### NU M BERS 1 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 3 2 4 - CR 1 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 3 2 5 - CR 1 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 3 2 6 - CR 1 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 3 2 7 - CR 1 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 3 2 8 - CR 1 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 3 2 9 - CR 

## CO URT O F AP P E ALS THI RTE E NTH DI S TRI CT O F T E XAS C OR PU S C H R I ST I -E D I N B U R G

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S , A p p e ll a n t,
v . H O RA C E MA R KRY MA N , A p p el l ee.
O n ap p eal f r o m t h e 156t h D i st r i ctC o u r to f L i ve O ak C o u n ty, T exas. 

## M E M ORA N D U M OP IN ION B efo r e C h i ef

Ju st i ce V al d ez an d Ju st i ces Y añ ez an d B en avi d es Mem o r an d u m O p i n i o n b y Ju st i ce B en avi d es A p p e l l e e , H o ra c e M a rk Ry ma n , wa s i n d i c te d o n m u l ti p l e c h a rg e s a ri s i n g o u t o f a
m ot or vehi cl e col l i si on i n w hi ch sev er al peopl e wer e i nj ur ed and t wo peopl e wer e ki l l ed. The S t at e appea l s t he t r i al c o u r t ’ s or dergr ant i ng Rym an’ s m ot i on t o suppr ess a vi deoT h e t r i a l c o u rt c a u s e n u m b e rs a re : L

- 0 7

- 0 0 5 1

- C R

- B, L

- 0 7

- 0 0 5 0

- C R

- B, L

- 0 8

- 0 0 2 1 -C R

- B, 1 L -0 7 -0 0 4 9 -C R -B , L -0 7 -0 0 4 8 -C R -B , a n d L -0 7 -0 0 4 7 -C R -B

. 2 cr eat ed by a vi ct i m of

t he col l i si on, pur port i ng t o dem onst r at e Rym an’ s abi l i t y t o vi ew t he ta i l l i g h ts o f a v e h i c l e th a t h e c o l l i d e d w i th fr o m b e h i n d

. S ee T EX
. C O D E C R IM
. P R OC

. A NN
. art

. 44. 01( a) ( 5) (Ve rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). W e a ffi rm. I. B ACKGROUND Ry ma n wa s i n d i c te d b ys i xs e p a ra t e i n d i c tme n ts fi l e d i n s i xs e p a ra te tri a l c o u rt
cause num ber s. T he i n d i c t m e n t s wer e for( 1) i nt oxi cat i on m ansl aught er , ( 2) 1
m ansl aught er , ( 3) aggr avat ed ass aul t , ( 4) i nj ury t o a chi l d, ( 5) i nj ury t o an el der l y per son, a n d ( 6 ) a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u lt wit h a d e a d ly we a p o n , a ll ar is in g o u t o f t h e s a m e m o t o rv e h ic le col l i si on. O n F ebr uary 1 1 , 2008, Rym an f i l ed a “ M ot i on t o D et er m i ne Adm i ss i bi l i t y of E vi de nce ” i n ea ch of t he si x t r i al cou rt case s. I n t hem ot i on s, Rym an m ove d t o sup pr ess “[a ]l l d i a g ra ms , v i d e o ta p e s , p h o to g ra p h s o r o th e r d e mo n s t r a t iv e e v i d e n c e th a t we re pr epar ed usi ng any vehi cl es and equi pm ent not i nvol ved i n t he col l i si on of D ecem ber21, 2 0 0 6 .” The t r i al court hel d a hear i ng on t he m ot i ons on F ebr uary 19, 2008. A t t he hear i ng, t he S t at e i nfor m ed t he t r i al court t hat i t i nt ended t o of fer a vi deo, cr eat ed by one of t he
v ict im s , a s d e m o n s t r a t iv e e v id e n c e
. T h e St a t e a n t ic ip a t e d t h a t Ry m a n ’s d e fe n s e wo u ld be t hat , at t he t i m e of

t he col l i si on w hen he r ear - ended t he vi ct i m ’ s vehi cl e, he coul d not see t he vehi cl e’ s t ai l l i ght s because t hey wer e obscur ed by a b ask et cont ai ni ng a washer and dryerat t ached t o t he r ear of t he vehi cl e. The vi deo was i nt ended t o show t hat Rym an
c o u l d h a v e s e e n th e ta i l l i g h ts

