## NO. 12-08-00012-CR
IN TH E CO UR T O F AP P EA LS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

BEV ERLY SANFORD, ' APP EAL FRO

M T HE 2 41 ST APPELLANT
V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF
TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE ' SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION
B e ve rl y Sanf or d appe a ls h e r c onvic tio n f or de liv e ry of be tw e e n o ne and

fo ur g ra ms of coc aine, f

or which she was sente nced to imprisonment for twe nty y ear s. A p p el lant raises fo ur iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND Ap pe lla nt w a s c ha

rg e d b y ind ic tme nt w ith de liv e ry of be tw e e n o ne and

fo ur g ra ms of c oc a ine . App e lla

nt p le a de d “ no t guil ty ,” and the matte r p ro c e e de d to a jur y tr ia l. At trial, Tyler Police Of fice r Ge rald Fr an k Brewe r testified on the State’ s behalf. B re we r t e sti fi e d th a t he wo rk e d a s an und e rc ov e r n arc oti c s o ff ic e r. Brewer stat e d th a t it
was c ommon for police to use c onfidential i nformants to make drugpurcha ses from suspected dr

ug deale rs while police e mploy surveillance techniques. B rew er f urther stated that Roy Dewbe rry

acte d as a c onfidential inform ant in the ca se at ha nd. Br ewe r testified t h at on April 13, 2007, De wber ry , under the direc tion of police off icer s, made a

“cr ack”
coca ine purc has e at t h e “Mansion,” which wa s a house in which the owner permitted mul ti p le d e a le r s to s e ll dr u g s . B r e w e r f

urth e r te s ti f

ie d th a t o f

f ic e r s s e ar c h e d D e wb e r

ry and1 T he r ecor d re f

l ect s t hat bot h B r ewer an d T eke l wat che d t he vi deo at a l at er t i me. 2 D ewber r y l at er t es t i f

i ed t hat t he vi deo d epi ct ed Ap pel l ant s el l i ng hi m t hr ee r ocks of cr ack cocai ne. 3 T ekel l at er t est i f

i ed t hat t he am o unt of crack co cai ne A p p el l ant s o l d t o D ewb erry was between one and f o ur gra m s. his vehicle be fore he made the drugbuy

. Br ew er s t ated that of fice rs g ave D ewbe rry money to make the buy an d outfitted him with covert audio and vide o surveillance equipment. B rew er f

urther stated that he a

nd Offic er Ronnie T ek el listened to the live audio fe ed fr om Dewbe rry ’s surveillanc e equipment while D ewbe rry was in s i de the Mansion m ak i n g t h e drugpurcha se. B rew er te stified that afte r De wber ry exit ed the Mansion, office rs took him to a safe loc ation, at wh i ch t ime he g ave the m three r ed Z iploc ® bag g ies containingcra ck coc aine. T h e r e a f t e r , th e S t a t e s o u g h t t o a dm i t th e s ur v e i l l an c e v i d e o m a d e b y D e w b e rry. Appellant objec ted to the video’s a dmission arg uing that it was not properly authenticated beca use B rew er did not monitor the video live as it wa s beingmade and, thus , could not 1 testify that the video ac curately re p re sented the sc ene de picted ther ein. The tria l court
overr uled Appellant’ s objection. Dewbe rry also testified on beha lf of the State. De wber ry t es t i fi ed that he knew Ap pellant as a

person who sold c rac k coca ine in Smit h County , Texas. Dewbe rry further test i fied that he , at the re quest of the Ty ler Police De partment, wa s fitted with an
a u d i o / v i d e o r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e an d w e n t t o th e “ M an s i o n ” t o m ak e c o n t a c t w i th Ap p e l l an t to purc ha se c oc ain e. Dewber ry state d th a t on c e he wa s in sid e the Mans ion on the da y in question, he purc hased thre e roc ks of cr ack c ocaine from Appe llant for fi ft y d o l lars ea ch. 2 Dewbe rry further stated that upon leav ing the Mansion, he g ave the coca ine he pur chase d t o th e p o l i ce o ff

i ce rs wi thwh o mh e w as wo rk i n g. Teke l tes ti f

ie d a s th e St a te ’ s n e xt w it

n e s s . T e k e l t e s ti f

ie d th a t h e is a

n ar cotics detec tive for the Spec ial Investig ative Unit of the Ty ler Police De partment. Tekel furthe r testified conc erningDewbe rry ’s dru g p u rc hase a s a conf idential informant on beha lf of the Tyl e r P o l i c e D e p art m e n to nth e d ay i nqu e s t i o n . T e k e l ’ s t e s t i m o n y a l i g n e d i t s e l f c l o se ly with the acc ount g iven by Br ewe r. Teke l stated that he had previously revie wed th e cover video made by

