NO. 07-08 -045 9-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B SEPTEM BER11, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ MI TCH ELL E . W AC HH OLTZ, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 2007 -416 ,93 0; HON. BRAD UNDERW OOD, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Mi tch ell E. W achho ltz (a ppel lan t) appeal s his co nv icti on for murde r. Throug h four i s s u e s , h e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d b y 1 ) e x c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e re g a rd i n g the presenc e of dr ug s i n the v ehi cl e from w hic h the v icti m ex ite d a n d gang aff il iat ion and 2) admitti ng ev ide nce of his st atement that he pl anned to ro b banks and “ g o outi n a b laz e”
or s om et hi ng o f t ha t i l k

. W e affi r m.Appar ent l y , Sm i t h an d Pendl et on wer e Afr i can- Am er i can. Appel l ant and H er z og wer e Angl o1 Am er i can. 2 Back ground The ev ent b eg an w it h appell ant, a conv icted felo n, t aki ng methamphet amine ear li er in the d ay

before the s hooti ng . W hil e al leg edl y coming dow n f ro m his hig h, he and Brady Her z og drov e to a l ocal co nv eni ence sto re to buy g asol ine around 1:30 a.m. Tw o y oung Hispanics w ere inside and st and ing att he checko ut line. Th ree Af rican-Am ericans (Chase Pendl eton, M arcus Smi th an d Smi th’ s fr ien d) w ere a lso prese nt w hen app ell ant a nd Her z og ente re d the st ore to pa y for t he g as, approache d the ca sh re g is ter and ass umed a pl ace behi nd th e two H is pani cs . T hou gh Pend leton stood q uietly by the sto re’s entran ce, Sm ith w as no t of like depor tment. H e admi tted to being drunkand acti ng l ik e a “ jer k.” M oreov er , he spok e out loud ly and repea ted ly

interjecte d the w ord “nigg er” in his speech

. So t oo d id he pro claim 1 tha t the re had bett er be no one w aiting to c h e c ko u twh e n he w alked up to th e cash ier. Other tes ti mony

rev eal ed th at s omeone from the g ro up ot her than Pendl eton commented alo ud abou t how

the tw o H is pani cs w ere dress ed and how they w ere att empti ng to appear “w hit e.” I t w as at t his ti me Smi th ap proache d the ca shi er , bumped or “ shoul dered” ei ther app ellantor Herz og, and cut to the f ront of the line. W itnessin g this, ap pellan t lef t the store pur por tedl y to av oid conflict, w ent to his v an, real iz ed Herz og w as sti ll in the st ore, de ci ded to retur n and re tr iev e H erz og , c oll ect ed a .25 c ali ber handg un, a nd w alk ed to w ards the sto re ’s entrance. Des pit e Smi th’ s a nti cs , nei ther H erz og , t he two H is p ani c mal es nor the cas hie r fea red for

t he i r s afe ty

. Th e c as hi er

k ne w S mi th , an d th e ot he rs i n l i ne s i mp l y i g no red h i m.Appel l ant t est i f i ed t hat he was f i v e f eet fr om t he doorw hen he m et t he t hr ee l eav i ng. O ne oft hem 2 pur por t edl y went t o hi s r i ght , on e w en t l eft

. Pendl et on a ppear ed b ef or e hi m and supp osedl y m ade som e gest ur e. I t s nat ur e, howev er , went une xpl ai ned. T hi s i s so because app el l ant per f or m ed t he g est ur e f ort he j ur y ; he di d no t v er bal l y descr i be i t

. So, i t was not m em or i al i z ed i n t he a ppel l at e r ecor d, and we ha v e no way of a s s es s i ng i t s po t en t i al , i f an y , for i ns t i l l i ng fea r i n o t he rs. T ha t w ri t t en t ri al t ran s c ri pts n orm al l y ca pture wor ds as oppose d t o con duct i s som et hi ng t hat l i t i gant s shou l d r em em berat tr i al