.The v ideo its elf doe s not

app ear in t he rec ord. 2 M ay oral s t ated h e be liev ed t hat C eja’s v an w as a 1998 m odel A s t ro v an. 3 3 T h e S ta t e o f f e re d te s ti mo n yfr o m th re e w i tn e s s e s d e s c ri b i n g th e v i d e o
. F i rs t, 2 E n ri q u e Ma y o ra l , S r. te s ti fi e d th a t h e wa s o n e o f th e v i c ti ms i n th e c o l l i s i o n . A t th e ti me of t he of fense, he was r i di ng as a p ass enger i n a 1 999 Ast r o van t hat he o w ned. T he van h a d a “ r e c e iv e rb a s k e t ” t h a t wa s a t t a c h e d “ in t h e h it c h in t h e r e a rp a rt o f t h e v a n , a n d it goes on t he t op of t he bum per
. ” T he basket was spec i al l y bui l t fort he van by S i gf r edo C ej a, w ho al so ow ns an Ast r o van and w ho had a si m i l arbasket a t t a c h e d t o hi s van. 3 M ayor al t est i f i ed t hat at t he t i m e of t he col l i si on, t he basket was hol di ng a w hi t e washer
a n d d ry e r, a n d h e te s ti fi e d th a t t h e ywe re “ n o rm a l ” s i z e d

. M ayor al st at ed t hat C ej a of fer ed t o hel p hi m m ake a vi deo because M ayor al and C e j a k n e w th a t Ry m a n ’ s d e fe n s e wo u l d b e th a t th e b a s k e t a n d wa s h e r a n d d ry e r we re
cov er i ng t he van’ s t ai l l i ght s. M ayor al t est i f i ed t hat t he pur pose form aki ng t he vi deo was t o show t hat , w i t h t he basket on t he van, a per son t r avel i ng behi nd t he van coul d see t he ta i l l i g h ts

. M a y o r a l t e s t if ie d t h a t t o m a k e t h e v id e o , Ad a m G u e r r a s h o t t h e v id e o fo o t a g e wh ile C e j a d ro v e h i s o w n v a n , u s i n g h i s o w n b a s k e t t o c a rrya wa s h e r a n d d ry e r. A t f i rs t, Ma y o ra l te s ti fi e d th a t h e u s e d a wa s h e r a n d d ry e r th a t we re “e x a c tl yth e s a me ” a n d we re t he “ sam e br and and sa m e t y p e” as t he ones he was t r ansport i ng att he t i m e of t he col l i si on. H e f urt hert est i f i ed t hat t he washerand dryerused i n t he vi deo wer e al so w hi t e.

O n c r o s s - e x a m in a t io n , h o we v e r , M a y o r a l s t a t e d t h a t t h e wa s h e r a n d d ry e ru s e d in t he vi deo wer e nott he sam e si ze as t hose he was t r ansport i ng on t he day of t he col l i si on.4

H e t est i f i ed t hat t he “ dryeri s a l i t t l e bi ggerand t he was h e r i s a l i t t l e sm al l er
. ” B ut , he expl ai ned, t hey f i t i n t he basket , as di d t he ones he t r ansport ed att he t i m e of t he col l i si on. O n r e- di r ect , M ayor al adm i t t ed t hat he di d not know i f t he washerand dryerused i n t he vi deo wer e t he sam e year or sam e m odel as t hose he was t r ansport i ng on t he day of t he col l i si on, buthe sai d i t was “ m or e or l ess ” t he sam e t ype. I n r esponse t o quest i ons f r om th e c o u rt , M a y o ra l s ta te d h e d i d n o t k n o w i f th e wa s h e r a n d d ry e r we reth e s a me s i z e : “ It mi g h t b e b i g g e r o r ma y b e s ma l l e r. ” N ext , C ej a t est i f i ed t hat he i s a wel derand t hat he bui l t t he basket t hat was at t ached t o M a y o r a l’s v a n a t t h e t im e o f t h e c o llis io n
. He s t a t e d t h a t h e h a s a b a s k e t t h a t is e x a c t ly t he sam e si ze as t he one he pr epar ed forM ayor al

