G on z al ez wa s i nd i c t ed on on e c ou nt of c ap i t al m urd er, on e c ou nt of m urd er, an d on e co un t of i njury 1 to a c h i l d

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 19

. 02 (b)(1) ( V ern on 2 0 0 3 ), 1 9 .0 3 (a)(8) ( V ern on S up p. 20 10 ), 22. 04( a) ( Ver non Supp. 201 0)

. Because t he m ur deral l egat i on was subm i t t ed t o t he j ur y as a l esser - i ncl uded offe ns e o f ca pi t al m urd er, t he m urd er c ou nt w as di s m i s s ed

. A l t ho ug h t he j ury fou nd G on z al ez gu i l t y of i njury to a c h ild in a d d itio n t o c a p ita l m u r d e r , t h e S ta te d is m is s e d th e in j u r y to a c h ild c o u n t b e c a u s e o fd o u b le j eopar dy conce r ns. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0053 2-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
M ISA EL GON ZA LE Z, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 75t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Vela

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez A jury foun d app ellantMisae l Go nzalezguilty of capita l murde r. See T EX
. P ENAL 1 C OD E A NN
. § 19. 03( a) (8 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 010) ( prov idi ng thata pe rson c o m m it s c api talB e c a u s e th i s i s a m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n a n d th e p a rti e s a re fa m i l i a r w i th th e fa c ts , w e w i l l n o t re c i te 2 th e m h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry to a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f t h e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4.

G onz al ez ' s st at em ent was ad m i t t ed a t t r i al

. T he j ur y was i nst r uct ed t hat i t shou l d con si der 3 G o n z a le z 's s ta te m e n t o n ly if it b e lie v e d , b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, th a t G o n z a l e z m a d e it v o lu n ta r ily. G o n z a le z d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e v o lu n ta r in e s s o fh is s ta te m e n t o n a p p e a l.

G onz al ez t est i f i ed t hat i nv est i gat or s add ed i nf or m at i on t o hi s st at em ent t hat he di d no t say , i ncl udi ng 4 hi s com m ent s about dr oppi ng t he chi l d. He agr eed t hat he t ol d t he i nv est i gat or s t hat he shook t he ch i l d when he st opped br eat hi ng. 2 murde r if he murders a n i ndi v idu al under si x y ears o f ag e)

. Beca use the Stat e di d notse ek the d eath penal ty , an automati c l ife s entenc e w it hout the p oss ibi li ty of parole w as impos ed. See id . § 12.31( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2010)

. By tw o iss ues, Gonz ale zcontends that the tr ial
cour t er re d ( 1) i n a d m it ti ng ev ide nce not p re v iou sl y di sc los ed by

the Stat e i n v iol ati on of a di sc ov er

y order , and (2) in deny ing his req uestfor a mis tr ial w hen a comment made by th e pros ec ut or

a l l eg ed l y

s hi fte d th e bu rde n of p roo f t o th e de fen s e. W e affi r m.

I. B A CKGRO UND 2 Gonz ale zprov ide d c onfli cti ng account s of the ev ents that occur re d on Janua ry 1, 2006. In a s tatementg iv en to i nv est ig ators, Gonz ale zsa id that he w as alo ne w it h hi s fiv emonth-ol d s o n , w hen t he c hil d beg an c ry ing

. G onz ale zex pla ine d tha t, in an attempt to 3 stop the cry ing, he drop ped the child to the f loor three t ime s. Af ter the third time , the child stop ped breath ing. According to his statem ent , Gon z alez shook the child to get him to start breathi ng
. Attr ial , how ev er , G onz ale ztes ti fied th at t he c hil d w as in his sw ing inh ali ng but

4 not e x hal ing

. Acc ordin g to his tes ti mony , G onz ale zpi ck ed th e c hil d up and s hook him, but h e d id n o tre s p o n d

. As re f le c t e d in G o n za le z' s st a t e m e n ta n d in h is t ri a l t e s t im o n y, Gonz ale zw as tak ing the chi ld to g et hel p w hen Y aja y ra Her nandez , the c hil d's mother and Gonz ale z 's g ir lfri end, re tur ned t o the apar tment, hav ing been g one for approx imat ely ten min ute s. Af

ter Hernan dez arriv ed at the apa rtme nt, Gonzalez , Hernan dez, and Gonzalez'sD r
. L u k e f a h r a g r e e d th a t t h e r e w a s a d is c r e p a n c y b e tw e e n th e a u to p s y r e p o r t t h a t id e n tif ie d r ib 5 f r act ur es an d t he r adi ol ogyr epor t t hat r epor t ed n o r i b f r act ur es. Dr. Lukef ahr expl ai ned t hat he had l ooked a t th e x -r ay s un de r m ag ni fi c ati on an d fo un d t he ha rd-t o-s ee be nd i ng fr ac t ure s no t ed i n t he au t op s y re p o rt. H e a l s o i d e n ti fie d a n a c u te i n ju ry t o th e a re a b e tw e e n th e l i n i n g o f th e l u n g s a n d th e ri b c a g e
. A c c o rd i n g to D r
. Lukef ahr , t hese i nj ur i es cou l d no t hav e occur r ed ar ound C hr i st m as and coul d not hav e be en ca used by per f or m i ng CP R on t he ch i l d. 3 aun t to o k the chi ld to a fire st ati on and from there he w as transpo rt ed to a ho spi tal by
am b u la n ce. F ina ll y , bot h Gon z ale zand Her nandeztes ti fied th at t he c hil d had falle n a number of ti mes: onc e, i n October , from his ca r seat ; a sec ond t ime from or i n the ki tch en si nk; and, a t hird ti me on C hr is tmas Ev e. Vi nce n tV a n n , J r
. , M

