## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00269

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal fr om the 211th Distri ct C ourt Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F17

- 1012

- 158
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Bassel, JJ. Memo randum Opinion by Justice Bassel 

### T YRIN 

### R ELIFORD 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TAT E OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introduction Appellant Tyrin Reliford appeals his con viction for murd er and his thir ty

- year

sent ence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1 9 .02. I n two po ints, Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to supp ort th e jury ’ s verdict that he was t he individual who shot Christian Chapman and that the trial court abus ed its discretion by ad mitt i ng the
contents of the text messages contained in State ’ s Exhibit 27 bec a use they were not
auth enticated and constituted inadmissible hears ay. B ecau se we hold that the
evidence is sufficient t o show that Appellant was the s hoo ter and that Appellant forfeited any error in the admission of State ’ s Exhibit 27 by fa iling to object when the
substance of that evidence came in elsewhere , we affirm.
II. Factual Background
A. The Murder Shortly befo re 1 1 p.m. on Februar y 11, 2017 , K.B. , who was thirteen ye ars old

at t he time , heard “ weird noises ” t hat “ sounded . . . sof t, but [ like ] gunshots ” as she and her family exited their car near th e i r apartment in B ui l ding 7 of the W e llington Park Apartments in Lewisville

. S h e then saw a car hit a parked car that belonged to
one of her neighbor s . When police arrived shortly the r eafter, they sa w blood on the driver ’ s face , noted that he had a gunshot wou nd to the head, found sh ell casings i n hi s la p an d on
the floor b oa rd , a nd d etermined that he was dead. The autopsy revealed that the3 victim had sustained eight gunshot wounds, in c ludi ng multiple gunsh ot wounds to the
chest.
The lanyard hanging on the rearview mi rror cont ained an employee
identificat ion badge for Christia n C h apman. One of the officers asked the dispatchers

to run a criminal history check on Chapman to see if he ha d any identifying scars,
mark s, or tattoos ; that histor y showed that he had t attoos on his hand s . T he tattoos
on the victim’s hands led police to conclude that the victim was Chapman. Pol ice
noted that Chapman was seat ed in the vehicle in a position in w h ich his arm was resting on the center console and t hat under neath his hand was a pla stic bag containing “a bunch of pills.”
When the police interviewed Chapman ’ s family members , they l earned that he
had lived in Frisco with his mother , that he had rece ntl y been released from prison,
that he had be en d ealin g marijuana and ec stasy, that he owed money to people, and
that he was affilia ted with the Crips gang.
B
. The Description of the Man W ho Ha d Left the Scen e Wh en police interviewed K.B. , she said that she had seen a blac k ma n wit h
“dreads” coming towards her and her parents; he was coming from near the car s that
were i nvolved in the crash. K.B. estimated that she was probably arou nd 5’2 ” or 5’3”
at the time of the incident and that the man who had come to w a rd he r that nigh t was4 5’5” because he was taller than she was. 1 K.B. sa w the man for only a few seconds
because after seeing her and her family , he change d direction and ran “back to the right

. ”
C
. T h e Search of Chapman ’ s Ca r
In a dditi on to the tw o she l l casings that police initially saw in Chapman ’ s lap
and on the floorboard, a search of his car revealed four other shell casings and three
bullets

— all o f which were collected for forensic testing

. Po lice also foun d fou r c ell phones i n Chapman ’ s car and c ollected them

. Fingerp rints were lifted from the hood of the vehicle; none were found on the passenger side doo r or the passen ger seat belt. 2
D . The Search of Chapman ’ s Phones Co n nects Him to Appellant
D ata extracted from Chapman ’ s main cell phone showe d that th e last contact he had prior to his death was to arrange a marijuana exchange at B uilding 7 of the Wellington Park Apar tments. Detective Scott Kelly , who serve d as the l ea d detective on the case, explained that the texts on Chapman ’ s phone mention e d the name

“ Tytianna ” as the person who had introduced Chapman to Appellant

. Detective Kelly sa id that the re was a text from Tytianna to Chapman stating t h at s he h a d given

1 On c ro ss

- exami nation , K.B. , who was f iftee n at the time of the t rial, testified that she could not remember how tall she was when sh e wa s thirteen.

