CAUSE NO. 13-14-00457-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG, TEXAS VICTOR HERNANDEZ, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 357th Judicial District Court

of Cameron County, Texas Trial Court Cause Number 2013-DCR-01953-E STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF

Luis V. Saenz Cameron County District Attorney René B. González Assistant District Attorney 964 East Harrison Street, 4th Floor Brownsville, Texas 78520 Phone: (956) 544-0849 Fax: (956) 544-0869 Attorneys for the State of Texas ACCEPTED 13-14-00457-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 9/18/2015 2:52:01 PM Dorian E. Ramirez

CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S

Tab le of C on te nt s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i In de x o f Aut ho rit ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Sal ut at io n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Su m m ary of th e Arg um en t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Arg um en t an d Au th or it ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rro r on e th ro ug h 1 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rro r 19 th ro ug h 2 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rro r 27 th ro ug h 4 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rro r 45 an d 4 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rro r 47 an d 4 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rro r 49 an d 5 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 St at e’s res po ns e to po in t o f erro r 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Cert ifi cat e o f Co m

pl ianc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Cert ifi cat e o f Serv ic e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

- i -INDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es Ander so n v . Stat e , 63 3 S .W .2d . 85 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 82 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 1 0, 1 1, 1 2 Bro ok s v. Sta te , 96 1 S .W .2d39 6 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 19 97 , no writ ). . . . . . 23 , 24 Ca rden as v. Stat e , 32 5 S .W .3d17 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 10 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 1 3, 1 4 Co rt ez v. Stat e , 68 3 S .W .2d41 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Cu mbo v. Stat e , 76 0 S .W .2d25 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 1 2 Dewb erryv. Stat e , 4 S .W .3d73 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Din ki ns v. Stat e , 89 4 S .W .2d33 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 95 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 , 17 Doy le v. Ohi o , 42 6 U.S. 6 10 (19 76 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Dun ca n v . Lou is ia na , 39 1 U.S. 1 45 (19 68 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Fau ld er v. Stat e , 74 5 S .W .2d32 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 87 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Fau lk ne r v. Sta te , 94 0 S .W .2d30 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Fo rt Wort h 1 99 7, p et . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

- i i -Feld

man v. Stat e , 71 S.W .3d73 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Flet ch er v. Stat e , 85 2 S .W .2d27 1 (Te x. Ap p.-- Dall as 19 93 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 , 20 Herna ndezv. Stat e , 56 3 S .W .2d94 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 78 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Hud so n v . Stat e , 67 5 S .W .2d50 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Jo hn so n v . Stat e , 83 S.W .3d22 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 20 02 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Jo nes v. Sta te , 98 2 S .W .2d38 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 98 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Jo rd an v. Stat e , 63 5 S .W .2d52 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 82 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 1 2 La dd v. Stat e , 3 S .W .3d54 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Li tt le v. Stat e , 75 8 S .W .2d55 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Men do za v. Stat e , 95 9 S .W .2d32 1 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 19 97 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Moo re v. Stat e , 99 9 S .W .2d38 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 , 9, 1 3, 1 4 Mor en o v . Stat e , 38 S.W .3d77 4 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [14 thDis t.] 20 01 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . . 24

- i i i -Pat to n v . Y

ou nt , 46 7 U.S. 1 02 5 (1 98 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Peo pl es v. Stat e , 87 4 S .W .2d80 4 (Te x. Ap p.-- Fo rt Wort h 1 99 4, n o p et .). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Pier ce v. Sta te , 69 6 S .W .2d89 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 85 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 1 2 Reyn olds v. Uni te d Sta tes , 98 U.S. 14 5 (1 87 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Rob in so n v . Stat e , 85 1 S .W .2d21 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 91 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Rod ri gu ezv. Stat e , 64 9 S .W .2d32 9 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 83 , no pe t.). . . . . . . . . 15 , 16 Ros s v. Oklah oma , 48 7 U.S. 8 1 (1 98 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Sa nc he z v. Sta te , 70 7 S .W .2d57 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 86 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Sh av er v. Stat e , 28 0 S .W .2d74 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 55 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Sp au ldin g v . Stat e , 65 6 S .W .2d53 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 83 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . 16 St av in oh a v . Stat e , 80 8 S .W .2d76 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 91 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Vete to v. Stat e , 8 S .W .3d80 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 20 00 , pet . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 , 20 , 21

- i v -W

ai nw ri gh t v. Witt , 46 9 U.S. 4 12 (19 85 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 W aldo v. Stat e , 74 6 S .W .2d75 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 , 20 , 21 W al te r v. Sta te , 26 7 S .W .3d88 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 08 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 , 26 , 27 W ilker so n v . Stat e , 51 0 S .W .2d58 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 74 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 W il li ams v. Stat e , 41 7 S .W .3d16 2 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 20 13 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 W il li ams v. Stat e , 56 5 S .W .2d63 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 78 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 W il li ams v. Stat e , 77 3 S .W .2d52 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 1 2 W oo d v . Stat e , 18 S.W .3d64 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 00 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 W oo da ll v. Stat e , 77 S.W .3d38 8 (Te x. Ap p.-- Fo rt Wort h 2 00 2, p et . ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . 14 , 15 Zu li an i v. Sta te , 97 S.W .3d58 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 03 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Sta tute s Tex . Con st . art . I, § 1 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 35 .16 (a)( 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 35 .16 (c)( 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3 , 4