. D

. , a p h y s i c i a n s p e c i a l i z i n g i n o p h t h a l mo l o g y a n d re t ina surgery , and Krishna T urlapa ti, M.D., a ped iatric int ensive care specia list, testif ied attrial. Both treated the c hil d upon his adm iss io n t o the hosp it al on J anuar y 1, 2006, and bot h
conc lud ed th at t he c hil d's sy mptoms and t hei r findi ng s w ere consi ste nt w it h Shaken B aby Syndrom e. Pat holo gist Fulgencio Sa linas, M.D., pe rforme d the auto psy on th e child. He tes ti fied th at t he c hil d's inju ri es w ere consi ste nt w it h blunt force or impact trauma and that, based on s ubdural hemor rh ag ing of his brai n, a hematoma on the ri g ht s ide of the b ra in, and three sku ll fractu res, the cause of the child's de ath w as Sha ken Ba by Im pact Sy ndrome. James Luk efahr, M. D. , a pedi atr ic ian and medic al sc hool professor , t est ified as the Sta te's expert. Base d on his rev iew of the child's m e dical records, w itness sta tem ent s, aut opsy report, an d the summ aryof the Child Prot ective Serv ice' s i n v estigation , Dr. Luke fahr con clude d tha t the child had bee n the v ictim of inf licted, n on-a cciden tal injuries; that the i nju ri es cons is ted o f head i nju ri es, ey e i nju ri es, sk ele tal i nju ri es, and f ra ctu re s i nc l ud i ng b en di ng r i b fractu res ; an d th att he i nj ur i es h ad a l l o c c ur red a rou nd th e s am e ti me on Ja nua ry

1, 2 0 0 6

. Acco rding to Dr. Luke fahr, th e Jan uary 1st dete rmina tion is

5D r
. R ose, a pr act i ci ng phy si ci an, t est i f i ed t hat he went t o m edi cal schoo l at t he Uni v er si t y of T exas 6 M edi cal Br anch and t r ai ned i n t he a r eas o fem er gencym edi ci ne, gen er al surger y , pl ast i c sur ger y , and pedi at r i c pl ast i c and cr i t i cal car e. 4 consiste nt w ith the f inding of f resh bloo d be tw een the skull and t he brain. In Dr. Luke fahr's opin ion, th e child had e x perien ced " blun t force trau ma and rotation al traum a over a v ery shor t per iod of ti me." H e tes ti fied th at "[ t]here w as cl ear ly impact inj ur y to thi s b aby , and the re w as clearly rotat iona l traum a
. . . [w ith] the hea d . . . moving v eryq uickly in multip le direction s to ge tt h e su bdu ral bleed ing and the retinal he mo rrhages." Dr. Lukefahr also
ex pla ine d tha t the re ti nal hemor rh ag es, a si g nific ant factor suppo rt ing hi s c oncl usi on th at the c hil d had suffered i nflicted, non- acc ide ntal tra u m a , could h av e onl y co me from rotat iona l traum a involv ing shaking, jerking , or tw istin g t h e b aby's head . During crossex aminat ion , D r. Luk efahr ag re ed that the ambulanc e repor t and hospit al emerg ency room records did not me ntion any externa l injuries and th at th ere w ere no injuries to the child's neck. Jam es Keith R os e, M .D ., t es ti fi ed a s a me di c al e x pe rt for t he d efe ns e. He 6
re v iew e d , a m ong othe r thi ng s, the c hil d's medi cal records, i ncl udi ng repor ts, fil ms, and CDs, the au top sy

report, an d the transcript of Dr. Luke fahr's trial testim ony. In Dr. Rose's op i ni on , th e c hi l d' s de at h res ul te d from a no x i a c au s ed b y S ud de n In fan t D ea th S y nd rom e (SIDS). Amo ng othe r things, Dr . Rose be liev ed th at: (1) the child's skull f ractures were
cause d by a fa ll that ha d no thing to do w ith his dea th; (2) the hem ato ma o ccurred m ore than tw enty -four

to forty -e ig ht ho urs e ar li er ; and ( 3) w hatev er happen ed had already
re sol v ed exter nal ly

and w as re sol v ing i n te rn a ll y . W hil e reti nal hemor rh ag es can be th e re sul t of sh aki ng a c hil d, D r. R ose opi ned t hat, in thi s c ase, they had bee n c a u se d by5

ag g re ss ive resus ci tati on, D IC( dis se m in a te d or d if f u se in tr a vas cu la r co a gul a ti o n ), and int ra crani al press ure. Dr . R ose further ex pla ine d tha t a swoll en brain can be caus ed by anox ia,
w hic h w as the diag nosi s (ano x icencephal opathy ) g iv en the chil d w hen he w as admitted to Mission Ho spital and w hen he w as transferred to McAllen Medical Cente r. D r. Rose did not a g re e w it h D r. Luk efahr' s o pin ion thatthe sw ell ing of t he c hil d's brain w as caus ed by blun t force trau ma , explaining that if bluntforce traum a had bee n the cause , the re w ould have bee n "b lood ev eryw here " an d the traum a w ould have caused sw elling that w ould hav e pus hed t he brain dow n throug h the botto m of the s kul l compress ing the brain st em and causing the child to stop breath ing. In Dr . Rose's op inion, this did no t hap pen . Rather, the child had dif

f use, sy mm etrical, con sistentbrain sw elling caused by ano x ia. Dr. R ose also explaine d tha t if

the swelli ng w as cau sed b y traum a the re w ould also have bee n ne ck injuries, and t he child, in this case, h ad no neck injuries, as ackno w ledged by Dr. Lukefahr. T he St ate called Norma Farley , M.D., a foren sic p ath ologist, as a rebu ttal w itness. Havi ng rev iew ed th e me dical records an d au to p sy pho tograph s and having hea rd Dr. Ros e's tes ti mony , D r. F ar ley tes ti fied th at, in her opi nio n, the chi ld' s brain inj ur ies w ere not
cons is tent w it h SI DS

