## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P
- 75, 654

TH O M A S BA R TL ET T W H I TA K ER , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS

ON DI RECT APPE AL F ROM CAUS E N O. 4 2 , 9 6 9 I N T HE 4 0 0 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FORT BEND CO UNTY

H ERV EY , J. , de liv e r e d th e opi nio n of t he Co ur t i n whic h K ELLER , P .J., M E YE RS , W OM ACK , K EASLER , H OLC OM B and C OCH RAN , JJ., jo ine d. P RI CE , and J OHN S ON , JJ., concurre d . O P I N I O N Appellant wa s convicted of capital murde r and se ntence d to death. He raises nine points of

e rr or . F ind ingno me ri t in a ny of the se po int s, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Appellant does not c halleng e the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to suppor t his c onviction. We, the re fo re , s e t out on ly

a br ie f s umm a ry

of the fa c ts. Th e e vid e nc e sh ow s tha t a pp e lla nt l e d h is f

a mil y to believe that he was e nrolled in colleg e and w as about to g raduat e. No n e o f t h is was true. O nWhit aker --2

1 The e vidence also s h o ws that appe llant walked pa st his wounded fathe r, his dy ing mother and his dead brothe r so that B rashe ar c ould shoot appellant in the s houlder, as they had planned, in order to direct suspicion aw ay

from appe llant’s involvement in the offe nse.
2 Champag ne testified th at , i n Fe bruar y 2004, appellant “ was talking about how his fathe r survived, and it wa sn’t finished.” De c e mbe r 1 0, 20 03 , a

pp e lla nt a nd hi s fa the r, mot he r a nd y oung e r b ro the r w e nt o ut t o d inn e r t o cele brate appellant’ s “g raduation.” When they arr ived home, appe llant’s roommate (B rashe ar) was inside, and he shot and killed a ppellant’s mother and brother and wounded appellant’s f ather as they

enter ed the home. A

ppellant knew that Bra shear was wa iting inside the home intendingto murder appellant’ s entire f

amily . He kne w that another individual ( Champag ne) was waiting outside in a
g etawa y car . Since at lea st 2000, appellant had pla nned with seve ral other individuals, at diffe rent 1 times, to murder his family

. He made at least one unsucce ssful attempt to mur der his f amily prior 2

t o D e c e m b e r

1 0 , 2 0 0 3

. H i s m o t i v e w a s m o n e y. I n J une 2004, as the police investig ation focuse d on appellant, a ppellant stole $10,000 from his father and fle d to Mex ico wher e he w as appr ehende d about 15 months late r. Appe llant’s fathe r (Ke nt) hired a

lawy er to re prese nt appellant. Appe llant’s fa m i ly attempted to per suade the
prosec utor not to seek the de ath pena lty ag ainst appellant. Appellant’s origina l lawy er, or another lawy e r in his of

fi c e , a lso ma de a wr itt e n “ pr of fe r” to the pr os e c uto r. Th is proff er ap pa re ntl y contained a dmissions of g uilt b y appellant, a

ppellant’s off

er to plea d g uilty

in exchang e for

two

c on se c uti ve lif

e se nte nc e s, a nd a

pp e lla nt’ s fa the r’ s ple a to the pr os e c uto r t o a c c e pt t he of fe r. Th is proff er w as not admitted into evidence and is not part of the appellate rec ord. Appellant was repr esente d by another lawy er at trial. The defe nse al l b u t conce dedWhit aker --3

3 The e vidence of appe llant’s g uilt is overw helming. We also note that, during its closing jury arguments at the g uilt phase, the def ense stated that appellant is “a bsolutely g uilty ,” but still urge d the jury to examine the evidence until it knew that “ the State ac tually has prove n their ca se.”

4 Me mbe rs of

a pp e lla nt’ s f a mil y te sti fi e d th a t a

lif e se nte nc e wo uld

be a n a pp rop ri ate punishment for appe llant espec ially since the State did not see k the death penalty ag ainst Br ashea

r. a pp e lla nt’ s g uil t a t th e g uil t ph a se . At the punis hme nt p ha se , ap pe lla nt’ s mi tig a tio n c a se wa s, 3
among other thing s, that appellant wa s sorry and that neither his fathe r nor membe rs of his mother’s side of the family wanted him to be sentenc ed to de ath and that these family members ha d to bear

t h e or d ea l o f a tr i al b ec au s e th e S t at e wo u l d n o t ac ce p t ap p el l an t ’s o ff er t o p l ea d gu i l t y i n ex ch an ge fo r t he tw o c on secu ti ve li fe se nte nc e s. Em ph a sizi ngthat th e Sta te did no t se e k th e de a th p e na lty

a g a ins t the sh oo te r (B ra sh e a r) , the de fe ns e a lso se e me d to su g g e st that the pr osecut io n u nfair ly 4

so ug ht t he de a th p e na lty

a g a ins t a pp e lla nt o ve r i ssu e s re la te d to the pr of fe r. Th e de fe ns e a rgue d to the jury at the punishment phase: Th e bo tto m li ne , to o, is, le t’ s just ta lk ab ou t this: Ho w we g ot he re , how y ou a c tua lly g ot into these chair s. All r ight? After all of the crimes that wer e committed, and the cowa rd is running , [appellant] was actually retrie ved and put in jail. He has a lawy er, a long-time friend of Bo Ba rtlett’s, Dan Cogdell, who is a very g ood lawy er. I used to office with him at one time, I ’ve tried case s with him. He is a good lawy er. And he come s in, and he’s ta lking to, I g uess the prose cutor, Mr. F elcman, w ho has bee n i n v o l v edi n t h i s ca s e f

ro m d ay o n e. An d wh at ev er co m m u n i ca t i o n s t h ey ’r e h av i n g, Ido n’ t kn ow . I

have no ide a wh a t the y we re ta lki ng a bo ut, bu t, obv iou sly , the re is so me mis c omm

un ic a tio n g oin g on , b e c a

us e the y ’r e ta lki nga

bo ut t ry ingto s e ttl e thi s c a se a t th a t ti me , tr

y ingto n ot h a ve a

jur y in t he b ox to m a ke a

lif e -a nd -d e a th de c isi on , n ot h a vin g to p ut t he W hi take rs a nd the B a rt le tts thr ou g h th is h or ri ble event, a nd somehow it brea

ks down. Now, whe re doe s it break down? We know. We kn o w b y th e w a y th a t M r . F e lc ma n r e a c ts in th e c o u rtr o o m w it h it . I t brea ks down with this phone call to [appellant’s] dad talking a bout a number of

y ear s. You know, “br ing in the bigg uns.” You know, D an Cog dell is a big g un, there ’s no question about it. Okay ? And appa rently , somebody

else in his office has bee n over there prepa

ring proff

ers, a nd the proff

ers a re w rong , and they ’re not even [appellant’s]. He told y ou that y esterda y . So, obviousl y , Mr. Fe lcman, “Well, y ou know, I look at this case, a

nd this manipulation, I see this conspiracy thing g oing on,Whit aker --4

5 I n point of err or two, appellant claims that “re peate d ref ere nces by

the state to the prof

fer and the pl ea neg otiations” violated T EX . R. E V ID . 410(4), whic h g ener ally require s the exclusion of “any state me nt m a de in t

