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

NO. 03-05 -0 0737-CR

K yle Wa de G r e e ne , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 56463 , HO NORAB LE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

O P I N I O N A jury convicted a

ppellant Kyle Wade Gr eene for the capital murde r of two pe rsons d u r in g th e s a me c r im in a l tr a n s action. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 19.03(a) (7)( A) (West Supp. 2006). The State did not see k the death p en al t y , an d the cour t assessed punishment at life imprisonment. Se e id

. § 12.31(a) ; Tex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 37.071, § 1 (West 2006). I n two issues on appea l, Gree ne conte sts the fac tual sufficie ncy of the e vidence and cla ims error in the jur y char g e. We will affir

m the conviction.
BACK GR OUND The bodies of

Gar y Ridley and Sheria L u nde we re f ound in a field ne ar K illeen on May 14 , 2 00 4. B oth

ha d b e e n sho t in the he a d. Rid le y and Lun de ha d b e e n r e po rt e d mi ssi ngin l a te Ap ri l afte r their f

riends noticed that their home appe are d abandone d and that their ve hicle s , in c lu d ing a b l ac k Do d ge p i cku

p t ru ck , we re m i s s i n g.2 Prior to his disappea

ranc e, Ridley had been c ollecting money in order to pur chase a
new trave l tr ailer. Ridley ’s friend Rodney Albertie te stified that Ridley hoped to obtain this money throug h the illicit sale of fire arms. Alber tie rec ounted how, on the da y they disappea red, Ridley

and Lunde stopped at his home and Ridley told him that he and Lunde we re on the ir way to sell a g un. Ridley showed Albe rtie the g un, and Albertie noticed some of the wea pon’s unique fe ature s such as ventilation hole s on the trig g er mecha nism. A 9 mm pistol rec overe d by the police fr om Gree ne’s pic ku p tr uc k a ft e r G re e ne ’s a rr e st w a s id e nti fi e d b y Al be rt ie a s th e we a

po n Ri dle y

sh ow e d h im. Be ll Count y

Sheriff’ s Deputy

Tim St eg lich was assig ned to investig ate the c ouple’s disappea ranc e. Dur ing the investigation, Steg lich lear ned that Ridley had told a friend that he was g oing to se ll a g un to a man who drove a pink truck and “lived off Elms Road.” Steg lich testified that he proc eede d to Elms R oad and observe d a pink truck dr iving a way . He f ollowed the truc k and deter mined that Gre ene w as driving . Steglich c onfronted G ree ne and a sked him if he knew the location of Ridley ’s black D odg e truc k. Steglich te stified that Gre ene acknowle dg ed knowing the location of the truc k, direc ted Steg lich to the location, and g ave him the key s to the vehicle. G ree ne tol d St e g lic h th at he c a me int o po sse ssi on of the Do dg e pic ku

p tr uc k th ro ug h h is friend Rooseve lt Day

mon. Steglich located and interviewe d Day mon. Day

mon told Steglich that it was Gree ne who was r esponsible for obta ining Ridley ’s truck. When Steg lich confr onted Gre en e w it h D a y mo n ’s statement, Gre ene told Steglich that “Da y mon ha d showed him a location where the bodies of the two missing per sons might be f ound.” Gr eene told Steg lich that the location wa s “nea r the [Killeen] airport.” The bodies of

the two victims were found at the pla ce G ree ne desc ribed.3 Gr e e ne gave tw o han dwr itten state me nts that we re a dmi tte d int o e vid e nc e . In h is statement on May

14, 2004, Gre ene sa id that he met Ridley throug h a mutual friend and lea rned that R i d l e y o c c a s i o n a l l y s o l d

f i r e a r m s . A f e w d a ys l a t e r , G r e e n e p u r c h a s e d a 9 m m p i s t o l f

r o m R i d l e y, althoug h the statement sug g ests that Day mon took possession of the we apon. About two we eks af ter this, Ri dley

showed Gr eene another

9 mm pist ol and offe red to s el l i t fo r $ 2 5 0. Gre ene sa id that when he told Day

mon and another

friend, K oran Small, about the sec ond pistol, t hey decide d to steal t h e p i s t o l f

r o m R i d l e y. Acc ording to this st atement, Gr eene c a ll ed Ridley and told him that he had a c ustomer fo r t he pis tol