Dewbe rry . Teke l further testified that Appellant is see n on t h e v i deo tape selling D ewbe rry

one hundre d fifty

dollars worth of c rac k coca ine. 3FollowingTeke l’s testimony , both parties re sted. Ul t i m at el y , the jury found Appellant “guilty ” as c harg ed. The matter s ubsequently proce eded to a

trial on punis hme nt. At the trial on punishment, Br ewe r ag ain testified on the State’ s behalf. B rew er testified that on April 24, 2007, he a nd Teke l ag ain used De wber ry to buy cra ck coc aine from Appe llant at the Mansion. B rew er te stifiedthat, simil ar to the A pril 13 transac tion, Dewbe rry made a cover t video of the April 24 transaction while the of fice rs listened to the audio fe ed re motely . Appellant objec ted to the admission of the video on the same g rounds that he objec ted to t h e April 13 video at the trial on guilt-innocence . The trial c ourt
overr uled Appellant’s objection. There afte r, De wber ry testified that he pur chase d cra ck
coca ine from Appe llant on April 24, 2007 on behalf of the Tyler Police De partment. Ul tim a te ly , the jur

y a sse sse d App e lla

nt’ s p un ishme nt at im

pr iso nme nt f

or tw e nty y ear s. The trial c ourt sentenc ed Appe llant acc ording ly , and this appea l followed.

A D M IS SI BILITY O F S U R V EI LLAN C E V I D EO In her f irst issue, Appellant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in admitti n g the April 13
s ur v e i l l an c e v i d e o b e c a

u s e th e v i d e o w a s n o tp r o p e r l y a u th e n t i c a t e d

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Appellant conte nds that beca use B rew er did not view t h e l i v e v ideo fe ed, he c ould not testify that the video depic ted the sce ne as it existed at the time in question. We r e v ie w th e tr ia l c o urt’ s d e c is io n to a dmi t e v id e n c e f o r a b u s e o f d is c r e tion. See To rre s v . St ate , 71 S.W .3d 758, 760 (Tex. Crim. A p p . 2 0 0 2). We will not rever se the trial court’s r u l i n g u n l es s that ruling f

alls outside the zone of rea sonable disag ree ment. Id. The ultimate test for authe ntication is alway s whether the propone nt of t h e ev idence has made a sh ow ingsu ff

ic ie nt t o p e rm it a

re a so na ble jur or to f ind that th e e vi den ce is what it s proponent c laims. Re av is v . St ate , 84 S.W .3d 716, 719 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, no pe t.) ; see T EX
. R. E V ID
. 90 1( a ). Thus , th e tr ia l co ur t do e s n ot a

bu se its dis c re tio n in admitting evide nce where it believes that a r ea s o n ab l e j u ror c ould find the evidenc e has been a uthenticated or

i d en t i fi ed. Flue llen v . St ate , 1 0 4 S. W. 3 d

1 5 2 , 1 6 1 ( T e x. App.–Texarkana

2003, no pet.). In Re av is , the For

t Worth C ourt o f Ap p eals considered the question Appellant now po se s to us . T he cou rt hel d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

a dmi tti ngint o4 T he co urt f

urt her not ed t hat t he vi d eo t ap e i nt ernal l y i nd i cat ed t he d at e and t i m e o f i t s t ap i ng. evidenc e a se curity

videotape where the sponsoringwitness had no t p er s o nally witnessed the eve nts depicted on the vide otape. Id. at 720. Ther e, the sponsoringwitness testified that ( 1 ) o nth e mo r

n in g o f th e d ay o f th e o f f e n s e , h e lo a d e d

th e v id e o ta

p e an d presse d “re cord,” (2) he remove d the videotape from the mac hine short l y afte r the a

ppellant was appre hended, ( 3) he vie wed the ta pe with a police office r i m m ed i ately afte r the a

ppellant’s appre hension, (4) he revie wed the vide otape just p ri or to his trial testimony , and (5) what he sawwas identica l to what he had see n on the tape on the day of the off

ense, which i n d i ca t ed that the tape ha d not been subjec t to tampering

. Id

. T h e c o urt h e ld th a t suc h evidenc e wa s suffici en t to enable a rea sonable juror

to conclude the videotape w as what the State claimed it to be. Id. ; s ee also Pa ge v . St ate , 1 2 5 S. W. 3 d