2 The f ingerprints that were collected from the hood of Chapman’s car matched
a wo man ’ s that he h ad b een romant ically involved with

. N o fi ngerprint s or DNA connect ed Appellant to C h apma n ’ s car.5 his name to an individual that she used to work with because he was lo oking for so me marijuana and she believed that Chapman could help him out. Detective Kelly called the phone number end ing in 9 2 1 3, which was a ssociated with t h e te xt fr om Tytianna , and Tytianna answered the phone. Tytianna Johnson tes tified that she knew Appellant f rom when she had worked
with him at Dairy Queen in 2015. After Appellant no longer worked at Dairy Queen,
he and Tytia n na k ept i n touch over Snapchat

. Tytiann a sai d that on February 11, 2017, Appellant messaged her on Snapchat and asked if she knew of any one who sol d marijuana. Tytianna knew that C h apman sold marijuana , s o she told Chapm an t hat someo ne she had previously worked with wanted some marijuana, and Chapman said to g ive the person his number. Tytianna complied by g ivin g Chapman’s phone number t o A ppellant. After Tytianna got home
from w ork on Febr uary 11, she reac hed o ut to Appellant on Snapchat, but he had
blocked her.
Detect ive Kelly testified that based on the texts found on Chapman’s phone, Appellant h ad contacted Chapman to purchase a “ zip , ” which is an ounce of marijuana , a nd had reque s ted to me et Chapman at the Wellington Park Apartments. Chapman had asked f or the specific address. Detective Ke lly testified that based on the phone activity, it appeared that Chapman and Appellant met at the Wellingt on Park Apar t ment s bec ause Chapman texted, “Hey, I’m about 15 minutes away. Okay?”6 Detec tive Kelly testified that during a separate misdem eanor investigation, which occurred a couple of weeks after the murder investigation, he obtained Appella n t’ s contact i nfor matio n from his family, and the phone number (ending in 8805) that they provided fo r Appellant matched the phone number that showed u p in Chapman’s phone during the “drug

- setup

- to

- purchase incident.” Detective Kelly
calle d the phone n umb e r and was placed on speaker phone , so he spoke with Appellant and another individua l. To narrow down whether the phone number corresponded to Appellant, Detective Kelly asked Appellant whose phone he was using, and he said that i t was his pho ne.
E . Appe lla nt Detained for Questioning and Cell Phone s Confiscated
An off icer stopped Appellant i n March 2017 because he was wanted for
que stioning on se veral offenses

. As a result of the traffic stop, the a rresting offi cer colle cted a couple of cell phones from App ellant

. F . The Sea rch of Appellant ’ s Phone s Shows that He Had Sought out a Gun
Detecti ve Kelly testifi ed that the results of the forensic examination of Appellant’s phon es did not show t he te xt mes sages regarding purchas ing a zip, 3 but
the results let hi m know that there w as another individual that he needed to speak
with

— Tavahn Dunl ap. Appellant ’ s text messages with Dunlap were about a .40

- caliber Glock 27.

3 Detectiv e Ke lly opined that th ose text messages had been deleted.7 T h e evid ence r e flecte d that A p pellant ’ s main phone had received two photos of a Glock pist ol f rom a phone nu mber ending in 4270 that was listed in the contacts
as “TC

. ” 4 Additionally, Appellan t ’ s phone contai ned text message s fr om 6: 29 p.m. on Janu ary 30, 2017, through 12:33 p.m. on January 31, 2017, between Appel lant and the
4270 number associate d w ith TC

. Appellant initiated the conversation, askin g, “Where da straps?” Detective Sh awn Dori ty , who testi fied abou t the data extracted from Appellant ’ s phone, explained that based on his training and experience, “straps”
refers to a firear m. TC resp ond ed, “What’s craccin’ . . . shit wh at u lookin’ for, clean

or dirty,” which Detective D ority transla ted as fo llows: “What kind o f gun are you looking for, stolen or legitimately purchased?” Appellant responded, “Don’t ma tter.” At first TC texted, “My boy got a .45 Gl ock, 275,” but later he sa id, “I lied. It’s a
.40.” A ppell ant asked if it was a Glock 27, and TC replied, “Yuh.” The two then

text ed amounts , which Detective Dority interpreted as negotiations regarding the price of the gun. The fo llowi ng day, TC texted App el lant to ask i f he still ne eded the gun, and Appellant r esponded, “Yuh. I gotta cash dis check at 9.” The f inal response
from TC was that the gun’s owner was at work and would contact him on his break so that TC could go get the gun

