T o t he ext ent t hat appel l ant com pl ai ns ofer r ori n al l owi ng sobbi ng f am i l y m em ber s t o r em ai n i n t he 1 pr esence of t he j ur y , t he r ecor d does not r ef l ect t hat such o ccur r ed a nd n o m ent i on o fi t was m ade dur i ng t r i al b y a p p e l l a n t. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33

. 1(a ) ( t o p res erve a c om pl ai nt for ap pe l l ate revi ew , t he co m pl ai nt m us t ha ve been m ade t o t he t r i al cour t bya t i m el y r equest , obj ect i on o rm ot i on)

. T o t he e xt ent t hat app el l ant al so r ai sed a com pl ai nt wi t h r espect t o evi dence ofG ar ci a’ s chi l dr en a nd g r andchi l dr en, she di d no t obj ect at t he t i m e t hat s u c h e v i d e n c e w a s fi rs t t e n d e re d

. R a n s o n v . S ta te , 7 0 7 S .W .2 d 9 6 , 9 9 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) ( a tim e ly NO. 07-06 -049 1-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA Y2, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ VIC TORI A H AR RI S, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 5-40 8,5 88; HON. CECIL G. PURY EAR, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. Vi cto ri a H ar ri s c hal len g es her co nv icti on of cap it al murde r by cl aimi ng thatthe tr ial
cour t er re d i n al low ing the jur y to hear ch aract e r e v ide nce of the dec eased dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase

. W e aff ir m the jud g ment. 1o b j e c tio n is r e q u ir e d ) . A d d itio n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t p u r p o r te d ly c o m p la in s o fth e f a ilu r e o fth e tr ia l c o u r t t o a d m it

ev i dence t hat m et ham phet am i ne was f ound i n t he deceased ’ s pur se. H owev er , she f ai l s t o pr ov i de a r gum ent o r a u th o rit i e s o n th a t p a rti c u l a r p o i n t, a n d it i s th e re fo re w a i v e d

. L a w to n v . S ta te , 913 S. W

. 2d 542, 558 ( T ex. C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). 2 App ellantassisted her

b o yf ri e n d , Ra ym o n d Ja c k s o n , a n d h e r twe lve -ye a r- o ld co u sin in ro bbi ng three c onv eni ence sto re s on the nig ht of A ug ust 3, 2004, by dr iv ing them in her g ra ndmother ’s ca r. Dur ing the ro bber y of the sec ond conv eni ence st ore, Jackson shotand ki ll ed th e s tore c ler k, Patr ic ia Garci a. Assum ing arg uen do, thaterror occurred and it w as prese rv ed, w e f ind it harm less. T he e rron e o u s adm ission of characte r ev iden ce do es no t implicat e con stitutio nal rights. Rod ger s v . St ate, 111 S.W .3d 236, 248 (Tex . App.–Tex ar kana 2003, no pet .)

. Therefore, w e mu st det ermin e w het her an y substa ntial right of

app ellanthad bee n af fecte d be fore re v ersal can occur ; t hat i s, w e mustdec ide w hether there i s fai r ass urance that the e rror did not influ ence the jur y or had but a sl ig ht effecton t he out come. Solom on v . St ate, 49 S.W .3d 3 56, 3 65 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001)

. Appel lan t t est ified at tr ial and admitted t o hav ing w illing ly par ti ci pated in the
ro bber ies and dis posi ng of the g un used to ki ll Garci a. The onl y co ntes ted i ss ue i nv olv ed her anti ci pati on of any

i ntenton t he par

t of Ja ck son to c a use the d eath of Garci a. Fur ther more, sh e tes ti fied th a t 1 ) sh e did notkn ow Garci a woul d be shot , 2)sh e di d not know the g un Jack son car ri ed was loa ded, 3) i t was not t hei r int ent t o hur t anyone, and 4) she ini ti all y

di d notbel iev e J ack son had s hot any one ev en thoug h both Jack son and t he minor tol d her he d id