6 4 0 , 6 4 8 ( T e x. 4 App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. re f’d) (videotape sufficie ntly authenticated by testimony th a t ( 1 ) d ig it a l r e c o r d in g s y s te m r e c o r d e d im a g e s f r o m s ixt e e nv id e o c ame r as and automatica lly

saved those imag es onto a c omputer har d d ri ve, (2) witness obtained the digital r ecor ding sy stem’s hard dr ive shortly afte r r o b b er y

and re viewed the rec ordingof the r o b b er y with police offic ers, ( 3) witness copie d rec ordingof the robbe ry onto a videotape a

nd g ave it to offic ers, ( 4) witnes s re v i ew ed the videotape befor e trial, a nd (5) video tape ha d not been a ltered in a ny way ). In the instant c ase, Br ewe r testified that he outfitted Dewbe rry wi t h t h e d igital audio/video re cordingdevice and a tr ansmitter. B rew er f urther te stified that he and T ekel monit ored the a

ud io f e e d f ro m th e re c or din g de vic e wo rn by De wb e rr y in r e a l ti me wh ile Dewbe rry was in the Mansion. B rew er state d that when De wber ry left the Mansion, they too k h im t o a

sa fe loc a tio n a

nd rem ov ed th e a

ud io/vid e o s ur

ve ill anc e e qu ipm e nt f

ro m hi s person. B rew er f

urther stated that he inter viewed D ewbe rry

imme d i at el y following the transac tion and compar ed De wber ry ’s answe rs t o what he he ard on the live audio fe ed. Br ewe r testified that a fter inter viewingDewbe rry , he re t u rn ed to the police station and watche d the video. B rew er f urther te stified that as he w atche d the video, he c ompare d what he sa

w on the vide o b o t h wi t h wh at he he ard via the live audio fe ed and what Dewbe rry told him i mmediately

following the transa ction. Thus, acc ordingto Bre wer , based on his re view of t h e Ap ri l 13 video as we ll as the totality of the a fore mentioned information, the exhibit was a true a nd acc urate copy o f wh at was contained on the c amer a5 See M a lo n e v . S ta te , 253 S. W

. 3d 253, 258 ( T ex . Cr i m. App. 2008) ( i n e v al u at i n g s u f f i ci en cy of evi d ence co rr obor at i n g c ov er t a g en t t es t i mon y , r ev i ew i n g c ou r t mu s t e x cl u de t es t i mon y of c ov er t a g en t f

r om cons i dera t i on an d exa mi ne r emai ni ng ev i dence t o det erm i ne w het her t her e i s ev i dence t hat t ends t o conne ct d e fen d a n t t o c o m m issio n o f o ff e n se ); s ee al

s o T EX
. C O D E C R IM
. P R OC
. A NN
. art

. 38

. 1 4 1 (V ernon 2 0 0 5 ). supplied by

the Tyler Police De partment an d , further, truly and ac curately

depicted Dewbe rry ’s movements inside the Mansion on the da y in question. Having c o n s id e r e d B r e w e r ’ s te s ti mo n y in li g h t o f th e a u th o r it y d ir e c tl y o n p o int, we hold that such evidenc e wa s sufficient t o en able a rea sonable juror

to conclude that the video was what t h e State claimed it to be. As such, w e ar e unable to conclude that the trial court a bused its discretion. F ur the r, e ve n a ssumin g argue nd o th a t th e vid e o at is su e wa s n ot p ro pe rl y
a uth e nti c a te d, the re c or d d oe s n ot r e fl e c t th a t App e llan t was ha rm e d a s a

re su lt o f i ts admission. Error is har mless when evide nce of the s am e acts is admitted later at trial without objection. See Ma tthe ws v . St ate , 152 S.W .3d 723, 730 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2004, no p e t

. ) ( ci t i n g Wo oll

s v . St ate , 665 S.W .2d 455, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)). In the instant
case , subsequent to the trial c ourt’s admission of the video, Te kel testified without objectio n that Appellant is seen on the video selling one hundre d fifty dollars worth of
cr ac k co ca ine to Dewbe rry . Thus, we hold that the e rror , if any , of which A ppellant
c omp la ins wa s h arm le ss. Appellant’s f

irst issue is overruled.

