Af t er t he St at e r est ed i t s case at t he g ui l t
- i nnocen ce phase, t he t r i al cour t gr ant ed a di r ect ed v er di ct 1 ofnot gui l t y i n f av or of R i car do Cavaz os.



### NUM BER 13-08- 364- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
VA LE NT IN GA ONA , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Val enti n Gaona, and a c odefendant, Ri cardo C av az os, w ere i ndi cte d for 1 the c api tal murder

of Al fino Ga rc ia. S ee T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.03( a) (2 ) (V er nonN ei t her C av az os no r G onz al ez t est i f i ed i n t hi s case. 2 2 Supp. 2008)

. The jur

y found appell ant g uil ty , and the Stat e hav ing not soug ht t he deat h p e n a l t y , t h e t r i a l c o u rt s e n t e n c e d a p p e l l a n t t o l i fe i mp r i s o n ment. Se e id. § 12 .31( a) (V er non Su pp. 2 0 0 8)

. By one is sue, appel lan t c hal len g es the fact ual su ff ic ien cy of the
ev ide nce to s uppor

t hi s c onv ic ti on. W e aff ir m.

I. Fac tual Bac kg ro und O ra li a Ca va zo s a n d h e r b o yf ri e n d , R u b e n G o n za le z, l ive d a t1 3 0 G re e n T ra il Dr ive in Corpu s Ch ris ti , Tex as. I n the ear ly mor nin g of Aug ust24, 1999, a fire s tar ted i n the home. Off ic er

Edw ard Long or ia ar ri v ed atthe sc ene abo ut 1: 58 a. m. and saw C av az os outs ide the house , cr

y ing and w it h blo od on her left shoul der

. Fi re fig hters found the b ody of Alf ino Ga rcia in the liv ing room

. T he me dical examine r te stif ied the ca use o f Garcia’s death w as “s moke i nhal ati on” and that the mann er of his deat h w as “h omic ide .” On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , w hen d e f e n se couns el ask ed Officer Long or ia, “ So bas ed upon th e k n o w led g e tha t y ou had back then , ev en before any dete rmi nati on w as made
w hether i t w as, I don’ t know , an acc ide ntal fire or anythi ng , i t g ot rela y ed to y ou th at i t w as an arson?” , he re pli ed, “ I t hin k a fter respon din g to the cal l and t he i nformati on th at I g ot an d
w it hout re adi ng the re por t, in a nutshe ll i t s eemed l ik e the re w as a di stu rb ance w it h the
sus pectand Cav az os. ” 2 A. Fi re fi ghter s’ T est im ony Assistan t Fire Chief

John Page and Capta in Lee Rogers re s p o n d e d t o the f ire in separate v ehi cl es. W hil e en ro ute t o the fire , both saw a man w alk ing aw ay from the fire

. Pa ge t e s t if ie d tha t “w hen w e w ere initially dispa tche d, pa rt of w hatthe disp atch er said g iv ing the address w as that the cal ler had stat ed th at t he s uspect w as lea v ing the sc ene.”3

W hile traveling on Bear Lan e en route to the f ire, the only perso n Page saw w as a stocky Hi spani c man w hom he desc ri bed as “s omew here betw een probabl y fiv e ei g ht an d s ix foot, 200, 220 pou nds, w alk ing dow n the st re et op posi te my di re cti on of trav el. ” Page sta ted t he
ma n w as w earing a w hite or light-colored T -shirt wi th “some thing on the f ront of the shirt that w as different than the s hir t,” w hic h “ [c] oul d hav e been” a s tai n of some ki nd butnot a pat ch. T h e m a n wa s not loo king at Page, and Page felt this w as “kind of odd beca use
u s u a ll y p e o p le lo o ka tve h ic le s wit h li gh t s a n d si re n s o n
. ” P a ge wa s t ra ve li n g “p ro b a b ly” sixty miles pe r ho ur when he saw this ma n at “1:00 so me thing in the morn ing.” On crossex aminat ion , he tes ti fied th at he sa w the man for a “ spl itse cond” and that the man did not appear to be i nju re d. Cap tain Ro ger s testi fied th at he w as a member of Res cue 3, w hic h i s l ocat ed on Mo rg an Av enue. W hil e en ro ute to the f ire, the v ehi cl e he w as ri din g in drov e from M org an Avenue to Old Brownsv il le R o a d t o B e ar Lan e an d the n to Gree n T rail Dr iv e. W hen his
v ehicle tu rned rig ht on to Be ar Lan e f rom Old Brow nsvil le Road , he saw a ma n w earing “a dar k- col ored T- shi rt ” w alk ing on Bear Lane tow ards Ol d Brow nsv il le Roa d. W hat c aug ht Rog ers’ ey e w as that the man “s eemed to be tr y ing v er y hard to av oid se ein g us or l ooki ng at us, and that ’s v eryunu sual” beca use “[w]hen a f ire appa ratus goes by, norma lly peo ple sto p and loo k. And thi s par ti cul ar ind iv idu al w as v er y near the ro adw ay , but it w as li ke he
w as really keep ing his g lare f ix ed t o l ik e n o tm a k e eye conta ct at all. And that ’s a v ery strange situa tion. ” He f urthe r stated that“that night,” “smo ke [w as] . . . in the air”. Normally that doesn ’tca use peopl e or by sta nders or onl ookers to lea v e. It caus es them to w ant t o go look. And when a f ire appa ratus drives by , just like ev ery bod y else, the y

alw ays look. And .