. N ever t hel ess, no ot her w i tn e s s m e n ti o n e d s e e i n g P e n d l e to n ’ s g e s tu re to w a rd s a p p e l l a n t a s th e g ro u p l e ft. 3 Fu rt h e rm o re , n o on e sa w Sm it h or h is f rie n d s ca rryin g an y type of w e a p o n . A n d , t h o u gh he c ut i n frontof the tw o H is pani cs , Smi th ei ther offered to pay

or p a id for

the it ems t he Hi s p a n ic s in t e n d e d t o b u y. Hav ing fini shed thei r busi ness , Pendl eton, Smi th, and t he th ird member of the p arty tur ned t o l eav e the st ore. Theyw alk ed outthe door and e n co u n tered appe ll ant, w ho
ra ise d th e ha n d gun an d be gan f irin g. 2 Pen dleto n w as mo rtally w oun ded . Smith also w as hit, bu th is wo u n d w as min or. And as thos e l eft in the s tore dropped t o the g ro und w hen t he s hots rang out, Smi th an d his fri end ran bac k t hroug h the es tabl is hment an d l eft the s cene. Pendl eton lay

on t he g ro und dy ing as his brother ex it ed a v ehi cl e par ked outs ide the sto re and attempt ed to apprehend a ppel lan t. The effort w as unsuc cessf u l. An d, as appel lan t readi ed hi s v ehi cl e to lea v e, H erz og retur ned, entered i t and as ked appella nt
w hat h e “ w as thi nki ng ” w hen he beg an s hooti ng . Appel lan t repl ied by su g g est ing thatthe three i ndi v idu als w hom he shot at mayor shoul d hav e “l ear ned their l ess on.” Lat er

he was ov er heard al lud ing to there bei ng “ one dead wa b b it ” after w atc hin g a ne w s b ro adcas t of the s hooti ng and Pendl eton’ s d eath. At t ri al, appel lan t c lai med that he had act ed in sel f-defense. In desc ri bin g w hy he d id so , h e m e n ti o n e d th a t h e “fe a re d fo r hi s life ” an d co u ld no t “re tr e a t” pri o r to sh o o ti n g. And thou gh he professed conce rn over the inciden t, he non eth eless at ten ded a conce rt in4

another tow n the next day

. Gi v en i ts v erdict, the j ur y obv iou sl y

di d notbel iev e appel lan t act ed i n s elf- defense. Issu es On e an d Tw o - Exclu ded

Eviden ce In his fi rs ttw o i s s u e s , a p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n e x c l udi ng ev ide nce about dr ug s b ein g found i n the ca r from w hic h Pend let on’ s b ro ther al ig hted and abo ut his brot her’s alleged gang af f iliation. W e overrule the issue s. Standa rd

of Rev iew The st andard of rev iew w hen c o n sid e ri ng i ss ues li ke that at ba r is one of abused dis creti on. W

alter s v . St ate, 247 S.W .3d 204 , 217 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07). Im plicit therein is th e truism tha t trial co urts are f ree to exercise discret ion w hen decidin g w het her to a dm it
or ex c l ud e ev i de nc e. Ad mi tt ed l y , th at di s c ret i on i s no t un br i dl ed for th e de c i s i on m ust compor t w it h the l aw

as appl ied to the c ircums tanc es before t he c our t. Y et, ci rc umstan ces differ from cas e to cas e. And, laws are often drafted to address concept s a s o ppose d to spec ificsi tuati ons. Thi s is no les s tr ue w hen t he l aw i nv olv ed c onsi sts of ru les of ev ide nce. So, the trial judge is reg ularlycalled up on to use his judicial acu me n a n d e xp e rience in decid ing how

and when a particu lar rule a pplies to a developin g situa tion. And, th at ta sk
can be q uit e daunt ing sinc e the resul t may depend upon how

a j ur is t v iews o r int er prets thos e unfoldi ng ci rc umstan ces . As illu st ra te d by th e rat h e r co m m o n op ti ca l ill u sio n of th e be a u ty an d t h e ha g,
w hether o n e p e rc e i v e s t h e b e a u t y o r t h e h a g i s i n fl u e n c e d b y t h e i n d i c i a u p o n w h i ch he3

5

focuses

. F or

so me reason ce rt ain v iew ers a re in it ial ly draw n to the l ine s d epi cti ng the 3 bea uty w hile oth ers see those presen ting the ha g. Neithe r v ision is inaccurat e, ho w ever, for both l ay w i th i n th e i l l us i on . The s am e c an be s ai d of ma ny c on trov ers i es th at arise before a tr ial j udg e and the re sol uti on of w hic h li es in the e x erci se of his di sc re ti on. The ind ic ia a par

ti cul ar j udg e may

focus upon may

i n fact lea d to different, y et eq ual ly co rrect , re sul ts. An d, s o l ong as the picture before them all ow s for ei ther v is ion or resul t, nei ther is w ro ng . That is the seed under ly ing the conc ept of ab used dis creti on for the resul t nee d onl y fall w it hin the z one of

reason abl e debat e g iv en th e i ndi ci a or ci rc umstan ces before the
cour t and the manner

i n w hic h the co urt percei v es them. W alter s v . St ate , 247 S.W .3d a t 217 ( hol din g thata tr ial courtabus es it s d is creti on w hen i ts deci si on fall s o uts ide the z one of reas onabl e di sag re ement)