. O n the other

hand, sh e di sc los ed th at s he was presenti n the ca r w hen Jack son sto le the shot g un and anothe r w eapon from a t ru ck , t hat J ack son took the g un to the ro bber

y to sc are the v icti ms, and that someone mig ht g et hur t or ki ll ed w hen a3

f irearm is take n to a rob bery. So t o o d id she pa rticipate in the robb eryof ano the r store immedi atel y

after the shoot ing and enj oy ed th e proceed s g ar nered from t he robber ies

. In t ur n, J ack son tes ti fied th at w hen he entered th e s tore, G arci a s creamed. At t hat poin t, t h e gun purpo rtedly discharged acciden tally as he turned to look atapp ellant ’s
cous in. Y et, the v ide otape of the inc ide nt did not c or ro borate t his ; i nst ead, itrev eal ed th at he faced t h e v ictim the entire tim e. So to o did ap pellan t’s ow n com me nts con tradict Jac ks on’ s s tor

y . Acc ordin g to appel lan t, Garci a w as comi ng from an off ic e w hen s he s aw th e rob be rs a nd s c rea me d, a nd b ec au s e i t ap pe ared th at s he w as rea c hi ng for a n al ar m, Jac ks on pur por

tedl y fired tow ards the door next to her. Furt her more, the shot g un was of the singl e-actio n v ariety; thus, Jackson had to manu ally pull back the tr igg er before it could fire

. So, itreason abl y co u ld b e d educe d tha t s ometi me before Jac ks on di sc harg ed th e w eapon h e i ntent ion all y eng ag ed th e hammer i n preparati on for fi rin g t h e w eapon. Jac ks on al so a d m itted t o ej ect ing the spentsh ell after the shoot ing and re loa din g the shot g un before eng ag ing i n the thi rd robber y . Hi s h av ing j ustco me from one ro bber y to condu ct another , hi s hear ing the sto re cl er k sc re am, Garci a hav ing been seen re achi ng for
w hat a ppeared to be an ala rm, his eng ag ing the hammer of t he w eapon in preparati on for dis charg ing i t, his sh ooti ng towards the d oor of the o ff ic e from w hic h the v icti m w as em erging , his facing the victim as the gun f ir e d, an d his reload ing the shot gun before proceed ing to another robber y ( ra ther th a n u n d e rt aki ng effort t o hel p the person he “a cc ide ntall y ” shot ) cons ti tutes ov er w hel ming ev ide nce from w hic h a rati onal factfinder coul d deduc e, be y ond reason abl e doubt , t hat h e i ntended to ki ll

. To the foreg oin g , we had appel lan t’ s w il li ng p a rt ic ipa ti on i n the robber ies , her know ing thatJa ck son w oul d us e a s hotg un to sc are hi s v icti ms, her know ing thatso meone4

coul d be hur

t or ki ll ed as a resul t of a s hotg un bei ng tak en to a robber y , her dec is ion to par ti ci pate in the l astrobber y after bei ng tol d of the shoot ing , and her ai d i n di spos ing of the weapon. This is ov er w hel ming ev ide nce upon w hic h a rati onal j ur y co uld find b ey ond
re asona ble doubtthatappell ant cons pired to commit a felony and anti ci pated that a deat h coul d resul t t herefrom. Mo re ov er , w hil e the Sta te di d br iefly menti on th e tes ti mony of Garcia ’s so n i n i ts closin g a rg u m ent , the characte r ev iden ce did no t relate to the inte nt to kill or appe llant’s know led g e aboutthe g un, i ts dis charg e, he r v olu ntar y par ti ci pati o n i n a ll three ar med
ro bber ies , or

her as si sta nce in the dis posal of the murde r w eapon. W e, therefore, find th at the e v i d e n c e h a d , a tm o s t , o n l y a s l i g h te ffe cto n t h e j u r y ’ s v e rd i ct

. T h u s , t h e p u r p o rt ed mis tak e w as har mles s. Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.