. . i t’ s v er

y strang e w hen somebody deli beratel y

tri es not to look. ” He saw the man betw een 2: 00 a. m. and 3:00 a.m. a nd des cr ibe d hi m as bei ng of “medi um hei g ht,4

somew hat h eavy set , dar k h aired, d idn ’tappear to be c lea n s haven ,” a nd “ ru ddy compl ect ed.” W hen C aptai n R og ers arr iv ed at the sc ene, he saw a male and female in the front y ard. Theyi ndi cat ed th at s omeone w as in the h ouse. Ca p ta in R og ers a nd hi s p artner ent ered the ho me and took Ga rcia out of t h e h o u s e
. After the f ire w as pu t out , Capta in Rog ers s aw

“ a broken w ind ow

i n a b edroom i n the rear” of the hous e. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , he tes ti fied th at hi s v ehi cl e w as g oin g betw e e n tw enty to tw enty -fiv e mi les per

hour w hen i t t ur ned ont o Bear Lane. W hen couns el ask ed hi m, “ And how fa r up the street w as he [the m an] a f ter y ou ma de the co rner?”, he replied, “Prob ably a quarter of

the blo ck.” “ He didn ’t have v erylo n g b e fo re h e w as going to g et to Old Brow nsv il le Roa d.” B. The Inv

est iga ti on Lieu ten antKelly

Isaacks, the chie f

inv estigator in this case , testif ied t h at w hile
w it ness es w ere bei ng inter v iew ed about this i nci dent, sh e recei v ed i nformati on reg ardin g a v ehicle th at ha d bee n seen a nd tha t it “m ay be rela ted t o the in divi dua l . . . tha t w e w ere loo ki ng at in referenc e to hav ing i nformati on abou t t his fire.” The ev eni ng foll ow ing the fire , she found the v ehi cl e, a brow n Ol dsmobi le, l ic ense pla te number H MZ -2 0W , par ked at 3517 C olo nia l Street i n C or pus Chr is ti

. She s aid the v ehi cl e w as re g is tered to appel lan t. That s ame ev eni ng , Lt . I saac ks met w it h ap pel lan t, w ho w as in Rob sto w n, Tex as. Sh e noti ced he “ had a lac erati on to his fo re h e a d that w as sti ll bl eedi ng ” and t hat h e “ had a lac eration to hi s r ig ht forear m that

. . . l ooked pretty fres h.” Ap pel lan t w as tak en to the Corpus Christi Police Depa rtme nt w here he gav e Lt. Isaacks his w ritten sta tem entin w hich he s tated :5

Yesterday, on 08 -2 3-99 , at ab out4 p.m ., I saw my ex -g irlfriend , Oralia Cav az os, ov er on El g in St. at her ex -b oyfrie nd’ s house

. I cal led her ov er at his hous e and w e deci ded to meet at 4:45 p.m. a t t he J ames C or ner Sto re
. I drove over to the store and met Oralia the re. She had the kid s wit h h e r. The st ore w as cl osed so I foll ow ed her o ver to the H .E.B . atAy ers/P ort. Orali a and I s at i n the ca r dr ink ing beer and tal ki ng
. The ki ds g ot off the c ar and w ait ed for us at the s tore. Then, th e k ids ca me bac k. W e w ent i nto [ the] sto re and boug ht s ome food and a 12- pack of beer

. W e w ent o v er to the house on E lg in St. and O ra li a d ro p p e d of f the g ro cer ies and she g ot t he lau ndr y . I foll ow ed Orali a to the Laundromat from there. W e s at i n the ca r l i s te ni ng to th e r ad i o w hi l e th e c l ot he s w ere w as hi ng . W e ta l k ed abo utme and her missing each othe r and po ssible [sic] getting b ack togeth er. She to ld me aboutthe house thatsh e had g ot. She tol d me w here it w as
. I t old her I k new al re ady but I re a lly d idn’t

. W e drank some more beer

. W e w ere at the L aundromat abo ut an hour . I left the Laundromat. I g ot on the freew ay and Oralia w as followi ng me
. T hen , I followed her. She drove to he r sister’s house on 1 6th S t. to drop off her n iec e butno one w as home. After that, sh e tol d me t hat w e w oul d s ee eac h oth er l ater

. She told m e s he w oul d c all me. I t ook off cr uis ing and she w ent h er w ay
. I drov e around w ait ing. T h en, I w ent t o he r

b rot he r R ud y ’ s h ou s e off H i g hl an d St

. I a s k ed a bo utw he re Oralia wa s a n d h e t old m e she w ould be ba ck soon f rom th e store. Oralia came b ack

f ro m the s tore and g av e me a beer

. W e tal ked for aw hil e about bei ng tog ether

thatni g ht. W e tal ked about g etti ng a motel room. Then, s he said she had talked to Rube n an d she w ould ask him to leave so w e cou ld g et ba ck tog ether that nig ht. Orali a left me at her brother ’s hous e. Later that nig ht, I drov e ov er

to Orali a’s hous e and saw her ca r there. I rang the door bel l and k nock ed atthe door

. My daug hters came to the door

. About t h a tt im e , a t a ll , y o u n g gu y ca m e u p a n d h e wa s a s k in g a ro u n d fo r R ic ky. Ri cky i s O ra li a’s nephew . I talk ed to Oral ia and aske d her if she w as re ady to lea v e. She kept te lling me to wa it j ust a m inute and she ne v er w ould co m e . I wai te d an d op e n e d th e do o r. I as ke d if Ru b e n w o u ld n ’tle t h e r go or w hat. She tol d me t o w aitand be q uie t. I w alk ed a coupl e of feet i nsi de the doo r and th en w alked out