. And, unl ess the resul t fall s o uts ide thatz one of dis ag re ement, w e c annot chang e i t. App lication o f Stan dard As prev iou sl y

menti oned, appel lan t s oug ht permi ss ion to dis cl ose the d ru g s found in the c ar and the s ig nific ance of v ar iou s tatt oos on the body of P endl eton’ s brother

. That evidence, according to appellan t, w ould help illustrate the con text of the sho oting and help6

ex pla in w hy

he s hot, i. e. w hy he a llegedly felt threa ten ed. Y et, we are cited to no ev iden ce of rec ord s ug g est ing thatappel lan t k new w ho w as in the c ar , k new tha t o n e o f

the
occ upants bore tattoos si g nify ing g ang inv olv ement, or thathe e v en s aw

any one w ear ing tatt oos ind icative of

some g ang af

f iliation. Nor did our rev iew of the record unco v er such
ev ide n ce . W it hout suc h ev ide nce and s inc e one’ s p ercept ion and int er pretati on of the ci rc umstan ces before him are at the h ear t of a s elf- defense c lai m, i t is di ff ic ultto see any nexus betw een the tatt oos and the stimu li mo tiv ating app ellant ’s condu ct. So, a jurist cou ld
re asona bly

co ncl ude t hat v is ual min u ti a t h a t w ent u npercei v ed by an a cto r, su ch as appel lan t, has li ttl e rel ev ance to w hy the act or

di d w hat h e di d. Beca use of that, w e c annot say thatthe deci si on t o e xclu d e al lus ion to the t attoo s a t bar fell outs ide the z one of
re asona ble di sag re ement. No r ca n w e sa y tha t t h e tri a l co u rt ’s d e cis io n to excl u d e refe re n c e t o th e dru gs ev inc ed an ins tanc e of abus ed di sc re ti on. W hil e appel lan t or othe rs may

hav e percei v ed
some o f those presentas bei ng “ hig h ,” Smi th ad mitt ed to bei ng dr unk, boi ste ro us, and act ing obnox iou sl y . Mo re i mport antl y , this acknow led g ment c or ro borated the p ercept ion of someone b ein g “hig h,” w hic h percept ion co nst it uted an i ndi ci a al leg edl y i nfluenc ing appel lan t’ s o w n c onduct. T hat appel lan t t houg ht t he s ubst ance influ enci ng the behav ior
w as a par

ti cul ar dr ug , t hat a par

ti cul ar drug w oul d cause condu ct di fferent t han t hat c aused by al cohol , and that he thoug ht on e’s propens ity for v iol ence coul d di ffer bas ed upon the par ti cul ar su bst ance ing est ed i s n ow here menti oned by appel lan t. N or

are w e c it ed to
ev ide nce sug g est ing thatPendl eton, the ult imat e decedent, had ing est ed i ll eg al subs tanc es. So, unde r thes e c ircums tanc es, w e c annot say thatthe deci si on to ex cl ude
ev ide nce of the par

ti cul ar su bst ance influ enci ng Smi th’ s b ehav ior , or thatof any one el se,7

w as of impo rt. At the very

least, th e ma tter w as reaso nab ly deb ata ble, a nd b ecau se it w as,
w e can notsaythatthe de cision of the trial court fell outsid e t h e zo ne o f reason able dis ag re ement. Iss ues Threeand Four In i ss ues three and four, appel lan t contend s that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on
w hen admi tti ng ev ide nce of a st atement made by appel lan t c oncer nin g h is in te nt t o rob banks and g o outi n a b laz e. W e ov er ru le thes e i ss ues as w ell

. At t ri al, the Stat e arg ued t hat a ppel lan t had made s tatement s to the effectthathe (a ppel lan t) w as “g oin g to ro b a bunch of banks and putthem [si c] in a bank ac count , and he w as g oin g to g o outbl az ing .” Appel lan t obj ect ed, bel iev ing the matter to be i rrele v ant and i nadmis si ble