he c ours e of

ple a dis c us sio ns .” Rul e 41 0( 4) pr ov ide s: Exc e pt a s o the rw ise pr ov ide d in thi s r ule , ev ide nc e of

the fo llo wi ngis n ot a dmi ssi ble a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nt wh o mad e the ple a or wa s a pa rt ic ipa nt i n th e ple a

dis c us sio ns : (4) a ny statement m ad e i n the cour se of plea discussions with an attorney for the and y ou know what? That guy hasn’t lea

rned his lesson y et.” That’s what he’ s thinking. “Y ou know, I ’m not goingto be manipulated with lawy ers, I ’m not g oing to have ‘ L awy er 101’ play ed on me. I ’m not g oing to do that.” And they make the decision to seek the death pe nalty , the only two options in t hat ca se. For whateve r rea son, Mr. Cogde ll is off the case , and I ’m on the case . I don’t know one f act a bout this case other

than what I

might have rea d in the paper , and I p robably wouldn’t have pa id a ny a tte nti on to it, to be ho ne st wi th y ou . An d I c ome in h e re , a

nd the fi rs t day that I actua lly come into c ourt and substitut e in, I g o to the Di s t ri ct At torney ’s office and mee t with Mr. Heale y and Mr. F elcman, a

nd we a re ta l k ing a

bout try ing–the y ’re alre ady

seeking the death penalty –try ing to resolve this case , and we are offe ring to plead to a life sentenc e. That’s not something take n lightly . We are offe ring to end this and to put him i n the penitentiar y for life . That is reje cted. I do g et familiar with the fac ts, and they are ho rr i b l e fa cts, killing of one ’s family , a mother and br other. We come back, w e off er more, more life sentenc es. We bring the fa mil y in. We br ing B o B a rt le tt in he re . An d, y ou kn ow , he is a n i ncre dib le person. I don’t rea lly know hi m, but that testimony y esterda y , he is telling y ou the honest truth about this c ase. He is a victim. His family is a victim. We’re telling the same thing s to the prosec utor, Mr. Hea ly and Mr. Strang e. More life sentenc es, any wa y y ou wa nt t o s tr uc tur e it f or him to b e in lif

e –in pr iso n f

or lif e , a nd he is g oin g to p l e a d g u i l t y, yo ukn o w . T h a t ’ s a l m o s tw h y i tb o t h e r s m e s o m u c h w h e n t h e y s a y, “Why didn’t y ou just plea d g uilty ? Why didn’t y ou just plea d g uilty ? ” W e h ave offe red to plea d g uilty . That of fe r wa s never

withdrawn. I t’s open rig ht now, t h r o u g h o u tt h e t r i a l

. A n d yo un e e d t o kn o w t h o s e f

a c t s . O k a y? * * * Now, let’s look at t his. The State, in pursuing this inst ead of settling it–and it’s cer tainly their ca ll, and Icannot do a thing a bout it. W e come in here , and we have to have this trial. I told y ou befor e, there wa s no need f or trial. You unde rstand why Iwa s say ing that no w. Th a t did fo rc e the Sta te to b ri ngthe se pe op le in h e re a nd ta lk a bo ut i t.
I n his first two points of err or, appellant complains first about ref ere nces by the State to the proff er a nd to plea neg otiations (point of error two) and then a bout the trial court’ s failure to include 5Whit aker --5

pr os e c uti nga

uth or ity tha t do e s n ot r e su lt i n a

plea o f guilty

or a ple a of no lo contende re or

that result i n a p l ea, later withdra wn, of g uilty

or no lo c on te nd

e re . Howeve r, s u ch a statement is admissible in any proce eding wher ein another statement made in the course of the same p lea or plea discussions has be en int ro du c e d a nd the state me nt o ug ht i n f

a ir ne ss b e c o n s i d e r e d

c o n t e m p o r a n e o us ly wi th it. (I talics in orig inal). the proff er in the r ecor d (point of er ror one ). Althoug h the proff er is not ac tually

included in the

rec ord, many ref

ere nces were made at trial to its s peculative content, some by the State, some by

the de fe ns e , s ome duri ng the g uil t pha se a nd so me duri ng the punis hme nt pha se . A re vie w o f a ll o f t he se ref ere nces le ads the Court to conc lude that the proff er and the plea

neg otiations were a

signific ant part of a ppellant’s mitigation case at punishment to show that appellant was willing to ple ad to as

many lif e se nte nc e s a s th e Sta te wa nte d in ord e r to tak e re sp on sib ili ty fo r his c ri me a nd to spa re his

a lr e a dy vic tim ize d f

a mil y the or de a l of

a tr ia l. Appellant cites to the f

ollowing por

tions of the rec ord in support of his claim in point of err or
tw o th a t th e Sta te imp e rm iss ibl y re fe rr e d to the pr of fe r an d to ple a ne g oti atio ns . Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that appellant’ s father , who was the State’s fi rst witness at the g uilt phase, mentioned the prof fer when the State was questioning hi m on direct e x amination about a c onversation appellant’s father ha d w itha

pp e lla nt i n ja il f oll ow inga

pp e lla nt’ s a pp re he ns ion

in M e xico a nd

re tur n to Te xas. Q. [STA TE ]: Yo u s e nt o ut a n e -m a il t o p e op le , a ft e r you ’d ta lke d to t

he De fe nd a nt, that he se e me d to be re pe nta nt?
A. [KE NT WHI TA KE R]: Y e s, he wa s. Q. Would y ou tell me, what he w as re pentant about, Mr. Whitaker ?
A. I hadn’t see n my

son in 15 months. He w alked in, and the re w as the bulletproof g lass separ ating us, and he looked down, a nd Ithink I told him t hat I missed him and he looked g ood. And he sa id, “Dad, I ’m so s o rr y . I ’m sorry for e very thing. I ’mWhit aker --6

g oing to do e very

thing in my

power to make this as ea sy and painless as possible for e ve ryon e .” An d it

wa s a t th a t mo me nt t

hat I re a lize d th a t he wa s– Q

. [ S T A T E ] : G u i l t y ? A. –he wa s g uilty

and willing to c onfess. Q

. T h e r e w a s n o c o n f

e s s i o n , t h o u g h a ta n y

t i m e , w a s t h e r e ? A. Ther e wa s no confe ssion. There was a proff er of fer ed to the District Attorne y ’s offic e a y ear and, what, three or

four months ag o. Q. Uh-huh. Y ou know, of c ourse, that pr offe r wa s absolutely inadmissible, a nd I could not have us e d it

fo r a ny purp os e s. Yo u und e rs tand that?
A. No , I did n’ t un de rs tand

that. Q

. O k a y. A. An d I do n’ t kn owthat [a

pp e lla nt’ s] a tto rn e y

a t th e tim e un de rs too d th a t. Q. His attorney

was Da n Cogde ll at that time?
A. Th a t’ s c or

re c t. Q. Dan’ s a pre tty

high- profile attorney , though, isn’t he ?
A

. H e ’ s a v e r y h i g h

- p r o f

i l e . H e ’ s a

f r i e n d o f t h e f a m i l y. Q. S o, th e remor se or

re pe nta nc e that my

of fi c e re c e ive d w a s– le t me a sk y ou thi s: Di d th e De fe nd a nt p re pa