. Oralia closed the doo r on me . I told her “f uck t h i s ” a n d h i tth e fr o n tw i n d o w an d bro k e i t

. I g o ti n m y c a r a n d l e ft

. I t o o ko ff an d g oto n th e fr ee w ay

at Ag ne s St. and Oral i a s l am me d i nt o th e ba c ko f my car w it h her ca r. I pul led ov er

and so did sh e and w e tal ked a l ittl e more. I told h er to c al l me w he ne v er s he w as rea dy an d s he s ai d ok ay
. I don ’t reme mb er anything e lse until I w oke u p ab out3 a.m . I w as pa rked on Old Rob sto w n R oad. I tr ied to sta rtthe car and itw oul dn’ t s tar

t s o I w alk ed to Li nd a D el ac r uz ’ s h ou s e on C ol on i al

. I w en t i ns i de , th at ’ s w he n s he t ol d me myhead w as mess ed up and my ar m. I don’ t k now

how thathappen ed. The next mor nin g , s he hel ped me push it to he r house

. I w as w ear ing a bl acktshi rtand g ra y

pant s on thi s nig ht. This st atement is tr ue and cor re ct to t he bestof mykn ow led g e.6

Lt. I s a a c k s t e s t i fi e d t h a ta p p e l l a n t“ c o u l d n ’ tre me mb e r” w h a to c c u r re d d u r i n g the per iod of ti me the fire took pl ace. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Lt . I saac ks tes ti fied appel lan t tur ned hims elf in in Rob sto w n, butshe did n ot kno w

how he got to Rob stown w hen his ca r was foun d in Corpus Christi. W hen c ounse l ask ed her , “ So y o u don’ t k now w ho w as dr iv ing the car thatni g ht?” , s he
re pli ed, “ W ell , by

hi s o w n admi ss ion he t old me he w as. ” She tes ti fied th at i n her opi nio n, appel lan t’ s h ead i nju ry

w as not caus ed w hen Oral ia Ca v az os hitthe back of appell ant’ s c ar with her ca r. Sh e s tated , “ There w as no damag e to the v ehi cl e l ik e tha t atal l w here he [appel lan t] w oul d hav e s tr uck i t on the win d shi eld or anythi ng l ik e tha t.” Sh e s tated “[ T]here’s no d oubt in mymin d tha t t his fire w as int enti onal ly se t.” W hen c ounse l ask ed her , “ Di d any body

identi fy [appel lan t] as being the person that they sa w dur ing the ti me that this f ire was se t in the n eighborh ood ?”, she replied , “I have description s f rom ind iv idua ls
w ho s aw a s ubj ectmatc hin g hi s desc ri pti on w it h an inj ur y l ik e he had l eav ing the sc ene of that fire j ustr ig ht after

i t w as rep orted.” She sa id that no w it ness “ g ot a g ood l ook at [ the
sus pect ’s ] face” and that the d esc ri pti ons v ar ied w hen it came to the sus pect ’s hei g ht an d
w ei g ht

. H ow ev er , s he s ai d, “ [T ]h e de s c r i pt i on s w ere al l a h us ky H i s pan i cma l e. S om e g av e a d esc ri pti on of a ban dag e on his ar m. .
. . [ T]he descri p ti ons w ere al l v er y si mil ar in nature .
. . w hen y ou’ re tal ki ng about3:00 o’ cl ock i n the mor nin g , 2: 0 0 o ’cl o cki n the morni ng .” Atthe ti me of appel lan t’ s a rre st o n A u gust24, 1999, he w as fiv e foot th re e inche s tall and weig hed 250 pou nds. On t he ni g ht of the fire, C urti s M eld e w as w or ki ng as a sec ur ity g uard at t he D el Ma r Co ll e ge we s tca m p u s
. W h il e o n b ik e p a t ro l a t1 : 0 5 a
. m
. , h e sa w a n u n o c c u p ie d b ro wn Oldsm obile, license nu mb er HMZ-20W , parke d in the adm inistration parking lot, w hich is on th e frontsi de of the campus faci ng Ol d Brow nsv il le Roa d and Ai rp ort Roa d. M eld e had7

been bythe r e p r e v i o u s l y a n d d i d n o ts e e t h i s c a r p a r k e d t h e re
. H e w a s c o n c e r ned becau se itw as par ked there “ a fte r h o u rs.” At a pprox imat ely 2:35 a.m., “ a heavy set Hi spani c mal e” go t in to t he c ar and left on Ai rp ort R oad. The ev ide nce show ed th is ca r
w as re g is tered to appel lan t. On cross-examina tion, coun sel question ed Melde abo ut the time f rame as follows: Q. So betw een 11: 00 and 1:00 y ou di dn’ t s ee a v ehi cl e the re ? A. Us ual ly m y p a tr o ls tak e 30 minut es for the compl ete campus
. So I w ou l d s ay

a ny w he r e from — Q. 12:35 to 1: 05? A. Y eah. Any

w here around t here. Dur ing the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e, t he tr ial co urt admitt ed State’ s ex hib it44, a map showing the relatio n s h ip between th e locat ion of the f ire and Del Mar College w est campus
. The map s how s t hat i n order to ge t to Del Ma r Col leg e w estca mpus from the loc ati on of the fire , a person coul d g o from G re en Trail D ri v e to Green Pa rk and then from Green Pa rk

to Bear Lane and t hen from Bear Lane to Old Brow nsv il le Ro ad. The l eg end on th e ma p w ould allow the jury to approximate the distan ce f rom the fire to th e college v ia thi s route. C. The Foren sic Evidence After the fire w as exti ng uis hed, inv est ig ators found blo od in a rear bedroom of the Ca va zo s h o m e
. T h e b lo o d wa s fo u n d o n t h e f lo o r a n d o n a win d o w si ll