. On Ap ri l 26 , Rid le y a nd Lun de me t G re e ne a t G re e ne ’s ho us e . T he y the n d ro ve to t h e f i e l d i n R i d l e y ’ s p i c k

u p t r u c k , w h e r e t h e y w e r e j o i n e d b y D a y m o n a n d S m a l l , w h o a r

r i v e d in Small’s car. The four men g ot out of the two vehicles and, when Gre ene w as not looking, Small shot Rid le y . W hen Lun de g ot o ut o f t he pic ku p to se e wh a t ha d h a

pp e ne d, Sma ll a lso sh ot h e r. I n h is May 1 4 s t atement, Gr eene admitted participating in the planne d robber y , but he denied a

ny prior knowledg e of the shootings. He also said that L unde wa s not supposed to have be en p r e s e n ta tt h e r o b b e r

y. Gre ene g ave another written statement on May 21. I t was substantially

simil ar to the May 14 statem en t , b u t i n it Gree ne said that a lthough Da y mon had orig inally

sug g ested robbing Ridley , Day

mon did not participate in the c rime and w as not p re s en t when the murders w ere committed.

Gre ene’ s claim that Small shot Ridley and Lunde was contra dicted by two witnesses for the State. D ay

mon testified that he was not present whe n the robbe ry took place but that Gr eene told him what had happene d afte rwa rds. Acc ording to Day

mon, Gre ene sa id that he per sonally shot4

both victims and describe d shooting Ridley in the fac e. Day mon te stified that he “just didn’t believe it at f ir st” bu t, o nc e he wa s in te rv ie we d b y Steglich , the s itu a tio n b e c a me mor e “ re a l” to h im. Another f riend of G ree ne’s, Anthony Edwar ds, also testif

i ed t h at Gre ene told him that he had pe rs on a lly

sh ot b oth vic tim s.
DI SCU SSIO N The trial c ourt’s cha

rg e conta in ed i n s t ru cti ons on the abstra ct law of parties a nd criminal responsibili ty

for the c onduct of a

nother. See Tex. Pena l Code Ann. § 7.01(a) (West 2003) (p a rt ie s g e ne ra lly

); id . § 7. 02 (a )( 2) (a idi ngor e nc oura g ingano th er to co mmi t an o ff e ns e ); id

. § 7.02(b) ( fel o n y co m m i t ted in course of conspira cy to commit another fe lony). The a pplication para g raph r efe rre d the jury to “the for eg oing instruc tions and definitions” and a uthorized appellant’s conviction for c apital murde r i f t h e j u ry found beyond a re asonable doubt that appellant, “e ither acting alone or

as a pa rty with Koran Small,” c aused the d ea t h s of Ridley and L unde by shooting them in the course of the same criminal transa ction.

Gre ene c ontends in his first issue that the evidence is fac tually insufficient to support his conviction for c apital murder beca use he did not expect Lunde to be pr esent duringthe robbe ry and, ther efor e, “c ould not have anticipated her death as a result of a conspirac y to rob the dec ease d, Ridley .” In his second issue, Gr eene urg es t hat t he application para g raph of the cour t’s char g e fa iled to p ro pe rl y

a pp ly the law r e g a rd ing c ri min a l re sp on sib ili ty fo r a c ts c omm itt e d b y

c o- c on sp ir a tor s to the fa cts of the c ase.
Suf fi ciency of the Evidence

When there is a c halleng e to the suff iciency of the e vidence t o sustain a cr iminal conviction, the question prese nted is w hether a rational trier of fac t c ould have f ound the essential5

elements of the offe nse bey ond a rea sonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (l e g a l su ff

ic ie nc y ); Gr if fi n v. Stat e , 614 S.W .2d 155, 158-59 (Te x . Crim. App. 1981) (leg al
su ff ic ie nc y ); J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (fac tual sufficie ncy ). In a le g a l su ff ic ie nc y re vie w, a ll the e vid e nc e is r e vie we d in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra

ble to the ve rd ic t; it is assumed that the trie r of fact re solved conflicts in the testimony , weig hed the e vidence , and dre w
rea sonable infe re n ce s in a manner that supports the verdic t. Gr iff in , 614 S.W .2d at 159 (c iting Jack son , 443 U.S. at 318-19). I n a factual sufficiency revie w, we view the evide nce in a neutra l light and ask w h et h er a jury

was ra tionally justified in finding g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. See W ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 41 4 (T ex . C ri m . App. 2006). We then de termine whe ther the evidenc e supporting the ver dict is so weak that the ve rdict is clea rly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the verdict is ag ainst the gre at weight and preponde ranc e of the conflicting e vidence