C O R R O BO R A TIO N O F C ON FI D ENTIAL I N FORM A N T T E S T I M ONY In her se cond issue, Appe llant argues that, abse nt the admission of the video, there was insuffic ient evidenc e to cor roborate Dew

berr y ’s testimony . T h e linchpin of Ap pe lla nt’ s argume nt u

nd e rl yinghe r s e c on d issue is that th e vid e o w a s im pr op e rl y
a dmi tte d. Ind e e d, in h er bri efi ng of thi s is su e , App e lla

nt c on c e de s th a t th e vid e o c onne c ts Appellant to the tra

nsaction at issue. In our ana ly sis of Ap pellant’s first issue, we 5 deter mined the trial cour

t d i d not abuse its discretion in admitting the vide o evidenc e at iss ue . We fu

rt he r n ote d th a t, eve n assumin g argue nd o th a t th e vid e o w a s im pr op e rl y
a dmi tte d, its a dmi ssi on

wa s har mle ss. Th e re fo re , s inc e the vid e o at is su e wa s p ro pe rl y admitted, and, as A

ppellant conc edes, c onnects Appellant to the tra nsaction at issue, we hold that there is suff

icient evidenc e to corroborate Dew berr y ’s testimony . Appellant’s6 Ref er en ce s t o a n “ i n f

or man t ” n ec es s ar i l y me an s a c on f i den t i al i n f

or man t pu r s u an t t o a r t i cl e 38. 141. second issue is over

ruled.

J URY I NS T RUCT I ON O N C O R R O BO R A TIO N O F C ON FI D ENTIAL I NF ORMANT ’ S T E S T I M ONY

In h e r t hir d is su e , App e lla

nt a rgue s tha t th e tr ia l c ou

rt e rr e d b y de nyinghe r r e qu e st that a co rr o boration instruction be g iven in the jury char g e. As the State opine s in its brief, the re cord f

ully supports that Dewbe rry

was a cting cover

t l y o n b eh alf of a law e nforc ement ag ency . See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 38.141(a) (Ve rnon 2005). As such, t h e trial court’s r efusa l to give a corr oboration instruction was e rror . See He rro n v . St ate , 86 S.W .3d 621, 63 1 (T ex. C rim. App. 2002) (if pr osecution witness is acc omplice as a matter of law, tria l court is under duty to i n s t ru ct jury

acc ording ly , and fa ilure to do so is error); Ma lon e , 253 S.W .3d at 257–58 (a pplying an al y s i s under “ acc omplice-witness suff iciency
corr oboration standar d” to the “c overt-a g ent rule” ). Har m Ana lys is Ha vin g de te rm ine d th a t th e re wa s e rr or in t he c ha rg e , w e mu st no w d e c ide if sufficie nt harm wa s cause d by the e rr o r t o re q u ire a

reve rsal. Cas til

lo v . St ate , 7 S.W .3d 2 5 3 , 2 6 0 (T ex . Ap p . –Au s t i n1 9 9 9 , p et

. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Hutc h v . St ate , 922 S.W .2 d 1 6 6 , 170 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 )) . Ajur y c ha rg e e rr or mus t be review e d f

or ha rm un de r a rt ic le 3 6

. 1 9 o f th e T e x a s C o d e o f

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d

ur e a s i n t e r

p r e t e d b y Almanza v

. St ate , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on re h’g ). As wi th a

n in str uc tio n und e r t

he a c c omp lic e wi tne ss r ule , a c ourt ’s fai lu re to instruct the jury

pursuant to ar t i cle 38.141 can be r ender ed har mless by evidenc e apa

rt from the c onfidential informa n t ’s testimony

wher e that evide nce f

ulfills the purpose an instruction is designe d to serve. See Herron , 8 6 S .W .3 d a t 63 2. A h arm le ss e rr or ana ly sis for the om i s s i o n of such a n instruction should be flexibl e, takinginto account the e x istence and streng th of any

