1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07- 048- CR
J AR E D D W AY NE B I R M I NGH AM AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 396TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l ant Jar ed D w ayne Bi r m i ngh am appeal s hi s convi ct i on f o r c a pi t al
m u r d e r . In t h r e e p o in t s , h e a r g u e st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rte r r e d b yd e n y in g h is
m o ti o n to s u p p res s e v i d e n c e all e g e d l yo b tai n e d thro u g h co e rci o n , a b u s e d i ts di scr et i on byf ai l i ng t o m ake f i ndi ngs of f act and con cl usi ons ofl aw , and t hat2

t he evi dence i s f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci entt o pr ove t hatA ppel l anti nt ended t o cause th e d e a th o f th e v i c ti m . W e a ffir m . Back gr ound O n D ecem ber20 , 20 05 , Sy ed S adi q and S hekhar R egm i w er e w or ki ng at a Fi na gas s ta ti on and conven i ence st or e i n A r l i ngton, Texas. Sadi q t est i f i ed t hatj ustbef or e hi s shi f tended at11 :0 0 p . m . , he w as si t t i ng on a cabi net behi nd t he coun t er , t aki ng car e ofpaperw o rk o u toft he vi ew ofcust om er s,
w hen hehe ar d t he doorope n a nd s t ood u p t o se e a m a s k e d f i gur e e nt ert he
s to re . T h e m a n h e a d e d to w a rd th e s to c k ro o m a t th e b a c k o f th e s to re , w h e re Regm iw asw or ki ng. Sadi q s t art ed t ow ar d th e s t ock r oom door , butt hen he hear d a gun shot and r an and hi d i n a cool er . N oi se f r om th e c o o le r fan pr eve nt ed Sadi q f r om he ar i ng w hatw as hap pen i ng i n t he st or e. A ft er f ouror f i ve m i nut es , Sadi q l ook ed t hr ough t he coo l er w i ndow , and not se ei ng a nyon e i ns i de t he st or e, ex i t ed t he coo l er . H e ca l l ed 911 , t hen t ur ned a cor ner i n t he
s to re a n d fo u n d R e g m il y i n g fa c e d o w n o n th e fl o o r i n a p o o l o f b l o o d . R e g m i h a d b e e n s h o tin t h e b a c ko ft h e h e a d . H e la t e rd ie d a tH a r r is H os pi t al . M edi ca l ex am i ner N i z am Pee r w anit es t i f i ed t hatRegm iw aski l l ed by a l oos e- con t ac tguns hotw ound, m ea ni ng t hatt he m uz z l e o ft he gun w asno m o re th a n tw o i n c h e sfro m h i ss k u l l . T h e b u l l e t e n te re d th e b a c k o f R e g m i ’s head and exi t ed t hr oug h t he t op of hi s skul l . A l t hou gh t he bul l etdi d not pass3

t hr ough anyvi t albr ai n s t r uct ur es and dea t h w as not i ns t ant ane ous , t he t r aum a to th e b ra i n w a ss o d e v a s ta ti n g th a t d e a th w a si n e v i ta b l e . A t i m e- l apse survei l l ance vi deo f r om t he conv eni ence st or e, w hi ch w as adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence and show n t o t he j ur y, show s t w o m asked and gl oved
m en w al k i nt o t he st or e. A bout a m i nut e l at er , t he vi ct i m ap pea r s on t he vi deo , hol di ng bo t h han ds by hi s hea d. O ne of t he m as ke d m en gr as pst he bac k o ft he vi ct i m ’ s sh i rti n hi s l eftha nd and poi nt s a r evo l veratt he vi ct i m w i t h hi s r i ght han d, s om et i m espr es si ng t he m uz z l e i nt o t he vi ct i m ’ s hai r . The vi deo s how s t he gunm an st r ai ght en hi s l eftar m , ap par ent l y pu sh i ng t he vi ct i m f or w ar d,
w hi l e t he gunm an st eps bac k w i t h t he pi st ol poi nt ed att he vi ct i m ’ s hea d. The vi ct i m ’ s hai rbl ow s f or w ar d ov erhi s hea d— evi den t l y f r om t he bl as toft he pi st ol sh ot
— and he col l aps es f or w ar d i nt o so m e s hel vi ng. The gunm an r unsf r om t he st or e bef or e t he vi ct i m even hi t s th e f l oor , w i t h t he ot herm asked m an cl ose b e h i n d . Pol i cer el ea se d s t i l l s of t he vi deo t o t he m edi a i n t he hopeofde vel opi ng a l ead t o sol ve t he case. Theyr ecei ved a ti p, on t he basi s ofw hi ch t hey devel oped D ar ryl Q ui non es as a suspect . Q ui non es cooper at ed w i t h t he pol i ce a n d te s ti fi e d a t t r i a l . Q u i n o n e ste s ti fi e d th a t o n th e d a yo f th e m u rd e r, A p p e l l a n t an d J u l i s P e ral e s w e n t t o h i s h o u se an d as k e d h i m i f he w a n ted to rob so m e o n e for C h ri stm a s m o n e y . Q u i n o n e s a g ree d a n d g o t i n to th e c a r w i th2 ... T h e te l e v i s i o n w a so n t o p o f a c o o l e r w h e re c u s to m e rsa n d s to re

em pl oye es c o ul d w at ch i t . Af t ert he att em pt ed r obbe ry, pol i cef ound t he te l e v i s i o n b ro k e n o n th e fl o o r. 4 t he ot hert w o. As t heydr ove , t he ot her s t ol d hi m t hat t hey w er e g oi ng t o r ob a F i na st at i on a nd t al ke d a boutt ak i ng a pl as m a te l evi si on a nd s om e m one y. A ppe l l ant , w ho w as dr i vi ng, pa r ke d be hi nd a m ot elne art he Fi na st at i on a nd sentQ ui non es i nt o t he st or e t o see i fi thad a p la s m a te levi si on and w het her any po l i ce of f i cer s w er e i n t he ar ea. Q ui non es w enti nt o t he st or e and saw a pl as m a t el evi si on but no po l i ce of f i cer s. H e r et ur ned t o t he carand r eport ed 2 h i s fi n d i n g sto th e o th e rs . Qu i n o n e st e s t i f i e d t h a tAp p e l l a n ta n d P e r a l e s p u t o n t o b o g g a n h a t s . On t h e rid e t o t h e F in a s t a t io n , A p p e lla n th a d s h o w n Q u in o n e sa g u n b u tt o ld h im i tw as not l oad ed. But as A ppe l l ant and Per al esgotoutoft he ca r , Per al ess ai d, “W at ch out, i t ’ s l oaded . ” A ppel l antputt he gun dow n t he f r ont of hi s pant s, a n d h e a n d P e r a le sw a lk e d t o t h e F in a s t a t io n . Q u in o n e ss a tin t h e c a rw h ile th e yw e re g o n e . Q ui non es t est i f i ed t hat A ppel l ant and Per al es r et ur ned f i v e to s even m i nut esl at er . Theyw er e r unni ng, and A ppe l l antw asl i m pi ng. W hen t heygot i n t he ca r , Per al ess ai d, “ I th i n k y o u s hott hat[ m an] i n t he hea d. ” A ppe l l ant
s a id , “ I t h in kI s h o tm y s e lf in t h e f o o t ,” a n d h e s h o w e d Q u in o n e sa b lo o d yh o le5