. Id

. a t 41 5. We w ill no t re ve rs e a c a se on a fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y c ha lle ng e un le ss w e c a n s a y , w ithso me objective ba sis in the recor d, that the g reat weig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e contr adicts the jury ’s ver dict. Id . at 417.

The jury is the exclusive judge of the fa cts, the cr edibility of the witnesse s, and the weig ht to be g iven to the witnesses’ te stimony

. J ag ge rs v. S tate , 125 S.W .3d 661, 670 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n [ 1 s t Di s t
. ] 2 0 0 3 , p et
. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Pe nagrap h v . S tat e , 623 S.W .2d 341, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)). An appellate court must be appr opriately defe rential to the fa ct-finde r’s
ro le a t tr ia l. Ha rv e

yv . S tat e , 1 3 5 S
. W
. 3 d 7 1 2 , 7 1 7 (T ex . Ap p . — Da l l as 2 0 0 3 , n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Jones

v . S tat e , 944 S.W .2d 642, 647-48 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996)). The jury may believe a ll, some, or none of any witness’s testimony

. Sh ar p v . S tat e , 707 S.W .2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); J ag ge rs , 125 S.W .3d at 670.6 A p e rs on c omm its c a

pit a l murd e r i f h e int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

c a us e s th e de a th of more tha n o n e p er s o n during the same c riminal transac tion. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 19.03(a )(7) (A). T here is no require ment that the per son “anticipate” the de ath of one of the individ u a ls

. G r e e n e ’ s “ a n ti c ip a ti o n ” a r g u me n t is b a s e d o n o n e o f th e St a te ’ s th e o r ie s of the
c a se —th a t G re e ne a nd

Sma ll c on sp ir e d to c omm it r ob be ry a nd that th e mur de rs we re c omm itt e d in the furthe ranc e of that conspirac y . See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 7.02(b).

Th e c ourt ’s c ha

rg e a uth or ized th e jury

to c on vic t G re e ne of

c a pit a l murd e r i f i t believed from t he evidence bey ond a reasonable doubt that Gree ne, e ith e r a c tin g a lon e or a s a pa rt y with Koran Small, intentionally or knowing ly cause d the deaths of Ridley and L unde. When the trial court’s c harg e author izes t h e j u ry t o convict on more than one theor y , as it did in thi s case , the verdi ct of guilty

wi ll b e up he ld i f t

he e vid e nc e is s uf

fi c ie nt o n a

ny on e of the the or ie s. Gu e v ar a v . S

tat e , 1 52 S .W.3d

45 , 4 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); Ra bb an i v . S tat e , 847 S.W .2d 555, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

There is leg ally

and fa ctually

s u ff i ci en t evidence that Gre ene, a cting alone, c aused the deaths of both victims. Day mon and Edwa

rds both testified that Gre ene adm i t t ed t o t h em, at dif fe re nt t ime s, that he pe rs on a lly sh ot t he vic tim s. Da y mon te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Q : O k a y. A n d

w h a t

— w h a td i d h e t e l l yo u h a

p p e n e d o u t i n t h e c o u n t r

y s p e c i f i c a l l y? A: He s a id t

he y dr ov e ou t to the c ountr y . T he y sto pp e d to wh e re the y

fe lt c omf or ta ble . T he y

g ot o ut o f t

he t ruck . T he ma le —I ’m no t r e a lly

sure of his name —g ot o ut o f t

he tr uc k f ir st, wa lke d to wa

rd s th e fr on t of the tr

uc k. At that ti me I wa s told that he—Ky

le g ot out be hin d the ma le . He tur ne d a ro un d. He sh ot h im. The woma

n that was in the truc k g ot out, y ou know, wonder ing w hat ac tually was g oing on, w hat happe ned. . . . As she w alked a round she wa s shot also.7

Q: By who? A: Ky le, sir.