- v -Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 37 .07 § 3 (a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Rule s Tex . R. App . P. 38 .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Tex . R. Evi d. 8 03 (2 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 , 26

- v i -CAUSE NO. 13 -1 4- 00 45 7- CR

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS THI RTEENT H J UDICI AL DIS TRI CT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRIS TI - EDINB URG, TEXAS

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ VICTO R HERNANDEZ , Appel la nt v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appel le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ STATE ’S APPELLAT E BRI EF

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TO TH E HO NORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NO W , App el le e, th e STATE OF TEXAS , by an d t hr ou ghth e Cam ero n C ou nt y

Dis tri ctAtt orne y , th e Hon or ab le Lui s V. Sae nz , and , pu rs ua ntto Ru le 38 .2 o f th e Tex as Ru le s o f App el late Pro cedur e, fi le s thi s, i ts App el late Bri ef in th e ab ov e-s tyledan d -num be redcau se of a ct io n, an d i n s up po rt t he reo f, wou ld sh ow thi s Ho no rab le Co urt as fol lo ws:

State’s B rief Pag e 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

App el lantrai se s fi fty-on e p oi nt s o f erro r onap pe al . In p oi nt s o f erro r on e th ro ug h 1 8, Ap pe ll an t ar gu es th atth e tr ia l co urt erredinfai li ng to su st ai n a ch al le ng e fo r cau se to th e ei gh te enpa ne l m em be rs li st edinth es e p oi nt s, an d th ereb y vi ol at edart ic le 35 .16 (c)( 2) of t he Texa s C od e o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e. The St at e res po nd s b y

ass ert in g tha t Ap pe ll an t h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e an y erro r. In po in ts of e rro r 19 th ro ug h 2 6, Ap pe ll an t co m pl ai ns th athe was d en ie d afai r an d im pa rti al tri al as g ua ran te edby the Six th Am en dm en t t o t he U.S. Con st itut io n, be cau se th e jury con si st edof e ig htun qu al ifi edjuro rs . The St at e res po nd s b y as se rti ng th atApp el lantha s n otde m on st rat edth athe ha s s uf fere d avi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. Inpo in ts of e rro r 27 th ro ug h 4 4, Ap pe ll an t ar gu es th athe was de ni edhi s Si xth Am en dm en t ri gh t t o afai r an d i m pa rti al jury whe n t he tri al co urt re -qua li fie d e ig ht eenpa ne l m em be rs . The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t App el lant ’s Six thAm en dm en t ri gh t h as no t b eenvi ol at ed . In p oi nt s o f erro r 45 an d 4 6, Ap pe ll an t ar gu es th atth e tr ia l co urt erredinno t g ran ti ng a m is tri al du rin g th e St at e’s cl os in g a rg um en t. The Sta te res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the tri al co urt di d n oterr i n d en y in g Ap pe ll an t’s re qu es t fo r a m is tri al . In p oi nt s o f erro r 47 an d 48 , App el lantco m

pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt erredinno t g ran ti ng a m is tri al rel at in g to a co m m en t o n the App el lant ’s po st -arr es t s il en ce. The Sta te res po nd s b y State’s B rief Pag e 2as se rti ng th atth e tr ia l co urt d idno t err inde nyin g t he reque stformis tri al . In

po in ts of e rro r 49 an d 5 0, Ap pe ll an t co m pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt erredinall owi ng th e v ic ti m ’s fathe r to tes ti fy to cert ai n m at te rs th atam ou nt edto vi ct im im pa ct st at em en ts . The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the tri al co urt d idno t err in al lo win g the vi ct im ’s fathe r to tes ti fy co nc ern in g t he for es eeab le effe ct s o f App el lant ’s cri m e o n the vi ct im ’s imm ed ia te fam il y . In p oi ntof e rro r 51 , App el lantco m

pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt erredall owi ng th e adm is si on of h ears ay ev id en ce b efo re the jury. The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the tri al co urt d id no t err in admit ti ng sai d h ears ay , andfurth er, Ap pe ll an t h as fai le d t o p res erv e th is is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w.