i n hi s sh oe. Appel l antan d Pe r al esw er e a ggr ava t ed, s ca r ed, a n d a ngry a nd
w er e st r ugg l i ng w i t h each ot her f orcont r ol oft he gun . A ppel l antasked Per al es
w hy he had dr opp ed t he t el evi si on; Per al es s a id he di dn’ tknow . Q ui non es d rov e the ca r t o h i s h o u se . W h e n h e g o t o u t o f th e ca r, A p p e l l a n t t o l d h i m to be ca r ef ul an d nott o t el l hi s bes tf r i end w h a t h a d ha ppe ned . The nextda y, A ppe l l ant ca l l ed Q ui none s and as ke d hi m , “ [ D ] i d yo u he arab outs om e h oodl um s ki l l i ng som ebod y ata st or e l ast ni ght? , ” and l augh ed abou t i t . The S t at e pl ayed port i ons oft he Fi na st a tio n ’s survei l l ance vi deo, and Q ui non es i denti f i ed A p p e l l a n t a sth e s h o o te r fro m th e c l o th e sh e w a sw e a ri n g . Bas ed on i nf or m at i on pr ovi ded by Q ui none s, pol i ceobt ai ned a w ar r antf or A ppel l ant ’ s ar r est . Th ey ar r est ed A ppel l anti n hi s gi r l f r i end’ s apart m ent . They al so f ound a pi st ol i n t he apa rt m entaft erA ppe l l antt ol d t hem w her e t o l ookan d hi s gi r l f r i end co ns ent ed t o a se ar ch. The v ol unt ar i nes s ofA ppe l l ant ’ s st at em ent
r ega r di ng t he gun’ s l oca t i on a nd hi s gi r l f r i e n d ’s c o n se ntt o s ea r ch ar e t he
s u bje c t s o f A p p e lla n t ’s f ir s t p o in t , a n d w ew ill d is c u s st h e re le v a n te v id e n c e in
m or e d et ai l l at er i n t hi s opi ni on. Det ec t i ve Kyl e Di sh ko not i ce d t hatA ppe l l ant h a d a n in ju r e d t o e ; h e a s k e d A p p e lla n t ift h a tw a sw h e r e h e h a d s h o th im s e lf d u r in g t h e ro b b e ry , a n d A p p e lla n tin d ic a t e d t h a titw a s . P o lic e r e c o v e r e d a p a ir ofshoes f r om t he apart m ent ; t he l ef tshoe had a sm al l hol e i n t he t oe.6

Th e gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed A p p e ll a n tf orcapi t al m ur der . The S t at e l at er
w ai ved t he deat h penal t y. I n hi s openi ng st at em ent , A ppel l ant ’ s c o u nsel
con ce ded t hatA ppe l l ants hotan d k i l l ed t he vi ct i m butar gue d t hatt he sh oot i ng
w a s a c c id e n t a l. W h e t h e rA p p e lla n tin t e n d e d t o k ill t h e v ic t im w a sh o t ly
c o n te s te d a t tri a l . Jam i e Becker , a fire a r m s exam i nerw i t h t he T ar r antC oun t y M edi cal Exa m i ner ’ s of f i ce , t e s ti fi e d t hats he m at che d bul l etf r agm ent s f ound att he
cr i m e s ce ne t o t he pi st ol f ound i n t he apa rt m ent . Bec ke r e x pl ai ned t hatt he pi st ol i s a s i ngl e- ac t i on r evo l ver , m e a n i n g t hatt he sh oot erha d t o c ockt he ham m erbef or e pul l i ng t he t r i ggerand f i r i ng a shot . S he t est i f i ed t hatt he f or ce n e e d e d t o p u ll t h e p is t o l’s t r ig g e rra n g e d f r o m 3 . 6 3 t o 4 . 5 3 p o u n d s — w it h in f a c t o rys p e c if ic a t io n sf o rt h a tm o d e l— a n d t h a tt h e t r ig g e rw a sn o ta “ h a ir tri g g e r.”S h e a l s o te s ti f i e d t h a t th e h o l e i n th e s h o e s e i z e d fro m A p p e l l a n t’s g i rl fri e n d ’sa p a rtm e n t w a sa b u l l e t h o l e . The j ury de t er m i ned t hatA ppe l l antdi d i nt end t o k i l l th e v i ct i m an d
c o n v ic t e d h im o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r , a n d t h e t r ia l c o u rts e n t e n c e d h im t o lif e in p ri s o n .7 D i sc us si on 1. S upp r essi on of Evi dence In h is f ir s tp o in t , A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rt e r r e d b yd e n y in g h is
m ot i on t o suppr ess and adm i t t i ng i nt o evi dence st at em ent s A ppel l ant m ade at th e ti m e o f h i sa rre s t a n d th e i te m s s e i z e d d u ri n g th e s e a rc h o f h i sg i rl fri e n d ’s
a p a rt m e n t.
a. S t andar d ofRev i ew W e r evi ew a t r i al court ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess evi dence un der
a b i fu rc a te d s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . A m a do r v. S tate , 221 S. W . 3d 666 , 673 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); G uzm a nv. S tate , 955 S . W . 2d 85 , 89 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 199 7 ) . I n r e v i e wi n g t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ sd e c i s i o n , we d o n o te n g a g e i n o u row n fa c tu a l r e v i e w . Ro m ero v. S tate , 800 S . W . 2d 539, 543 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 0 ); Best v. S tate , 118 S. W . 3d 857, 861 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2003, no pet . ) . The t r i al j udge i s t he so l e t r i eroff ac tan d j udgeoft he cr edi bi l i t y oft he
w i tn e s s e sa n d th e w e i g h t to b e g i v e n th e i r te s ti m o n y . W i e dev. S tate , 214 S .W .3 d 1 7 , 2 4