. Dunlap testifi ed at trial t hat he ha d first met Appellant when he had ta ken his kids to play at Old Orchard Park. Appellant had approached Dunlap while he was

4 Dunlap explaine d that he was known as Twin C ities or TC because he grew u p in St. Paul, Mi nnesota
.8 smoking, they had talked about tattoos, and t hey had exchanged phone numbers. Dunlap admitte d t ha t many peop le ha d his phone number , which ended in 4270,
because he was known as someone who could “ get things for people. ”
Wh en Appellant asked for a gun, Dunlap told him that he could get that for
him. Dunlap texted pictures o f the g un t o App ellant

. Dunla p testified that he had loaned Appellant a .40

- caliber G lock wi th the hope that he would purchase it f rom him because he needed money to pay for daycare. Dunlap said that Appellant came

to his home a nd pick ed u p the gun. Dunlap tol d Appellant tha t h e needed either the gun or the money f or the gun in his c ar by Friday. 5 Dunlap testified that Appellant returned the gun by pla cing it in th e center console in Dunlap’s car the night bef ore
Dun lap pawne d the gun. Dunlap did not know that the gun had b een used in a crime , b u t he knew that Appellant had wanted to make some quick money and needed the gun for prote ction.

5 It appears that Dunlap was confused as to w h at day he neede d the gun
re turn ed

. Du nlap testified that Appellant had the gun for only about twenty

- four hour s , and the eviden ce sho ws that the murder occu rred o n February 1 1, 2017

— which the cal endar for 2017 reflects was a Saturday

— a nd that the gun was paw ned the followi ng d ay

— which was a Sunday. Se e Tex. R. Evid

. 201 (permitting judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reaso nable dispute becau se i t can be accurately and readily determined fr om sources whose accuracy cannot reason ably b e questioned ), 204(b)(1) (p ermi tting court to take judicial notice on its own) ; see , e.g. , Ex part e Carson , 215 S.W.3d 9 21, 923 n.3 (Tex. A p p.

— T exarkana 2007, no pet. ) (tak ing judicial noti ce of the calendar for 2006).9 The evidence at trial demonstrated that Du nlap so ld t he gu n to Le gacy Pawn
around 11 a.m. on Febr u ary 12, 2017. De tective Kelly tracke d down the gun, and the buyer brought it to the police department.
G . The S e arch of Appellan t ’ s Main Phone Reveals Two P h one Ca lls wit h Ch apman Detective Dority testified that he searche d f or a ny calls on Appellant ’ s phone
i nvolving the phone number endi n g in 6558 , which w as Chapman ’ s phone number

. There were two incoming calls on A p pellant ’ s phone f rom the 6558 numb er on
F ebru ary 1 1 , 2017 : one at 10:49 p.m. that lasted twenty

- four seconds and one at
10:52 p. m. that lasted three minutes and forty

- two se c onds.
H . Results of the Testing on the Ca sings, Projectil es, and Gun Detective Kelly te stifi ed t hat t he six casings all contained the same headstamp; they were all .40

- caliber ammunit ion m anufactured by Perfecta

. Detective Kelly explained that because t h e shell casings and pr ojectiles were all from the same brand
and were all of the same cali ber, he was confident that they had been fired from the
same gun. The sa me co nclusion was reached by Kevin Callahan, a firearms and toolmark
examiner with the Texas D epartment of Public Safety Crime L aboratory who analyzed the six c artri dge cases , the three bullets , and the Glock pistol. Callahan

t estified that the six cartridge cases had the following class characteristics: they were
.40

- caliber Smith & Wesson, the y were fired from the s ame un k nown firearm, and10 they could have been fired from a Glock or a Smith & Wesson. Callahan te stified that of the three projectiles, one was damaged, which prevented him from making a positive identification. But he conclud ed th a t the other two proj ecti les c ontained substantial individual marks for him to conclude that they had been fired from the
same unknown firearm. Callahan analyzed the Glock pistol, which he said was a Glock 27, Generation 4 that fire d .40