. Rat her , i n D r. F ar ley 's opi nio n, t he c hil d's i nju ri es w ere from i nflicted trauma bec ause there w ere at lea st three sk ull fractures and reti nal hemor rh ag ing ; reti nal folds are us ual ly

the re sul t of si g nific ant t ra uma; D r. Vann had noted left facial hematomas on hi s exter nal ex am; and the ra dio log is t had found mult ipl e fract ures of the oc ci pit al bone in the b ack of t he head and non- dis pla ced fract ures of the l eft forear m. D r. F ar ley di d not ag re e w it h D r. R ose's deter minat ion thatthe fract ures w ere from an ear li er fall bec ause, in her opi nio n, w hatev er

happen ed to the chi ld happened on J anuar y 1, 2006.A t t h e e v i d e n ti a ry h e a rin g , G o n za l e z c h a l l e n g e d th e c o n te n t o f th e e x h i b i ts , o b je c ti n g th a t t h e e x h i b i ts 7 c o n ta in e d h e a r s a y, w e r e d u p lic ito u s , r e p e t i t i v e , a n d ir r e le v a n t, a n d p r o v id e d s u m m a tio n in f o r m a tio n . A ll o b je c ti o n s w e re o v e rr u l e d , a n d G o n za l e z d o e s n o t c o m p l a i n a b o u t th e s e r u l i n g s o n a p p e a l

. S e e id

. at R

. 47. 1. G on z al ez do es co m pl ai n t ha t t he i m ag es w ere i m pro pe rl y e nh an c ed o r m an i pu l ated

. H e d i d n ot, ho w eve r, obj ect on t hat basi s dur i ng t he h ear i ng o r when he r e- ur ged obj ect i ons a t t r i al

. T her ef or e, G onz al ez has not p re s e rv e d th i s a s p e c t o f th e s u b s ta n ti v e i n a d m i s s i b i l i ty o f th e e x h i b i ts fo r o u r re v i e w . S e e id

. at R

. 33. 1a ( set t i ng o ut t hat when an a ppel l at e com pl ai nt fa i l s t o com por t w i t h t he t r i al obj ect i on, not hi ng i s pr eser v ed f or re v i e w ); s e e a ls o H a l

l v . S ta te , 283 S. W

. 3d 137, 165 ( T ex. App. –Aust i n 20 09, pet

. r ef ' d) ( ci t i ng C o o k s v . S ta te , 8 4 4 S .W .2 d 6 9 7 , 7 3 4 n .3 2 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); O prean v. St at e ( O p re a n II ) , 238 S. W

. 3d 4 12, 415 ( T ex. A pp
. –H ou s t on [ 1s t D i s t

. ] 20 07 , pe t

. ref' d) (op

. on rem an d)). 6 II. D I S CUS S I ON A . Admiss ion of Undisclos ed Exhibi ts In hi s first is sue, Gonz ale zco ntends thatthe tr ia l cour t er re d i n admi tti ng ex hib it s not p re v iou sl y

di sc los ed by

the Stat e. 1. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W hen rev iew ing a tri al jud g e's dec is ion to admitor ex cl ude ev ide nce, an app ellate court mu st det ermin e w het her the ju dge's decision w as an abu se of d i s c re t i o n
. . . . A n d w h e n t h e t r i a l j u d g e fa i l s t o e n t e r w r i tten or or al f indings of

fact, a n ap pellat e cou rt w ill "view the evidence in th e lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t' s r uli ng and a ss u m e that the tr ial co urt made imp licit find ings of

f a c tt h a tsupp ort its ruling as long as tho se f indings are suppo rt ed by

the re cord." Opr ean v . St ate , 2 0 1 S .W .3 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 6 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o ti n g Sta te v. Ross , 32 S.W .3d 853 , 855 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00) (en ba nc)) (other citation s omitt ed). Gonz a le z's appel lat e c ontent ion s a re ch all eng es to ( 1) the tr ial co urt' s i mpli ed findi ng thatthe Stat e di d notv iol ate t he di sc ov er y order w il lfull y , and ( 2) i ts failu re to find ha r m. See Hall

v. Sta te , 283 S.W .3d 137, 165 (Tex . App.–Aus ti n 2009, pet. ref'd) (op. on 7
re h 'g) (c it in g Coo ks

v. Sta te , 844 S.W .2d 697, 734 n.32 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) ; Opr ean
v. State ( Opr

ean I I ), 238 S.W .3d 4 12, 4 15 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 7, pe t. re f'd) (op. on rema nd)). W e acco rdingly ev alua te th e record sup port for those f indings.7

"Ev ide nce w il lfull y

w it hhel d from di sc los ure under a di sc ov er y order sh oul d be
ex cl uded .

. . . " Hol

lowel l v. State , 571 S.W .2d 179 , 180 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78). Therefore, t he rele v ant i nq uir y i s w hether

the prosec utor

acted w it h s peci fic i ntentto
w il lfull y di sobey a di sc ov er

y order w hen s he fail ed to disc los e ev ide nce as ordered. See Opr ean , 201 S.W .3d a t 727 ; W alk er v. Sta te , N o. 01 -0 8- 00557- CR , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 8347, at * *7- 12 ( Tex. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] O ct. 29, 2009, pet. dis m'd, unti mely fil ed) (d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. W hen di scu ss ing w hether a prosec utor

acted w il lfull y , t he
cour t o f cri minal appeal s h as cons ide re d the foll ow ing : (1 ) w hether the prosec utor int ended t o har m the defense; (2 ) w hether the prosec utor's acti ons w ere a s trateg icand pur poseful effort t o thw art the defense' s preparati on of i ts cas e; (3 ) w hether the p ro sec utor acte d w ith a spe cif ic purpose or consciou s decision to disob ey the co urt's discovery order; (4 ) w hether

the prosec utor's ex pla nati on for v iol ati ng the dis cov er y order w as v ali d; an d ( 5)
w het her the prosecu tor discovered or received the e v iden ce at a time or in a man ner such that compl ian ce w it h the te rm s o f the di sc ov er y order w as impos si ble

. Opr ean , 201 S. W .3 d at72 7 -2 8 (cit in g LaR ue v . St ate , 152 S.W .3d 9 5, 96 -9 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ( en ban c)); Walker

, 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 8 347, at * *8- 9. If it is det ermin ed th at th e prose cuto r acte d w illfu lly and the trial court erroneo usly admitted t he c omplai ned- of ex hib it s, har m must be s how n to re q uire rev ersal