– 2 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); S tate v. Ro ss , 32 S . W . 3d 853, 8 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), m odif i ed on other

groun ds by S tate v. Cul len , 195 S . W . 3d 69 6 ( Tex . C rim . A p p . 20 06 ) . Ther ef or e, w e gi ve al m ostt ot al d e f e r e n c e t o t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s r u lin g s o n (1 ) q u e s t io n s o f h is t o r ic a l f a c t , e v e n if t he t r i al cou rt ’ s det er m i nat i on oft hos e f ac t s w asnotba se d on an eva l uat i on of8

c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r, a n d (2 ) a p p l i c a ti o n -o f-l a w -to -fa c t q u e s ti o n sth a t tu rn o n a n e v a l u a ti o n o f c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r. A m ado r, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t673; Mo n tan ez v. S tate , 1 9 5 S .W .3 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 8

– 0 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); Jo hn so nv. S tate , 68 S. W . 3d 64 4, 65 2- 53 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 02 ) . But w hen app l i ca t i on- of

- l aw - t o- f ac tque st i onsdo not t ur n on t he cr edi bi l i t y a nd de m ea nor oft he w i t nes se s, w e r evi ew t he t r i alc o u rt’sr ul i ngson t hos e q ues t i onsde
n o v o . A m ado r, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 7 3 ; E stradav. S tate , 154 S. W . 3d 604, 607 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Johnson , 68 S . W . 3d a t652- 53. St at ed ano t her w ay, w hen r evi ew i ng t he t r i alco urt ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess, w e m ustvi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he t r i al
c o u rt’sru l i n g . W

i ede , 2 1 4S .W .3 d a t 2 4 ; S ta tev. Kelly , 204 S. W . 3d 808, 818 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). W h e n th e tri a l c o u rt m a k e s e x p l i c i t fa c t fi n d i n g s , w e det er m i ne w het hert he evi den ce , w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tf avo r abl e t o t he tri a l c o u rt’sru l i n g , su p p o rtsth o s e fa c t fi n d i n g s . Kelly , 204 S. W . 3d a t818– 19. W e t he n re v ie w th e t r i al court ’ s l egal r ul i ng de no vo un l ess i t s expl i ci tf act f i ndi ngst hatar e s upport ed by t he r ec or d ar e a l so di sp os i t i ve oft he l ega l r ul i ng. Id . a t819. W e m us tupho l d t he t r i al cou rt ’ s r ul i ng i f i t i s su pport ed by t he r ec or d a nd
c o rre c t u n d e r a n yth e o ryo f l a w a p p l i c a b l e to th e c a s e e v e n i f th e tri a l c o u rt g a v e th e w ro n g re a s o n fo r i ts ru l i n g . State v. Stevens , 235 S . W . 3d 736, 7403 ... See Mi randa v. A r

i zona , 384 U. S. 436, 86 S . Ct . 1602 ( 1966) .

9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); A rm en da ri z v. S tate , 123 S . W . 3d 401, 404 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 1 U .S . 9 7 4(2 0 0 4 ). b. Suppr es si on Hear i ng Test i m ony T h ree w i tn e ss e s te sti fi e d at th e h e a ri n g o n A p p e l l a n t’ s m o ti o n to
s u p p r e s s : D e t e c t iv e K y le D is h k o , A p p e lla n t , a n d A p p e lla n t ’s g ir lf r ie n d , N ic o le T r a m m e l. D et ec t i ve D i sh ko t es t i f i ed he obt ai ned a w ar r ant f or A ppe l l ant ’ s ar r es tan d l o c a te d A p p e l l a n t a t T ra m m e l ’s a p a rtm e n t. H e s a i d th a t h e a n d o th e r o ffice rs m adeco nt ac tw i t h Tr am m elout si de her apa rt m ent and as ke d he ri fA ppe l l ant
w as i nsi de. She fi r stdeni ed t hathe w as i n t he apart m ent , butt hen adm i t t ed t hat he w as . A not her det ec t i ve as ke d Tr am m el i f t he of f i ce r s cou l d e nt ert he apa rt m ent , an d s he con se nt ed. Det ec t i ve D i sh ko, D et ec t i ve Shin p a u g h , an d
ano t herof f i ce ren t er ed t he apa rt m ent , f ound A ppe l l ant
— w ho had j us tco m e o ut oft he sh ow eran d w asw ea r i ng o nl y bo xers hort s— i n a be dr oom , an d h a n d c u ffed h i m . D e t e c ti v e S h i n p a u g h , w h o h a d h e l d A p p e l l a n t at g u n p o i n t, hol st er ed hi s w eapon ; D et ect i ve D i shko’ s w eapon w as al so hol st er ed. Theysat A ppe l l anton t he bed , an d Det ec t i ve Shi npa ugh t ol d hi m he w as unde rar r es tf or c a p i t a l mu r d e r . De t e c t i v e Di s h k o a d v i s e d Ap p e l l a n t o fhi s Mi randar i ghts . 310

D e tec ti v e D i sh k o tes ti fi e d tha t h e as k e d A p p e l l a n t i f he u n d e rsto o d h i s ri g h ts
a n d th a t A p p e l l a n t i n d i c a te d th a t h e d i d b yn o d d i n g . D e tec ti v e D i sh k o tes ti fi e d th a t h e the n as k e d A p p e l l a n t i f he w a n ted to “s pea k t o m e abo ut w hat w as goi ng on” and t hatA ppe l l antag ai n a ns w er ed by
n o d d i n g ; D e te c ti v e D i s h k o a s k e d i f h e m e a n t “ y e s ,”a n d A p p e l l a n t s a i d , “Y e s .” D e t e c t iv e D is h k o a s k e d A p p e lla n t“ ift h e g u n h e u s e d t o s h o o tt h e m a n w a sin t he apa rt m ent ”; A ppe l l antdi d notr es pond. Det ec t i ve D i sh k o s a i d t hathe exp l a i n ed t o Appel l antt hat“ w e w er e g oi ng t o f i nd t he gun i fi tw asi n t he b e d r o o m o rin t h e a p a rt m e n ta n d t h a th isg ir lf r ie n d w a so u t s id e a n d t h a tit
w o u l d l o o kl i k e h e w a s c o o p e ra ti n g w i th u si f h e tu rn e d th e g u n o v e r to u s .” A p p e lla n td id n o tre s p o n d , b u th e d id a s kf o rs o m e c lo t h e s . A p p e lla n tt o ld De t e c t i v e Di s h k o wh a tc l o t h e sh e wa n t e d , a n d t h e d e t e c t i v e g o tt h em . D et ect i ve S hi npau gh t ol d A ppel l antt hat “w e w er e gon na f i nd t he gun anyw ay a n d h e d i d n o t w a n t us g o i n g thro u g h allh i s g i rl fr i e n d ’s th in g s, an d tha t w e
w oul d possi bl y [ obtai n] a s ear ch w ar r ant . ” D et ect i ve D i shko t est i f i ed t hat A ppel l antt hen s ai d, “[ Y ] ou go tm e, i t ’ s undert he dr esser . ” H e l ooked under t he dr esserand saw a bl ack bag, buthe di d not r em ove i t . D et ect i ve D i shko asked D et ect i ve S hi npau gh t o hel p A ppel l an t g e t d r essed. M eanw hi l e, D e te c ti v e D i s h k o w e n t o u ts i d e to ta l kto T ra m m e l .11