- cal iber S m ith & W e sson ammuni tion

. Callahan compared “test

- fires” from the Glock pistol to the bullets and car tridge cases that had
been recovered and concluded that all six of the cartridge cases and all three of the
bullets had been fired “ from th is par t icular firearm. ”
I . Other Suspect Ruled O ut Detective Kelly testified that Dewayne Franklin was initially the number one
suspect because he is a Lewisville resident who is a member of the B l oods gan g, i s known to hang out at the Wellin gton Pa rk Apartments , and has physi c a l descriptors
and a hairstyle similar to the description that K.B. provided

— a you ng black male with
dr eads. Detective Kelly said that Franklin was not a suspect after Detective Kelly spoke with him and le arned o ther info rmation th at s uppor ted that Appella nt was
resp onsible f or Chapman’s death. Detective K elly testified that he was able to corroborate the reliability of the information that he had obtained from Franklin by continuing the inve stigati on. Detect ive Kelly put together a photographic lineup tha t was shown to K.B. and
her family, but they did not identify Franklin. Detective Kelly ruled out Franklin11 because he was not picked out of the photographic lineu p. D uring the defe nse’s case in chief, Appe llant recalled Detect ive Kelly to testify regardi ng the commen ts that
K.B. ’ s fath er made when he saw Franklin in the photo lineup, “His lips are too thick,
but he kind of looks like him.”
A fter “ much time had elaps ed,” K.B. and her family were shown a seco nd lineup that included Appellant, who is six fee t t all, but they did not identify him as the
suspect. Detective Kelly said that he does not put a lot of confidence in ph oto
li neups and that even if Appel lant had been picked out of the photo lineup, he would not rely specifically on th e identification f rom the photo lineup but would need to
“have other affirmative links to the case.” J . Detective Kelly ’ s Theory o f th e Case
Detective Kell y te stifi ed that he could not rule out the possibility that Dunlap
and Franklin were at the scene of the murder but th at the evidence did not show that anyone other than Appellant w as at the scene and that K.B. ’ s family saw on ly o ne person running fro m th e vic tim’s car

. Detective Kelly testified that the gun
confirmed his theor y of the case : Appellant had requested that Ch apman come to the Wellington Park Apartments on February 11, 2017, just befo re 11 :00 p.m. ; Chap man

was shot at numerou s ti mes w ith a Glock 27, .40

- millimeter firearm at the Wellington Park Apartments around 11 :00 p.m
. ; and t hrough his investigation, Det ect ive Kelly had learned that Appellant was the person in possessio n of that gun at the time o f12 Ch apma n’s murder. Det ective Kell y thus concluded that Appellant was the person responsible for Chapman’ s death.
K
. Trial Outcome After hearing the abov e evide nce , the jury agreed with Detective Kelly ’ s theo ry of the case and found App ella nt guilty. The jury assessed A ppellan t ’ s punishment at

t hir ty years ’ confinement, and the trial court senten ced him in accordance with the jury ’ s recommendation

. III. Suf f

ici en t Evid en ce Supp orts Convicti on In his firs t point, A ppellant argues tha t th e evi dence is insufficient to support the jury ’ s verdict that he was t he individual who ha d shot Chapman on February 11,
2017. Appellant contends that the physica l des cription o f C hap man ’ s murdere r do es

not match him and that no witness ide n tifi ed him as the suspect , that no physical
evidence tied him to the crime scene or to the gun, and that the evidence

“ overwhelmingly pointed to someo ne other t ha n Appellant as t he kill er. ”
A
. S tan dard of Review In our evidentiary

- suf ficie ncy review , we view all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found
the crime’s es sential elements b eyond a reaso nable d oubt. Jackso n v. Virginia , 4 43 U.S. 307, 319, 9 9 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979) ; Q ueem an v. State , 52 0 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). This standard gives full play to the factfinder’s responsibility to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evi d ence, and to draw re asonable13 infe ren c es from basic fac ts to ultimate fact s. See J ackson , 44 3 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Queeman , 520 S.W.3d at 622.
The factfi nder alone judges the evidence’s weight and credibility. See Tex. Code
Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar t
. 38.04; Q uee man , 52 0 S.W.3d at 6 22