. See Cooks , 8 4 4 S. W .2 d a t 7 3 4 n. 3 1 (cit in g Hollowell , 5 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d a t1 8 0 ). In t h is ca s e , t h e h a rm we
cons ide r is thatca used by the Stat e's fail ure, if any , to disc los e the exh ibi ts as re q uired by the d is cov er

y o rd e r. See id . at734 n.32. "I n s o doi ng , w e tak e i nto c onsi derati on th e8

int ended p ur pose of the di sc ov er y order : to prev ent s ur pr is e a n d t o p e rm itappel lan t t o prepare an adeq uate defense." Opr ean I I , 238 S.W .3d a t 415

. 2. Willf ul Vio lat io n of t he Di scovery

Order Dur ing a pre- tr ial heari ng reg ardin g , among othe r thi ng s, the l og is ti cs of prov idi ng trial ex hibits, th e trial court ruled th at if eithe r ex pert " print[e d] som eth ing out of [the CD] that [he] int end[ed] to use at t ri al, then [co unsel ] need[ed ] t o s how i t t o [o] pposi ng [c]ouns el and g et his or her ini ti als on that ex hib itat lea st . . . 7 days b efore t ri al. U nle ss that 's g oin g to be a p ro b le m ." T h e Sta te arg ued i n fav or of the o rd er , ex press ing a c oncer n tha t t he defense, dur ing i ts cas e- in- chi ef, m igh t produc e ex hib it s t hat c ontai ned mani pul ated infor mati on suc h as pr int ed chang es in the format of a CD

. The tr ial co urt i ndi cat ed th at itdi d not"w ant a ny

su rp ri ses by

ei ther sid e o r a ttor ney s from ei ther si de c lai ming that they 're s ur pr is ed th at t hey hadn' t been show n thos e ex hib it s t hat [w ere] be ing tend ered." It did not "w ant t o hav e to deal w it h the iss ue of surpr is e byeither

si de as to ex hib it s t hat [w ere] g oi ng t o be us ed by th e ex pe rts ." D efe ns e th en s ug g es te d th at i f th e ex hi bi ts c am e in af ter tha t seven-day dea dline, coun sel w ould app roach the court fo r a ruling , beca use itw oul d be li kel y

thati t woul d notbe a su rp ri se. I n respon se, the tr ial co urt c ommented that it"may

be i ncl ine d to deny

the admis si on of any

ex hib it s .
. . unl ess there's a g ood
caus e." Before jur

y se lecti on, t he tr ial co urt ag ain ordered th at "[ couns el] meet and
ex chang e any

ex hib it s that [they] plan[ ned] to of fer s o tha t nob ody

w [oul d] be su rp ri sed. " Att r i al , ex act dup licates o f t he c hi l d' s e l ectron i crad i ol og y rec ords , i nc l ud i ng fi l ms and radi olo g y

repor ts, w ere admi tted as Stat e ex hib it s 59A- 61C throug h the tes ti mony of Car los Pena, assi sta nt direct or of the ra dio log y

departmentat McAl len M edi cal C enter

. In addi ti on, t he c hil d's di g it a l ra dio log y records, produce d as C Ds , w ere admi tted as Stat eN ei t herpar t y di sput es t hat t he C D s cont ai ni ng i m ages oft he Ja nuar y 2, 200 6 CT scan wer e ad m i t t ed 8 i nt o ev i dence. T wo C D s ar e i ncl uded i n t he r ecor d. T hey ar e l abel ed onl y by t he t r i al cause num ber and st y l e, and we ar e un abl e t o det er m i ne t hei r cont ent

. H owev er , because no speci f i c i ssues a r e r ai sed r egar di ng t he i m a g e s o n th e C D s , w e d e c l i n e to a d d re s s th i s m a tte r fu rth e r. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. W e al so no t e t hat ot herexhi bi t s adm i t t ed a t t r i al ar e no t i ncl uded i n t he r epor t er ' s r ecor d f i l ed wi t h t hi s C our t o r ar e gr ouped t og et he r , f ore xa m pl e, a s " ph ot os
. " Be ca us e ne i t he r par t y com pl ai ns ofm i ss i ng or m i sl ab el ed exh i bi t s, we concl ude t hat t he r ecor d i s com pl et e, as ack nowl edged byt he a ct i ons o ft he p ar t i es, and anym i ssi ng o r m i s l a b e l e d e x h i b i ts a re n o t n e c e s s a ry t o th e re s o l u ti o n o f th i s a p p e a l

. S e e id

. at R

. 34

. 6(f).

T he e v i dence r ev eal s t hat bot h G onz al ez and t he St at e had access t o t he C D s, as wel l as t o t he f i l i ng 9 sy st em
. T her e wer e al so di scussi ons on t he r ecor d showi ng t hat bot h si des wer e awar e oft he co m pl exi t y of openi ng t he r ecor ds, r ev i ewi ng t hem , and pr oduci ng co pi es of t he i m ages f r om t he r ecor ds. T hese new m at er i al s wer e l at eradm i t t ed a s S t at e exhi bi t s 98a, 99, 100a, 101a, 102 a, 103 a, 104 a, 10 and 105a, T hese sam e exh i bi t s app eart o be descr i bed i n t he i ndex oft he r epor t er ' s r ecor d as pr i nt out s of exhi bi t s 98, 102 , 103 , 104 , and 105 and ar e r ef er r ed t o as such i n t he r ecor d. 9 Ex hib it65 a nd des cr ibe d as "CT sc an." A c ompani on ex hib it , l abel ed St ate E x hib it64, w as als o admi tted. Thi s e x hib itw as desc ri bed as "Sy ste m pack [or PAC S] d ow nlo ad." O mar 8 Can tu, the s torekeep er

of dig it al imag ing for t he medical faci li ty , testi fied that no alt erati ons or chang es had been made to the chi ld' s re cords w hen they w ere transfer re d f ro m the mainfra me syste m at the medic al cent er to the CD s. These ex hib it s w ere admi tted w it hout 9 obj ect ion