T ra m m e l w a ss i ttin g i n th e b a c ko f a p a tro l c a rw i th h e r ro o m m a te ; a pol i ce o ff ic e r w as si t t i ng i n t he f r ont seat . D et ect i ve D i shko expl ai ned t hat of f i cer s had seat ed heri n t he pat r ol carbecause i tw as a cool day and she w as
w ea r i ng s hort s a n d be ca us e m edi a p er so nne l w er e b egi nni ng t o a r r i ve on t he
s c e n e . H e to l d T ra m m e l th a t A p p e l l a n t w a su n d e r a rre s t f o r c a p i ta l m u rd e r, t hatA ppel l anthad sai d t he gun used i n t he ki l l i ng w as i n herbedr oom , and t hat t he pol i ce w ant ed t o sear ch herbedr oom f ort h e w eapon and t he cl ot hes A ppe l l antw asw ea r i ng at t he t i m e of t he ki l l i ng. Tr am m el sa i d sh e d i d notha ve a p r obl em w i t h l ett i ng t he pol i cei nt o her apa rt m ent . D et ec t i ve D i sh ko t hen got
a c ons entt o s ea r ch f or m an d w entove ri tl i ne by l i ne w i t h Tr am m el , and s he si gned t he f or m . D et ect i ve D i shko t hen w entback i nt o t he apart m ent , r em oved t he bag f r om undert he dr esser , opened i t , and f oun d t he pi st ol l at erdet er m i ned to b e th e m u rd e r w e a p o n . A p p e l l a n t te s ti fi e d th a t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e to l d D e te c ti v e D i s h k o w h e re th e g u n w a s i f t h e d e tec ti v e s h a d n o t to l d h i m th a t th e yw o u l d g e t a w a rr a n t, go t hr oug h T ra m m e l’s posses si ons, and f i nd t he gun anyw ay. O n cr osse x a m in a t io n , h e d e n ie d h a v in g t o ld t h e d e t e c t iv e s w h e r e t h e g u n w a s ; h e s a id th a t th e ys e a rc h e d th e ro o m w i th o u t a s k i n g a n d fo u n d th e g u n . Tr am m elt es t i f i ed t hats he r ea d t he con se ntf or m an d s i gne d i t , buts he
sa i d t hats he w oul d notha ve si gne d i t i f sh e h ad kno w n s he di d notha ve t o.12

S h e c ou l d no t r ec al l i f sh e m erel y r ea d t he co ns en t f orm t o he r sel f orif D et ecti ve D i shko expl ai ned i tt o her . She sai d t hatD et ect i ve D i shko t ol d her t h a tt h e yh a d f o u n d t h e g u n b e f o r e h e a s k e d h e rt o c o n s e n tt o t h e s e a r c h . On
cr oss- exam i nat i on, Tr am m el t est i f i ed t hati tw as “okay” w i t h heri fpol i ce s e a rc h e d h e r a p a rtm e n t a n d th a t h e r re g re t i n h a v i n g s i g n e d th e c o n s e n t fo rm ar os e f r om t he i nco nve ni enc e o fha vi ng t o t es t i f y a tt he su ppr es si on he ar i ng. A tt he con cl us i on oft he hea r i ng, t he t r i alco urtpr onoun ce d or alf i ndi ngs on t he r ec or d, i ncl udi ng f i ndi ngs t hatTr am m elga ve pol i ceco ns entt o e nt ert he apa rt m ent , t hat A ppe l l ant ’ s st at em ent s t o t he det ec t i ves w er e vol unt ary, an d th a t p o l i c e l o c a te d th e p i s to l a sa re s u l t o f A p p e l l a n t’ss ta te m e n ts to th e m . c. D i sc us si on i . A ppe l l ant ’ s st at em entrega r di ng pi st ol A ppe l l antf i r stco nt end s t hat hi s st at em ent t o D et ec t i ve D i sh ko t hat“ you got m e, [ t he pi st ol i s] under t he dr esser ” r esul t ed f r om pol i ce coer ci on becau se t he po li c e to l d hi m t hati tw oul d l ook l i ke he w as cooper at i ng i fhe t ol d t hem
w h e r e t h e g u n w a sa n d t h a tt h e yw o u ld g e t a s e a r c h w a r r a n ta n d “ t e a ru p ” h is g i rl fri e n d ’sp o s s e s s i o n si f h e d i d n ’t te l l th e m w h e re th e g u n w a s . A n a c c u s e d ’s s t a t e m e n tisa d m is s ib le e v id e n c e i f t h e a c c u s e d m a d e it fre e l ya n d v o l u n ta ri l ya n d w i th o u t c o m p u l s i o n o r p e rs u a s i o n . T EX . C ODE . C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art . 38 . 21 ( V er non 20 05 ) . W hen deci di ng w het hera st at em entw as13

vol unt ary, w e c ons i dert he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cum st anc es i n w hi ch t he st at em ent
w a s o b ta i n e d . Creager v. S ta te, 9 5 2 S. W . 2d 852, 855 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 7 ); Re e d