. W e may not re

- ev aluate the
evidence ’s w eight and credi bility and substitute our judgment for the factfinder’s. Queeman , 520 S .W.3d at 622. Instead, we determine whether the necessary inferences

are reasonable based o n the evid enc e’s cum ulative force wh e n v iewe d in the l ight
most f avorable to the v erdict. M urray v. State , 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App.
2015 ); see Villa v. State , 514 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (“The court conducting a sufficiency rev i ew must no t e ngage i n a ‘divide a nd c onq uer’ strategy but
must consider t he c umula tive force of all the evidence.”). We must presume that the
factfinder resolved a ny con flicting inferences in favor of the verdict, and we must
defer to th at resolution. M u rray , 457 S.W .3d at 448

– 49. More ove r , t he s tandard of
review is the same for dire ct and cir cumstantial evidence cases; circumstantial evidence is as probative as d irect evidence in establishing guilt. Jenkins v. State , 493 S.W.3d 583, 5 99 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 2016)

. B
. Appli cable Law A person c ommi ts murder if he intention a lly or knowi ngly cause s the death of an individual or intends to cause serious bodily injury a nd commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death o f an individual. T ex. Penal Co d e Ann. § 19.02(b) (1)

– (2).14 C
. A nalysis Ap pellant ’ s first insufficiency arg umen t th a t the evidence is insufficient to show
that he was the shooter stems from the phy s ical description given by K.B

. Appellant argues that because he is six f eet tall and beca use K.B. ’ s fami ly did not pick h im out of
th e ph oto l ineup, the evidence is insufficient. K.B. was thir teen years o ld at the time
of the incident an d s aw the man only for a f ew second s before he ran off ; thus, it was
understanda ble that sh e might not be a ble to pinpoint the man ’ s exa ct he ight

. Moreover, the remainder of her description was not challenged

— that the man who
had left the scene was bla ck, had dreadlocks, and was taller than she was . With regard

to K.B. ’ s family ’ s i nability to i dentify Ap pell a nt in the photo lineup, the lead detective

te stified that he does not put a lot of confidence in the identification s made during photo lineups

. The jury as the factfinder w as entitled to weigh the evid ence and
K.B. ’ s cre dibi lity and decided not to exc lude A ppellant as a suspe ct s olely because of
K.B

. ’ s inaccurate des cription of his height and the inability to id entify him in the photo lineup. W e may not re

- evaluate the evidence’s weight and credibility and substitute our judgment for the factfi nder ’s

. S e e Tex. Code Cr im. Proc . Ann

.

ar t
. 38.04; Quee man , 520 S.W.3d at 6 22

. Appellant ’ s second insufficiency argu ment contends that there is no physical
evidence that tied him to the crime scen e or to the gun. Specifically, Appellan t ar gues

t hat the evidence is ins uffic ient to show that he shot C h apman bec ause no fingerprints or DNA tied him to Chapm an ’ s car or to the gun. The State , however,15 was not req uired to put on direct evidence to prov e th at Appellant was t he s hooter

. See Jen kins , 493 S.W .3d a t 599 (stat ing that circumstantial evidence is as probat ive as
direct evidence in establishing guil t) . As set forth in detail above and as summarized below, the circumstantial evidence intro duced by t he State is sufficient to support the
verdict.
In his fi nal insuf f iciency argument , Appellant conte n d s that the evidence

“ overwhelmin gly pointed ” t o Franklin as the shooter. The jury heard evid ence that
Frank lin was initially a prime suspect because he met the physical descri ption provided by K.B. an d was known to han g out at the Wellington Park Apartments

. When K.B. and h er f amily were shown the photo lineup that in cluded Franklin , they
did not identif y hi m as the man at the scene ; they n oted that he kind of looked lik e the suspect but t hat “ [h] i s lips [were] too thick

. ” Detective Kelly ultimately ruled out
Fra nklin as a su spect because he was not identified in the photo lineup , b ecause Detect ive Kelly had spoken with Franklin , and because other information

— in cluding
the text me ssag es be tween Appellant and D unlap about the .40

- caliber Glock and the timing of Dunla p ’ s loani ng the Glock to Appellant

—had come to light during the investigat ion and had p oin ted to Appellant rather than to Franklin

. As explained above, t he jury , as the fac tfin der, had the duty to weigh the ev idence and to act as the sole judge of the witness es ’ credi bility ; again, we may not re

- evaluate the evidence’s weight and credi bility a nd substitute our judgment for the factfinder’s

. See Tex. Code
Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar t
. 3 8.04; Quee man , 520 S.W.3d at 6 22

.16 Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict , the r ecord demonstrates the following:

• Appellant reached out to T yti anna on Snapchat on February 11 to find someone who would sell him marijuana , and she gave Appe llan t
Cha pman ’ s number

.