ARGUMENT & AUTHO RIT IE S St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rr or

on e th ro ug

h 1 8 Inpo in ts of e rro r on e th ro ug h 1 8, Ap pe ll an t ar gu es th atth e tr ia l co urt erred in fai li ng to su st ai n ach al le ng e fo r cau se to th e ei gh te enpa ne l m em be rs li st edin th es e p oi nt s, an d the reb y vi ol at edart ic le 35 .16 (c)( 2) of t he Texa s C od e o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e. The S ta te res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t Ap pe ll an t h as fai le d t o de m on st rat e an y

erro r. App el lant ’s firs t ei gh te enis su es rel at e to th e ei gh te enjury pane l m em be rs State’s B rief Pag e 3who m

he si m il arl y

ch al le ng edun de r “ ran ge of p un is hm en t” an d wh om th e tr ia l co urt d idno t re le as e fro m th e jury lis t b y

eit he r gr an ti ng th atch al le ng e o r ot he rwis e ex cu si ng th e juro rs th ro ug h the Sta te ’s agr eem en t o r on ot he r ch al le ng eab le gro un ds . App el lantarg ue s tha t the se pa ne l m em be rs ’ ne ga ti ve res po ns es to hi s que st io n s ho w th atth ey co ul d n otfol lo w th e la w by co ns id eri ng th e m in im

um pu ni sh m en t an d tha t the y were the refo re ch al le ng eab le forcau se . Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 35 .16 (c)( 2) ; se e a ls o Fa ulde r v. Sta te , 74 5 S .W .2d32 7, 33 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 87 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atitis “ ax io m at ic th ata pr os pe ct iv e juro r who st at es th athe can no t co ns id er [the ful l ra ng e o f pu ni sh m en t] is subjec t t o ch al le ng e fo r cau se ”) (c it at io n o m it te d) . Howev er, the Sta te res po nd s b y ass ert in g th atth e tr ia l co urt d idno t err in refu si ng to su st ai n t he ch al le ng es forcau se as t o th es e p an el m em

be rs , bec au se furth er que st io ni ng by the co urt i nd ic at edth atth ey were n otsubjec t t o ach al le ng e fo r cau se . The Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h as he ldth aton ce a juro r ex pr es sl y adm it s hi s b ia s ag ai ns t a p ha se of l aw up on whi chbo th th e St at e an d d efen se are en ti tl ed to rel y , a su ffi ci en t fo un da ti on ha s b eenlai d t o s up po rt ach al le ng e fo r cau se . Se e W il li ams v. Stat e , 77 3 S .W .2d52 5, 5 36 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 88 ) (h ol di ng th ata juro r is bi as edas am at te r of law i f he un equi vo cal ly exp res se s an in ab il ity to co ns id er fi ve y ears pro ba ti on as p os si bl e p un is hm en t fo r th e le ss er-i nc lu de d State’s B rief Pag e 4of

fen se of m

ur de r in a cap it al -m

ur de r tr ia l); se e a ls o J

orda n v . Stat e , 63 5 S .W .2d 52 2, 5 23 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 82 ) (rev ers ib le erro r to de ny a defe nd an t’s ch al le ng e fo r cau se ag ai ns t a juro r who co ul d n otco ns id er p ro ba ti on for th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of m

ur de r in a cap it al m

ur de r cas e). The refo re, a jur or who st at es th athe can no t co ns id er the min im um pu ni sh m en t fo r a p art ic ul ar s ta tu to ry off en se is subjec t t o ach al le ng e fo r cau se . Cu mbo v. Stat e , 76 0 S .W .2d25 1, 2 55 –5 6 (Te x. Cri m . App . 19 88 ); Pier ce v. Sta te , 69 6 S .W .2d89 9, 9 02 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ) (d efen da ntha s the rig htto ch al le ng e fo r cau se an y juro r who co ul d n otgi ve th e m in im um pu ni sh m en t, i nc lu di ng pro ba ti on ). Neve rth el es s, the Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h as als o e xp li ci tl y st at edth aton ce a juro r st at es he can no t co ns id er the m in im um pu ni sh m en t fo r a p art ic ul ar o ffen se , th e “ op po si ng pa rty or tria l ju dg e m ay th enex am in e th e juro r fu rth er t o e ns ur e th athe ful ly und ers tand s an d ap pr eci at es th e p os it io n tha t h e is tak in g.” Ca rden as v. Stat e , 32 5 S .W .3d17 9, 18 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 10 ); se e a ls o Mo or e v. Sta te , 99 9 S .W .2d38 5, 4 00 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 99 ) (“ Whe n the reco rdrefl ect s tha t a v en ire m anva ci ll at es or equi vo cat es on hi s ab il ity to fol lo w th e la w, th e rev ie win g c ou rt m us t d efer to th e tri al co urt.”) . Unle ss th ere i s fu rth er cl ari fic at io n o r va ci ll at io n b y th e juro r, th e tri al jud ge m

us t g ran t a c ha ll en ge for

cau se if the juro r st at es th athe can no t co ns id er the ful l rang e o f pu ni sh m en t. Ca rden as , 32 5 S .W .3dat 1 85 . State’s B rief Pag e 5Inth e p res en t ca se , nu m ero us pa ne l m em be rs st at edth atth ey

co ul d n ot co ns id er p ro ba ti on inth e p res en t ca se . (R.R. Vol . 2, p p. 4 5- 46 ). Ther eaft er, the se pa ne l m em