. On t he day

D r. Luk efahr w as cal led to tes ti fy, the Stat e prov ide d Gon z ale zw it h ei g ht addi ti onal ex hib it s p re pared by D r. Luk efahr fro m the chi ld' s radiolog y records. I n

10 prepar ing these m a ter ial s, Dr . Luk efahr en larg ed s ome record i mag es, ch ang ed th e br i g ht ne s s o r cont ras t l ev el s o f ot he rs , an d ad de d de s c r i pt i v e w ords o r a r rows t o s om e imag es. I t i s u ndi sput ed th at t he St ate did not p ro v ide thes e new ly prepared mater ial s t o Gon z alez prior to trial as required by the trial court's pretrial discovery order. At a heari ng on thi s matter , the pros ecut or ex pla ine d tha t s he had not p ro v ide d the
new ex hibits to Gon z alez ea rlier be cause Dr. Lu kefahr ha d prep ared them the night be fore he was to testif

y and had g iv en th em to her that mo rning. W hile recogniz ing tha t at lea st10

one of the ex hib it s had been manipu lat ed in some fashi on and others h ad ar ro w s o r w ords added, the p ro sec utor

al so adv is ed th e tr ial co urt that the imag es from w hic h D r. Luk efahr prepared th e new

ex hib it s h ad been prev iou sl y admitted. The re cord also est abl is hes that, pr ior to tr ial , defense couns el had the ra dio log y re cords or had acc ess to the records, as did Gonz ale z 's medi cal ex per t. Gonz ale z 's obj ect ion of "utter sur pr is e" w as ov er ru led

. Gonz ale zthen "req uest [ed]
a c ontinuanc e [of at lea st a w eek] to all ow an o ppor

tuni ty to hav e [hi s] ex per

t .

. . rev iew thi s mat er ial ." Cf

. Li ndley v. State , 635 S.W .2d 5 41, 5 44 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1982) ( "The failu re to re q uesta po stp one m ent o r seek a c onti nuanc e w aiv es any er ro r urg ed i n an appeal on t he bas is of sur pr is e.")

. The tr ial co urt den ied t h e req uestand als o deni ed Gon z alez's motion for mistrial. Not hin g i n the record i ndi cat es that the p ro sec utor kn ew the compl ain ed- of ex hib it s ex is ted and tha t s he w il lfull y co nceal ed th e ex hib it s from defense c ounse l unti l tr ial w as under w ay . The Stat e broug ht t he ex hib it s t o the att enti on of defense c ounse l the mor nin g they w ere recei v ed. Al thoug h Gonz ale z arg ues that the prosec utor must hav e know n tha t the e x hib it s w ere fort hcomi ng , ex ceptfor the prosec utor's co mment at the p re tr ial hear ing that p o t e n t i a l ma n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e re c o rd s w a s a c o n c e r n o f h e rs , t h e re i s n o t h i ng i n the record to supp o rtthis conte ntion . Th e prose cuto r info rmed the trial court th at de fense couns el had k now led g e of the subs tanc e of the ex hib it s b ecaus e the radi olo g y records had b e e n ad m it te d as tri a l e xhib it s, w it h o u t o bje ct io n . T h e S ta te a lso di sc lo se d th e rad io lo gy re cords to G onz ale zprio r to t rial, pursuantto the d is cov er y order , and the new

ex hib it s
w ere po rtions of

those previ ously-produce d records.11

Base d on the a bov e, we c oncl ude t h a t the p ro sec utor di d notact w il lfull y . The prose cuto r's actions w ere no t consiste nt w ith an inten t to harm t he defense , w ith a strate gic and purpo sef ul ef

fort to th w art the defense 's prepa ration of its c a s e , o r with a specif ic pur pose or c onsc iou s d eci si on to di sobey the cour t' s d is cov er

y order

. See O

pr ean , 201 S.W .3d a t 727 -2 8. The prosec utor's ex pla nati on for v iol ati ng the dis cov er y order w as v ali d; the p ro sec utor

recei v ed the new

ex hib it s— produce d from ex hib it s t hat h ad al re ady been admitted a t t ri al and rev iew ed byGonz ale z 's ex per t—a t a ti me such t hat c ompli ance w it h the ter ms of t he dis cov er y order w as impos si ble

. See id

. The tr ial co urt' s i mpli ci t findi ng that the p ro sec utor

di d notw il lfull y

w it hhol d t he ex hib it s i s s uppor ted b y the re cord, an d thus , t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n ov er ru li ng Gonz ale z 's o bje ct io n and admitti ng the ex hib it s. See id . at726. 3. Har m Ev en i f the tr ial co u rt er ro neous ly admi tted the c omplai ned- of ex hib it s, Gonz ale z mu st show harm ba sed o n surprise or on h is inabilityto prep are a n a dequa te de fense becau se of the St ate's d isc o very order v iol ati on. See Cooks , 844 S.W .2d a t 734 n.31 ; Opr ean I I , 238 S.W .3d a t 415

. W e c oncl ude t hat h e has not.
a. Sur pr ise Gonz ale zas ser

ts that he w as har med bec ause he w as sur pr is ed. How ev er , pr ior to trial, the State disclosed the child's rad iology reco rds, and Gonzalez's expert had access to t hose re cords. The re cords w ere al so admitted i nto e v ide nce at t ri al, w it hout obj ect ion , on M ay 10, 2006, and D r. Luk efahr di d notbeg an testi fyi ng until M ay 16, 2006. Therefore,12

defense coun sel had knowledge of the subst ance of the exhibits throu gh t h e e a rlierprod uced records. Fur ther more, D r. Luk efahr di sc uss ed eac h new ly produce d e xhibi t i n c onj unct ion
w it h the ele ctroni c or dig it al imag e from w hic h it w as tak en. For ex ample, Dr. Lu ke fa hr
ex pla ine d tha t he had c hang ed th e br ig htnes s a nd c ontras t o n o n e ex hib itto make t he f racture line s more v isible. He testif ied th at he add ed a rrow s to oth e r im ages for quick
re fe re n c e in o rd e r to il lu s t ra t e p a rt ic u la r a s p e c t s o f t h e e xh ib it