. H e al so expl ai ned t hat he ow ns a van th a t i s “ two y e a rs ’ d i ffe re n c e ” fr o m Ma y o ra l ’ s v a n
. C ej a st at ed t hat he h el ped M ayor al m ake t he vi deo t o “ dem onst r at e t hat t he basket
was— di d notobst r uct t he l i ght s because I have one exact l y l i ke i t , and I m ade one know i ng t hat i t was not goi ng t o obst r uct t he l i ght s. A nd I hel ped hi m because I knew t hat som eone
was sayi ng t ha t i t d i d ob st r uctt he l i gh t s. ” H e exp l ai ne d t ha t t he ba sket i t sel f di d no t h ave
a n yl i g h ts

. H e c l a i me d th a t h e d i d n o t p u t l i g h ts o n th e b a s k e t b e c a u s e th e v a n ’ s ta i l l i g h ts
we re n o t o b s tr u c te d b yth e b a s k e t. C ej a t est i f i ed t hat he h el ped put t he washer and dryer i nt o t he basket t o m ake t he
v id e o
. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e y “ f it we ll, a n d t h e r e wa s a s m a ll s p a c e a n d h e m o t io n e d wit h h is f i nger t wo, t hr ee i nches

. . . on ei t her si de. ” H e st at ed t hat t her e was no way t he washer and dryercoul d sl i de ar ound be cause t he basket had a gat e t hat coul d l ocki nt o pl ace. A l so, t he basket was cov er ed w i t h a scr een al l ar oun d and i n t he bot t om , so t hat t he
washerand dryercoul d be t i ed dow n. C ej a t est i f i ed t hat t hey di d nott i e t he washerand5

d ry e r d o w n i n o rd e r to ma k e th e v i d e o b e c a u s e th e y we re a l re a d ys e c u re d i n th e b a s k e t,
a n d i t wa s n o t n e c e s s a ry
. F in a lly , Ad a m G u e r r a t e s t if ie d t h a t h e is a n in v e s t ig a t o r wit h t h e W a t t s L a w Fir m in S an A nt oni o, Texas. H e t est i f i ed t hat he a ss i st ed M ayor al i n t aki ng t he vi deo ati ss ue by
r unni ng t he vi deot ape and pr ovi di ng t he cam cor der

. H e sai d t hat t he vi deo was m ade on a hi ghway on t he out sk i rt s of S an A nt oni o. G uer r a expl ai ned t hat t he f i r st part of t he vi deo
was t aken on a f r ont ag e r oad, and he was out si de f i l m i ng usi ng a t r i pod. D ur i ng t he
sec ond part of t he vi deo, he was a passenger i n a vehi cl e dr i ven by M ayor al , and he was
v i d e o ta p i n g th e v a n w i th th e wa s h e r a n d d ry e r i n i ts b a s k e t. Gu e rra s ta te d , h o we v e r, th a t th e v i d e o wa s n o t ta k e n o n th e s a me h i g h wa yw h e re t he col l i si on occur r ed. When ask ed i f t he l i ght i ng was t he sam e at t he t i m e of t he col l i si on, G uer r a s t a t e d , “ I woul dn’ t t hi nk so. ” Rat her , G uer r a st at ed t hat t he m en pi ck ed t he l o c a ti o n b e c a u s e i t h a d a fr o n ta g e ro a d th a t wa s “p re tty s tr a i g h t a n d p re ttys a fe I g u e s s .” G uer r a st at ed t hat he d i d notknow w hatspeed t hey wer e t r avel i ng w hen t hey m ade t he vi de o. H e st at ed , “ We d i dn ’ t t ry t o r ee na ct t he acci de nt or t he spe ed s by an y m ea ns. I t was m or e j ust t o ki nd of geta vi sual of

w hat som eone m ay have seen .

. . t hat ni ght , t he ni ght of t he acci dent

. ” Rat her , t he m en wer e m er el y t ryi ng t o det er m i n e w het hert he
wa s h e r a n d d ry e r h a d o b s c u re d th e l i g h ts o n th e v a n
. G uer r a t hen expl ai ned w hat he saw w hi l e m aki ng t he vi deo: The angl es t hat we—t he di f fer ent speeds, di f

fer ent angl es, di f

fer ent dept hs t her e di dn’ t seem t o be any p r o b l e m s w hat soeverseei ng t he l i ght s, t he wa s h e ra n d d ry e re s p e c ia lly b e c a u s e t h e yh a p p e n t o b e wh it e
. I m e a n , it r eal l y r ef l ect ed notonl y t he washerand dryer , buti t hel ped br i n g o u t t he r ed ne ss i n t he l i gh t s w he t he r t he br ea ks [ si c] wer e ap pl i ed or no t