re that, o r d id o ne of

Da n Co g de ll’ s p a rt

ne rs pr e pa

re that?
A. I don’t eve n think it was a partne r. I found out muc h later–in my visit wit h y ou, what, six wee ks ag o, that was at the time I found out that [appe llant] had not written the proff er, and that y ou wer e off

ended by the tone of it, and that was whe n Iknew that J immy

–Ican’ t think of his last name–a ny way , one of D an’s junior a ssistants, I ’d hear d had wr itten that up. Q. There was no leg al repentanc e, there was nothing. There was leg al maneuve ring on y our s on ’s pa

rt . A m I c or re c t on that?
A. Wha t?Whit aker --7

6 Appellant’s f

ather testified. Q. [DEFENSE]: Have we ever , ever proposed on Ba rt’s behalf any

thing other

than p l e a d i n g t o a

l i f e s e n t e n c e f

o r c a p i t a l m u r d e r

s t r a i g h tu p ?
A. [APPE L L AN T’ S F AT HE R]: N o. Th a t is the on ly thi ng we ’v e e ve r - - and it i s wh a t I be g g e d th e Di str ic t A tto rn e y ’s off ice to take wh e n w e me t be fo re y ou c a me on the sce ne. Q. He–he repe nted to y ou, but he didn’t put his neck on the lin e ab o u t this case, c or re c t?
A. As I understand it, it would have be en–Da n would not have a llowed him to. Q. Uh-huh.
A. I think that the problem broke w hen Da n and y ou did n o t s ee m to rea liz e that [ap pe lla nt] w a s tr y ingto c on fe ss t o th is. Q. Tell me something . You know me, a s a prose cut o r, t h at I cannot talk to the De fe nd a nt. Yo u k

no w that?
A. Yo u to ld m e that in

y our o ff ic e six wee ks a g o. I did

no t kn owthat be fo re . In f a c t, that w a s o ne of

the thi ng s I

wo nd e re d, if

the re wa s a

c on c e rn a bo ut [appell a nt’ s] sin c e ri ty , w hy

wa sn ’t the re so me c on ta c t? Q. Ic a n h a ve a

bs olute ly no c on ta c t. A. Idid no t kn owthat. Q. B ut Dan Cog dell, the hig h-price d attorney that y ou paid, knew that, wouldn’t y ou have a ssumed?
A. I would assume he w ould. Q. An d e ve n a s o f t od a y , I c a nn ot c on ta c t th e De fe nd a nt. Yo u und e rs tand that?
A. Al l r ig ht. During the punishment phase, a ppellant’s father testified on dire ct exam i n ati on by the defense that an of

fer was made on appellant’ s behalf to a cce pt stacked life sentenc es. Appellant 6Whit aker --8

Q. An d have we e ve n tr ie d to do it in su c h a wa y that th e y c ou ld s ta c k li fe se nte nc e s, i f t h e y w a n t e d t o ?
A. Yes. In fac t, as Iunderstand it, that wa s rea lly the first and only offe r we ’ve e ver ma de . Y e s, [ap pe lla

nt] w a s w ill ingto a c cept sta c ke d s e nte nc e s, wh ic h, a s I understand, means that the sentenc e g iven for the first murder had to be completed in its entirety

befor e the se cond one e ven beg an. simil arly testified on direc t exami nation by the def ense at the punishment phase and a lso testified that he ne ve r i nte nd e d to c on te st h is guil t. Q. [DEFENSE]: Mr. W hitaker, you are convicted of capital murde r? A. [APP EL L ANT]: Yes, sir. Q. Did that come a s any

surprise to y ou?
A. No , s ir , n ot at a ll. Q. I n the entire time I ’ve be en re prese nting y ou, have w e eve r off ere d a def ense? A. No, sir, not on g uilt or innocence

. Q. Ha v e y o uac tu al l y

t ri edt o , an d b ef

o re Ikn ew an y

fa ct s o f t h i s ca s e, h av e m e go to the District Attorney ’s office and plead to a ny amount of time that they wanted to? A. As many

life sentenc es as they

wanted, sir. * * * Q. I n our discussions, have w e eve r talked a bo u t an y t h i n g with reg ard to a

ny defe nse? A. No, sir. No, sir. Q. Ha ve we a lw a y s, sin c e I ’v e be e n in vo lve d in thi s c a se sin c e Apr il , tr ie d to co n cl u d e t h i s m at t er

i n a w ay t h at y o uar e c o n fi n edfo r l i fe an d we d i dn ’t h av e t o go thr ou g h th is, a nd

we did n’ t ha ve to h a ve the se c iti zen s c ome up a nd make thi s c a ll? A. That’s w hat I

wanted mor e than a

ny thing e lse. Appellant mentioned the proff er when t he prose cutor wa s cross-e x amining a ppellant about a Christmas car d that appellant se nt to the prosecutor (appe llant wrote in the Christm as ca rd that theWhit aker --9

prosec utor should “foc us on [t he prose cutor’s] family ”). Q. [S TATE]: W as it a little bit of an att em p t b y y o u, Mr. Whitaker, to somehow manipulate me into this somehow along the line. A. [APP EL L ANT]: I only wanted to talk to y ou. Q. All y ou had to do was c all up y our attorne y and say , “I

want to talk.”
A. I have done that, sir. Q

. Y o ut h i n k

t h i s a t t o r n e y h a s a c tu a l l y

s a i d t h a tIc o u l d

s i td o w n a n d

t a l k t o y o u ?
A. Mr. Fe lcman, it wa s my impression back when Da n Cogde ll was my

attorney that that was what Ihad re lay ed to him was what Iwanted to do; that when we wr ote the pr of fe r, wh ic h w a s e xtre me ly

po or ly ha nd le d, tha t th a t w a s w hat I

wa nte d to do . I

fe lt that if y ou a nd I c ou ld sit do wn fo r jus t a fe w min ute s, a n h our o r t

wo , th a t y ou

wo uld either decide I was ly ing or not, but if you decide d Iwas lying, w e wouldn’t be any pla c e oth e r t

ha n w he re we are t od a y . B ut i f you de c ide d I

wa sn ’t , th a t w e c ou ld somehow save my

family all of this. That’s what Iwanted with the letter more than an y t h i n g. Q. Yo u w a nte d to manip ulate me thr ou g h y our famil y , so I wo uld n’ t see k the de a th p e n a l t y? A. No, sir. You turne d my words ar ound. The State late r used the a ctual prof fer during its cross-examinat i o n o f ap p ellant including havin g a pp e lla nt r e a d it sil e ntl y to h ims e lf

a nd the n a ns we ri ngqu e sti on s a

bo ut i t. Q. [ S TATE]: Y ou

a lso me nti on e d s ome thi nga bo ut a pr of fe re d s ta te me nt. R e m e m b e r

t h a t ? A. [APP EL L ANT]: I - - y es, sir. Q

. M a y Ia p p r o a c h h i m , J u d g e ? A. [COURT] : You may

. Q: Don’t re ad thi s out loud to the j ury . Do not rea d it out loud to the j ury , but rea d this to y ourself.Whit aker --10