noninformant evidenc e and the applicable standar d o f h ar m . Id. In 6 deter mining the stre ng th o f a particular item of nona ccomplice evidenc e, we examine (1) its rel ia b il it y o r b e li e v a b il it y an d ( 2 ) th e s tr e n g th

o f it s te n d e n c y

to c o n n e c t t

h e d e f endant to the crime. Id.Under Almanza , err or prope rly prese rved by

an objec tion will require re versa l as l o n g as the e rror

is not harmless. See id. ; Almanza v . St ate , 686 S.W .2d at 171. T h is has b een inter

prete d to mean any

harm re g ardle ss of deg ree . See Hutch , 9 2 2 S. W. 2 d at 171. Whe re e rr or

ha s b e e n p re se rv e d, the no nin fo rm ant e vid e nc e must be st ron g e r t ha n w hat is require d in the eg reg ious harm cont ex t. See Herron , 86 S.W .3d at 632. Thus, the reliability inquiry may be satisfied if ( 1) there is noninformant evide n ce and (2) there is no
ratio na l and art icu lab le ba sis fo r d isr e g ard ingthe no nin fo rm ant e vid e nc e or fi nd ingthat it fails to connec t the defe ndant to the offe nse. In the ca se at ha

nd, Appellant has ma de a r ational and a rticul ab l e ch all eng e to the
a dmi ssi bil ity

of th e vi deo e vid e nc e . N on e the le ss, we c ann ot d isr e g ard Te ke l’ s su c c inc t, definit e , an d

un c h a ll e n g e d

te s ti mo n y

th a t h e o b s e r

v e d th e v id e o o f

D e wb e r r y p ur c h a s ing
cra ck coc aine f

rom Appellant. More over, both B rew er a nd Teke l testif

i ed t h at they
sear ched D ewbe rry

and his vehicle prior to his enteringthe Mansion. B o t h o ff i ce rs furthe r testified that they

outfitted Dewbe rry

with an audio- v ideo re cordingdevice and monitored the live audi o fe ed d uringthe entire ty of the time per iod in question. The office rs stated that D e wb e r

r y w a s g iv e na

s p e c if ic amo un t o f

mo n e y w it hw h ic hto c o n d

u c t t h e tr an s a c tion and make a pay

ment to “the hou s e. ” T h e office rs furthe r stated that they sear ched De wb e rr y imm e diate ly

fo llo wi ngthe tr ans a c tio n, re c ov e re d th e c ra c k c oc a ine fr om h im, and intervie wed him to as s u re t h at what he told them ac curately ref lected what they

hear d via the live audio f

eed. Even if we wer e to conc lude that there was a rational ba sis for disreg ardingthe video evidenc e, ther e is no such basis in the re cord f or doubtin g t h e re l i abil ity of the respe ctive testimony

offe red by

Brew er and Teke l. As such, we hold that the tr ial court’s
er ro n eo u s ref

usal to submit an inst ruction in this inst ance was ha rmless. Appellant’s third issue is overrule d.

A D M IS SI BILITY O F S U R V EI LLAN C E V I D EO A T T RI AL ON P UNI S HM E NT In he r fo ur

th iss ue , Ap pe lla

nt argue s that the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in adm it ti ng th e Ap ri l 24 surveillance video which wa s not pro p erly authenticated bec ause B rew er te stified that he did not observe the live fe ed of the video. As bef ore, w e re view the tria l court’s decision to admit ev i dence for a buse of discr etion. See Torres , 7 1 S. W. 3 d a t 7 6 0

. We7 D uri ng t he gui l t

- i nno cence p hase of t he t ri a l, B re w e r t est i f i ed t hat on eve ry oc casi o n, when t he conf i dent i al i nf

ormant r et ur ns f

r om t he dru g t r ans act i on, of f i cer s i nt er vi ew hi m a nd comp ar e wh at he t el l s t hem t o what t hey he ar d vi a t he l i ve audi o f eed. T her eaf

t er , of f i cer s go t o t he po l i ce depart ment an d wat ch t he vi deo a n d c o m p a re the v id e o to w h a t the y h e a rd a s w e ll a s w h a t the info rm a n t to ld the m . S e e , e.g ., R a y m e v . S ta te , 178 S. W

