a t 542

.

14 . Sudde n Pas si on I nst r uct i on In hi s fin al is sue, appe lla n t contends the t ri al cour t er re d by

refusing to g iv e a sudd en p assion inst ru c t io n during the guilt phase on the third coun t of tam pering. He ack now led g es the c hang e i n the l aw beg inn ing Sept emb e r 1 , 1 9 94, mak ing su dden pass ion a pu nis hment ph ase ins tr uct ion i n a murder ca se. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.0 2(d). 15. St andard of R ev i ew The t r i a l j u d g e h a s a n a b s o l u t e s u a s p o n t e d u t y t o p r e p a r e a j u r

y c h a rg e t h at
acc uratel y

sets out the law

appl ic abl e to the s peci fic o ff ense charg ed. Del gado v. State , 2 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 9 ( T e x. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). I s s u e s t h a ti n vo lve d im in is h e d cu lp a b il it y, but n ot ac q uittal i n the f o rm of les ser-i ncl uded- off ense jur y i nst ru cti ons, need not b e submi tted sua spont e i f neith er si de req uest s s uch an i nst ru cti on. Id. 16 . Di sc uss i on Appel lan t arg ues that alt houg h s udden p ass ion i s n ow a pu nis hment i ss ue w it h the burd en p laced upo n the def end ant , the law rema ins tha t the instruction mustbe giv en if the re is som e evidence rasing the issue. Appe llant cites Tr evi no v . St ate , 100 S.W .3d 2 32,23

238 (Tex. Cr im. App

. 200 3). I t is true t his aut hority stat es a sud den passion charge shou ld be g iv en i f t here is some ev ide nce to suppo rt it , ev en i f the ev ide nce is w eak, i mpeached , cont ra dic ted, or

unbeli ev abl e. Id. Tr

evi no sta ted that the p re v iou s s tandard for submi ss ion of the charg e i s n ow

the same a s i t w as before t he l aw ch ang e pl aci ng the sudde n pas si on charg e in the puni shmentphas e. Id. This au tho rity , howev er, doe s not sup port ap pellan t’s cont enti on th at t he i nst ru cti on s houl d be g iv en i n the g uil t pha se. Appel lan t furt her

arg ues that the c harg e s houl d be g iv en bec ause itdeal s w it h the know led g e el ement i n tha t app ell ant h ad to kn ow thathe c ommitt ed murder or ag g ra v ated
assau lt. Accordin g to the argume nt, appe llant may have simply panicked w hen he f irst hid the b ody and the s ubseq uent condu ct w as a c onti nuati on of the sudde n pas si on. The Stat e notes that appel lan t ci tes no l eg al author ity su ppor ti ng hi s req uestfor t he charg e i n the g uil t pha se. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(i). W e agree w ith the State thatsince 1994, the i ss ue of s udden pass ion is g iv en to the jur y at the p uni shmentphas e of tr ial and then is g iv en in conne cti on w it h a murde r charg e, not a tamper ing charg e. See T EX . P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 19. 02( d)

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue. 17 . Concl usi on W e reform the j udg ment t o del ete t he c umulat ion order

. The ju dg ment and sent ence, as reformed, is aff ir med.
DO N W ITTIG J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of September , 200 9.