. . . . Q: Did he have a nickna

me that he liked to use? A: Yes, sir. Q: An d w hat w a s th a t? A: Hit Man. Q: Hit Man? A: Yes, sir. Q: And bac k when he was telling y ou that he—about the killing of the c ouple, did he tell y ou wher e he shot the ma le? A: Yes, sir. Q: Whe re wa s th a t? A: I n the fa ce. Q: Di d h e de sc ri be a ny

thi nga bo ut t he ma le ’s a

pp e a ra nc e a ft e r h e sh ot h im? A: J ust said that his ey e, y ou know, bulg ed out of his hea d. Day mon confirmed this testimony during cross-e x amination: Q : D i d K yl e t e l l yo ut h a th e h a d

s h o tS h e r

r y? A: Yes, sir. Q : W h e r e d i d

h e t e l l yo uh e s h o tS h e r

r y? A: I n the hea d also.8

Q: I n the hea d also? A: Yes, sir.
E dw a r d s ’ s t e s t i m o n y l a r g e l y m i r r o r e d a n d c o r r o b o r a t e d D a ym o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y: A: He [Gree ne] said that he killed the people. Q: Okay . And did he tell y ou how? A: B ri e fl y

he sa id h e sh ot s ome bo dy in t he he a d a nd in t he c he st. Q: Wha t w a s y our r e a c tio n to that? A: Ithought he was just joking. I mean, ever

y body just talks. Ifig ured that he was j o k i n g s o I j u s tb r

u s h e d i to f f

. B u te v e n tu a l l y— Q : D i d h e t e l l yo uw h a th e d i d

w i t h t h e b o dy? A: Yea h. He sa id he put them over the re by the air field, what they say on top of the hil l. Q: Di d h e te ll y ou

wh y he sh ot t he m? A: For a g un. Q: When he was telling y ou this, describe the way that he wa s—he wa s telling y ou as fa r a s h i s d em ea n o r, t h e w ay h e w as s t an d i n g an d

wh at h e w as d o i n g? A: Idon’t reme mber a ll that. He just—He wa s telling me—I mean, he looked serious, and he didn’t look like he was playing, but at the same time I fig ured that he was. . . .
On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Ed

wa rd s p e rs is t e d

i n h i s t e s t i m o ny

t h a t G r e e n e a dmi tte d s ho oti ngthe vic tim s: Q: So it’s y our testimony

then that on Sunday

Kyle Gre ene is te lling y ou that he shot Ga ry in t he fa c e a nd

in t he c he st?9

A: I don’t know who Gar y is. I don’t reme mber ex actly what day it was, but t hat’s what he sa id. Q : A n d t h a th e s h o ta

l a dy. A: Idon’t reme mber. Q: The man a

nd the lady

y ou ref err ed to. A: Idon’t reme mber a ll that. He said he shot somebody in the head and chest. He sa id t hat w a s h im. Q: Ok a y . So he too k o wn e rs hip of that. A: That’s what he said. Q: I s it possi ble, Mr. Ed wa rd s , t hat he wa s ref err ing to the a

rticles in the newspa per— A: I t’s possible. Q: —th a t y ’a ll w e re ta lki nga bo ut? A: Iasked him. I

asked hi m , l ook, did y ou hear about the new s what happe ned on the newspa

per? He sa id that was me. Q: Th a t’ s w hat I ’m

a sk ingy ou . Wa s h e sa

y ingthat art ic le wa s a

bo ut t he m? A: Ab ou t th e m a s f

a r a s— Q: Ab ou t th e m. A: —with the people? Q: Yes, sir. A: He sa id t

hat w a s h im. Q : O k a y. A: He sa id t

hat w a s h im that di d it

.10 Gr e e ne a rgue s th a t D a y

mon and Ed wa rd s w e re no t c re dib le wi tne sse s. The jur y is the exclusive judge of the c redibility of the witnesse s. Se e J