. We a l so d id itwit h b r e a k s [ s i c ] a p p lie d , b r e a k s [ s ic ] n o t a p p lie d , ju s t d if fe r e n t lit t le s c e n a r io s t h a t m a yo rm a yn o t h a v e h e lp e d

. I d o n ’t k n o w.6

O n cr oss- exa m i na t i on , G ue r r a ad m i t t ed t ha t he co ul d no t r eca l l se ei ng t he va n’ s l i cen se p l a te s o r th e l i g h ts o n th e l i c e n s e p l a te

. A ft ert he t est i m ony concl uded, t he S t at e ar gued t hat i t di d not i nt end t o of fert he vi deo as an exper i m ent usi ng t he sam e van, basket , and washerand dryer
. Rat her , t he vi deo woul d be used for dem onst r at i ve pur poses because “ t he defendant i s goi ng t o get up and t est i fy t hat he coul dn’ t see t he l i ght s t o t he van w hen he hi t i t f r om behi nd. ” T he S t at e ar gu ed t ha t i t was i r r el eva ntt ha t t he wash er a nd d yer

m i gh t b e “ a cou pl e of

i nch es” d i ffe re n t. Ry m a n ’s a t t o r n e yt h e n c o u n t e r e d t h a t , in fa c t , t h e St a t e in t e n d e d t o u s e t h is
e v id e n c e t o p r o v e t h a t Ry m a n c o u ld s e e t h e ligh t s a n d s h o u ld h a v e s e e n t h e ligh t s
. He
ar gued t hat : ( 1) t he speed was di f fer ent ; ( 2) i t was uncl earw het hert he washerand dryer
we re th e s a me s i z e ; a n d ( 3 ) th e l i g h ti n g wa s n o t t h e s a me
. On M a rc h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e tr i a l c o u rto ra l l ys ta te d th a t i t wo u l d g ra n t t h e m o ti o n to suppr ess
. O n M ay 7, 2008, t he t r i al court i ss ued a w r i t t en r ul i ng t hat i ncl uded f i ndi ngs of fa c t. S p e c i fi c a l l y , t h e tr i a l c o u rtfo u n d th a t: 6. The vehi cl e depi ct ed i n t he vi deo sought t o be used by t he st at e as dem onst r at i ve evi dence i s not t he sam e as t he vehi cl e occ upi ed by th e d e c e a s e d v i c ti m. 7. The vehi cl e depi ct ed i n t he vi deo was r epr esent ed t o be si m i l art o t he a c t u a l v e h ic le b u t n o t t h e s a m e y e a rm o d e l. 8. Ther e was no show i ng t hat t he weat hercondi t i ons at t he t i m e of day orni ght w hen t he vi deo was pr epar ed wer e si m i l art o t he t i m e of t he col l i si on. 9. Ther e was no show i ng t hat t he r oad condi t i ons wer e si m i l ar t o t he t i m e and pl ace of

t he col l i si on.7

10. Ther e was no show i ng t hat t he l i ght conf i gur at i on, w h i c h w a s t he m a jo re m p h a s is o f

t h e s u b je c t v id e o , o n t h e r e a ro f t h e v e h ic le d e p i c te d i n th e v i d e o wa s s i mi l a r. 1 1

. T h e r e wa s n o e v id e n c e t h a t t h e lig h t o n t h e r e a r o f t h e s u b je c t v e h ic le wer e t he sam e di st ance apart as t he vehi cl e i nvol ved i n t he col l i si on. 12. Ther e was no evi dence t o show t h a t t he l i ght on t he r earof t he vehi cl e depi ct ed i n t he vi deo wer e t he sam e hei ght above t he r oadway or t he basket at t ached t o t he r ear of t he vehi cl e i nvol v e d i n t he col l i si on. 13. The evi dence di d dem onst r at e t hat t he basket at t ached t o t he r earof t he vehi cl e depi ct ed i n t he vi deo was t he sam e as t he basket on t he r earof t he vehi cl e i nvol ved i n t he col l i si on. 14. Ther e was evi dence t o show t hat t he washerand dryerl oaded i n t he basket on t he r ear of t he vehi cl e depi ct ed i n t he vi deo wer e nott he sam e as t he i t em s l ocat ed i n t he r earof t he vehi cl e i nvol ved i n t he col l i si on. 15. Ther e w a s no e vi dence t hat t he washerand dryerl oaded i n t he basket as depi ct ed i n t he vi deo wer e t he sam e si z e as t he act ual wa s h e r a n d d ry e r i n th e b a s k e t a t t h e ti me o f t h e a c c i d e n t. 16. The evi dence pr esent ed athear i ng [ si c] i ndi cat ed t hat t he washerand dryer l oa de d i n t he ba sket de pi ct ed i n t he vi de o wer e sm al l er t ha t [ si c] t he washerand dryeri n t he basket w hen t he col l i si on occur r ed. I n concl usi on, t he t r i al court hel d t hat “ t he vi deo soughtt o be exhi bi t ed by t he S t at e t o t he J u ryi n tr ia l o f t h e s e c a u s e s h a s n o t b e e n e s ta b l i s h e d tob e a fa i r a n d a c c u ra te
r ep r ese nt at i on o f