• A ppellant tex ted Chapman to purchase m ar ijuana and set up the locat ion
for the drug b u y : B uilding 7 at the W ellington Park Apartments in
Lewisville

.

• C hapman texted Appellant when he was 15 minutes away

.

• C hapma n and Appellant had two phon e conversations at 10:49 p.m. and 10:52 p.m. on February 11.

• Shortly before 11 p.m

. , K.B. heard “ weird noises ” that “ sounded soft,
but [l ike ] gunshots ” n ear B uil ding 7 at the Well ingt on Park Apartments
and then saw a car hi t a neighbor ’ s car.

• C hapman was found in the vehi cle that had hit the neighbor ’ s car in the parking lot near B uilding 7

.

• On e black ma n with dreads was seen l eaving the ar ea.

• T h e casings and projectile s found in C hapm an ’ s v eh icle were fired from

a . 4 0

- caliber Glo ck 27

.17 • Appellan t had borr owed a . 4 0

- ca liber Glo ck 27 from Dunlap short ly
before the murder and had returned it to Dun lap less t han twelve hours
after the murder.

• The police tracked down the . 4 0

- cal iber Glo ck 27 that Appellant had borrowed from Dunlap.

• The ballistics te sting showed that t he c asing s and projectiles found in Chapman ’ s v eh icle were fired from t he

. 4 0

- caliber Glo ck 2 7 that Appellant had borrow ed from Dunlap.

• Appellant blocked Tytianna fr om c ommunicating with h im on Snapcha t after she had connected him with C hapman

.

• It appear ed t hat A ppel l ant had deleted the text messag es th at he had sent
to and had received fr om Cha pman but had failed to delete the call logs showing the two phon e call s with Chapman shortly before 11 p.m. on February 11.
While each circumst ance of guilt consi dere d in isol ation is insufficient to prove
tha t Appellant wa s the shooter, when all of the e vidence is viewed in the light most
favorable t o the verdict and when th e cu mulative force of all the admitted evidence
and rea sonable inference s that can be drawn the refro m ar e considered , we conclude
that the evidence i s s ufficient to show that App ellant shot Chapman

. See Ingerson v. State , 5 5 9 S .W.3d 501, 511 (T ex. Crim. A pp. 2018) (hol ding circumstantial evidence18 sufficient to identify appell ant as the shooter ) ; Cl ayton v. State , 235 S.W.3d 772, 7 79

– 82 ( T ex. Crim. App . 2007) ( holding that a ratio nal ju ror could find beyond a reasonable
doubt tha t appellant was r esponsible for killing victim based on reasonable inference s from and the cumulativ e force of the inc r imin ating cir cumstantial evidence presented)

. Accordingly , we hold that the evidence i s suff icient to support
A ppellant ’ s conviction for murder. Se e Cla yton , 235 S .W.3 d at 782

. We overrule Appellant ’ s f irst point.
IV
. Admission of th e Challenged Text Mess ages W as H armless In his second point, Appellant argue s that the tri al court abused its d iscretion by admitting the conte nts of th e text mess a ges c ontained in S tate ’ s Exhibit 27 because they were not properly authen ticated

. Alternativ ely, Appel lant argues that the t rial
court abused its discr e tion by admit ting the conte nts of th e text m ess ages contained in
State ’ s Exhibit 27 bec a use they constitu te d inadmissibl e hearsay.
A. Standard of Review
We re view a trial cour t’s evidentiary rul ings under an abuse

- of

- discreti on standard. See Jenkins , 4 9 3 S.W.3d at 6 07. A trial court ’s decision is a n abuse of discretion only when it falls outs ide the zone of r easonable disagreement. Winegarner
v. State , 235 S .W.3d 787, 790 (T ex. Crim. App. 2007 ). An evi dentiary ruling will be upheld if it is correc t o n any theory o f law applicable to t he case. G on zalez v. State , 195 S.W.3d 114, 126 (Tex

. Cri m. App. 2006).19 B. Applicable Law We have prev iously s et forth the law on the need for continuous objections: To preserve error, a part y must continue to object each t ime the objectionable evidence is offered. A trial court ’ s erroneous admission of evidence will not require reversal when other such evidence was received withou t ob jectio n, either before or after the complained

- of ruling. This rule applies whether the o ther evidence was introduced by the defend ant or the State. Clay v. State , 361 S.W.3d 762, 767 (Tex . App.