be rs , bei ng th e p an el m em be rs m en ti on edinpo in ts of e rro r on e th ro ug h 18 , were as ke d a dd it io na l que st io ns co nc ern in g t he ir abi li ty to fo ll ow the ful l ran ge of p un is hm en t. (R.R . Vol . 2, p p. 6 6- 70 ). All of t he se pa ne l m em be rs cl ari fie d tha t the y

co ul d c on si de r th e fu ll ran ge of p un is hm en t. Bec au se th ere was furth er cl ari fic at io n tha t the se pa ne l m em be rs co ul d fo ll ow the law an d c ou ld co ns id er the ful l rang e o f pu ni sh m en t, thi s C ou rt m us t d eferto th e tr ia l co urt’s de ci si on to de ny the ch al le ng e fo r cau se . Moo re , 99 9 S .W .2dat 4 00 . The refo re, Ap pe ll an t’s p oi nt s o f erro r on e th ro ug h e ig ht eensh ou ldbe ov erru le d.

St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rr or

19 thr ou gh 26 Inpo in ts of e rro r 19 th ro ug h 2 6, Ap pe ll an t co m pl ai ns th athe was d en ie d a fai r an d i m

pa rti al tri al as g ua ran te edby the Six th Am en dm en t t o the U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on , bec au se th e jury con si st edof e ig htun qu al ifi edjuro rs . The St at e res po nd s b y

ass ert in g tha t Ap pe ll an t h as no t d em on st rat edth athe ha s s uf fere d a vi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. The Six th Am en dm en t d oe s g ua ran te e in di vi du al s the rig htto anim pa rti al State’s B rief Pag e 6jury; ho wev er, the Co urts ha ve in te rp ret edth is rig htto m eanth ata ch al le ng e fo r

cau se to a pr os pe ct iv e juro r, th atis ba se d o n h is vi ews ab ou t the ap pr op ria te ne ss of a cert ai n p un is hm en t, n eedno t b e g ran te d u nl es s the vi ews of t he pro sp ect iv e juro r wou ldsubs tant ia ll y im pa ir t he pe rfo rm an ce o f hi s dut ie s as a juro r in acco rd an ce wi th hi s i ns tru ct io ns an d o ath. W ai nw ri gh t v. Witt , 46 9 U.S. 4 12 , 42 4 (1 98 5) ; Rob in so n v . Stat e , 85 1 S .W .2d21 6, 2 28 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 91 ). In o th er wor ds , nei th er p erem

pt ory ch al le ng es no r ch al le ng es for cau se are o f co ns ti tu ti on al di m en si on . Se e Ros s v. Okl ah oma , 48 7 U.S. 8 1, 8 8 (1 98 8) ; Jo nes v. St at e , 98 2 S .W .2d38 6, 3 91 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 98 ). So l on g a s the jury th atsi ts is im pa rti al , a m ere e rro r in rul in g o n ach al le ng e fo r cau se do es no t m eanth e Si xt h Am en dm en t was vi ol at ed . Ros s , 48 7 U.S. at88 ; Jo nes , 98 2 S .W .2dat 3 91 . As wi th an y

othe r tr ia l s itua ti on wher e anadve rs ary wis he s t o e xc lu de a juro r be cau se of b ia s, the n, i t i s the adve rs ary se ek in g e xc lu si on who m us t de m on st rat e, th ro ug h que st io ni ng , th atth e p ot en ti al juro r la ck s i m pa rti al ity . Se e Reyn olds v. Uni te d Sta tes , 98 U.S. 14 5, 1 57 (18 79 ). It i s the n t he tri al jud ge ’s du ty to de te rm in e whe th er the po te nt ia l juro r is im pa rti al . W

ai nw ri gh t , 46 9 U.S. at 42 3- 24 ; se e a ls o Pa tt on v. Y ou nt , 46 7 U.S. 1 02 5, 1 03 6 (1 98 4) (whe re a cr im in al de fen da ntso ug htto ex cu se a juro r fo r cau se an d t he tri al jud ge refu se d, the qu es ti on was s im

pl y “ di d [the ] juro r swe ar tha t h e co ul d s etasi de an y op in io n h e State’s B rief Pag e 7m ig htho ldan d d eci de th e cas e o n t he ev id en ce, an d s ho ul d t he juro r’s

pr ot es ta ti on s o f im

pa rti al ity ha ve be enbe li ev ed ”). The refo re, wh ena de fen da nt co m pl ai ns th athi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o afai r an d i m pa rti al jury ha s b een vi ol at ed , itis th atde fen da nt ’s bu rd ento de m on st rat e th atth e p ers on s s el ect edto se rv e o n the jury were n ot , infact , fai r an d i m pa rti al . An im

pa rti al jury is on e whi chfav or s n ei th er p arty , whi chis unpr ejud ic ed , di si nt eres te d, equi tabl e, an d jus t an d i s co m