ag ge rs , 125 S.W .3d at 670. The jury could have chosen to c redit the testimony of Da y mon and Edwa

rds and disbelieve Gre ene’ s selfse rv ingc la im that Sma ll s ho t th e vic tim s. I n a dd iti on , the jur y he a rd e vid e nc e that Gr e e ne wa s in po sse ssi on

of Rid le y ’s tr

uc k a nd kn e w wh e re the bo die s we re loc a te d. Vi e wi nga ll the e vid e nc e in the light most favor able to the jury ’s verdict, the evidence is leg ally sufficie nt to support a finding be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t G re e ne mur de re d Ri dle y a nd Lun de by his ow n c on du c t. The only evidenc e contr a d ic ti n g

th e te s ti mo ny

of Da y mon and Edwa

rds was G ree ne’s
ow n unc or

ro bo rate d s ta te me nts to the po lic e that Sma ll s ho t th e vic tim s. I t w a s n ot m a nif e stl y un jus t for th e ju

r y to c r e d it D a y mo n a n d E dw a r d s ’ s te s ti mo n y

a n d d is c o u n t a

p p e ll a n t’ s s e lf

- s e r v ing statements, and it was not a g ainst the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the e vidence for the jur y to c on c lud e that G re e ne mur de re d Ri dle y a nd Lun de by his ow n c on du c t. B e c a us e the jur

y wa s a uth or ize d to c on vic t G re e ne on the the or y that he pe rs on a lly murdere d the two victims and the evide nce is lega lly and fa ctually

sufficie nt to sustain the jury ’s gu i l t y verdic t on that theory , it is i rre levant whe ther the e vidence is factua lly sufficie nt to support Gre ene’ s conviction on the other the ories of c ulpability prese nted to the j ury

in the court’s c harg e. Gu e v ar a , 15 2 S.W. 3d a t 49 ; Rabbani , 847 S.W .2d at 558. Neve rtheless, in the intere st of justice, we will re view Gr eene ’s contention that the e vidence is factua lly insufficient with re spect to the
c o n s p i r a c y t h e o r

y o f p a rt i e s l i a

b i l i t y. I f a pers on c on sp ir e s w ithano the r t o c omm it a fe lony , h e is c ri min a lly

re sp on sib le for a ny other fe lony

committed by

his c o-conspirator if the offe nse was c ommitt ed in furthe ranc e of the conspira cy

and wa s one that s h o u l d h ave be en anticipa ted as a result of c arr

y ing out the11

conspi rac y . Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 7.02(b). Gr eene does not deny that the State prove d that he
c on sp ir e d w ithSma ll t o r ob Rid le y , a nd he c on c e des th at the e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a finding that he should have anticipated that Ridl ey would be murde red as a re sult of car rying out the conspirac y . He insists, however , that th e j u ry co uld not reasona bly believe that he should have anticipated L

unde’s murde r bec ause, a ccor ding to his May 14 statement, L unde wa s not supposed t o b e a tt h e s c e n e o f

t h e r o b b e r

y. Ev e n if we a ssume that wh e n the y we re pla nn ing the ro bb e ry , Gr e e ne a nd Sma ll d id
no t ant ic ipate that L un de wo uld a c c omp a ny Rid le y wh e n he c a me to s e ll the m th e se c on d p ist ol, it do e s n ot f

oll owthat th e e vid e nc e is f a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingthat G re e ne sh ou ld have a nticipated Lun d e’s murde r as a result of c arr

y ing out the c onspiracy . I n that same May 14 statement, Gre ene sa id that Ridl ey and L unde c am e to hi s house ea rly on the day

of the planne d robber y . He, Ridley , and L

unde then wa ited for Small to ar rive. Small was dela

y ed bec ause he was
wa i t i n g fo r hi s gi rl fr i en d t o go t o wo rk , af t er wh i ch h e c o u l d

u s e t h e c ar . W h i l e t h ey

we re wa i t i n g, Small called Gre ene’ s house and a sked Gre ene if Ridley had the pistol and if the plan “ was g oing to g o d ow n. ” Th e jur

y c ou ld re a so na

bly c on c lud e that by thi s time , it wa s o bv iou s th a t L un de wo uld be a w itness to the robber y and that Gre ene should have anticipated that if Ridley was to be kill ed, Lunde would be killed a lso. I t is not c ontrary to the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e fo r the jur y to fi nd be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t that Gr e e ne sh ou ld h a ve a nti c ipate d th a t L un de wo uld b e m u r d e r e d

a s a r e s u l to f t h e c a r r yi n g o u to f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y t o r o b R i d l e y. We overrule Gre ene’ s first issue.12