t he r ea ro f

t he ve hi cl e i nvo l ved i n t he co l l i si on m ad e t he su bj ecto f t he se i n d i c tm e n ts .” O n M ay 20, 2008, t he S t at e f i l ed n o t i ces of appeal i n each cause num ber

. T he not i ces of

appeal st at ed t hat “ [ t ] he evi dence t hat was t he subj ect of t he defendant ’ s w r i t t en
m ot i on i s of

subst ant i al i m p ort ance i n t he i nst ant case. M or eover , j eopar dy has not
a t t a c h e d i n t h e in s t a n tc a s e
. Th e a p p e a l o f t h e p r e - t r ia l o r d e re n t e r e d b yt h is c o u rt is8

aut hor i zed by t he expr ess t er m s of t he Texas C ode of C r i m i nal P r ocedur e. ” T he not i ces of appeal ci t ed art i cl e 44. 01( a) ( 5)

. H owever , w hi l e t he not i ces of appeal wer e si gned by t he di st r i ct at t or ney, t hey di d notcont ai n any “ cert i f i cat e” and wer e notnot ar i zed. The sam e day, M ay 20, t he S t at e f i l ed separ at e docum ent s i n each cause num ber t i t l ed, “ C ert i f i cat e i n S upport of S t at e’ s N ot i ce of

A ppeal

. ” T hese docum ent s st at ed: Th e u n d e r s ign e d c o u n s e l is t h e p r o s e c u t ing a t t o r n e y in t h e ins t a n t c a s e
. As suc h t he unde r si gned cert i f i es t o t hi s C o u r t t hat t he i nst ant appeal i s not t aken forpur poses of del ay and t hat t he evi dence t hat has been suppr ess ed by t he or derof

t hi s C ourt i s of

subst ant i al i m port ance i n t he case. T h is Co u rtd o c k e t e d t h e a p p e a ls a s c a u s e n u m b e r s 1 3

- 0 8

- 0 0 3 2 4

- CR, 13- 08- 003 2 5

- C R , 1 3

- 0 8

- 0 0 3 2 6

- C R , 1 3

- 0 8

- 0 0327- C R , 13- 08- 00328- C R , and 13- 08- 00329- C R

. We st aye d t h e t r i al court ' s pr oceedi ngs pendi ng t he out com e of t he appeal s by or derdat ed June 12, 2008, and we consol i dat ed t he appeal s by or derdat ed S ept em ber9, 2008. II. J U R I S D I C T I ON Rym an f i r st ar gues t hat t hi s C ourt l ack s j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s appeal because t he S t at e’ s not i ce of

appeal was not pr oper l y cer t i f i ed as r equi r ed by art i cl e 44. 01( a) ( 5) of t he
c o d e o f c ri mi n a l p ro c e d u re
. T EX
. C O D E C R IM
. P R OC

. A NN
. a rt

. 4 4

. 0 1 ( a ) ( 5 )

. Art ic le 44. 01( a) ( 5) pr ovi des t hat t he S t at e m ay appeal an or der by t he t r i al co u r t s uppr ess i ng evi dence i f

“j eopar dy has not at t ached i n t he case and i f t he pr osecut i ng at t or ney cert i f i es t o t he t r i a l c o urt t hat t he appe al i s not t aken fort he pur pose of del ay and t hat t he
e v i d e n c e
. . . i s o f s u b s ta n ti a l i mp o rta n c e i n th e c a s e .” I d. Th e Co u rt o f Cr im in a l Ap p e a ls h a s h e l d th a t th e c e rt i fi c a ti o n re q u i re me n t i s j u ri s d i c ti o n a l