po se d o f juro rs who ha ve no t p reju dg edth e m eri ts of t he cas e. Sh av er v. Stat e , 28 0 S .W .2d74 0, 7 42 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 55 ). On the ot he r ha nd , bi as ex is ts , as am at te r of law, wh ena pr os pe ct iv e juro r admit s h e is bi as edforor ag ai ns t a d efen da nt . Ander so n v . Stat e , 63 3 S .W .2d . 85 1, 8 54 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 82 ). Whe n b ia s i s n otest ab li sh edas am atte r of law, the tri al co urt the n h as di sc ret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er b ia s ac tu al ly exi st s t o ade gr ee tha t the juro r is di squa li fie d a ndsh ou ldbe ex cu se d fr om jury se rv ic e. Id . at 8 53 -5 4. Inth e p res en t ca se , juro rs li st edinpo in ts of e rro r 19 th ro ug h 2 6 fi rs t s ta te d th atth ey co ul d n otco ns id er the ful l ra ng e o f pu ni sh m en t; ho wev er, o n fu rth er ex am in at io n b y

th e co urt, the juro rs all st at edth atth ey co ul d fo ll ow the law an d co ns id er the ful l rang e o f pu ni sh m en t. The tri al jud ge th enrul edth atth es e juro rs were n otsubjec t t o ach al le ng e fo r cau se , th us im pl ic it ly ruli ng th atth es e juro rs were fa ir a ndim

pa rti al . App el lantha s n otde m on st rat edth atth e tr ia l co urt ab us ed State’s B rief Pag e 8it s d is cret io n i n m ak in g s uc h ru li ng .

The fact s h erei n d em on st rat e th atth e juro rs li st edinpo in ts of e rro r 19 th ro ug h 2 6 a ll in it ia ll y

st at edth atth ey

co ul d n otco ns id er the ful l ra ng e o f pu ni sh m en t. (R.R . Vol . 2, p p. 4 5- 46 ). Ther eaft er, the se pa ne l m em be rs , in cl ud in g Esm eral daVald ez, Ed di e Ja im es , Myrn a St oc kt on , Rom anTorr es , Edu ard o Gon zal ez, MariaDelo ur de s Li en do , Norb ert o F lo res , Jr., an d B el in daZava la(th e juro rs li st edinpo in ts of e rro r 19 th ro ug h 2 6) , were as ke d a dd it io na l que st io ns co nc ern in g the ir abi li ty to fo ll ow the ful l ra ng e o f pu ni sh m en t. (R.R . Vol . 2, p p. 66 -7 5) . All o f th es e p an el m em be rs cla rif

ie d t ha t the y

co ul d c on si de r th e fu ll ran ge of p un is hm en t. Bec au se th ere was furth er cl ari fic at io n t ha t the se pa ne l m em be rs co ul d fo ll ow the law an d c ou ldco ns id er the ful l ra ng e o f pu ni sh m en t, th is Co urt m

us t d eferto th e tr ia l co urt’s d eci si on to de ny the ch al le ng e fo r cau se . Moo re , 99 9 S .W .2dat 4 00 . App el lantha s n otpro vi de d a ny bas is up on whi chto fin d tha t the an swe rs of the se juro rs are n otto be be li ev ed , andth eref or e, App el lantha s fa il edto de m on st rat e th athi s ca se was n othe ardby a fair and im pa rti al jury. Acco rd in gl y , App el lant ’s po in ts of e rro r 19 th ro ug h 2 6 s ho ul d b e o ve rru le d.

State’s B rief Pag e 9St

at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rr or

27 thr ou gh 44 Inpo in ts of e rro r 27 th ro ug h 4 4, Ap pe ll an t ar gu es th athe was d en ie d h is Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o afai r an d i m pa rti al jury whe n t he tri al co urt re -qua li fie d ei gh te enpa ne l m em

be rs . The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t Ap pe ll an t’s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t h as no t b eenvi ol at ed . App el lantarg ue s tha t b as edon th e rec or d t he po te nt ia l juro rs li st edinpo in ts of erro r 27 th ro ug h 4 4 wer e b ia se d a s a m at te r of law; th eref

or e, th e tr ia l co urt was requi redto ex cu se hi m

ev enif h e st at edhe co ul d s etasi de hi s b ia s an d p ro vi de a fai r tr ia l. Se e W

il li ams v. Stat e , 56 5 S .W .2d63 , 65 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 78 ). App el lantdo es no t ar gu e th atth es e p ers on s wer e n otreh ab il it at ed- he arg ue s o nl y th atsu chreh ab il it at io n was erro ne ou sl y pe rm it te d, an d t ha t the se pe rs on s s ho ul d ha ve be enex cu se d fo r cau se be cau se th ey was b ia se d a s a m at te r of law. App el lantrel ie s o n v ari ou s au th or it ie s, i nc lu di ng And er so n v . Stat e , 63 3 S.W .2d85 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 82 ). Dis ti ll ed , App el lant ’s arg um en t i s tha t i f a ch al le ng edpro sp ect iv e juro r is bi as edas am at te r of law, the juro r m