. Non ethel ess , t he tr ial co urt admi tted itas ev ide nce o f f ligh t or conscio usne ss of

g uilt. No othe r obje ctions w ere made at the time . Subse quently, Connie Pemlo t Smi th, a f rie nd of appel lan t’ s, tes ti fied. The Stat e as ked her aboutany

pl ans appel lan t had after

att endi ng the conc ert i n Amar il lo. Ap pel lan t ag ain com p la ined and
sec ured a ru nni ng obj ect ion to the test imony

. Con nie then tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t t old her he w as “g oin g to ro b a bunch of ba nks and putmoney i n an acc ount for Brady [H erz og ].” The Stat e then ask ed her if she thoug ht t he s tatementsh ow ed hi s i ntentto lea v e tow n and she thoug ht t hat was w hat h e meant. Evid e n ce o f f li g ht may

be a dmis si ble to show a c onsc iou snes s o f gui lt

. Bi gby v. State , 892 S.W .2d 864 , 883 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94). Yet, w het h er the co mm entin q ue s ti on w as o f t ha t i l ki s n ots om et hi ng w e ne ed t o ad dres s . I ns te ad, we a s s um e8

ar guendothatappel lan t w as ri g ht and concl ude t hat t he admi ss ion of the s tatementw as har mles s. That appel lan t s hot a nd ki ll ed Pendl eton w as uncon tes ted. Thus, the pr inc ipa l is sue before t he j ur

y rev olv ed around w hether the ki ll ing could be jus ti fied. The record c ontai ns a p le t h o ra o f

e vid e n c e il lu s t ra t in g t h a t it wa s n o t

. T h a t e vid e n c e in c lu d e d a p p e ll a n t ’s o wn com me nts ab outa dea d “w abb it” an d tea ching t he v ictims a lesson , his atte ndin g a con cert after the s hooti ng , and the tes ti mony thatno o ne el se ex per ien ci ng the ev ents that
u n fo ld e d in t h e st o re fe a re d fo r t h e ir sa fe ty p ri o r t o t h e sh o o t in g. In d e e d , a p p e ll a n t ’s o wn passe nger at the time o f the sho oting saw

no thre at even tho ugh he rema ined in t he m idst of the s it uati on after

appel lan t l eft the sto re . So too did that ind iv idu al ex press i ncredul ity at w hat a ppel lan t di d and w hy he d id it

. To that w e add the u ndi sput ed ev ide nce that app ellan twa s not on ly capa ble of

retreatin g butactua lly retreate d un harm ed b efore deci din g to re tur n w it h a firear m. A nd, t hat a ppel lan t suppo sedl y re tur ned t o hel p H erz og car ri es li ttl e impor

tanc e si nce the defense s ubmitted t o the j ur y w as not t hat o f defendi ng thi rd par ti es but ra ther of de fending hims elf. Al so before the jur y w as appel lan t’ s sta tus as a convicted fe lon i llegally posse ssing a gun, app ellant ’s prior assault up on a n ex-w ife, his ten den cy

to abu se drugs, his having ingested met ham phe tam ine be fore the shoo ting, his potent ial as soc ia ti o n w it h tha t of a na ti onal ly kn ow n motorcy cl e g ang , hi s c onti nui ng to shootafter

the pur por

ted a g g re ss ors fle d, an d hi s d esc ri pti on of e x p e ri ences g ar nered from hi s p r i s on l i fe. Th ata pp el l an t used s uc h l eg al b uzzw ords a s “ ret rea t” a nd “ fea r for my safety ” in desc ri bin g the ev ent a nd hi s e moti ons coul d hav e al so been s een by the jur y as re hearsed and l ess than si ncere.9

In s hor t, the tr ial w as a cl ean one. And asi de from t he c omment ati ss ue, t here w as so much more i n the record that co u ld , a nd undo ubtedl y di d, l eg it imat ely

neg ate t he premis e tha t app ell ant acted out of sel f-defense. Giv en this , w e cannot but hold that any affecthi s b ra g g adoci o aboutrobbi ng bank s h ad on the j ur y w as sl ig ht atbest. T hus, the las t tw o i ss ues prov ide no b asi s u pon w hic h to re v erse the j udg ment. Hav ing ov er ru led eac h i ss ue, we aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.