. 3d 21, 27 ( T ex . A pp. –H ou s t on [1s t D i s t

. ] 2005, no pet

. ) (e v i den ce admi t t ed i n t h e g u i l t

- i n n oce n ce ph as e of tria l m a y b e c o n sid e re d b y the ju ry d u rin g the p u n ish m e n t p h a se re g a rd le ss o f wh e the r sta te m o v e s to re -ad m it i t

. ). 8 T e n d o llar s o f t h e two hu n d re d sixty d o llar s g ive n to D e w b e rr y w a s to b e us e d to “p a y the ho u se .” ag ain n o t e t h at t he ultimate test for a uthentication is alway s whether the propone nt of the evidenc e has ma de a show ing suf fi ci en t t o permit a re asonable juror to find that the evidenc e is what its proponent c laims. Re av is , 8 4 S. W.3 d at 71 9; see T EX
. R. E V ID
. 901(a)

. Here, Br ewe r testified a s the State’s sponsoringwitness. Br ewe r ac knowledg ed th a t h e h a d t e s t i f

i e d i n th e g u i l t

- i n n o c e n c e p h a s e o f th e c a s e th e d ay b e f o r e an d s t a te d th a t,
a p artf r o mth e d ay’ s w o rtho f

e x p e r i e n c e h e h a d

a c qu i r e d s i n c e h i s p r e v i o u s t e s t i m o n y,
e ve ry thi nge lse wa s th e same. B re we r t e sti fi e d th a t he and Te ke l a g a in m e t w ith 7 Dewbe rry for the pur

pose of se nding him bac k to the Mansi o n to contact Appe llant and make a purcha se of c rac k cocai n e. Ac cordingto Bre wer , on this occasion, he a nd Teke l g ave D ewbe rry

two hundred sixty d o l lars with which to purc hase the coca ine. Br ewe r 8 stated that the video w ould depict (1) the twenty minute dri v e to t he Mansion, (2) Dewbe rry ’s entry

into the home and conve rsation with Appellant, (3) the drugtransac tion betwee n Dewbe rry

and Appe llant, and (4) D ewbe rry ’s depa rture f rom the Mansion. Brewe r f ur the r s tate d th a t w he n D e wb e rr y le ft the Ma ns ion , h e ha d c ra c k c oc a ine in h is possession that he did not have be fore he went to the Mansion. Br ewe r testified that he had

v i ew ed the surve illance video, that it truly and ac curately

depicted the transac tion between De wb e r r y an d Ap p e l l an t , an d th a t i t w a s m a d e b y a d e v i c e c a p a b l e o f c a p tur i n g b o th aud io and video. B rew er te stified that he monitored the live a udio fee d of th e t ra n s ac tion, but not the live vi d eo fe ed

. Br ewe r fur ther testified that he was a ble to compar e the a

udio he hea

rd in rea l time with the video when he vie wed it af ter the f act. Havingconsidere d Br ewe r’s testimony g iven during b o t h the guilt-innocence and punis hme nt ph a se s of tr ia l, we ho ld that su c h e vid e nc e is su ff ic ie nt to e na

ble a rea so na

ble juror to conc l u d e that the video w as what the State claimed it to be. See Re av is , 84 S.W .3d
a t 71 9– 20 ; see also Page , 125 S.W .3d at 648. Moreove r, subs equent to the trial court’s admission of the video, D ewbe rry testified9 A rt i cl e 3 8

. 1 4 1 do es not requi re, and A p p el l ant has not argued, t hat a co nf i d ent i al i nf

o rma nt ’ s t est i m o ny o ff e re d d u rin g a trial o n p u n ish m e n t m u st b e c o rr o b o ra te d

. See T EX
. C O D E C R IM
. P R OC
. A NN
. art

. 38

. 1 4 1 (a). without objection that he re turned to the Mansion on Apr il 24, 2007 at the direc tion of the
Tyler Police De partment an d p u rc h ased c rac k coca ine from Appe llant. Thus, we hold that 9 the er ror, if a ny , of which A

ppellant co m p l ai n s , was ha rmless. See Ma tthe ws , 152 S.W .3d at 730. Appellant’s f

ourth issue is overrule d.

D I S P OS I T I ON Havingoverr

uled Ap p el l an t’s issues one, two, three , and four , we af fi rm the trial
c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

JA M ES T. WOR THEN Chief J ustice

Opinion delivere d September 30, 2009. P an elconsi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)