v. S ta te, 5 9 S .W .3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 1 , p e t.
re f’d ). Ac o n fe s s i o n i si n v o l u n ta ryi f c i rc u m s ta n c e ss h o w th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s
w i l l w a s “ o v e rb o rn e ” b yp o l i c e c o e rc i o n . Creag er, 9 5 2 S . W . 2 d a t8 5 6 . The def endan t ’ s w i l l m ay be “over bor ne” i ft he r ecor d show s t hatt her e w as “o f f i ci al , co er ci ve con duc tofs uch a nat ur e”t hata st at em entf r om t he defe n d a n tw as“ unl i ke l y t o ha ve bee n t he pr oduc tofan es se nt i al l y f r eean d
unco nst r ai ned choi ce by i t s m aker . ” A lva ra do v. S ta te, 912 S . W . 2d 199, 211 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1995 ) ; Frank v. State, 1 8 3 S .W .3 d 6 3 , 7 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W orth 2005, pe t . r ef ’ d) . An acc us ed’ s or als t at em entm adeasa r es ul tof
c u s to d i a l i n te rro g a ti o n i sa d m i s s i b l e i f i t c o n ta i n sa s s e rti o n so f fa c t th a t a re f oun d t o be t r ue and t hatt end t o est abl i sh t he gui l t of t he accused, such as a f i ndi ng of secr et ed pr opert y ort he i nst r um entw i t h w hi ch t he accused st at es th e o ffe n s e w a sc o m m i t te d . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art . 38 . 22 , § 3 ( c) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). I fa p ro m i se m ade by a per son i n aut hor i t y i ndu ced a conf essi on, t hen th a t c o n fe s s i o n i si n a d m i s s i b l e . Pen ryv. St at e , 9 0 3 S . W . 2d 715, 748 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 5 1 6 U .S . 9 7 7 (1 9 9 5 ); A lvarez v. S tate , 649 S. W . 2d 6 1 3 , 6 2 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ), cert. denied, 464 U . S. 849 ( 198 3) . But14

bef or e a pr om i sew i l l r end era con f es si on i nad m i ss i bl e , th e p r om i sem us tbe sh ow n t o ha ve i nduc ed t he con f es si on b e c a u s e i t w aspos i t i ve f ort he def endan t , m ade orsa n ct i oned by som eone i n aut hor i t y, and ofsuch an i n fl u e n ti a l n a tu re th a t a p p e l l a n t m i g h t s p e a k u n tru th fu l l y i n re s p o n s e . Muni zv. S tate , 8 5 1 S .W .2 d 2 3 8 , 2 5 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 837 ( 19 93 ) . I n our r evi ew , w e l ook t o w het her t he ci r cum st ances oft he pr om i se
w o u l d rea so n a b l yi n d u c e a d e fen d a n t t o a d m it t o a c ri m e h e d i d n o t co m m i t. So ss a m o nv. S tate , 81 6 S . W . 2d 34 0, 34 5 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 91 ) . A pr om i se t o i nf or m t he courtor pr osecut ort hatan accused w as cooper at i ve can r ender
a n a c c u s e d ’ss ta te m e n t i n v o l u n ta ry . Jo hn so n v. S ta te , 68 S . W . 3d 644, 6 5 4

– 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). H er e, D et ect i ve D i shko m ere ly re p r esent ed t hati tw oul d l ook l i ke A ppe l l antw asco ope r at i ng i fhet ol d pol i cew here the g un w as ; hedi d not pr om i seor su gge st l eni enc y, nor w ashi s st at em entl i ke l y t o i nduc e a n i nnoc ent p e rs o n to c o n fe s sto c a p i ta l m u rd e r. S e eMuniz , 85 1 S . W . 2d at25 4. Thu s,
w e h o l d t h a t D e te c ti v e D i s h k o ’sre p re s e n ta ti o n d i d n o t re n d e r A p p e l l a n t’s st at em enti nvol unt ary. A ppe l l antne xtarg uest hathi s f r eew i l l w asove r bor ne by Det ec t i ve Shi npa ugh’ s st at em ent t hat pol i ce ”c oul d pos si bl y obt ai n a w ar r ant ” and f i nd t he gun w i t houtA ppe l l ant ’ s coo per at i on. I n t he c o n te xtofa con se ns uals ea r ch,15

a n o th e rw i se v o l u n taryco n se n t i s n o t vi ti a ted b ythe fac t t h a t an o ffi c e r as se rt s th a t h e c o u l d o r w o u l d o b ta i n a s e a rc h w a rra n t i f c o n s e n t i s re fu s e d . Grant v. S tate , 709 S . W . 2d 355, 357– 58 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h D i st . ] 198 6, no pet . ) ( ci t i ng Bea up re v. S tate , 5 2 6 S .W .2 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), c ert. denied, 423 U . S. 1037 ( 197 5) ) . By t he sa m e t o k e n , t he vol unt ar i nes s of A ppe l l ant ’ s st at em entt el l i ng Det ec t i ve D i s h k o w her e t o f i nd t he gun i s not vi t i at ed by D et ect i ve S hi npau gh’ s ass ert i on t hatt he pol i ce coul d geta sear ch
w a rr a n t. A ppe l l antr el i eson Pap rska r v. S tatef ort he pr opo si ti on t hatpol i ce of f i cer s’ t hr eatt o obtai n a sear ch w ar r antr end e rs consent t o sear ch in v o lu n t a r y , a n d , b y a n a lo g y , r e n d e r e d A p p e lla n t ’s s t a t e m e n tin v o lu n t a ryin t h is
c a s e . 4 8 4S .W .2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 2 ). Pap rska r ise a s ily di st i ngu i shabl e because t he “t ot ali ty o ft he ci r cum st ances” i n t hatcase w as vas t l y di f f er ent f r om t he t ot al i t y i n t hi s ca se . I n Paprskar, th e d e fen d a n t’ s w i fe consented t o a sear ch oft hei r hom e aft erpol i ce ent er ed t he hom e, pul l ed her outoft he bat hr oom , t r ea t ed her r oughl y, dr agg ed heri nt o he rl i vi ng r oom , an d pus hed he ri nt o a ch ai rw hi l e tw e n ty o r m or e p ol i ceof f i ce r s— al l br and i sh i ng pi st ol s or sh ot guns and so m e p oi nt i ng t hei rs hot gunsathe r — cr ow ded i nt o t he
ro o m a n d fo rm e d a s e m i c i rc l e a r o u n d h e r. Id. at734. The of f i ce r s di d not
w a r n h e r o fh e r ri g h ts . Id. at735. An of f i ce rt ol d he rt o s i gn a co ns ent - t o-16