A. [ AP P E L L AN T ] : (R ea d i n g) Q

. I s t h a tt r

u e ?
A. I did not write that. Q

. Y o ud i dn ’ tw r i t e i t ?
A. No. I – I wanted to write the proff er. That was some confusion betwe en me a nd Mr. Cog dell at the time when initially - - I g uess it was y our off

ice that sug g ested that if we wr ote the pr of

fe r, we c ou ld a ll e nd

thi s. I t w a s my

imp re ssi on

that I wo uld wr ite thi s a dmi ssi on

of g uil t. Q. I t wasn’t my

sug g estion.
A

. I ’ m s o r

r y ? Q. Your f ather poured his hea

rt out to me, and I

saw no re morse on y our par t. A. I didn’t actua lly

write that. The one that I wrote w as in my cell, and it did have remorse . I t was re al l y h o w I felt at the time, a nd Ididn’t - - I

was unde r the impression that Iwas g oing to be g iving that copy to Mr. C og dell, and then I find out

- - Ig ue ss I

did n’ t se e him

fo r a fe w w e e ks . I

fo un d o ut the ne xt t ime that I ta lke d to him that a pr of fe r h a d b e e n r e

je c te d. Iwa s v e ry

c on fu se d, be c a

us e it was my understandingthat I

would be wr iting it my self. Q. The pr offe r that pre sented–that y ou didn’t even have a ny thing to do with. You understand how

insulti ng that is to somebody that has t o listen to the father plea, a nd Ise e no re mor se on

the De fe nd a nt? A. Yes, e x tremely

insulti ng . Iknew it would be, if it had b ee n d one that wa y . I wouldn’t have ag ree d to that at all. Iwas ve ry upset about that. Appellant’s c omplai n tab o u tt h e t es t i m o n y re fe rr i n g t o t h e p ro ff

er an d t o th e p l ea n ego t i at i o ns is d if fi c ult to u nd e rs tand sin c e it a

pp e a rs tha

t th is i nf or ma tio n f or me d a sig nif ic a nt p a rt of his mitigation ca se. F urther, w hile it can be a rgu ed that the testimony

about the prof

fer and the plea
neg otiations during State que stioning wa s non-re sponsive, the re cord c lear ly ref lects that appe llant

ma de no ob

je c tio n to the Sta te ’s re fe re nc e s to the pr of fe r a nd to t he ple a ne g oti a tio ns . App e lla

nt,Whit aker --11

7 Th e po rt ion s o f t

he re c or d s e t out a

bo ve indicate that a

pp e lla nt i nit ia lly

te sti fi e d o n c ro ssexamination by

the State t hat he and his lawy er (Cogde ll) “wr ote the prof fer ” but later

testified on cross-e x amination by

the State that he “ didn’t actua lly write that.” there fore , proce durally

defa ulted any err or in these r efe renc es. See T EX . R. A PP . P R OC . 33.1. The State a lso arg ues that any err or in its refer ence s to the proffe r and to the ple a neg otiations was ha rmless bec ause these refer ence s “did not influence the j ury , or had but a slight ef fec t.” See
J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 967 S.W .2d 410, 417 (Tex.C r. Ap p . 1 998) (c riminal conviction should not be

overturne d for non- constitutional error unde r T EX . R. A PP . P R OC . 44.2(b) if the appellate court, a fter examining the re cord a s a whole, ha s fair assuranc e that the error did not influence the j ury , or had bu t a sli g ht e ff e c t) ; Kin g v . S

tat e , 953 S.W .2d 266, 271 (Tex. Cr.App. 1997) (Rule 44.2 (b) harm standard is whe ther e rrone ous admission of evidence “had a substantial and injurious eff ect or influence in determining the jury ’s ver dict”). Omitting citations to the rec ord and to c ase law, we set out portions of the State’s brie f:
I n this case, Appe llant testified that his guilt was nev er an i s s u e and that he neve r pla nn e d to mou

nt a de fe ns e to t

he c ha rg e s a g a ins t hi m a t th e g uil t or inn oc e nc e ph a se of trial. There fore , any questions to Kent Whit aker during the g uilt o r i n n o cence phase of trial reg ardingplea ba

rg aining or t he proffer of evide nce w ere not harmful in a ny wa y to A pp e lla nt. As fo r p u n i s h m en t , d ef

en s e co u n s el wa s t h e fi rs t t o ad dre s s p l ea b ar gai n i n g t h ro u gh the testimony

of Ke nt Whi taker . Kent testified that an off er w as made on Appellant’s behalf to serve two sta cked life sentenc es an d t h at he a nd Appellant had be en pursuing a life sentenc e “since the day [Appellant] was arr ested.” Next, Appellant testified on direc t examination t hat he of fer ed to plead to “ as m any life sentenc es as [t he District Attorne y ’s Off ice] wanted.” He testified f urther that his ult imate g oal was to work out a

n ag ree ment for a l i fe s en t en ce and as a result, a tria l would not have be en nec essar

y . Appellant ag ain urg ed the issue in re s p onse to a que stion on cross-e x ami n at ion. I n fac t, without even being asked a bout a proff

er of evidenc e, Ap pe lla nt s ta te d th a t pr ior

to t ri a l, he ha d wante d to talk to the pr os e c uto r i n th is c a se and that the wr itten proffe r of evidenc e had bee n draf ted by himself and his attorney in an attempt to avoid the dea th penalty

. I t is clea

r from the record that c ounsel was 7Whit aker --12

attempting to show A

ppellant’s willingne ss to acce pt responsibility for his ac t ions a nd save his fa

mily a nd the ta xpa y e rs the tr ou

ble of g oin g fo rw a rd

wi th a tr ia l. Counsel’s questions reve aled the f act that despite Appellant’s willing ness to acc ept tw o li fe se nte nc e s and

a dmi t hi s g uil t in

thi s c a se , th e Sta te c ho se to se e k the de a th penalty . Any

follow-up questions by

the prosec utor reg ardingplea ne g otiations or the proff er of evidenc e did not have “ a substantial and injurious ef fec t or influence in deter mining the jury ’s verdict.” As dis cussed, su pr a , the jury

hear d evidenc e that Appella n t p l an ned the c old-blooded murder of his family

not once, not twice , but three times before he succ eede d in ending the lives of his m o t her a nd brother. T o that end, the j u ry h ea rd how Appe llant sat acr oss the dinner table from his mother and brother accepting cong ratulations and a R olex watch, all the t ime knowing they wer e about t o be killed pursuant to his plan. Ac cording ly , Appellant’s c onviction should not be overturne d beca use this Court can have “fa ir assura nce” that the p r o s e c u t o r s [s i c ] u

n o b j e c t e d

- t o qu e s t i o n s d i d

n o ti n f l u e n c e t h e j u r

y , o r ha d but a sli g ht e ff e c t. (Emphasis in orig inal). We ag ree with the State that the re fer ence s to the proffer at the g uilt phase by appellant’ s fathe r d ur inghis dir e c t e xami natio n b y the Sta te wa s h a rm le ss. We do no t bel ieve tha t th e se ref ere nces to the pr offe r had a substantial or injurious e ffe ct or influence in determining the jury ’s verdic t at the g uilt phase in light of the ove rwhe lming evide nce of appellant’ s g uilt. See Motilla v.
Sta te , 7 8 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 6