— Fort Worth 2012, no pet

. ) ( quoting
Si ke s v. S t ate , No. 0 2

- 10

- 00029

- CR, 2011 WL 4711998, at *6 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth
O ct. 6, 2011, pet. ref ’ d

) (mem. op. on reh ’ g , not designated for publication))

. Moreover , p reserva tion of e rror is a systemic requirement that this court shou ld
review on its own motion. Darcy v. State , 488 S.W .3d 32 5, 3 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
C. W hat the Rec ord Shows
On the second day of th e trial, during the testimony of Jonathan Hay wh o had
for ensic ally ana ly zed the data on Chapman ’ s phone, the Stat e sou ght to introduce
State ’ s Exhibit 27 , which c onsi sts of a chart with text messages ex tracte d f rom Chapman ’ s phone

. Those te xt m essages ar e shown in reve rs e chronological order on State ’ s Exhibit 27 , which is reproduced below, and reflect Tyti ann a ’ s involveme nt in

c onnect ing Appellant and Chapman , as well as the details setting up th e marijuana
sal e :202122 At tr ial , Appellant objecte d to th e ad mission of State ’ s Exhibi t 27 based on
hea rsay, the Co nf rontation Clause, and lack of authentication

. The trial court
overrul ed Appellant ’ s objections. Hay then read aloud the te xts in State ’ s Exhibit 27 , gave the date and time that t hey were received, and not ed whether the texts ha d been read by Chapman

— all without object ion

. D urin g t he prior day of trial , th e State had questioned Detective Kelly about
the data that was found during the forensic anal ysis of C hapman ’ s cell pho ne: Q. At some point, did you g et the data bac k from Mr. Chapma n ’ s cell phone?
A. W e did. Q. And was the re any thing in p arti cul ar that y o u were looking for on that cell p hone?
A. There was. Q

. What was that?
A. The very last con tact that he had had using his phone prior to his death. Q. Ok ay. And w hat was the nature of that ve ry last contact?
A

. I t look ed like it was to arrange f or a marijuana exchange. Q. And where was that marijuan a exchange to take place?
A

. At 2479 D eer Run by Buildi ng 7

. Q. Is that the Wellingto n Park Apartmen ts?
A. I t is.23 Q. And is any name me ntioned in that exc hang e at t he beginni ng ?
A. There i s , yes. Q. And what name is that ?
A. Tytianna. Q. D id that interest you?
A. It did. Q. How come?
A. Be caus e she now has, I believe, in timate knowledg e of what happene d

-- or what led up to what happened the nigh t of t his incide nt. Q. Why do y ou think that? What about that t ext message made you bel ieve that Tytianna kind of knew what had happened?
A. B ecau se she ’ s the one that did th e introductions between [ Appellant] and Chris Chapman. Q. And is that a ppar ent fr om thos e te xt messages?
A. It i s. Q. In fact, you kno w, the text to Mr. Chapman says, “ Tytianna gave me your phone numbe r ” ?
A. It di d.

. . . . Q. Ok ay. D id that T ytianna person al so text M r. Chapman?
A. She did, yes. Q. And what was the nat ure of that t ext?24 A. She was basically sayin g, Hey, I gave your name an d number to an individual that I used to work with. H e ’ s looking for some marijuana. If you can he l p him out, help h im out, b asically. Q. O kay. And did you c all that n umber t hat tha t text me s sage came from?
A. I did. Q. And who answered the phone?
A. It was Tytianna Johnson.

. . . . Q. And, I g u ess, did you talk to her?
A. I did. Several times. Q. Did s he cooper ate with your in vestigation?
A. S he d id. Q. Oka y. And did it b e ar out that she had indeed made t he introduction betwe en the two

-- the two gentlemen?
A. It did. [ 6 ]

. . . .