. Ap p e ll a n t ’s kn o wn D N A profi l e ma tc he d th e D N A ta k en from t he b l oo d fou nd i n th e rea r b ed roo m. Ma rc ia Par ker , a lat ent- pr intex amin e r, f o u n d a p alm pr inton t he w ido w si ll of the
re ar bedroom of t he Cav az os home. She s aid the pal m pr intw as “v is ibl e to the n aked ey e” and locate d on the inside of the w indo w . S he iden tif ied the print as app ellant ’s lef t palm8

pr int

. D. The In vestiga tion In to The Cause Of The Fir e 1. Finding s By The Sta te Fire Marshal’ s Office Tommy Pl easan t, an i nv est ig ator and sen io r ca nin e handl er , us ed hi s d og , H y co, to s ear ch the Cav az os home for trac e amounts of

ig nit abl e liq uid s. He te sti fied th at H y co,
w ho w as train ed to a le rt o n f o urteen different ig nit abl e l iq uid s, “g av e me four al erts and ind ic ati ons throug hout the resi dence .” H y co’ s f irst al ert w as on the liv ing -room f loo r, and the othe r three alerts were in the enclo sed g arage area . Pleasa nt collect ed o ne sa mp le f rom e ach a rea w here Hy co alerte d. T he lab ana ly sis show ed th at th e s e s a mp les w ere neg ati v e for acc ele ra nts

. How ev er , Pl easan t offered t hree pos si ble ex pla nati ons for w hy t h e s a mp l e s w e r e n e g a t i v e : ( 1 ) h e c o u l d h a v e c o l l e c t e d “ a b a d s a mp l e ”; ( 2) after he
c o ll e c t e d t h e sa m p le , “i tc o u ld h a ve e va p o ra t e d b e fo re a n a lys is ”; a n d (3 ) H yc o co u ld h a ve det ecte d som eth ing that he c o u ld not ta ke a sam ple of . He stated that“our dogs are train ed to find h y drocar bons that are i n i g nit abl e l iq uid s” and that “[ s]c ien ti sts hav e prov en tha t the dogs can sme ll parts per million, p arts per billion. T hey have a v erysensitive nose

. . . .” D ea n Sh i r l ey , a c hi ef ars on in v es ti g at or , be g an h i s i nv es ti g at i on b etw ee n 8: 00 a .m
. and 8:30 a.m . on th e mo rning of the f ire. He t e s t if ied th e f ire started in the no rthw est bed room , w hich w as the converted garage. He c onclu ded “that th ere w as an ig nitab le li q uid thatw as poured on the flo or of thatbedroom and then ig nit ed, u si ng so me ty pe of ope n f lam e.” He sa id tha t “my con clusion w as tha t the t elevision [ in the bed room w here the fire s tar

ted] w as a resul t of the fire that w as from the ig nit abl e li q uid on th e floor and not
a con tributin g facto r to the ignition of the f ire.” H e stat ed “tha t an ele ctrical engineer cou ld
no td e t e rm ine th at th at te levi sion cau sed th e f ire.” H e did no t f ind eith er a ma tch or aO n di r ect
- exam i nat i on, t he p r osecut or asked Shi r l ey as f ol l ows: 3 Q

. Let m e go back t o t he f i r e. D i d y ou di sagr ee or agr ee wi t h M r
. Padi l l a’ s assessm ent o f th e te l e v i s i o n a n d w h e th e r i t s ta rte d th e fi re o r n o t? A

. I d i s a g re e d w i th M r. P a d i l l a ’ s a s s e s s m e n t. Q

. Based on ev er y t hi ng y ou saw, do y ou hav e any doubt t hat t he f i r e st ar t ed at t he b ed and not t he t el ev i si on? A. I hav e t he o pi ni on t hat t he f i r e st ar t ed o n t he f l oor i nv ol v i ng i gni t abl e l i qui ds ar ound

t he b ed a nd a r ound t hose i t em s t hat wer e on t he f l oor , t oo. 9 lig hte r at the scen e, bu t said tha t its “pret ty rare t hatwe fin d the ig nition comp one nts, if it
w as a matc h or a li g hter

. Ma ny ti mes i f there i s s omethi ng there, i t’ s b een c onsumed” or “[ t]hey ’re tak en w it h the person w ho may hav e us ed i t.” Three day s after the fire, S hir ley returne d to th e Cavaz os ho me and collected a sam ple f rom th e f loor of the be droo m where the f ire started . Shirley disagreed w ith the a s s e ssme nt of a non -testif

y ing i nvestigator, 3
w ho bel iev ed th at t he te lev is ion se t c aused the fire