The Jury Charge

I n his se cond issue, Gre ene contends that the jury char g e failed to properly apply the l a w r e g a r d i n g c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e c o n d u c to f a n o t h e r t o t h e f

a c t s o f t h e c a s e . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, he ar g ues that the a

pplication para g raph f

ailed to incorpor ate the la w re g ardingcriminal responsibility

for a crime c ommitt ed by

a co- conspirator

. Gre ene did not objec t to this at trial, but he now a sserts it as fundame ntal char g e er ror . Se e Al

ma nz a v . S

tat e , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on re h’g ).

Part I V o f t he tr ia l court ’s jur

y c ha rg e ins tr uc te d th e jur

y tha t a pe rs on is c ri min a lly responsible a s a par

ty to an offe nse if the offe nse is committed by his own conduct or by

the conduc t of anothe r for

which he is c riminally

responsible. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 7.01(a)

. Part I V of the cha rg e we nt on to tell the jury that a person is criminally responsible for an off ense c ommitt ed by the conduc t of another

if, ac ting with the intent t o p ro mote or assist the commission of the offe nse, he solicits, enc ourag es, direc ts, aids, or attempts to ai d t h e o t h er person to commit the offe nse. Se e id . § 7. 02 (a )( 2)

. I n pa rt V of the c ha

rg e , the c ourt tol d the jur

y that if in the a tte mpt

to
c a rr y ou t a c on sp ir a c y

to c omm it o ne fe lony , a

no the r f e lony is c omm itt e d b y

on e of the c on sp ir a tor s,
a ll t h e c o n s p i r a t o r s a r e g u i l t y o f t h e f e l o n y a c tu a l l y c o m m i t t e d i f t h e o f f e n s e w a s c o m m itt e d in further ance of the unlaw ful purpose and was one that should have be en anticipated as a result of
car rying out the c onspiracy

. Se e id . § 7.02(b).

The a pplication para g raph did not expli citly apply the abstrac t la w of parties to the fac ts of the ca se. I nstead, it ref err ed the jury

to “the for eg oing inst ru ct i o n s an d definitions” and authorized appe llant’s conviction for capital murder if the jury found that appe llant, “either actingI n its brief to this Court, the St ate a rg ues that culpability

as a c o-conspirator is not part of 1 the law of parties. This is inc orre ct. Section 7.02(b) define s one manne r in which a person c an be held cr iminally

responsible for

the conduc t of another

and henc e a pa

rty to the offe nse under

section 7.01(a)

. 13 alone or as a party with Kora n Small,” cause d the deaths of Ridley and L unde in the cour se of the
same c riminal transac tion.

“The application parag raph of a jury char g e is that which author izes conviction, and an abstra ct cha

rg e on a the ory

o f l aw wh i ch i s not applied to the fa cts is insufficient to bring that theory befor e t h e jury .” Cam

pb e ll v . S tat e , 910 S.W .2d 475, 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (citing J on es v . S tat e , 815 S.W .2d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). I t is err or for a trial court to instruct the jury on the law of parties in the abstrac t portion of the cha rg e but then fa il to apply

or re fer to that law in the application parag raph of the cha rg e. Id . But where t h e charg e includes a bstract instructions on the law of pa rties and the a

pplication para g raph in co rporates those instructions by ref ere nce—that is, where the application para g raph authorizes the defe ndant’s conviction based on

a f i n d i n g t h a th e a c t e d

“ a l o n e o r a s a p a rt y”