- 5 7 ( T e x. C r . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e o f g u i l tis f a c tor to

c on sid e r i n h a rm

a na ly sis ); King , 953 S.W .2d at 271. We also ag ree with the State that the refer ence s to the proff er a nd to the plea ne g otiations at the punishment phase by appellant and his f ather during their cross-e x amination by the State, afte r the de fe ns e ha d a

rgua bly op e ne d th e do or

to t his e vid e nc e duri ngits dir e c t e xami natio n o f t he se witnesses, also did not su b s t an t ially or injuriously

influence the jury ’s ver dict at the punishment phase. Se e id . We do no t be lie ve that th e jur y ’s ans wers to t

he sp e c ia l is su e s turn e d o n th e se ref ere nces to the proff

er and to the pl ea ne g otiations. Se e id . We further note that the def

ense r elied heavily on the plea ne g otiations in support of i ts mitigation case t hat appe llant was willing to a cce ptWhit aker --13

8 We note that the State wa s arguably entitled to cross-e x amine the de fense witnesses (appe llant and his father ) about the pr offe r and the plea ne g ot i at i o n s t o rebut or c orre ct the impression these witnesses left during their direc t examination by the def ense. Se e Re nte ria v . S

tat e , 20 6 S. W.3 d 6 89 , 6 97 (T e x.Cr .App . 2 00 6) (p a rt y may op e n t he do or to oth e rw ise ina dmi ssi ble evidenc e to cor

rec t f alse impression for

which it was re sponsible). Throug h its direct examination of these witnesses at t he punis hment phase, the defe nse attempted to pa int a picture that appellant was remorsef

ul and was willing to take responsibilit y for his actions by pleading g uilty for stac ked life sentenc es to spare h i s al re ady victimiz ed fa

mily the orde al of a

trial. The State a

rg uably was entitled to rebut t his throug h its cross-e x amination of t hese witnesses sug g esting that appellant wa s not remorse ful and that h e used his family and the plea

neg otiation process a s part of a calc ulated str a te g y , n ot t o ta

ke re sp on sib ili ty

fo r a ny thi ng , b ut t o avo id t

he ult imate punis hme nt. re sp on sib ili ty

a nd ple a d g uil ty

to as man y li fe se nte nc e s a s th e Sta te wa nte d in or de r t o s pa

re his family the orde al of a

trial. This is a

nother rea son for deciding that any err or in the State’s re fer ence s to the proff

er a nd to the plea ne g otiations was harmless. Se e Le da yv . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 713, 715-18 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998) ( e r

r o n e o u s admission of evidence is harmless when sa me evidenc e is introduced by e ith e r t he de fe nd a nt o r t

he Sta te a nd

is a dmi tte d w ith ou t ob

jec ti on ). Poi nt o f e rr or tw o is 8

overr uled. Appellant cla ims in poi nt of err or one that the trial court err ed in r efusing to allow appellant “to deve lop his appellate re cord on motion for ne w trial so that the ap p el l at e record w ould be

c omp le te on

a pp e a l.” He a rgue s o n a

pp e a l: [i ]n order for

the defe ndant to ha

ve a complete rec ord on appea l to render eff ective assistance of counsel, it was necessa ry for the D efe ndant to have the [proffer ] which the State’s attorne y

used in s u ch a manner in fr ont of the jury , and any wording of lim itatio ns tha

t it ha d on it. I t wa s als o ne c e ssa ry to have the At tor

ne y fo r t he Sta te testify as to the re asons and the justifications for his actions at this time and the other times that he questioned his witnesses concerning the proffer statement made by the De fe nd a nt. The re cord r efle cts that a ne w lawy er w as re prese nting a ppellant when a

motion for new tria l was filed. A

ppellant claimed in this motion for new tria l that the appe l l at e record would not beWhit aker --14

complete without the prof fer : [t ]hat prior to trial, the Def endant’ s at torney

in the neg otiation of a possible plea, g ave to the attorney for the state, an e videntiary statement conc erningthe fa cts of the pending criminal ac tion. Pursuant to the agr eeme nt, the s tatement wa s not to be used fo r a n y p u r

p o s e u n le s s a p le a a g r e e me n t w a s r e a c h e d

. A p le a a g r e e me n t was not rea ched. H oweve r, in violation of t he agr eeme nt, the attorney for the state used the evidentiar y statement during the trial of the de fenda nt, by exhibi ting the statement in front of the jury and questioning the Def endant f rom the docume nt. Such action on the par t of the attorne y

for the state denied the Def endant a fair tr ial, and wa s of such moment during the hea ring on pu n i s h m en t t hat this Court should reform the jud g me nt o f d e a th a

nd mod if y the se nte nc e to l if

e imp ri so nme nt. Appellant’s ne w lawy er f

iled an af fidavit in support of the motion for new trial. This lawy er
state d in thi s a ff ida vit : I n my interview w ith the Defe ndant, Thomas B arlett [ sic] W hitaker, I beg an discussing the punishment he aring

. He indicated that his [ trial] attorney had g iven the State a pr offe r of e vidence during their plea neg otiations. The State had re fused to c on sid e r l ife aft er rec e ivi ngthe pr of fe r o f e vid e nc e , a

nd the c a se we nt t o tr ia l. During the punishment phase of the trial and while the Def endant wa s testify ing, the attorney for the s t at e h el d the proff er in his hand a

nd approa ched the witness, and a sk e d [hi m] t o r e a d a p o rt i o n o f i t s i l e n t l y . H e t h e n a s k e d h i m i f h e s a i d t h a t , to which the De fenda n t s ai d NO

. No furthe r mention was made of the Proff er. I verifie d with the trial attorney that the i ncident had indeed ha ppened in f

ront of the jur y . Ho we ve r, he did

no t r e me mbe r t

he qu e sti on

tha t w a s a sk e d o f t

he De fe nd a nt. Ihave tr ied to g et a c opy of the prof

fer of evide nce f

rom the trial attorney and the attorney that g ave it to the state but they have not be en able to locate the pr offe r of e vid e nc e . B e c a

us e the De fe nd a nt i s n o lo nger in the F t. B e nd Cou nty Jail , it is ne c e ssa ry fo r me to de ta il my kn ow le dg e in thi s mat te r as it is impo ssi ble fo r me to tim e ly g e t hi s a ff

ida vit fo r f ili ngthe mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l. The rec ord also ref

lects that the trial court held a hear ing during which appel l an t ’s l awy er
reque st ed t h at t he State produc e the pr offe r for “an a ppellate c ourt to be able to see the doc ument that was used, a

nd they can ma ke their judg ment.” [DEFENSE]: And so the only other thing Ineed be sides that is the document that-- [S TATE]: You want to put it–make it admissibl e in evidenc e, a d o cument y our client’s for