. In 19 99, a nal y sts w it h the Sta te F ire Ma rs hal ’s arson lab orator y tes ted t he s amples col lected by Pl easan t and Sh ir ley from t he C av az os home. Sondra Budg e, an anal y st w it h the S tate Fi re M a rsh a ll ’s arson lab orator y , t est ed th e s amples w hic h Pl easan t c oll ect ed and state d tha t the y

w ere ne gativ e for ig nitab le liq uid residue

. Ho w ever, she state d the re are “a num ber of

reason s” fo r fa ili n g t o dete ct any ig nitab le liq uids: (1) “the f ire supp ression act iv ities [cou ld have] w ashe d it away ”; (2) “[i]t could h ave been burne d up ”; (3 ) “[ i] t al so coul d have ev aporated before i t w as col lected” ; and ( 4) “ there w ere [no
acc ele ra n ts ] to b e gin w it h.” Sh e tes ti fied th at t he abs ence of acce lerants does not
neces sar il y

ex cl ude t he pos si bil ity of arson. W ith respe ct to the samp le collecte d by Shirley, Budge testif ied th at th e result of this tes t “ w as cal led a no st andard, w hic h means that w e c oul d notex cl ude t he pos si bil ity that per haps an ig nit abl e liq uid resi due w as pre sentbut w e di dn’ t hav e any referenc e s tandardsS on dra B ud ge , a n an al y s t w i t h t he S t ate F i re M ars ha l ’ s a rso n l ab ora t ory , tes t i fi ed tha t t he S t ate F i re 4 M a rs h a l ’ s o ff i c e i s p a rt o f th e T e x a s D e p a rtm e n t o f In s u ra n c e
. 10 to com pare it to for a positive ident if ication ” and th at “it conta ins the comp one nts th at cou ld
ma ke it an acce lerant ; but , again, w e did n ’t h a ve any particular referen ce tha t w e cou ld compare i t t o. So w e did not posit iv ely identi fy it .” Sev eral y ears lat er , Bu dg e c ompared thi s s ample to an updat ed l is t of referenc e s amples and found “a referenc e tha t i t matc hed to i n 2008" and t hat “ [w]e w oul d i denti fy that par ti cul ar referenc e as w hat’s c all ed a nap hth enic pa raf

f inic.” She testif ied that i n 199 9, th e na pht hen ic paraf f inics w ere no t part of thei r re ferenc e samples

. She sai d that this substa nce is used as a sol v ent a nd i s found in lamp oil s a nd s ome charc oal star ters. She sai d tha t t his su bst ance can be us ed as an acc ele ra nt. 2. Fi ndi ngs By The Cor

pus Chr is ti F ir e D epar tm ent Peter Sal az ar , a fire fig hter

and inv est ig ator , i nv est ig ated the fire at the C av az os hom e an d foun d “hea vy f ire dam age” to the converted garage and believed that the f ire sta rt ed th ere “ [i ]n t he v ic ini ty of the b ed.” H e tes ti fied th at i n m o st c ases , ac cel erants ind ic ated an i ntent ion al fire and that the b ur n pat ter n on the flo or w as cons is tent w it h the
use o f acceleran ts. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Sa laz ar coul d not say ex act ly w hat sta rt ed th e fire, an d he coul d not“ total ly ” ru le out t he pos si bil ity thata c ig arette sta rt ed th e fire. How ev er , he det ermin ed th e f ire w as an arson f ire based upo n his obse rv ation s a tt h e s c e ne. He ack now led g ed recei v ing a repor t, dated Aug ust

30, 1999, from the Tex as Dep artment of Insu rance , stating that“No c o m mo n com me rcially av ailable f lam ma ble or com bust ible 4 i g ni ta bl e l i q ui ds w ere c hrom at og rap hi c al l y d et ec te d[ .] ” H ow ev er , w he n c ou ns el as k ed h i m, “S o i f t h e y d i d n ’ t fi n d a n yt h i n g , y o u c a n ’ t s a y t h a t a c c e l e ra n t s w e re u s e d , c a n y o u ? ” , he11

replied , “Y ou still can, sir.” Salazar state d tha t “w hen y ou d o u s e a c c e lerant s, the re’s
a lwa ys t h e p o s s ib il it y t h a tt h e y a ll go tb u rn e d u p in t h e f ir e a n d t h e y’r e n o tgo in g t o h a ve any resi due l eft.” H e s tated there are oth er w ay s t o det er mine w hether an acc ele ra nt w as used to sta rt a fire , “n ot jus t the fact th at t he resul ts came b ack neg ati v e.” H e s aid , “ Y ou can tel l by

the w ay the floor i s burn ed, the patter ns on th e floor , i f they poured any

ki nd of ig nit abl e l iq uid s o n the floor

. The floor

. . . ti les w il l bur n di ff erent t han t he restof the room.” W hen c ounse l ask ed hi m, “ [W ]as this determi ned?” , he re pli ed, “Y es, sir .” W hen c ounse l asked him, “W as the tile in the be droo m sho w n to be an acce lerantthere, or w as it somepl ace el s e i n t h e h o u s e t h a ty o u re c a l l ? ” , h e re p l i e d , “ I n t h e b e d ro o m. ” S a l a z ar testif ied th at f iref ighters used “quite a bit” of w ate r to p u tout th e f ire and th at th is could ha v e w as he d aw ay

a l oto f ev i de nc e th atw as i n th e be droo m. App ellantrested h is case w ithou t calling any w itnesse s. II. D is cus si on In his sole issue , app ellantargues the evid e n c e is fa ctua lly insuf f icient to supp ort his co nv ic ti on. An app ell ate c our t mus t beg in a factual su ff ic ien cy re view w it h the
assum ption t hatthe evidence is l egally suf f icient un der Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307 (1 979)