. St a t ev
. Riewe , 13 S

. W

. 3d 408, 4 1 1 ( T e x . C ri m. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ).A dd i t i on al l y, t he S t at e r el i es o n T exa s R ul es o f E vi de nce 40 1 a nd 90 1 t o a r g u e t h a t t he evi de nce 4 s h o u l d b e a d m i tte d b e c a u s e i t wa s re l e v a n t a n d w a s p ro p e rl y i d e n ti fi e d a n d a u th e n ti c a te d b y p e rs o n s w i th k n o w l e d g e o f th e v i d e o ’ s c re a ti o n
. S ee T EX

. R. E V ID

. 401, 901

. R y m an d id n ot obj ec t on t hes e grounds , nor 9 Rym an concedes t hat t he cert i f i cat i on need not be i n t he not i ce of appeal i t sel f

and
c a n b e i n c l u d e d i n a s e p a ra te d o c u me n t. S ee S tat e v. Johnson , 175 S

. W

. 3d 766, 767 ( Tex. C r i m
. A pp. 2005)

. H owever , Rym an ar gues t hat nei t her t he not i ce of appeal nor

t he separ at e cert i f i cat e was swor n and not ar i zed; t hus, i t was defect i ve and fai l ed t o i nvoke t he C ou rt ’ s j ur i sdi ct i on
. Rym an ci t es S tat e v. Johnson fo r th i s p ro p o s i ti o n
. I d. I n Johnson , ho weve r , a l t ho ug h t he S t at e i ncl ud ed i t s ce rt i f i cat i on i n an a f f i da vi t f i l ed b y t he d i st r i ct
a t t o r n e y , t h e Co u rt o f Cr im in a l Ap p e a ls d id n o t h o ld o r im p ly in a n y wa yt h a t a n a f f id a v it
wa s r e q u i re d

. Id

. A nd we have not l ocat ed any cas e t hat r equi r es t he cert i f i cat i on unde r
a rti c l e 4 4 .0 1 (a )(5 ) to b e a s wo rn a n d n o ta ri z e d s ta te me n t. T h e s ta tu te d o e s n o t re q u i re t he “ cert i f i cat i on” t o be ver i f i ed or not i f i ed or t o be i ncl uded i n an af f i davi t , and we w i l l not
re a d th e re q u i re me n t i n to th e s ta tu te

. S ee T EX
. C O D E C R IM
. P R OC

. A NN
. a rt. 4 4 .0 1 (a )(5 ). W e c o n c l u d e th a t we h a v e j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r th i s a p p e a l , a n d n o w we tu rn to th e me ri ts

. III
. E XC LU SIO N O F D EM O N ST RA TI VE E V I DE NCE B y i t s sol e i ss ue, t he S t at e ar gues t hat t h e t r i a l c o u r t er r ed by suppr ess i ng t he vi de o. T he S t at e ar gu es t ha t be cau se i t on l y i nt en de d t o of fer t he vi de o as de m on st r at i ve evi dence, t he event depi ct ed i n t he vi deo need onl y be “ subst ant i al l y si m i l ar ” t o t he event i n quest i on. T he S t at e ar gues t hat i t subm i t t ed evi dence t hat : ( 1) t he vehi cl e i n t he vi deo
was t he sam e m ake and m odel as t hat i nvol ved i n t he acc i dent ; ( 2) t he basket was t he
sam e; and ( 3) bot h t he washer and dryer used i n t he vi deo and i nvol ved i n t he acci dent
we re “ n o rm a l s i z e .” T h e S ta te a rg u e s th a t a n yd i ffe re n c e s s h o u l d m e re l yg o to th e we i g h t, and nott he adm i ss i bi l i t y, of t he vi deo. W e di sagr ee.