—t h e j u r y i s a u t h o r i z e d t o c o n v i c to n t h e p a rt i e s t h e o r y. Marvi s v . S tat e , 36 S.W .3d 878, 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Cam pb e ll , 9 1 0 S. W. 2 d

at 477; Cha tm an v . S

tat e , 8 46 S.W. 2d

32 9, 33 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). Th e c ourt ’s c ha rg e in t his c a us e
wa s a de qu a te to au tho ri ze Gr e e ne ’s c on vic tio n for the c a pit a l mur de rs of Rid le y a nd Lun de by his
ow n c on du c t and

by Sma ll’ s c on duct for whic h G re e ne wa s c ri min a lly re sp on sib le a s a

pa rt y pursuant to sec tions 7.02(a)(2) and 7.02(b)

. 1

Gre ene argues that the application para g raph should ha ve direc tly applied the law of parties , an d

i n p ar t i cu l ar

t h e l aw re gar d i n g cr i m i n al re s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r t h e c o n d

u ct o f a co -c o n s p i ra tor,For an examp l e o f a d i re ct application of the law of pa rties to the fa cts of a c ase, se e 2 Cam pb e ll v . S tat e , 910 S.W .2d 475, 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 14 to t he fa c ts o f t

he c a se . G re e ne wa s e nti tle d to have the law o f p a rt ie s a pp lie d d ir e c tly

to t he fa c ts, and cha rg e er ror would be presented if a request for suc h an application of the law to the fa cts had been r efuse d by

the trial cour

t. Se e Cam

pb e ll , 91 0 S.W. 2d a t 47 7; J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 739 S.W .2d 299, 30 5 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 87 ); Go v an v . S tat e , 6 8 2 S. W. 2 d 5 6 7 , 5 6 8

- 6 9 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1985); J a y c o n v . S t a te , 6 5 1 S.W .2d 803, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). I n the abse nce of a re quest or 2 ob je c tio n, ho we ve r, the tr ia l court ’s c ha rg e wa s a de qu ate to a

uth or ize Gr e e ne ’s c on vic tio n a s a pa rt y and the c ourt’s fa ilure to direc tly apply the law of

parties to the fac ts w as not fundame ntal err or. See Ma rv is , 3 6 S. W.3 d at 87 9- 80 ; Chatman , 846 S.W .2d at 332.

Gre e ne points out that while deliberating his g uilt, the jury sent the cour

t a note asking fo r a c lari fi c a tio n o f p a rt V of the c ha rg e . A ft e r r e fe rr ingto t

he statut or

y re qu ir e me nt t

hat th e of fe ns e committed in furthera

nce of the conspira cy

be one that should ha

ve been anticipated, the jury asked,

“ An tic ipate d b y

the a c c us e d?” T he c ourt

de c lin e d to a ns we r t

he qu e sti on

a nd ins tr uc te d th e jur

y to continue deliber ating . Gre ene a rg ues that had the application parag raph dire ctly applied the law

of parties to the fac ts r ather than mere ly incorporating that law by ref ere nce, there would have been no question on the ju ry ’s par t about the nec essity

for f inding that Gr eene should have anticipated the murders.

We ha ve alre ady held that the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support Gree ne’s c onviction pursuant to sec tion 7.02(b) an d , in particular , to support a finding that Gre ene should have anticipated that Small would m urder Lunde in the cour se of c arr y ing out their

conspirac y

to rob15

Rid le y . We a lso no te th at du ri ngthe ir argume nts to t

he jur y , b oth the pr os e c uto rs and

de fe ns e counsel discussed the conspirac y theory of parties liability with specific r efe renc e to the question of whether Gre ene should have anticipated that Sma l l wo u l d m u rder Ridley and L unde. The prosec utors vi go ro u s ly

asser ted that the evide nce suppor ted a f inding that Gr eene should have anticipated the murders, w hile defe nse counsel wer e adamant t hat the evide nce did not wa rra nt such

a fi nd ing . Co ns ide ri ngthe re c or d a s a wh ole , we ho ld that the tr ia l cou rt ’s fa ilure to d ir e c tly

a pp ly the law of criminal re sponsibili ty for the conduct of a co-conspirator to the facts of t he case wa s not so eg reg iously

harmful a s to deny

Gre ene a fair tr ial. Se e Al

ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171. The sec ond issue is overrule d.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 28, 2007 Pub lis h