mer attorney

--Whit aker --15

[DEFENSE]: No, I don’t want to put it in evidence

. [S TATE]: That’s what I ’m trying to f igur e-- [DEFENSE]: I want an appellate court to be able to see the document that wa s used, a nd the y c a n ma ke the ir jud g me nt. [THE COURT] : But if the c ontents of the document was (sic) ne ver disclose d, was no t r e a d, wa s no t int

ro du c e d, the jur

y ne ve r sa

w it, it wa s a

pie c e of pa pe r– it c ou ld have be e n b lank

fo r a ll the jur

y kn ow s– wh a t r e le va

nc e do e s tha t do c ume nt h a ve in terms of the r ecor d in this case? [DEFENSE]: W ell, it was used for some thing. I t w as u sed for the purpose of

a ques t i o n an d

an an s we r. An d

Id o n ’t k n o w– s o m et i m es t h e d o cu m en t s t h em s el ves say that “this document is not usable for any purpose other

than neg otiation of a plea .” * * * [STA TE ]: Ye a h. So, he ’d a lr e a dy be e n fo un d g uil ty , s o it do e sn ’t have a ny thi ngto do with guilt or innocenc e. And I seriously doubt me asking him to read a piece of paper silently , to himself, with one question, “Did it happen,” and he say s no, was of such a nature that the j ury then gave him the death penalty beca use of that. Imean, it g e ts to th e p o in t w h e r e

– Iu n d e r s ta n d w h y [t h e d e f e n s e ] b r o u g h t i t i n , b u t I

was about a s cautious as y ou could g et, eve n though de fense counsel broug ht up numerous times about plea barg aining , how h is client was willing to do that. The fa c t is , I th ink

my c o- c ouns e l, Je ff

, s a id t hat I thi nk the De fe nd a nt a c tua lly mentioned, bef

ore e ven appr oaching , about a proff ere d statement. I

know the father did. But eve n then, I

didn’t mention the proffe red statement or r ead it to a jury panel or a ny thi nglik e tha

t. T hat’ s the re a so n fo r m y ob je c tio n o n it . T he re c or d is qu ite clea r. What [t he defense] wants y ou to do is now err or, “I want to put it in now, try to ge t error ,” which I

don’t think is fair or the purpose of a motion for ne w trial in any fashion. So. . . [The defe nse] can come look at come look at my file, if he w ishes, to the proff er on it, but it ’s not signe d by

y our client, it’s not-- The trial c ourt denied a

ppellant’s re quest to make the pr offe r a pa rt of t he appe llate re cord and his reque st for an e videntiary hear ing on his moti on for ne w trial. Appe llant claims that this was

e rr or be c a us e it pr e ve nte d him

fr om m a kin g a

c omp le te re c or d o n a

pp e a l. H e c la ims that, u

nd e r t hisWhit aker --16

9 849 S.W .2d 812, 816 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993) (de fenda nt entitled to hear ing on motion for ne w trial when motion for ne w trial “r efle ct[s] that rea sonable grounds ex ist for holding that” motion for ne w tri a l c ou ld b e g ra

nte d) ; se e als o R oz e ll v . S tat e , 176 S. W

. 3 d 228, 230 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005) (g ener all y , a trial c ourt should hold an evidentiar y hear ing on a

motion for new tria l if the motion a nd a tta c he d a ff

ida vit ra ise ma tte rs that a re no t de te rm ina ble fr om t he re c or d a

nd that de mon str a te rea sonable g rounds that could entitle the a ccuse d to relief)

.

10 Appellant also c laims that he is entitled to a rema nd fo r d evelopment of

the re cord on the State’s re a s o n s f

o r s e e k in g th e d e a th p e n a lt y in th is c a s e . A p p e ll a n t, h o w e v e r , is n o t e n ti tl ed to a rema nd for de velopment of the r ecor d on t h i s i ssue. Se e Ha nk ins v . S tat e , 132 S.W .3d 380, 388 (Tex.Cr.App. 2004) (“ [De fe n dant] now claims that his S ix th Amendment rig hts were violated be c a us e he wa s pr e ve nte d fr om de ve lop ing e vid e nc e that wo uld c a ll his se le c tio n a s a de a th- pe na lty candidate into question. Howeve r, [defenda nt] was not entit led to subpoena D istrict Attorney s and qu e sti on the m r e g a rd ingthe e xer c ise o f the ir dis c re tio n w hic h w e have he ld t o b e c on sti tut ion a l. Thus, the trial judg e wa s not require d to allow appellant to pre sent such evidence and did not err by overr uling a ppellant’s motion and by

quashing the subpoena s.”). Co u rt’ s d e c is io n in Re

y es v . S tat e , we should abate the appe al and “ rema nd for a n evidentiar

y 9
he a ri ngby

the tr ia l c ourt

wi th t he a uth or ity to g ra nt o r d e ny the ne w tri a l r e qu e st. ” Th e Sta te c la ims that “the r ecor d clea

rly indicates what transpire d during trial with reg ards to the written proffe r” a nd that, there fore , there is “no nee d to develop the r ecor d any further .” We ag ree . The portions of the rec ord set out a bove clea rly indicate what transpired dur ing trial with reg ards to the proffer. We are not persua ded that “rea sonable g rounds exist ” for believing that r e mand ingthi s c a se to t he tr ial cou rt

to m a ke the pr of

fe r a pa rt of the a pp e llate re c or d c ou ld result in the g ranting of appe llant’s motion for new tria l or of any oth er re l i ef t o appellant. See Rey es , 849 S.W .2d at 816. Appellant ha s not shown how supplementing the record with a docume nt (the prof fer ) that appa

rently could only

be used to support unpreserve d claims on appea l would be of any further benef it to him. And, as pre viously stated, the prof

fer was not admitted, nor wa s it ever offe red, into evide nce. See Rule 410(4). Point of err or one is over ruled. 10
I n point of err or t h ree , appellant c laims that his rights under the Texas and F eder alWhit aker --17

11 We n ote that th e Sta te a rgue d to the jur y duri ng the punis hme nt p ha se tha t it so ug ht t he de a th penalty ag ainst appellant for

the “r ight r easons.” [S TATE]: W e have been in tria l now–and y ou wer e al l h er e o n the first day –for almos t t wo months now. What did we g et out of this? What enjoy ment have you seen F red a

nd Ihave dur ing this last couple of wee ks? You know, rationally , do we h a v e a n y mo ti v e to p r e s e nt th is c a s e to y o ua s a d e a th p e n a lt y c a s e u n f a ir ly ? We have a so le mn o bli g a tio n to loo k at th e fa c ts o f e ach cas e a nd de c ide wh a t is appropr iate, and w e’ve done that on ea ch and e very occa sion. And Fre d pretty much un e qu ivo c a lly

state d o ur

po sit ion on that Mo nd a y . I do n’ t ne e d to e xpound on that, but we have to look at the fac ts in each one of thos e ca s es an d come up with an individual decision based on their unique set of c ircumstance s. And if we’ re g oing t o d o o u r j o b p r o p e r l y, w e h a v e t o t a k e a l o o k a tS t e v e n C h a mp a g n e , W i l l A n t h o n y, J ustin P eter s and even Chris B rashe ar and ask ourse lves the question: I s it li kely that any one of the se people would have c ommitt ed a viol en t crime if the y hadn’t met [appellant]? And I don’t know them that well, but it seems to me that S teven Champag ne and Wil l A nthony wer e doing quite well in the military when they