us t b e st ru ck an d c anno t b e reh ab il it at ed ; an d b ia s as a m at te r of law ex is ts whenth e pr os pe ct iv e juro r admit s h e is bi as edforor a ga in stth e d efen dant . Id . at 8 54 . Hen ce, b ei ng bi as edas am at te r of law, Ap pe ll an t ar gu es , th es e p ot en ti al juro rs sh ou ldha ve be enstru ckan d n otsubjec t t o re habi li ta ti on by the Sta te . The St at e State’s B rief Pag e 10res po nd s, h owe ve r, th atth e in it ia l s ta te m en t o f th es e p ot en ti al juro rs di d n otadm it

th ey ha d a ny sort o f “pe rs on al is su e” o r th atth e is su e was a bi as ag ai ns t Ap pe ll an t. Rathe r, th es e p ro sp ect iv e juro rs no te d t ha t the y ha d apro bl em

with t he law, as it ha d b eenex pl ai ne d t o the m . The Six th Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d S tate s C on st itut io n g ua ran te es th atin al l cr im in al pro se cuti on s the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto a tr ia l “by an i m pa rti al jury. ” Thi s ri gh t i s ap pl ic ab le to th e St at es th ro ug h t he Fo urte en thAm en dm en t. Dun ca n v. Lo uisi an a , 39 1 U.S. 1 45 (19 68 ); se e a ls o Herna ndezv. Stat e , 56 3 S .W .2d94 7, 95 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 78 ). A party m ay ch al le ng e an y

pro sp ect iv e juro r who de m on st rat es a bi as or p reju di ce ag ai ns t the de fen da nt . Tex. Co de Cri m . Pro c. art . 35 .16 (a)( 9) . The t es t i s wh ethe r th e b ia s o r pr ejud ic e wou ldsubs tant ia ll y im pa ir th e p ro sp ect iv e juro r’s ab il ity to carry ou t h is oa th an d i ns tru ct io ns inacco rd an ce with the law. Feld

man v. Stat e , 71 S.W .3d73 8, 7 44 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 02 ). Bia s is est ab li sh edas am at te r of law wh ena pr os pe ct iv e juro r adm it s h e is bi as edforor ag ai ns t the de fen da nt . And er so n , 63 3 S .W .2dat 8 54 . W he n apro sp ect iv e juro r is sh own to be bi as edas am at te r of law, h e m

us t b e ex cu se d wh ench al le ng ed , eve n if h e st at es he cansetasi de hi s b ia s an d p ro vi de a fai r tr ia l. Ander so n , 63 3 S .W .2d at85 4. Whenbi as is no t es tabl is he d a s a m at te r of law, the tri al co urt the n h as di sc ret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er b ia s ac tu al ly exi st s t o ade gr ee tha t the juro r is State’s B rief Pag e 11di squa li fie d a ndsh ou ldbe ex cu se d fr om jury se rv ic e. Id . at 8 53 -5 4. Itis lef t t o th e d is cret io n o f th e tr ia l co urt, h owe ve r, to in it ia ll y de te rm in e whe th er s uc h abi as ex is ts an d the tri al co urt’s d eci si on wil l b e rev ie wedinli gh t o f al l o f th e an swe rs gi ve n. Id . Unl es s b ia s o r pr ejud ic e is est ab li sh edas am at te r of law, the ap pe ll at e co urt ca nn otov erturn the tri al co urt’s ru li ng . Li tt le v. Stat e , 75 8 S .W .2d55 1, 5 56 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 88 ). The Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h as he ldth aton ce a juro r ex pr es sl y adm it s hi s b ia s ag ai ns t a p ha se of l aw up on whi chbo th th e St at e an d d efen se are en ti tl ed to rel y , a su ffi ci en t fo un da ti on ha s b eenlai d t o s up po rt ach al le ng e fo r cau se . Se e W il li ams v. Stat e , 77 3 S .W .2d52 5, 5 36 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 88 ) (h ol di ng th ata juro r is bi as edas am at te r of law i f he un equi vo cal ly exp res se s an in ab il ity to co ns id er fi ve y ears pro ba ti on as p os si bl e p un is hm en t fo r th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of m

ur de r in a cap it al -m

ur de r tr ia l); se e a ls o J

orda n v . Stat e , 63 5 S .W .2d 52 2, 5 23 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 82 ) (rev ers ib le erro r to de ny a defe nd an t’s ch al le ng e fo r cau se ag ai ns t a juro r who co ul d n otco ns id er p ro ba ti on for th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of m

ur de r in a cap it al m

ur de r cas e). The refo re, a jur or who st at es th athe can no t co ns id er the min im um pu ni sh m en t fo r a p art ic ul ar s ta tu to ry off en se is subjec t t o ach al le ng e fo r cau se . Cu mbo , 76 0 S .W .2dat 2 55 –5 6; Pier ce v. Sta te , 69 6 S .W .2d89 9, 9 02 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 85 ) (d efen da ntha s the rig htto ch al le ng e State’s B rief Pag e 12fo r cau se an y juro r who co ul d n otgi ve th e m in im um pu ni sh m en t, i nc lu di ng pr ob at io n) . Neverth el es s, the Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h as als o e xp li ci tl y st at ed th aton ce a juro r st at es he can no t co ns id er the m in im um pu ni sh m en t fo r a pa rti cu lar of