. Laster

v. Sta te , No. PD -1 276- 07, 2009 W L 80226 a t * 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. Ja n. 14 , 2 0 0 9 ) (ci ti n g Jones

v. Sta te , 9 4 4 S. W .2 d 64 2 , 6 4 7 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (ci ti n g Clewis
v. State , 922 S.W .2d 126 , 134 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96)). How ever, evidence th at is legally suffici ent c an be deemed factu all y i nsuffici ent i n tw o w ay s: (1) “the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on is ‘t oo w eak’ to suppo rtthe factfinder ’s v erdict” ; or ( 2) “ cons ide ri ng co nflicti ng ev ide nce, the factfinder ’s v erdict i s ‘ ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the evidence. ’” Id . (qu o ti n g W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6)). W hen a cour

t of appeal s c onduc ts a factual su ff ic ien cy re v iew , the c our t mus t defer

to theLa s t er v . S ta te , N o. PD
- 1276- 07, 200 9 W L 80 226 at * 2 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. Jan. 14, 200 9) ( ci t i ng 5 W a ts o n v . S ta te , 20 4 S

. W

. 3d 40 4, 41 4 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 06 ))

. 12 jur y ’s findi ng s. Id . (c it in g Cai n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 4 04, 4 07 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1997) ). The court of criminal app eals ha s “set out t hree ‘basic groun d rules’ imple me nting this stan dard .” Id . (qu o ti n g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 ). Fi rst, the a p p e lla te cou rt must
cons ide r all of the e v ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, as oppos ed to i n a l ig h t m o st f av orabl e to 5 the v erdict. Id . (c it in g W ats on , 204 S .W .3d a t 414 ). Seco nd, t he app ellate co urt “may only f ind th e evidence factu ally insuf f icient w hen nece ssaryto ‘prevent ma nifest injustice. ’” Id

. (qu o ti n g Cain , 958 S.W .2d at 407)

. Al thoug h the v erdict is afforded l ess deferen ce dur ing a factu al suf

f iciency rev iew , an ap pellat e cou rt is notf ree to “override the ve rd ictsimply beca use it disagrees wi th it.” Id . (c it in g Cain , 958 S.W .2d a t 407 ). Thi rd , t he appe ll ate
cour t mus t ex pla in w hy

the ev ide nce is too w eak to s uppor t t h e v erdict or

w hy the confli cti ng ev ide nce g re atl y w eig hs ag ain st the v erdict. Id . (c it in g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 ). “I n rev iew ing the suffici ency of the e v ide nce, w e s houl d l o o k a t ‘ev ents oc cur ri ng before, dur ing and after the c ommis si on of the offense and m a y re ly o n acti ons of the def end antw hich sho w

an un dersta ndin g and comm on d esign to do th e proh ibited act.’” Guev ar a v . St ate , 1 5 2 S. W .3 d 45 , 4 9 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (ci ti n g Cor dova v. State , 698 S.W .2d 107 , 111 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85); T hom pson v. State , 6 9 7 S

. W

. 2 d 4 1 3 , 4 1 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1985) ). “ Each fact n eed not point direct ly and inde pendent ly

to the g uil t of the appel lan t, as lon g as the c umulat iv e effectof all the inc ri minat ing facts are [s ic ] s uff ic ien t to sup port th e con v iction.” Id . (c it in g Alexander v. Sta te , 74 0 S. W .2 d 74 9, 7 58 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 198 7)).13

A. Cap it al Mu rder The in dictment charg ed th at ap pel lan t “ int enti onal ly ca use[ d] t he d e a th o f an ind iv idu al, namel y , AL FI NO GAR C IA, BY SETTIN G F IR E TO TH E H OU SE O CC UP IED BY ALF IN O G AR CI A w hil e i n the co urse of commit ti ng or att empti ng to commi t arson,
. . . .” The penal code prov ide s that a person commi ts capi tal murde r “i f th e pe rso n co mmits murde r as defined u nder Sec ti on 19.02( b) (1 ) and:

. . . (2 ) the p erson int enti onal ly co mmits the murd er in the cou rse of comm itting or attem pting to com mit . . . arson . . . .” T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 19.03( a) (2 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. Mu rd er i s d ef in e d a s “i ntent ion all y or knowingl y

caus[in g] the dea th of

an individual.” Id

. § 19.02( b) (1 ). Inten t may “b e i nferred from the ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce suc h as ac ts, w ords, and the c onduc t of the appel lan t.” Gue vara , 1 5 2 S. W .3 d at50 (cit in g Patr ick v . St ate , 906 S.W .2d 481, 487 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 199 5)). Und er Tex as law , arson is co mmitt ed w hen: (a ) A person
. . . sta rt s a fire, reg ardle ss of w hether the fire cont inu es after ig nit ion , or

ca uses an e x plo si on w it h i ntentto dest ro y or damag e:

. . . . (2 ) any bui ldi ng , hab it ati on, o r v ehi cl e; (A ) know ing thati t is w it hin the li mits of an i ncor porated ci ty or tow n;

. . . [or ] .