wer e out of his life, but, g rac ious sakes alive, J ustin Peters was a National Merit Scholar.
Us e y our c omm on

se ns e . We’ ve pr e se nte d th is c a se to you fo r t he ri g ht r e a so ns . We’ve pre sented this case to you, beca use, under the law and unde r the e vidence , the death pe nalty

is justi fied. * * * So, I don’t quite understa nd this moral thing that Chris Bra shear , beca use he killed the pe op le , is more e vil or mor e he ino us tha n the De fe nd a nt. Th e De fe nd a nt t oo k h is family out and ate br ead w ith them knowing they ’re g oing to be dead in a few minutes and broug ht them back to be a ssassinated. Chris Br ashea r wa s the wea

pon that the Def

endant used to kill his family . He c ould have substituted another person Constit utions were violate d beca use the State’s de cision to seek the de ath pena l t y “wa s not made with r espec t to any

g uidelines,” re sulting in a nonunifor m “application of the law unde r which [he]

wa s tr ie d a

nd se nte nc e d to de a th. ” He a rgue s: There wer e thre e defe ndants involved in the murder case for whic h the Def

endant was tried. Steven Champag ne was g iven a plea barg ain of fif

teen y ear s. He drove the g etaway ca r fr o m t h e scene of the shooting. The state ag ree d not to seek the death pe nalty

ag ainst Christopher Br ashea r. He was the person who a ctually fired the shots that kill ed the De fenda nt’s mother and br other a nd wounded the fathe r of the De fe nd a nt. (F oo tno te omi tte d) . T he De fe nd a nt a lon e wa s tr ie d o n th e c a pit a l c a se in which the state soug ht and obtained the pe nalty of death. 11Whit aker --18

in, but it’s alway s the Def endant bri n ging the family back to be assassinated. A nd that sa y s it

. We h a ve re

je c te d th e c la im that “ the Te xas d e a th- pe na lty statut e is un c on sti tut ion a l f or its fa ilure to p ro vid e a

c on sis te nt s ta te -w ide me tho d fo r de te rm ini ng in wh ic h c a se s th e de a th p e na lty would be soug ht.” See H ankins , 132 S.W .3d at 387. We have a lso recog nized that prosecutoria l discretion to see k the death penalty is not unconstitut ional. Se e id

. Point of error thr ee is ove rruled.
I n point of err or four , appellant c laims that the “tria l court committed reve rsible er ror a nd denied the D efe ndant a f

air trial by admitting the tape of the t elephone conver sation betwee n Adam Hipp and the De fenda

nt without deleting f

rom the re cordingthe in a d mi s s ib le hea

rsay , the extraneous of fe ns e s and th e othe r p re jud ic ia l matte rs .” Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts t hat A dam H ipp plo tte d w ith appellant in the s pring of 2001 to murder a ppellant’s fa

mily . This plot was abandone d afte r a f riend of Hipp’s c alled the police . Severa l day s after the murder s in this case, Hipp p ro v i d ed the police with the i n fo rm at i on conce rning the 2001 plot to murder appe llant’s family . Wit h Hipp’s
cooper ation, the police rec orded sever al phone calls betwee n Hipp and appellant befor e a p p ellant fled to Mexi co. I n one of these phone calls, appellant offe red Hipp money in exchang e for Hipp’s sil e nc e a bo ut the 20 01 plo t to mur de r a pp e lla nt’ s fa mil y . Th e a

ud iot a pe s of th ese p ho ne ca lls (State’s ex hibits 109A t hroug h 109F) wer e admitt ed int o evidenc e at the guilt phase of appe llant’s trial. The conver sations on the audiotapes wer e play ed to the jury and are tr an s cr i b ed i n t he

re po rt e r’ s r e c or d a

nd c ov e r a pp ro xima te ly

10 0 p a g e s. The re cord r efle cts that appe llant made the following objections when the State offe red the aud i o t apes into evidence throug h the lead de tective ( Slot) who assisted Hipp in recor ding the

c on ve rs a tio ns :Whit aker --19

12 The State c laimed that the audiotape s were admissible for “multiple re asons.” [S TATE]: Also–I ’m sorry , J udg e. L et me see . These c onversations were a lso give n to de fense counsel, plus A dam Hipp will be testify ing in this particula r ca se. Second, they ’re also admissible to refute the Def endant’ s claims to the fathe r that he did not know why the pol ice were talking to Adam Hipp, beca use t hen it will show that he did know why and was try ing to br ibe him. I t also contains briber y and thwar

ting the investigation, not jus t the other e v i d en ce . So, therefor e, they ’re admissible on mul tip le re a so ns . [DEFENSE]: I ’m g oing to objec t on two gro u n ds: One, this is a conver sation betwee n Adam Hipp [si c] so I ’m g oing to object. We object on hea rsay , as we ll as Cr awfor d, beca

use it is testimonial. Even though he’s laid a predicate for that tape to b e of fe re d, Ad a m H ipp is the on e that has the c onve rs a tio n with him

. To e xpla in the a c c ur a c y

of it, Ido n’ t th ink

he ’s a c tua lly

the re fo r a ll the se c on ve rs a tio ns . [STA TE ]: Ye s, he is. [DE F EN SE]: H e is? [S TATE]: Uh-huh. [DE F EN SE]: B ott om l ine , I ’m g oin g to o bje c t to he a rs a y e viden c e , b e c a

us e thi s is the wrongperson to ente r this tape with. That’s one objection. I f that’s ove rruled, I ’d make t h e objection, I think these tapes c ontain comments about extraneous of fe ns e s, a nd

I ’m g oin g to o bje c t to the e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s b e ing off

e re d at th is time, beca

use there ’s bee n nothing shown that the State nee ds to have a ny extraneous o ff en s e o ff er edat t h i s t i m e t o s h o w i n t en tan d t h at s o rt o f t h i n g. 12 Appellant claims on appea l t h at portions of t he conversations on the audiotapes contained i n ad m issible hearsa

y , extraneous offe nses, and “ other pre judicial matters.” I

n his brief, a

ppellant provides what he cha

rac terizes as a “ fewof the e x amples” of the portions of the c onversations on the audiotape s that he claims wer e inadmis sible: (1) appellant was consulting with a “hig h-price d” lawy e r s ho rt ly

a ft e r t he mur de rs , ( 2) a

pp e lla nt a nd Hi pp ha d s tol e n c omp ute rs wh e n th e y we re in high sc hool toge ther, (3) the “murde r theorie s an d t h e s tatements of the w itnesses that the police interviewe d which Ada

m Hipp told [ appellant] about during the t elephone conver sations,” (4) theWhit aker --20