sear ch f or m ort hey w oul d get a w ar r ant and “t eart he pl ace up anyw ay. ” Id . S h e s ig n e d t h e f o r m b u tt e s t if ie d t h a ts h e d id s o o n lyb e c a u s e s h e w a sa f r a id
n o t to . Id. The cou rtofcr i m i nalap pea l s hel d t hatf r om the t ot al i t y oft he
c i rc u m s ta n c e s , h e r c o n s e n t to s e a rc h w a sn o t v o l u n ta ry . Id. a t739. By co nt r as t , i n t hi s ca se , afte r a rr es t i ng Appel l ant , t he det ec t i vesput
a w a y t hei rw ea pons . Det ec t i ve D i sh ko w ar ned A ppe l l antofhi s r i ght s, an d A ppel l anti ndi cat ed t hat he w ant ed t o t al k t o t he det ect i ves anyw ay. H e w as
w e a r in g o n ly b o x e r s h o rt s , b u t D e t e c t iv e D is h k o a g r e e d t o g e tc lo t h e sf o rh im . D et ec t i ve D i sh ko des cr i bed t he sc eneas“ very qui et and l ow ke y. ” V i ew i ng t he t ot al i t y oft he ci r cum st ances, w e cannot s a y th atA ppel l ant ’ s st at em entw as i nvol unt ary. i i . Tram m el ’ s consentt o sear ch A ppel l antnextcont ends t ha t T ra m m el ’ s consentt o t he sear ch ofher apart m entw as i nvol untary. U nder t he Fourt h A m endm ent , a sear ch cond uct ed
w it h o u ta w a r r a n tis s u e d o n p r o b a b le c a u s e isp e rs e u n r e a s o n a b le u n le s sit fal l s w i th i n o n e o f t h e w e l l -es tab l i sh e d ex c e p ti o n s to the w a rr a n t r e q u i rem e n t. S chn e c klo thv. Busta m o n te , 412 U. S. 218, 219, 93 S . Ct . 2041 , 2043 –44 (1 9 7 3 ); Rea so r v. S tate , 1 2 S .W .3 d 8 1 3 , 8 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). C onsent t o sear ch i s one of t he w el l

- est abl i shed except i ons t o t he const i t ut i onal
re q u i re m e n ts o f b o th a w a rra n t a n d p ro b a b l e c a u s e . Car m ouche , 10 S. W . 3d17

at331 ( ci t i ng S chn e ckl o th , 412 U . S. at219, 93 S. Ct . at2043 –44 ) . The f ede ra l c o n s ti t ut i on r equ i r est he St at e t o pr ovevol unt ary c ons entby a pr epo nde r anc e o fth e e vi den ce , butt he Texa s con st i t ut i on r equ i r espr oofby
c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . Id. I n S c h n e ckl

o th , t he U ni t ed St at esSupr em e Courtco ns i der ed t he de f i ni t i on of “ vo l un t a ry c on s e nt ” i n t hec on t e xto fa s e a r c h a nd s e i z ur e . 412 U .S . a t2 1 9 , 9 3 S . C t . a t2 0 4 4 . “ [W ]h e n t h e s u bje c to fa s e a r c h isn o tin
c u sto d y a n d th e S tate a ttem p ts to j u sti fy a se a rch o n the b a sis o f his co n se n t, t he Fourt h a nd F ourt ee nt h Am end m e n ts r equ i r e t hati tde m ons t r at e t hatt he
con se ntw asi n f ac tvol unt ar i l y gi ven , an d nott he r es ul tofdur es s orco er ci on, expr ess ori m pl i ed. ” Id . at 248 , 93 S. C t . at 205 9. V ol unt ar i nes s i s a q ues t i on o f fa c t to b e d e te rm i n e d fro m th e to ta l i tyo f th e c i rc u m s ta n c e s . Id. a t249, 93 S. Ct . a t2059 . W h e n det er m i ni ng vo l untar i ness, court s consi dervar i ous f act or s, i ncl udi ng w het hert he consenti ng per son w as i n cust o d y , w h et herhe w as ar r es t ed atgunp oi nt , w het herheha d t he opt i on ofr ef us i ng c ons ent , t he
con st i t ut i ona lad vi cegi ven t o the a cc us ed, t he l eng t h ofde t ent i on, t he
re p e ti ti v e n e s so f th e q u e s ti o n i n g , a n d th e u s e o f p h y s i c a l p u n i s h m e n t. S ee R ea so r, 12 S . W . 3d a t818; La n e yv. S tate , 7 6 S . W . 3 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 2 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 2 ), a ff'd , 1 1 7 S . W . 3d 854 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp.18

200 3) . A w ar ni ng t hatan i ndi vi dua l doe s not hav e t o c ons entt o a s ea r ch and h a s th e ri g h t to re fu s e i sn o t re q u i r e d n o re s s e n ti a l . Me eks v. S tate , 692 S .W .2 d 5 0 4 , 5 1 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ). I n t hi s ca se , Tr am m elw asnoti n c us t ody, t hough sh e w ass i t t i ng i n t he b a c ko fa p a t r o l c a r . De t e c t i v e Di s h k o a d v i s e d h e rt h a ts h e wa sn o tu n der
ar r es t and ci r cl ed t he w or ds “I am not cur r ent l y unde r ar r es t ” on t he con se nt f or m . Tr am m el di d not t est i f y t hatD et ect i ve D i shko t hr eat ened orcoer ced her i nt o s i gni ng t he con se ntt o s ea r ch f or m . She di d t es t i f y th a t s he w oul d not have si gned t he f or m i f she had know n t hat she di d not have t o, butshe al so t est i f i ed t hatshe r ead t he f or m , and t he f or m st at es:

• I unde r st and t hatunl es s I gi ve m y con se ntt o t he se ar ch, t he of f i ce rca nnots ea r ch t he pr ope rt y unl es s t he of f i ce robt ai ns a s e a rc h w a rra n t fro m a J u d g e . . . .

• The of f i ce rha s not t ol d m e t hathew i l l s ee k a s ea r ch w ar r ant i fI do n otco ns entt o t he se ar ch.

. . . .

• I u n d e rs ta n d th a t I c a n w i th d ra w m yc o n s e n t a t a n yti m e . D e tec ti v e D i sh k o tes ti fi e d tha t he w e n t ov e r ev e ry l i n e o f t h e form w i th Tram m el . She tes t i fie d th a t s he di d not und er st and t he f or m , butshe al so t estifie d t hatshe w as a hi gh schoo l gr aduate and w as att endi ng cl assesat Tarr antC oun t y C ol l ege. Tr am m el t est i f i ed t hatshe w as “okay” w i t h t he sear ch19