fen se , th e “ op po si ng pa rty or tria l ju dg e m ay th enex am in e th e juro r furth er t o e ns ur e th athe ful ly und ers tand s an d app reci at es th e p os it io n t ha t h e is ta ki ng .” Ca rd

en as v. Stat e , 32 5 S .W .3d17 9, 1 85 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 10 ); se e a ls o Moo re , 99 9 S .W .2dat 4 00 (“ Whe n t he reco rdrefl ect s tha t a v en ire m anva ci ll at es orequi vo cat es onhi s ab il ity to fol lo w th e law, th e rev ie win g c ou rt m us t d eferto th e tr ia l co urt.”) . Unle ss th ere i s fu rth er cl ari fic at io n o r va ci ll at io n b y th e juro r, th e tr ia l ju dg e m

us t g ran t a c ha ll en ge forcau se if the juro r st at es th athe can no t co ns id er the ful l rang e o f pu ni sh m en t. Ca rden as , 32 5 S .W .3dat 1 85 . Inth e p res en t ca se , th e p an el m em be rs li st edinis su es 27 th ro ug h 4 4 a ll st at edth atth ey

co ul d n otco ns id er p ro ba ti on inth e p res en t ca se . (R.R. Vol . 2, p p. 45 -4 6) . There aft er, the se pane l m em be rs were as ke d a dd it io na l que st io ns co nc ern in g the ir abi li ty to fo ll ow the ful l ra ng e o f pu ni sh m en t. (R.R . Vol . 2, p p. 66 -7 0) . All o f th es e p an el m em be rs cla rif

ie d t ha t the y

co ul d c on si de r th e fu ll ran ge of p un is hm en t. Bec au se th ere was furth er cl ari fic at io n t ha t the se pa ne l m em be rs co ul d fo ll ow the law an d c ou ldco ns id er the ful l ra ng e o f pu ni sh m en t, th is Co urt m

us t d eferto th e tr ia l co urt’s d eci si on to de ny the ch al le ng e fo r cau se . State’s B rief Pag e 13Moo re , 99 9 S .W .2dat 4 00 .

App el lantha s n otde m on st rat edth atth e tr ia l co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n al lo win g the subjec t p an el m em be rs to cla rif

y th ei r an swe rs . Furt he r, th is type o f cl ari fic at io n h as be ensp eci fic al ly autho riz edby the Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s. Se e Ca rden as , 32 5 S .W .3dat 1 85 . There fo re, Ap pe ll an t’s i ss ue s 2 7 thr ou gh 44 sh ou ldbe ov erru le d.

St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rr or

45an d 4 6 Inhi s fo rty-fift h a ndforty-si xt h p oi nt s o f erro r, App el lantarg ue s tha t the tri al co urt erredinno t g ran ti ng a m is tri al du rin g t he Sta te ’s clo si ng arg um en t. The St at e res po nd s b y

ass ert in g tha t the tri al co urt d idno t err in de nyin g Ap pe ll an t’s reque stfora m is tri al . Thi s C ou rt m

us t re vi ew th e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f a d efen da nt ’s m ot io ns for m is tri al foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. La dd v. Stat e , 3 S.W.3d54 7, 5 67 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 99 ); W

oo da ll v. Stat e , 77 S.W .3d38 8, 3 99 (Tex . App .--Fo rt Wort h 2 00 2, pe t. re f’d). A tri al co urt m ay de cl are amis tri al when anerro r oc cu rs th atis so pr ejud ic ia l tha t the expe nd itur e o f fu rth er t im e an d e xp en se wou ldbe wast efu l. W oo d v . Stat e , 18 S.W .3d64 2, 6 48 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 00 ). Whe th er a tria l co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g am ot io n fo r m is tri al de pe nd s o n wh ethe r th e State’s B rief Pag e 14co urt’s i ns tru ct io n c ur edan y pre jud ic ia l ef

fect . Din ki ns v. Stat e , 89 4 S .W .2d33 0, 35 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 95 ); Fau lk ne r v. Sta te , 94 0 S .W .2d30 8, 3 12 (Tex . App .- -Fo rt Wort h 1 99 7, p et . ref’d). Gen eral ly, al m os t an y im pr op er ar gu m en t m ay

be cu redby an in st ru ct io n t o d is reg ard . Fau lk ne r v. Sta te , 94 0 S .W .2d30 8, 3 12 (Tex . App .--Fo rt Wort h 1 99 7, p et . ref’d) ( ci ti ng Din ki ns , 89 4 S .W .2dat 3 57 ); se e a ls o W oo da ll , 77 S.W .3dat 3 99 . Howev er, a co m m en t m ay be so eg reg io us or in fla m m at ory as t o re nd er the in st ru ct io n i ne ffec ti ve incurin g the pre jud ic e. Din ki ns , 89 4 S .W .2dat 3 57 ; W oo da ll , 77 S.W .3dat 3 99 . In it ia ll y , th is Co urt m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the pro se cu to r’s co m m en t du rin g c lo si ng arg um en t was im pr op er. The refo re, the qu es ti onrai se d b y th es e po in ts of e rro r is whet he r th e St at e’s arg um en t fa ll s i n t he cat eg ory of a sk in g t he jury to b e th e v oi ce o f th e co m m un ity -a p ro pe r pl ea fo r la w enf or cem en t-o r of as ki ng th e jury to l en d i ts ear t o t he co m m un ity -anim