. . (F ) w hen t he person is re ck les s about w hether the bur nin g or ex plo si on w il l endang er the li fe of

so me i ndi v idu al or

the safety of the pro perty of

ano the r. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28. 02(a )(2) ( A) and (F) (Vernon Supp . 200 8).14

B. Ana lysis T he St ate p re s e n t e d evidence showi ng appe llant’s inte nt to cause an individual’s dea th as follows: O n the n ight o f t he f ire, a ppe llant w as angry a t his ex- gir lf riend, Oralia Cavaz os, be cause she told him sh e ha d talke d to Rub en Go nzalezand thatshe w ould ask him to l eav e s o s h e a n d a p p e llantco uld g et ba ck tog ether

thatni g ht. W hen app ell ant
ar ri v ed at Cav az os’ s home, she tol d appel lan t to w ait , and w hen he open ed th e door , s he cl osed iton h im. In re sponse, appel lan t broke the front w ind ow of Cav az os’ s h ome. Appel lan t drov e aw ay , and C av az os “s lammed int o the bac k o f [appel lan t’ s] car w it h her
car .” Thi s ev ide nce est abl is hed a moti v e for appell ant t o murder

C av az os. See Guev

ar a, 1 5 2 S. W .3 d at50 ( “Mo ti ve is a sign if ica n t c irc u m st a n ce in d ica ti n g guil t. ”) (ci ti n g Harris v. State , 727 S.W .2d 5 37, 5 42 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1987) ); see a lso Ree d v . St ate, 744 S. W .2d 112, 127 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1988) ( prov idi ng thatev ide nce w hic h mere lyg oes to s how moti v e or oppor tuni ty of the acc used to committhe cr ime maybe c onsi dered i n c onnec ti on
w it h oth er

ev ide nce tendi ng to conne ct the a cc used w it h the cr ime)

. The ev ide nce re g ardin g arson show ed that a sampl e w hic h Shi rl ey co ll ect ed from insid e the Cav az os home c ontai ned a naphthe nicparaff ini c, w hic h c an be used as an accel e ra n t

. F u rtherm ore, bu rn patt erns on the en closed g arage’s f loor showed the f ire sta rt ed i n tha t room. Pl easan t’ s d og , H y co, searc hed the Cav az os home for trace amounts of ig nit abl e l iq uid s a nd al erted once on the l iv ing room floor and three ti mes i n the enc los ed g arag e. Shi rl ey

co ncl uded “t hat the fire or ig ina ted on the floor” in the c onv erted g arag e, and “ that there w as a n i g nit abl e l iq uid thatw as poured on the flo or of that bedroom and then ig nit ed, u si ng so me ty pe of op en flame.” Sal az ar deter mined the fire w as an arson fire bas ed upon his obser v ati ons at the sc ene. The ev ide nce show ed th at t he fire c aused Garci a’s deat h bas ed upon the fact th at fire fig hters found h is body i n the l iv ing room and15

that his auto psy

resul ts show ed he die d from s moke i nhal ati on. T he e v iden ce tha t conn ecte d app ellantt o the a rson f ire w as tha t Capta in Rogers,
w hil e en ro ute t o the fire, s aw a man w ear ing “ a dar k- col ored T-s hir t” w alk ing aw ay

from the fire on Bear

Lane tow ards Ol d Brow nsv il le Roa d. He tes ti fied th is man “ seemed to be try ing v eryhard to av oid see ing us or looking at us,” w hich is “very unu sual.” In ap pellan t’s
w ri tten sta tement to Lt . Isaac ks , appell ant sai d nothing about a fire , but he sta ted h e “ w as
w ear ing a bl ack

t- shi rt .” Me lde tes ti fied th at on the nig ht of the fire , he saw

a brow n Ol dsmobi le, l ic ense pla te HM Z- 20W , par ked at the D el Ma r Col leg e w estca mpus l ocat ed on Ol d Brow nsv il le Roa d and Airport Road . Th e car w as the re between 1 2:3 5 a

. m
. a n d 1 :05 a.m ., ba sed o n his thi rty -mi nute patrols of the c ampus. Atapprox imat ely 2:35 a.m., he s aw

a he avy

se t Hi spani c mal e g et i n the car and dri v e of f. T he ev ide nce show ed th e c ar w as re g is tered to ap pel lan t and thatappel lan t w as heavy se t and i s H is pani c. W hen Lt. Isa ack s s poke to appel lan t th e ev eni ng foll ow ing the fire , app ell ant c oul d notremember w hat h appened dur ing the ti me per iod before and after the fire oc cur re d. Appel lan t state d i n hi s w ri tten sta tement that “I don’ t remember anythi ng e lse u nti l I w oke up abou t 3 a.m. .
. . . ” Lt. Isaa cks receiv ed d escription s f rom ind iv idua ls w ho sa w a s u bject ma tching app ellant ’s desc ri pti on w it h an inj ur y l ik e appel lan t had l eav ing the sc ene of the fire “ ri g ht after i t w as re por ted.” W hen s he ta lk ed to appel lan t on the e v eni ng foll ow ing th e f ire , h e had a ble edi ng l acerati on to hi s forehead a nd a “p re tty fres h” lac erati on to his ri g ht forear m. Lt. Isa ack s o pin ed th at ap pel lan t’ s h ead i nju ry w as not caus ed w hen C av az os hitthe back of his car w ith he r car. Sho rtly af ter the f ire, blood samp les w ere taken from bot h the f loor and w indo w sill of a rear bed room in the Cavaz os ho use. Appe llant’s DNA p rof ile m atch ed the DNA prof ile16

from thes e bl ood sa mples

. Appel lan t’ s p alm pr intw as found in the rear bedroom of the Cavaz os ho me . In h is wr itten state me nt to Lt. Isaa cks, app ellantstate d, “She [Cav azos] tol d me abo ut t he hous e tha t sh e h a d got. Sh e tol d me w here i t w as. I tol d her I knew
a lr e a d y b u t