att he t i m e a nd t hathe rr egr et i n hav i ng s i gne d t he con se ntf or m ar os e f r om t he i nco nve ni enc e o fha vi ng t o t es t i f y a tt he su ppr es si on he ar i ng. D ef er r i ng t o t he t r i alco urt ’ s det er m i nat i on oft he w i t nes se s’ de m e ano r a n d c re d i b i l i ty o f th e w i tn e s s e s , se e Am ado r, 22 1 S . W . 3d at67 3, w e hol d t hat t h e S t ate prov ed bycl ea ran d c on vi nc i ng ev i de nc e that T r am m el vo l un t arily
c o n s e n te d to th e s e a rc h o f h e r b e d ro o m . T h e re fo re , w e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’s fi rst po i n t. 2. Fai l ur e t o m ak e f i ndi ngs off ac tan d c onc l us i onsofl aw aft ers uppres si on hea r i ng I n hi s se con d poi nt , A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by f ai l i ng to m a k e w ri tten fi n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c lu sion s o f l a w w i th res p e c t t o i ts
r u lin g s o n A p p e lla n t ’s m o t io n t o s u p p r e s s . A t r ia l c o u rt m u s t m a k e s p e c i f ic f i ndi ngs of fa c tw hen a quest i on i s r ai sed as t o t he vol untar i ness ofan accused’ s st at em entand t he t r i al courtd e ter m i nes t hatt he st at em entw as
v o l u n ta ri l ym a d e . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 3 8 .2 2 , § 6 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). S uch f i ndi ngs ar e m andatory even i f t he def endan tdoes notobj ectt o t he t r i al
c o u rt’sfa i l u re to m a k e th e m . Uri a s v. S tate , 1 5 5 S . W . 3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 20 04 ) . A l t hou gh sect i on 3 8. 22 cont em pl at es w r i t t en f i ndi ngs ( “t he or der [c o n ta i n i n g th e fi n d i n g so f fa c t] s h a l l b e fi l e d a m o n g th e p a p e rso f th e c a u s e ” ), t he t r i al cou rt sa t i sf i est he art i cl e w hen i tdi ct at esf i ndi ngsi nt o t he r ec or d a nd20

th e re p o rte r tra n s c ri b e sth e m a n d m a k e sth e m p a rt o f t h e re c o rd . Mur phy v. S tate , 1 1 2 S .W .3 d 5 9 2 , 6 0 1

– 0 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 541 U .S . 9 4 0 (2 0 0 4 ). T h a th a sb e e n d o n e in t h isc a s e . T h e r e f o r e , w e o v e r r u le A p p e l l a n t’ss e c o n d p o i n t. See i d. 3 . F a c tu a lsu ffi c i e n c yo f ev i d e n c eto s h o w i n ten t t oca u sed e a th In h is f in a l p o in t , A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a t t h e e v id e n c e isf a c t u a lly i n s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th e j u ry ’s fi n d i n g th a t h e i n te n d e d to c a u s e th e v i c ti m ’s dea t h.
a. S t andar d ofr evi ew W h e n rev i e w i n g the fac tu a l su ffi c ie n c y o f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i gh t , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. W a tso nv. S tate , 2 0 4S .W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); D r i cha s v. S tate , 17 5 S . W . 3d 79 5, 79 9 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 05 ) . W e t hen ask w het her t h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is
nev ert hel es s so w ea k t hat t he f ac t - f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd
m ani f es t l y un j us torw het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi d e n c e s o gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghst he
e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v i c t io n t h a tt h e f a c t -f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is
m a n i fe s tl y u n j u s t. W atson , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 ; Jo hn so nv. S tate , 23 S. W . 3d 1, 11 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 200 0) . To r eve r se unde r t he se con d gr ound,
w e m ustdet er m i ne, w i t h som e obj ect i ve basi s i n t he r e c or d, t hatt he gr eat21

w e i g h t a n d p rep o n d e ran c e o f al l the ev i d e n c e , th o u g h l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t,
c o n tra d i c ts th e v e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r t h e ev i d e n c e i s fac tu a l l y i n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not
e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a s u b je c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly
w r o n g o rm a n if e s t lyu n ju s ts im p lyb e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ryo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju ry ’s re s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin th e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m a y n o t sim p l y su b sti tu te o u r j u d g m e n tf o rt h e f a c tf i n d e r ’ s . Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 ; Ca i nv. S tate , 9 5 8 S . W . 2 d 4 0 4 , 407 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n le s st h e re c o r d c le a r ly r e v e a ls t h a ta d if f e r e n tre s u lt i s app r opr i at e, w e m us tde fe r to th e j ury’ s det er m i nat i on oft he w ei ghtt o be gi ven contr adi ct or y t est i m oni al evi dence because r esol ut i on ofth e c o nf l i ct

“ o fte n tu rn so n a n e v a l u a ti o n o f c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r, a n d th o s e j u ro rsw e re i n at t endan ce w hen t he t est i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 23 S . W . 3d a t8. Th us, w e m us t gi ve due defer ence t o t he f act - f i nder ’ s det er m i nat i ons, “p art i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i ons con ce r ni ng t he w ei ghtan d c r edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . a t9. A n opi ni on a ddr es si ng f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y m us t i ncl ude a di sc us si on oft he
m os ti m port antan d r el eva nt evi den cet hats upport s t he app el l ant ’ s com pl ai nt22

o n a p p e a l . Si

m s v. S tate , 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). M or eov er , an opi ni on r eve r si ng and r em and i ng on f ac t uali ns uf f i ci enc y gr ounds
m u s td e t a il a ll t h e e v id e n c e a n d c le a r lys t a t e w h yt h e f in d in g in q u e s t i o n is fa c tu a l l yi n s u fficie n t a n d u n d e r w h i c h g ro u n d . G o o d m a nv. S tate , 66 S . W . 3d 2 8 3 , 2 8 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Johnson , 23 S . W . 3d a t7. b. D i sc us si on A p p e l l a n t s p e n d ss e v e ra l p a g e s o f h i sb ri e f d i s c u s s i n g tw o S u p re m e C o u rt
cases— Ri

ng and A pprend

i

— app ar ent l y i n a n e f f ortt o s how t hatt he i ndi ct m ent i n th i s c a s e w a s d e f i c i e n t. See Ri ng v. A r

i zona , 5 3 6 U .S . 5 8 4 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 2 4 2 8 (2 0 0 2 ); A pprendi v. NewJer

sey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 (2 0 0 0 ). Ri ng and A pprend

i hol d t hatce rt ai n f ac t s m us tbe a l l e g e d b y t he St at e a nd f o u n d b y t h e j u ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t b e f o r e p u n i s h me n t ma ybe i ncr ea se d be yond t he st at ut ory m axi m um f or t he cr i m e f orw hi ch t he j ury f ound th e d e fe n d a n t g u i l ty . Ri ng , 5 3 6 U . S. 584, 609, 122 S. Ct . 2428 , 2443 (de c l a ri n g u n c o n sti tu ti o n a l a n A ri zo n a l a w th a t e n h a n c e d l i fe i m p ri so n m e n t t o d e a th s e n te n c e u p o n c e rta i n fi n d i n g sm a d e s o l e l yb y a j u d g e a n d n o t a j u ry ); A pp ren d

i , 530 U . S. 4 6 6 , 4 90– 92, 120 S . Ct . 2348 , 2363 –64 ( dec l ar i ng unc ons t i t ut i ona l a N ew Je r se y l aw t haten han ce d pun i sh m entupon j udge