. T h ro u gh o u th is t e s t im o n y, Dr . Luk efahr empha si z ed c ertai n por ti ons of the ear li e r-a dmitted records to i ll ust ra te t he basi s for hi s c oncl usi on th at t he c hil d had die d from S haken Baby Sy ndrome. W e c annot
c o n c lu d e t h a tt h e p ro s e c u t o r' s a c t io n s u n fa ir ly s u rp ri s e d G o n za le z.

b. O pp or

tu ni ty t o Prep are a Prop er D ef ense Gon z alez also arg ues th at he w as ha rmed bythe St ate 's violation of t he d iscovery
order bec ause he w as not p er mitt ed to prepare a p ro p e r d e fe n se. Al so, ci ti ng to the
conc ur re nce in Opr

ean , Gon z alez compla ins tha t his due process right to ade quate n otice
w as deni ed bec ause "[t] he imag es w ere spru ng approx imat ely nine day s i nto t he tr ial i n the Sta te's case -in-chief . W hen ruled ad missible , defense coun sel's atte mp ts for som e form of postpo nement t o prepare w ere deni ed." See Opr ean , 201 S.W .3d a t 729 ( Coc hran, J ., concu rring ). How ever, af

ter the Sta te conclude d its examina tion of Dr. Luke fahr, th e trial court
recesse d for lunch p rov iding time for Gonzalez to review the exhibits in prep aratio n of his cross-examina tion o f

the do ctor. W hen the afterno on se ssion be gan, Gon z alez asked Dr. Luke fahr question s regarding "ce rtain i ma ges that [h e] pe rsona lly foun d significa nt in this
cas e ," i ncl udi ng the pr int outs of Stat e ex hib it s 9 8 ( sk ull i mag e pr int out) , 101 ( ri b x -ray13

printo ut), an d 10 2 (rib x-ray printou t)—images Dr. L ukefahr used d uring the Sta te's direct
ex aminat ion

. Impor tantl y , D r. Luk efahr' s t est imony co ncl uded on M ay

16, 2007, and D r. R ose w as not c all ed to tes ti fy unti l Ma y 22, 2007, si x day s l ater

. Before tes ti fyi ng , D r. R ose re v iew ed the c hil d's medi cal records, i n clu d ing repor ts, fil ms, and C Ds

. He als o rev iew ed th e ex hib it s u sed by

D r. Lukefahr , as w ell as the transc ri pt of D r. Luk efahr' s t est imony rela ted to t ho s e ex hi bi ts , an d offered hi s op i ni on on bo th at tr i al

. D efe ns e c ou ns el ut i l i z ed s om e of the com plaine d-of

ex hibits du ring th e e xam inatio n of his ex pert. And, th rough his t e s t im o n y, Dr

. Ro s e co m p a re d t h e m e d ic a l r e c o rd s wit h Dr

. L u k e fa h r' s t e s t im o n y, hig hli g hted dis crepanc ies and w eakne ss es, and prov ide d hi s i nter pre ta tion of i mag es prepared by

D r. Luk efahr. F ina ll y , D r. R ose dis cus sed imag es he hi msel f had pr int ed from th e C D s , no ti ng th at ea c h c on ta i ne d th e fol l ow i ng c au ti on : "W AR N IN G! TH E QU AL IT Y OF THI S IM AGE PR IN TOUT M AY N OT BE AD EQU ATE. IT SH OU LD THER EFO RE N OT BE U SED F ORD IAGN OSTIC PU RP OSES ." Dr . R ose tes ti fied th at t he w ar nin g w as ne c es s ar

y b ec au s e a pr i nt ed i ma g e ma y hav e "s om e ar

ti fact [ from the pr i nt er

],

. . . s om e distortio n . . . [tha t] is just not th ere" on the ima ge. Base d on th is printed warning and Dr. Ros e's tes ti mony , G onz ale zw as abl e to ra is e some inferenc es at tri al reg ardin g the v ali dity of ex hibits printe d f rom th e elect ronic and d ig ital radiology repo rts and u sed b y Dr. Luke fahr to su ppo rt his conclusion s. In sum ma ry , the trial court r e c e s s e d f or lunch a f ter the State f inished its direct
ex aminat ion of Dr . Luk efahr. This reces s p ro v ide d defense couns el an oppor tuni ty to v iew the n ew ly

produce d i mag es and to prepare a defensi v e strateg y before he c ro ss -e x amined Dr. Lukefahr. Af

ter lunch , th e d e fense q uest ione d Dr. Lukefahr ab outthe ne w ex hibits.T he St at e r espond s t hat i t s com m ent was pr operbeca use " t he St at e i s al l owed t o com m ent on a 11 def endan t ' s f ai l ur e t o pr oduce t est i m ony f r om sour ces ot hert han hi m sel forher sel f

. " T he St at e' s ar gum ent on a ppeal i s pr em i sed o n a l i ne o fcases t hat add r ess whet hera s t atem ent i s an i m pr opercom m ent on a 14 Six days l ate r, Dr

. Rose testif ied. Dr. Rose's testim ony a ddre ssed conce rns the d efense had abo ut D r. Luk efahr' s e x hib it s a nd th e c oncl usi ons they suppo rt ed. It is apparent t hat Gonz ale zhad the oppor tuni ty to prepare an adeq uate defense. See Opr ean I I , 238 S.W .3d a t 415

. Gon z alez's concerns ab outhis due p rocess rig ht to ade qua t e no tice are also unfounded. See O

pr ean , 201 S.W .3d a t 729 ( Coc hran, J ., conc ur ri ng ). H ere, al thoug h the trial court imm edia tely den ied Go nzalez 's mot ion to contin ue th e t ri al, du ring the lunch recess Gon z alez had an o ppo rtunity to rev iew the exhibits an d prep are his de fense . Th is
re ces s, coupl ed w it h the fact t hat D r. R ose did not tes ti fy unti l si x day s la te r, protected Gonz ale z 's due proces s r ig ht t o adeq uate noti ce. See id