4di d t he t r i al cou rt r ul e o n t he ap pl i cab i l i ty of t he se e vi de nt i ary r ul es. 10 We r evi ew

a t r i al co urt ’ s de ci si on t o excl ud e de m on st r at i ve evi de nce for a n ab use
o f d i s c re ti o n
. V

a l de z v . S ta te , 7 7 6 S .W .2 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 8 ( T e x . C ri m. A p p . 1 9 8 9 ); Wr i gh t v. S ta te , 1 7 8 S .W .3 d 9 0 5 , 9 2 0 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.). A tri a l c o u rt h a s w i d e l a ti tu d e i n i ts d e c i s i o n toa d mi t o r e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e
. T h e u s v . S ta te , 845 S

. W

. 2d 8 7 4 , 8 8 1 ( T e x
. Cr im

. Ap p
. 1 9 9 2 )

. W e will n o t o v e rt u r n t h e t r ia l c o u rt ' s d e c is io n if it is wit h in th e z o n e o f r e a s o n a b l e d i s a g re e me n t. Mo n tg o me ry v . S ta te , 81 0 S

. W. 2d 3 72 , 3 91 ( T ex. C ri m. A p p .1 9 9 0 ) (o p . o n r e h ' g ).

“ [ G ] ener al l y t he r esul t s of out

- of

- court exper i m ent s ar e adm i ss i bl e i n t he di sc r et i on of t he t r i al co urt i f

t he e xpe r i m en t was m ad e un de rsi m i l ar con di t i on s t o t he e ven t t o w hi ch th e re s u l ts o f th e e x p e ri me n t re l a te .” V al dez , 776 S

. W

. 2d at 168. “ To be adm i ss i bl e, an
e x p e ri me n t n e e d n o t b e m a d e u n d e r i d e n ti c a l c o n d i ti o n s o f th e e v e n t; d i s s i mi l a ri ti e s g o to th e we i g h t a n d n o t th e a d mi s s i b i l i ty .” Id

. Thi s i s not t o say t hat any di ss i m i l ar i t y can be d is r e g a r d e d a n d le ftt o t h e ju ry ’s d is c r e t i o n — w h e n t h e d e m o n s t r a t io n o re x p e r im e n t is di f fer ent f r om t he act ual event i n “ cr i t i cal ” ways , t hose di ss i m i l ar i t i es can r equi r e excl usi on
o f t h e e v i d e n c e
. S e e , e .g ., Ca n tu v . S ta te , 738 S

. W

. 2d 249, 2 5 4

- 5 5 ( Tex. C r i m
. A pp. 1 9 8 7 ); s e ea l

s oCo ck re l l v . S ta te , N o. 1 4- 05

- 00 86 2- C R , 2 00 6 WL 2 29 07 43 , a t *3 ( T ex. A pp. –H oust o n [ 14t h D i st

. ] A ug. 10, 2006, pet

. r ef ' d) ( m em
. op. ; notdesi gnat ed for p u b l i c a ti o n ). T h e p ro p o n e n t o f th e d e mo n s tra ti o n , w h i c h i n th i s c a s e wa s th e S ta te , b e a rs th e b u rd e n to s h o w th a t th e c o n d i ti o n s u n d e r w h i c h th e d e mo n s tra ti o n i s c o n d u c te d a re
s u ffi c i e n tl ys i mi l a r to th e e v e n t i n q u e s ti o n
. S ee V al dez , 7 7 6 S .W .2 d a t 1 6 8 ; Ca n tu , 738 S

. W

. 2d at255. For exam pl e, i n Ca n tu, t he d efen da nt r eq ue st ed t ha t t he cou rt al l ow hi m t o con du ct11

a n e x p e ri me n t i n th e c o u rtro o m to d e mo n s tra te th e l i g h ti n g th a t e x i s te d i n a ro o m w h e re
a n a l l e g e d m u rd e r to o k p l a c e
. 7 3 8 S .W .2 d a t 2 5 4

. T h e tr i a l c o u rt re fu s e d toa l l o w h i m to tu rn o u t th e l i g h ts i n th e c o u rtro o m to d e mo n s tra te th e a mo u n t o f l i g h t e ma n a ti n g fro m a l am p, not i ng t hat “ t he pr obl em i s t hat [ t he court r oom ] i s notat al l l i ke t he sur r oundi ngs and th e c o n d i ti o n s th a t e x i s te d o n N o v e mb e r 8 o f ' 8 4 .” I d. S peci f i cal l y, t he j udge poi nt ed out t hat t he hei ght of

t he wal l s, t he w i dt h of

t he r oom , and t he col orof t he wal l s wer e di f

fer ent fr o m th e ro o m i n w h i c h th e mu rd e r o c c u rr e d , w h i c h a ffe c te d th e d e g re e o f i l l u mi n a ti o n
. I d. T he cou rt of cr i m i na l ap pe al s af f i r m ed , ho l di ng t ha t an exp er i m en t ’ s con di t i on s m ust b e s i mi l a r to th e o ri g i n a l e v e n t w i th r e s p e c t t o th e “ c ri ti c a l ” fa c ts th e e x p e ri me n t a tte mp ts t o dem onst r at e: I n t he i nst ant case t he exper i m ent was not subst ant i al l y si m i l art o t he act ual event