6 The St ate questioned Detect ive Kelly about how T ytianna h ad com muni cated wi th Appellant, and he said, “ She cl ai m ed it was through her Snapchat account

. ” Wh e n Detective K el l y attempted to e xp la in h is understanding of how long messages stay on Snap chat and whether pe ople would be rea ssured that the messa ges au toma tically delete , Appellant objected to each answer based on speculation, and the tri al c our t sustai n e d both of hi s o bjections

. Becau se this i nformation about Snapchat
wa s not part of the te xt messages that were obtai ned from Cha pman ’ s ph one, w e ex clude it from the testimony set fo rth above but not e it here to show that Appellant mad e o nly two o b jection s to this portion of Det ec ti ve Kel ly ’ s testimony.25 Q. Okay. Now, you have the phone s

-- or Mr. Chapm an ’ s phone, at least.
And through the interv iews that you ha d do ne with diff e rent people, were you looking for something in particular on the phone, on Mr. Chapman ’ s phone?
A. In particular, how so? Q. In regards to the marijuana sale

. A. Oh, yes. I wanted to know if he was buying or selling.

. . . . Q. Did loo k ing at his phone illuminate wheth er or not he wa s buying or s elling marijuana?
A. It did. Q. What was he doing?
A. He was selling. Q. Okay

. And had [Appellant] contacte d him looking to purchase m arijuan a?
A. Yes, sir

.

. . . . Q. An d what di d he say ?
A. Hi. You got a zip?

. . . . Q. Now, could you tell fr om that conversation who had chosen the Well ington Pa rk A partments a s a meeting plac e between [Appellant] and Mr. C hapman?26 A. I could. Q. Wh o had requested to meet there ?
A. Tha t was goi n g to be [Appellant]

. Q. Would that be consistent with your pri or investigation as far as Mr. Chapman ’ s knowledge of t he Lewisvill e area?
A. C orrect. Q. Wh y?
A. Because h e asked where it was. I mea n, he even specifical ly
a sked, Wh at ’ s th e address ?

. . . . Q. Now, did it appear as though Mr. Chap man and [Appellant] did meet at the Wellington Par k Ap artments ba sed on the phon e activity?
A. It did, yes. Q. Why?
A. Because Mr. Chapm an said, He y, I ’ m a bout 15 mi n utes aw ay. Okay ?
And then there ’ s an actual phon e conversation between the two ph ones.

. . . . Q. So how close to 11:00 p.m. did tha t phone call take place?
A. 10:52 p.m. So eight minute s till eleven. Q. So that wou ld be consi stent wi th a phone call th at would
o ccur very shortly in time prior t o the shooting?
A. Correct

.27 D . Analysis Here, Appellant forfeit ed any error to the admission of State ’ s Exhib it 27

. As

se t forth above, the day before State ’ s Exhibit 27 was ad mitt ed int o evide nce,
Det ective Kelly testified about the te xt messages that were fou nd o n C ha pman ’ s c ell phone , including the texts fr om Tyti anna and Ap pell ant. This is substantively the
same evide nce that is contain ed in State ’ s Exhib it 27, whi ch uses o nly ph one numbers. Yet, Appellant did not object to Detective Kelly ’ s more detailed testimony abo ut t he

text mess a ges on Chapman ’ s phone

. Appellant a ls o di d not ob ject when Hay read the

texts aloud from State ’ s Exhi bit 27. In light of th e un objected

- to test im ony from
Detective Kelly and Hay , we conclude that Appellant forfeited his authenticat io n and hearsay o bjections to State ’ s Exhibit 27

. See Clay , 361 S.W.3d at 767 (“ [B]e cause Walla ce p rov ided test i mony about the Louisian a records without objec tion befo re and after appellant ’ s objection to th e admission of the records and because appellant f a iled to obtain a running objection, we conclude that he forfeited his objectio n to the

r ecord s’ a dmi ssion.” ( f ootnote omitted)); see also Jone s v. State , No. 06

- 15

- 0 01 19

- C R,
2016 WL 31973 97, at *5 (Tex . Ap p.

— Texarkana June 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Smuts testified about the results of the DNA lab orat ory

re port. Th ere fore, we f ind that Jones waived h is .

. . c omplaints regardin g th e admi ssion of the DNA report.”)

. We overrule Appellant ’ s second poin t.28 V. Conclusion Having overruled Appellant ’ s two poi nts, we a ffirm the tri al court ’ s judgment. /s/ Dabne y Bassel Dabney B assel Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
De livered : Februar y 27, 2020