. W e c oncl ude t hat G o n zale zw as not s ur pr is ed and w as per mitt ed to prepare an adeq uate defense. Thus, the int ended p ur pose of the di sc ov er y order w as sat is fied, see Opr ean I I , 238 S.W .3d at 41 5, an d hi s d ue proces s r ig hts w ere s ati sfied. See O pr ean , 201 S.W .3d at 72 9 ( Coc hran, J ., conc urri ng ). G onz ale zw as, therefore, not h ar med by the Stat e's fail ure, i f any , t o di sc los e the ex hib it s. See Cooks , 844 S.W .2d a t 734 n.32

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Gonz ale z 's first is sue. B. Prosec utor's Stateme nt R egardi ng Parame dics Testify ing By his secon d is sue, Gonzalez argues tha t the trial court erred in den y ing his
re qu e s tfo r a m is t ri a l. G o n za le z c o n t e n d s t h a twh il e t h e p ro s e c u t o r' s c o m m e n tm a y h a ve been an att empt t o di sc re ditone of the St ate' s e x hib it s, it ins tead imper mis si bly shi fted the burden of proof to Go nz ale zto prov e hi s d efensiv e the or y . W e di sag re e. 11d e fe n d a n t' s f a i l u re to te s ti fy. S e e J a c k s o n v . S ta te , 1 7 S .W .3 d 6 6 4 , 6 7 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Patr i ck v. S ta te , 9 0 6 S .W .2 d 4 8 1 , 4 9 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (e n b a n c ); L i v in g s to n v . S ta te , 739 S

. W

. 2d 3 11, 338 ( T ex. C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ); C a ro n v . S ta te , 16 2 S

. W

. 3d 61 4, 61 8 (T ex
. A pp
. –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t. ] 20 05 , no pe t

. ). H owev er , G onz al ez doe s not cont end t hat t he St at e' s r em ar k was a com m ent on hi s f ai l ur e t o t est i fy ; i nst ead, he a r gues t hat t he St at e' s com m ent i m pr oper l y shi f t ed t he b ur den ofpr ooft o hi m
. Accor di ngl y , we f ocus o ur a n a l y s i s o n w h e th e r th e S ta te a tte m p te d to s h i ft i ts b u rd e n to G o n za l e z. 15 1. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw An app ell ate c our

t rev iews a trial co urt' s r uli ng on a moti on for mis tr ial

. . . using an ab use-o f-discretion sta nda rd of rev iew . W e v iew

th e ev iden ce in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e trial court's ruling and up hold the trial court's ru li ng i f it w as w it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re em e n t. W e do not subs ti tute our

j udg ment for that of the tr ial co urt, but rather w e dec ide w hether the tr ial co urt' s d eci si on w as ar bit ra ry or unreason abl e. Thus, a tr ial cour t abu ses i ts dis creti on i n deny ing a mot ion [for mis tr ial] o nly w hen no re a so n a b le view of

th e rec o rd co u ld su p p o rtth e tri a l co u rt 's rul in g. W ebb v . St ate , 232 S.W .3d 109 , 112 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07). T he St ate has the b urde n to prove the ele me nts of the of fense beyond a rea sona ble doubt. Se e T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 2.01 (V er non 200 3) ( "Al l persons are presumed to be i n n o c e n ta n d n o p e rs o n m a y b e c o n v i c t e d o f a n o ffe n s e u n l e s s e a c h e l e me n to f t he offense is prov ed bey ond a re asona ble doubt .")

. And, "[t] he defendant in a c ri minal tr ial should be all ow ed to arg ue any defensi v e the or

y su ppor ted b y the ev ide nce admitted a t tr ial ." Ar nold v. St

ate , 68 S. W .3 d 9 3 , 10 2 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 2 0 0 1 , p e t. ref 'd ) (ci ti n g Br own
v. State , 955 S

. W .2d 276 , 279 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97) (en ba nc) (discussing jury instructio ns availa ble on af f irmative defense s)). How ever, w hen a defend antraises a defensive theo ry , the State 's burde n of proof doe s not chan ge; the defensive theo ry mere ly
cas ts doubt upon w hether the Stat e has met i ts burden. See W alter s v . St ate , 247 S.W .3d 204, 209- 10 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) (d is cus si ng the burden of proof w it h re g ard to an al ibi and c oncl udi ng thata s peci al in str uct ion on t his defensi v e the or y w oul d c onst it ute a n unw ar ra nted comment on the w eig ht of the ev ide nce)

. In ot her w ords, al thoug h the Sta te16

has no burden of product ion of ev ide nce on a defensi v e i ss ue, o nce a defense is rais ed the State has the burden to persu ade the jur y w it h resp ectto that is sue. Al len v. State , 253 S.W .3d 260 , 267 n.24 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08). Al so, er ro r in admitti ng improp er ev ide nce, or , i n thi s c ase, an i mprop er co mment, is g enerall y

cu re d by

an i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard, w it h the onl y ex cept ion to t his r ule bei ng extreme ca ses w here i t app ears t hat t he c omment w as cl ear ly ca lc ula ted t o i nflame the minds of the j urors and is of s uch a c haract er as to sug g estthe impos si bil ity of w it hdraw ing the i mpres si on produce d on thei r minds

. See T hr if t v . St ate , 176 S.W .3d 2 21, 2 24, n .10 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. It is al so presumed that jurors fol low j udi ci al ins tr uct ion

. See id

. 2. Shi ft in g of

B urden Gon z alez cross-examine d Dr. Turlap ati ab outState 's Ex hibit 67 , a Med-Care Ambul ance re por

t, w hen t he foll ow ing ex chang e oc cur re d: Q. T his is Sta te's Ex hibit N o. 67. T his is a Med-Care repo rt, Med-Care Ambul ance.
. . . W oul d y ou ag re e w it h tha t? A. Y es, I do.

. . . . Q. [W ]hen the M ed- Care Ambul ance ar ri v ed, t he c hie f compla intw as cardiac arrest a nd th e child ha d no t bee n brea thing for 15 m inute s? A. Yes. Q. And atthatti me they i ndi cat e here: Pati ent i n c ardia c a rrest ? A. Yes.