I r e a l l y d id n ’t .” ( emphasi s added)

. Beca use appel lan t s tated thathe d id not k n o w u n t il t h e n ig h to f

t h e f ir e wh e re Ca va zo s ’s h o u s e w a s lo c a t e d , t h e ju ry c o u ld h a ve conc lud ed that his blood and palm pri nt had to be left there the nig ht of the fire

. Hi s b loo d and pal m pr int conne ct him to t he hous e. See H ino jos a v . St ate , 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1999) ( hol din g , i n factual su ff ic ien cyr ev iew , s hoe pr int s d is cov ered atthe
v ictim’s hou se con nectapp ellantto tha t locatio n). Base d upon thi s e v ide nce, a rati onal j ur y co uld find t hat a ppel lan t par ked his ca r at the D el Ma r Col leg e w estca mpus s ometi me betw een 12: 35 a.m. and 1:05 a.m., w ent t o the C av az os home, e n te re d the home t hroug h the rear bedroom w here he left hi s b loo d on th e w ind ow

si ll and th e f lo o r, se t fire to the h ouse, and then w ent b ack to his ca r and drov e aw ay

a t ap prox i ma te l y

2 :3 5 a. m. The cont ra ry ev ide nce show ed that: (1 ) no one saw w ho sta rt ed the fire in the Cav az os home; ( 2) no one identi fied appell ant as t he person lea v ing the sc ene of the fire ; (3 ) Pete Sal az ar

co uld not say

ex act ly w hat caus ed the f ire; (4) neither as si sta nt fire c hie f John Pag e nor

C aptai n Lee Rog ers ident ified appell ant as t he man t hey sa w w alk ing aw ay from the fire ’s l ocat ion ; ( 5) M eld e di d noti denti fy appel lan t as the man he s aw g etti ng i nto the brown Oldsm obile; (6) in his w ritten statem ent , app ellant me ntion ed n oth ing abou t his involv em en t i n an y fi r e; ( 7) ap pe l l an t di d no t fl ee ; rat he r , he me t w i th Lt

. Is aacks in Rob sto w n and in Cor pus Chr is ti ; ( 8) the v ic ti m’s auto psy sh ow ed he h ad c ocai ne and
ma r i hu an a i n hi s bo dy ; an d ( 9) no ac c el eran ts w ere fou nd i n ap pe l l an t’ s c ar or on his clothe s.Sect i on 6

. 04( b) of t he p enal code pr ov i des: “ A per son i s neve rt hel ess cr i m i nal l y r esponsi bl e f or 6 causi ng a r esul t i ft he o nl y di ff er ence bet ween what act ual l y occur r ed and what he desi r ed, cont em pl at ed, or r i sk ed i s t hat : ( 1) a di ff er ent off ense was com m i t t ed; or ( 2) a di ff er ent per son o r pr oper t y was i nj ur ed, har m ed, or othe rw i s e a ffec t ed

. ” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 6

. 04 (b) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 17 The jur y has the re spons ibi li ty to fair ly resol v e c onfli cts i n the ev ide nce, to w eig h the
ev ide nce, and to draw

reason abl e i nferenc es from the ev ide nce. Thr eadgi ll v. Sta te , 146 S.W .3d 6 54, 663 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2004)

. Con si der ing the total ity of the e v ide nce–mot iv e, the D NA ev ide nce, the pal m-pr intev ide nce, the ev ide nce show ing the fire w as caus ed by
arson, appel lan t’ s fai lure to acc ount for th e time peri ods before a nd after the fire , t hat, based upon w hen Off ic er Long or ia ar ri v ed atthe fire , t he fire w as re por ted a t l eastby

1:58
a
. m. , t h e fa c t t h a t a p p e l l a n t ’ s c a r w a s p a r k e d a t O l d B ro w n s v i l l e R o a d a n d A i rp ort R oad betw een app ro x imat ely 12:3 5 a.m. and 2:35 a.m. o n the ni g ht of the fire, t hat a heavy set Hi spani c man drov e aw ay i n thi s c ar , t hat a ppel lan t i s a heavy setH is pani c man, and that Ol d Brow nsv ill e R o a d i s a road w hic h a p erson coul d ac ces s w hen ei ther g oin g to or com ing from Green T rail Dr iv e—we hold tha t, wh e n vi e we d ne utrally, the evi den ce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on is not too w eak to suppor t the v erdict. See Laste r at *2. Further,
cons ide ri ng the confli ct in g ev ide nce, the v erdict i s n ot s o ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce that iti s mani festl y unj ust

. See Laste r at * 2. W e the r e fo r e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e i s fa c t u a l l y s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o rtt he conviction for capita l murde r. The fact th at a dif feren t person t h a n Ca v azos died as a
re sul t of appell ant’ s conduct is immate ri al to w hether appell ant i s c ri minal ly

respon si ble for Garci a’s deat h. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 6.0 4(b) (Vernon 200 3). 618 III . C oncl usi on W e ov e rrul e the so le is sue for rev iew and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 2 6th d ay

of Ma rc h, 20 09.