- m ade fi n d i n g s ).23

Ri ng , A pprend

i, and t hei rpr ogen y ar e si m pl y i napp l i cabl e t o t hi s case. The i ndi ct m ental l ege d t hat A ppe l l ant i nt ent i ona l l y c aus ed t he vi ct i m ’ s dea t h by sh o o ti n g h i m w i th a fi rea rm d u ri n g th e c o u rse o f c o m m i tti n g o r attem p ti n g to
c o m m i t a ro b b e ry. T h e co u rt ’s ch a rge tr a c k e d the i n d i c tm e n t’ s l a n g u a g e . B o th th e i n d i c tm e n t a n d th e c h a rg e s e t o u t th e e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f c a p i ta l m u rd e r. S ee T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . §§ 19 . 02( b) ( 1) ( V er non 2003) , 19. 03( a) ( 2) ( V er non Supp. 2007 ) . The j ury f ound t hos e el em ent s bey ond a r ea so nab l e d oubt . The st at ut ory m axi m um — and m and at ory— puni sh m ent f or ca pi t al m ur der w hen t he S ta te w a i v e sth e d e a th p e n a l tyi sl i fe i m p ri s o n m e n t w i t h o u tp a ro l e . Id. §§ 1 2 .3 1 (a ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ), 19. 03( b) . Thus , t he i ndi ct m ental l ege d, an d th e j u ry fo u n d , a l l o f t h e ele m e n t s n e c e ss a ry to i m p o se a m a n d a to ry l i fe
se nt enc e, and t he con ce r nsad dr es se d by Ri ngan d A pp ren d

i p la y n o r o le in t h is
case. W e turn n o w to th e ev i d e n c e tha t t o u c h e s u p o n A p p e l l a n t’ s i n ten t t o c a u s e t h e v ic t im ’s d e a t h . In a d d it io n t o t h e e v id e n c e re c o u n t e d e a r lie rin t h is opi ni on, t he f ol l ow i ng e vi den cei s r el eva nt t o i nt ent . A ppe l l ant pr es ent ed t he t est i m o n y o fM ax C ourt ney, a f or ensi c consul t ant . C ourt ney t est i f i ed t hat

— bas ed l ar gel y o n th e s ec ur i t y c am er a’ s dep i ct i on oft he k il l i ng — A pp el l an t ’ s sh oo t i ng t he vi cti m w as “c on si stent w i t h a sym pa t h e t ic t r i gge rpul l . ” H e exp l ai ned t hats ym pat het i c t r i gge rpul l oc cur s w hen a per so n4 ... The s ec ur i t y vi deo doe s nots how A ppe l l ants hoot i ng hi m s e l f i n t he

f oot . A chi ppe d t i l e a nd bu l l etf r agm ent s f ound i n th e st or e s ugge stt hathe s h o t h i m s e l f w h i l e i n s i d eth e s to re . A n d b e c a u s e A p p e l l a n t fl e d th e s to re i m m edi at el y aft er sh oot i ng t he vi ct i m , he m us t hav e sh ot hi m se l f i n th e foot b e f o r e h e s h o tt h e v i c t i m. 24 w ho has t hei rf i nger on a gun ’ s t r i gger acci dental l y pul l s t he t r i ggeri n r esponse to a n e x te rn a l s ti m u l u ss u c h a s“ s tre s s , [a ] su d d e n s h o c k i n g e v e n t, a b u m p , a di st r a c ti o n , orw hat eve r . ” Court neyt es t i f i ed t hatt he f ac t s t hatA ppe l l ant appar ent l y shothi m sel fi n t he f oot dur i ng t he at t em pt ed r obb ery, w hi ch p r e s u m a b lyw a sa c c id e n t a l a n d p o s s ib lya n o t h e rs y m p a t h e t ic t r ig g e rp u ll; w a s 4

w ea r i ng gl ove s ( w hi ch dec r ea se d hi s t r i gge rf i nge r ’ s se ns i t i vi t y) ; w a s l ook i ng aw ay f r om t he vi ct i m w hen he f i r ed t he f at al shot ; and ki l l ed t he vi ct i m w hen t he vi ct i m m i ghtha ve ope ned t he ca sh r egi st er f ort he r obbe r s al l s upportt he pos si bi l i t y of sy m pat het i c t r i gge r pul l . H e agr ee d w i t h Jam i e Beck er t h a t t he f or cene ede d t o pul l t he gun’ s t r i gge rw as w i t hi n t he ave r ager ang e f ort he
m odel ofgun and t hati tcoul d not be char act er i zed as a “l i ght t r i ggerpul l . ” To s um m ar i z e, be f or e t he j ury w asev i den cet hatA ppe l l anten t er ed t he Fi na st at i on w i t h t he i nt ent t o c om m i tr obbe ry; ca r r i ed a s i ngl e- ac t i on pi st ol of
nor m al t r i gge r - pul l t hathekn ew t o be l oad ed; co ck ed t he ham m er ; pul l ed t he t r i gge ran d s hothi m se l fi n t he f oot , pr es um abl y on acc i d e n t; coc ke d t he ham m er agai n; hel d t he pi st ol cl ose t o t he vi ct i m ’ s head, att i m es so cl ose t hat25

th e b a rr e l v i sibl y m o v e d th e v i c ti m ’s h a i r; p u l l e d the tr i g g e r a se c o n d ti m e w i th t he m uz z l e w i t hi n t w o i nch esoft he vi ct i m ’ s h e a d , k i l l i ng t he vi ct i m ; an d i m m e d i at el y s pr i nt ed outoft he st or e b ef or e t he vi ct i m ’ s bodyhi tt he f l o o r. A l so bef o re th e j ury w as C ourt ney’ s t est i m ony thatt he f at al shotw as

“ c o n s i s te n t w i th s y m p a th e ti c tri g g e r p u l l .” C ons i der i ng a l l oft he evi den ce i n a neu t r al l i ght , w e c ann ots ay t hatt he evi den ces upport i ng th e j u ry ’ s f i ndi ng t hatA ppe l l anti nt end ed t o c aus e t he vi ct i m ’ s deat h i s so w eak or so gr eat l y outw ei ghed by t he confl i ct i ng evi dence t hatt he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong and m ani f es t l y un j us t . Thus , t he
e v i d e n c e i s fac tu a l l y su ffi c i e n t to su p p o rt th e fi n d i n g tha t A p p e l l a n t i n ten d e d to
c a u s e th e v i c ti m ’sd e a th . S ee W a ts on , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 . W e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s th i rd p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f A p p e l l a n t’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL B: LI V I N G STO N , H O LM A N , an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J un e 26, 2008