13 Ov e rru le d o n o the r g

ro un ds by Ma x we ll v . S tat e , 48 S.W .3d 196, 198 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001). financ ial condition of appellant’s fathe r, and (5) a discussion that Hipp had with a lawy er. Appellant claims that his trial o b

j ec t i o n s p ut the trial court on notice that it should have “re moved all of the inadmissible refe renc es so that the re corde d statements only contained the admissible evidenc e and not the prejudicia l things of whic h examples have be en mentioned.” On this recor d, we de cide that appellant’ s trial objections wer e insuffic ient to preser ve any

e rr or in t he a dmi ssi on of a ny po rt ion of the a ud iot a pe s bec a us e the se ob

je c tio ns did no t sp e c if

ic a lly point out which portions of the audiotape s were objected to a s inadmissibl e. Se e He rn an de z v . S tat e , 599 S.W .2d 614, 617 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980) (op. on reh’ g ) (whe n evidenc e is admitted, a pa rt of which is a dmi ssi ble a nd

a pa rt of wh ic h is not, it is inc umb e nt on the pa rt y ob je c tin g to t

he a dmi ssi bil ity of the e vidence to specifica lly point out what part is inadmissible to pre serve the alleg ed err or and, “[w]hi le it might be c onced ed t h at [defendant’ s] obj ection suff iciently stated grounds for the ob je c tio n, it d id not

ide nti fy wh a t w a s o bje c te d to ” ) ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) ; se e als o H um an v . S tat e , 749 S.W .2d 832, 838 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (same)

. The trial court was not obli gat ed t o s ear ch throug h these audiotapes and remove “all of the inadmissible r efe renc es so that t h e r ec o rded statements only

contained the admissible evidence.” Se e J on es v . S tat e , 843 S.W .2d 487, 492 (T e x.Cr .App . 1 99 2) (“ Th e tr ia l c ourt ne e d n e ve r s or

t th ro ug h c ha lle ng e d e vidence in order to 13
seg reg ate the a dmissibl e fr om the excludable, nor is the trial c ourt requir ed to admit only the forme r part or e x clude only

the latter pa

rt. I f evide nce is off

ere d and cha lleng ed which c ont ai n s s o m e of

e a c h, the tr ia l c ourt

may sa fe ly a dmi t it or e xclu de it a ll, a nd the los ing pa rt y , n o matte r w ho he is, will be made to suffe r on appea l the conseque nces of his insuff iciently specific offe r or objec tion.”)Whit aker --21

and at 501- 02 (B aird, J., concurringand author ities cited) (same).
Moreove r, we ag ree with the State that any erro r i n t h e admission of these por tions of the audiotapes w as har

mless in light of t he overwhelming evidenc e of appellant’ s g uilt. See M otilla v.
Sta te , 78 S.W .3d 352, 356-57 (Te x .Cr.App. 2002) (ove rwhe lming evide nce of g uilt is rele vant fa ctor to consider in harm analy sis). The jury would have convicted appellant wit h or wit hout the portions of t he audiotapes that appellant finds objectionable on appea l. Se e id

. Moreove r, any err or in the admission of the portions of the audiotape s that appellant c laims fo r the first time on appe al wer e inadmissible did not substantially influence the j ury ’s verdict at either the g uilt or punishment phases of trial. See King , 9 53 S.W. 2d a t 27 1. Th e jur y wo uld have c on vic te d a

pp e lla nt a nd its a ns we rs to the spec ial issues would have be en t h e s am e wi t h or without the portions of the audiotape s that appellant f

inds objectionable on a

ppeal. Se e id . Point of error f our is overr

uled.
I n point of error five, appellant claims that the “present adminis tration of a lethal injection to one who is sentenc ed to death is cruel an d u n usual punishment and violates the 8 and the 14 th th amendment ( sic) to the United States Constituti on.” In point of err or six , appellant claims that “the trial court e rre d in denying the defe n d an t ’s MOTI ON TO H OL D UNCONSTI TUTI ONAL
V.A.C.C.P. ARTI CL E 37.071 SEC. 2(e) AN D (f) -B URDEN OF PROOF.” I n point of err or seve n,

a p p e l l a n tc l a i m s t h a tt h e “ t r i a l c o u rte r r e d i n d e n y i n g t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s M O T IO N T O H O LD UNCONSTI TUTI ONAL V.A.C.C.P. ARTI CL E 37.071 SEC. 2(e) AN D (F )-F AI L URE TO REQUI RE MI TI GATI ON BE C ONSI DERED.” I n point of error e ight, a ppellant claims that “the trial court e rre d in overr

uling the Def

endant’ s MOTI ON TO HOL D UNCONSTI TUTI ONAL THE
3 7

. 0 7 1 (2)( b)(2) ‘PARTI ES SP ECI AL I SSUE.’” And in point of err or nine, a ppellant claims that “the trial court erre d in overr

uling the Def

endant’ s MOTI ON TO H OL D STATUTORY DE FI NI TI ONWhit aker --22

14 Se e Bu sb yv . S tat e , 253 S.W .3d 661, 667 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. de nied , 129 S.Ct . 625 (2008) (r e je c tin g va

ri ou s c on sti tut ion a l c ha lle ng e s to Ar tic le 37 .0 71 inc lud ingthe c la im that it is unc o n s ti tuti o n a l b e c a

u s e th e mi ti g a ti o n s p e c ia l i s s u e f a il s to p la c e a

b u r d e n o f

p r o o f o n th e St ate) (p oin t of e rr or six) ; Ga llo v . S

tat e , 239 S.W .3d 757, 780 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. de nied , 128 S.Ct . 2872 (2008) ( execution-protocol cla im not ripe for re view o n d i re ct appeal bec ause the defe ndant’s e xec uti on is not

imm ine nt) (p oin t of

e rr or fi ve ); Ro be rts v . S

tat e , 220 S.W .3d 521, 534 ( T e x. Cr

. A pp.), cert. de nied , 1 28 S.Ct . 2 82 (2 00 7) (“ mit ig a tin g e vid e nc e ” no t c on sti tut ion a lly require d to be def

ined m o re b ro adly

than that evidenc e “w hich re duces a defe ndant’s mora l bla me wo rt hin e ss” ) ( po int

of e rr or nin e ); Thr e ad

gil l , 1 46 S.W. 3d

a t 67 1 ( re je c tin g c la im that A rt ic le 37.071 is unconstituti onal for failing to require the j ury to consider miti g ation) (point of error se ven); W oo d v . S tat e , 18 S.W .3d 642, 649 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000) (a nti-parties specia l issue is constituti onal beca use it specific ally

instructs the jury

to consider the de fenda

nt’s behavior

alone) (point of er

ror eig ht). OF MI TI GATI

NG EVI DENCE UNCONSTI TUTI ONAL AS APPL I ED TO I MPOSE A NEXUS
L I MI TA TI ON AN D T O G RA NT DE F EN DA

NT ’S REQ UES TED CL AR I F YI NG VO I R D I RE
I NSTRUCTI ON, ARGUMEN T AND MOT I ON I N L I MI NE.” Appellant asse rts that he is a war e that this Court has reje cted these claims. He r equests that 14
“he be allowed to fully

brief” these points if “this Court has chang ed it s position.” This Court has not chang ed its position. P oints of error five throug h nine ar e over ruled. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

H e r

v e y , J.

Deliver ed: J une 24, 2009 Publis h