. . . . Q. [On pag e 2 a t the v er y botto m], w e ag ain hav e the frontand back v iew o f t h e b o d y?17

A. Yes. Q. And t her e's no i ndi cat ion on e it her of thos e of any

so rtof phy si cal in ju ry? A. Yes. Q. Y es, there i s n ot? A. There is no i ndi cat ion

.

. . . . Q. Now

D oct or , l et[' ]s g o bac k t o the sa me ex hib it . Pati ent not breathi ng for 15 m inute s. But let's go up he re to the top, inciden t dat e, Jan uary 1st

. Time ar ri v ed on the s cene. Y ou s ee th at, 1350? A. Yes. Q. That's 1:50 P[. ]M [.] ? A. Yes. Q. So at1:50 P[.]M[.] w e kno w the child h ad n o ph y sical markings on his body

. W e k now

the chi ld— [ Th e S t a t e ] : I w il l obj ect t o t h e —I will o bje ct to the

mis charact er iz ati on of the ev ide nce. There is no indicat ion on the re c o rd

—t h is d o e s n ' tn e c e s s a rily me an th ere are no physical markings. The re is a di fferent— The Co urt: Sust ain ed. [The St ate]: If he w ants to cal l in the p aramedic s t o say that , fine. [D efense]: I w il l obj ectto the S tate shifting the burden of

proof in front of the j ur

y . I as k t hat t he— The Co urt: Sust ain ed. [D efense]: I as k t hat t he j ur y di sreg ard the l astco mment.18 The Cou rt : Jur

y is ins tr uct ed to disreg ard the l astco mment made. [ De fe n s e ] : W h il e I a p p re c ia t e t h e co u rt ' s i n s t ru c t io n , we

w ould ask for a mistrial. The Co urt: Den ied

. Acc ordin g to Gonz ale z , par t of hi s d efense w as that the c h ild had no exter nal inj ur ies w hen t he paramedic s a ttempt ed to ca re for h im a nd th at t he in juri es noted lat er resulte d f rom ef

forts to reviv e him

. Gon z alez claims that he cited to the Sta te's own ex hibit
as proof that the c hil d's in ju rie s were notobta ine d unt il after he w as tak en i nto medi cal
care. Here, G onz ale z 's defensi v e the or y co ncer nin g w h e n t h e ch il d's i nju ri es occ ur re d involv ed a n elem entof

t he of fense —tha t he inte ntion ally and knowi ngly

cause d the child's death. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 19.02( b) (1 ) (V er non 2003) , 19.03( a) (8 ). The S tate had no bu rden of

proof beyond its initial burd en to prove the e le m e n t s o f the of fense bey ond a re asona ble doubt , see id

. § 2.0 1, and w e cann ot conclude thatthe pro secut or's comment w as an attempt to s hift t hat b urden. Gonz ale zco mplai ns of only one comment about the d e fe n se 's abi li ty to present
ev ide nce and it s failu re to do so. The re cord re v eal s that, pr ior to maki ng that comment, the S tate obj ect ed to defense couns el' s c haract er iz ati on of the ambula nce re por t as evidence th at "t he ch ild had no ph y sical markings o n his bod y " as of 1 :50 p.m . on Jan uary 1st. It is clear tha t the obje ction w as ma de becau se Dr. T urlapa ti testif ied on ly thatthere
w as "no i ndi cat ion " i n the repor t of "any so rtof phy si cal inju ry ." The tr ial co urt s ust ain ed t h e S t a t e ' s o bje c t io n
. I m m e d ia t e ly th e re a f t e r, t h e S t a t e c o m m e n t e d t h a t " [ i ] f [ G o n za le z]
w ants to cal l in the para medic s t o s ay [t here w ere no phy si cal mar ki ng s], fine." The St ate19

did not comment that Gonz ale zhad the bu rd en to prov e, t hroug h i ts defensi v e the or y , t hat he di d noti ntent ion all y

and know ing ly

ca use the c hil d's deat h. The Stat e merely poi nted out t hat G onz ale zco uld cl ar ify tha t m a tt e r by

ca ll ing the paramedic s. W hil e Gon z ale z coul d arg ue any

defensi v e theory

suppor ted bythe ev ide nce admitted a t t ri al, see Arn old , 6 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t1 0 2 , t h e S t a t e h a d n o b u rd e n t o p ro d u c e e vid e n c e o n G o n za le z' s d e fe n s ive is sue. See A llen , 253 S.W .3d at 267 n.24. The Stat e only had the burd en to persuade the jur y w it h resp ectto that is sue. See id

. Thus, w e c oncl ude t hat t he prosec utor's co mment did not shi ft any

burden of proof in thi s c ase. Non ethel ess , ev en w ere w e to concl u d e o ther w is e, t he tr ial co urt s ust ain ed Gonz ale z 's obj ect ion , g ra nted his re q uestfor a n i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard, an d di d, i n fact, instruct th e jury

to disregard the p rosecu tor's rema rk be fore it d enie d Gon z alez's request for a mis tr ial

. Base d on our re v iew , the prosec utor's re mark , ev en if deemed er ro r, w as not
so infla mmator

y thati ts impress ion could not be w it hdraw n bythe tr ial co urt' s i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard. See T

hr if t , 176 S.W .3d at 224 , n.1 0. Presum ing that the jurors in this case follo w ed th e tr ial co urt' s i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard, w e c oncl ude t hat t h e i nst ru cti on w as suffici ent t o c ure er ro r, i f any , c aused by the chal len g ed c omment. See i d. T h e re fo re , vie wing th e evid e n ce in th e ligh t mo st fa vora b le to th e tri a l co u rt 's rul in g,
w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s d e n i a l o f G o n z a l e z ' s mo t i o n fo r mi s t r i a l w a s w i t hin the
z one of reason able d isa gre e ment. See Webb , 232 S.W .3d at 112 . Th e trial court's deci si on w as nei ther

ar bit ra ry

no r u n re a sonab le and w as, therefore, not a n abus e of dis creti on. See id

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Gonz ale z 's se cond is sue.20 III . C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Deliv ered and f iled the 21st day of Oct ober , 201 0.