. As t he t r i al j udge no t ed, t he si ze of t h e r oom and t he col orof t he wal l s wer e not t he sam e. F oran e xper i m ent desi gned t o show t he am ount o f i l l u mi n a ti o n c a s t b y a l a mp i n a d a rkl i v i n g ro o m o f a h o u s e , s u c h fa c to rs ar e cr i t i cal

. T he t r i al j udge di d not abuse hi s di sc r et i on i n r ef usi ng t o al l ow th e e x p e ri me n t to b e c o n d u c te d i n th e c o u rtro o m. I d. at255. S i m i l ar l y, i n t hi s cas e, t he S t at e di d not m eeti t s bur den t o show t hat t he condi t i ons
u n d e rwh ic h t h e d e m o n s t r a t io n we r e c o n d u ct e d we r e s u f f ic ie n t lys im ila rt o t h e e v e n t in q u e s ti o n w i th r e s p e c t t o th e c ri ti c a l fa c ts

. T h e u n d i s p u te d p u rp o s e fo r th e v i d e o wa s to
s h o w t h a t Ry m a n c o u ld h a v e s e e n t h e v e h ic le ’s t a il l ig h t s
. Th e a b ilit yt o s e e a n o b je c t in
a p a rt i c u l a r p l a c e a t a p a rt i c u l a r ti me i s a ffe c te d b yn u me ro u s , “ c ri ti c a l ” c o n d i ti o n s
. Se eid

. As t he t r i al court concl uded, t he evi dence di d not est abl i sh t hat : ( 1) t he l i ght i ng of t he ar ea on t he hi ghway was t he sam e i n t he col l i si on as i n t he dem onst r at i on; ( 2) t he t ai l l i ght s on t he van used i n t he dem onst r at i on wer e t he sam e space apartas on t he vehi c l e i n t he12

acc i dent ; ( 3) t he r oad condi t i ons wer e t he sam e; or ( 4) t he weat her condi t i ons wer e t he
s a me
. S ee i

d. These wer e al l cr i t i cal fact or s t hat t he S t at e was r equi r ed t o est abl i sh, but d i d n o t. S ee i

d. F u rth e rmo re , a l th o u g h th e S ta te a rg u e s th a t th e v e h i c l e i n th e v i d e o wa s th e s a me
m ake and m odel as t hat i nvol ved i n t he acci dent , t he court ’ s f i ndi ngs of fact concl uded, and t he evi dence showed, t hat t he year s of t he vans wer e not t he sam e. T he S t at e di d not of ferany t est i m ony expl ai ni ng t hat t he r earl i ght conf i gur at i ons of t he vehi cl es wer e t he
sam e despi t e t hi s di f

fer ence. Addi t i onal l y, al t hough t he court found t hat t he basket s on t he
r earof t he vehi cl es wer e t he sam e, t he court found t hat t he evi dence showed t hat t he
wash er s a nd dryer s wer e no t

. T he se wer e al so cr i t i cal fact or s t ha t t he S t at e sho ul d ha ve
e s ta b l i s h e d a s s i mi l a r to e v e n t s o u g h t to b e d e mo n s tr a te d

. S ee i d. ; see al

so For d Mot or Co. v. N ow ak , 638 S

. W

. 2d 582, 590 ( Tex. A pp. –C or pus C hr i st i 1982, no pet

. ) ( hol di ng t hat vi de o at t em pt i ng t o de m on st r at e con di t i on s o f ve hi cl e was p r op er l y e xcl ud ed b eca use pr oponentdi d notshow t hat vehi cl es wer e si m i l ar )

. B ecause so m any cr i t i cal condi t i ons
wer e not si m i l ar , we concl ude t hat t he t r i al court di d not abuse i t s di sc r et i on i n excl udi ng t he vi deo. I V. C ON C L U S I ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d th e S ta te ’ s o n l yi s s u e , we a ffi rm.

G I NA M

. BEN AVI DE S, J u s t i c e D o n o t p u b l i s h

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .2 (b ).13

M em or andum O pi ni on del i ver ed and f i l ed t hi s t he 30t h day of Jul y, 2009.