pr op er ar gu m en t d ire ct edat th e ex pe ct at io ns of t he co m m un ity . Se e Co rt ez

v. Stat e , 68 3 S .W .2d41 9, 4 21 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 84 ). Argu m en ts di rect edat wh atth e co m m un ity want s, ex pe ct s, i s as ki ng for , or d es ire s ar e im pr op er ex pe ct at io ns of the co m m un ity arg um en ts . Rod

ri gu ezv. Stat e , 64 9 S .W .2d32 9, 3 30 (Tex . App .--Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 83 , no pe t.). Arg um en ts ask in g t ha t the jury se nda m es sa ge to th e co m m un ity are p ro pe r pl eas forlaw en fo rcem en t. Id . State’s B rief Pag e 15Here, the arg um en ts ab ou t wh ic h Ap pe ll an t co m pl ai ns cle arl y

ask edth e jury to “ se nda m es sa ge ” th at“ we are n otgo in g t o t ol erat e th is ...” (R.R. Vol . 5, p p. 10 0- 10 1) . Theref

or e, th es e arg um en ts are p ro pe r pl eas forlaw en fo rcem en t. Se e Sp au ldin g v . Stat e , 65 6 S .W .2d53 8, 5 41 (Tex . App .--Co rp us Chris ti 19 83 , pet . ref’d, u nt im el y

fil ed ) (co urt h el d t ha t the Sta te ’s arg um en t, “ th e g oo d p eo pl e o f Ja ck so n C ou nt y

are n otgo in g t o t ol erat e th is ki ndof c on du ct ,” was a pr op er p le a fo r la w enf

or cem en t). Nev erthe le ss , th e tr ia l co urt s us ta in edApp el lant ’s ob jecti on to th is arg um en t an d the n m ad e a p ro m ptin st ru ct io n t o d is reg ardth e co m m en t. Un de r si mil ar ci rcu m st an ces , Texa s co urts ha ve he ldth ata pr om ptin stru ct io n t o di sr eg ardcures any

res ul ti ng ha rm . Se e W

ilker so n v . Stat e , 51 0 S .W .2d58 9, 59 1– 92 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 74 ). App el lantdo es no t ci te an y cas es inwhi ch si mil ar co m

m en ts inclo si ng arg um en t wer e h el d t o b e in cu rab le by a pro m ptjury in st ru ct io n. Fro m th is reco rd , th is can no t co nc lu de th atth e p ro se cu to r’s st at em en t was so eg reg io us or i nf

la m m at ory th atitwas n otcuredby the tri al co urt’s i ns tru ct io n to di sr eg ard . Se e W

il li ams v. Stat e , 41 7 S .W .3d16 2, 1 72 -7 3 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1 stDis t.] 20 13 , pet . ref’d). Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt s ho ul d fi ndth atApp el lant ha s n otde m on st rat edth atth e tr ia l co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n a ndov erru le State’s B rief Pag e 16App el lant ’s forty-fifth a ndforty-si xt h i ss ue s.

St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rr or

47 an d 4 8 Inhi s fo rty-sev en than d fo rty-eig ht h p oi nt s o f erro r, App el lantco m pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt erredinno t g ran ti ng a m is tri al rel at in g t o aco m m en t o n the App el lant ’s po st -arr es t s il en ce. The Sta te res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the tri al co urt di d n oterr i n d en y in g the reque stform is tri al . A comm en t o n ade fen da nt ’s po st -arr es t s il en ce v io la te s the rig ht s o f th e accu se d u nd er the Fif

th Am en dm en t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n a ndart ic le I, se ct io n 1 0 o f th e Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on . Se e Doy le v. Ohi o , 42 6 U.S. 6 10 , 61 8 (1 97 6) ; Din ki ns v. Stat e , 89 4 S .W .2d33 0, 3 56 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 95 ); Sa nc he z v. St at e , 70 7 S .W .2d57 5, 5 82 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 ). Und er the U.S. Con st itut io n, th e St at e can no t u se th e p os t-a rres t s il en ce o f anaccu se d, af te r as su ran ces su chas Mir an da warn in gs , to im pe ach anex pl an at io n s ub se qu en tl y off eredat t ria l. Se e Doy le , 42 6 U.S. at61 8. Th e Tex as Co urt o f Cri min al App eal s h as de te rm in ed th at , inad di ti on to th e Doy le pro hi bi ti on , po st -arr es t, p re-Miran da si le nc e al so m ay no t b e u se d a ga in stanaccu se d a t tria l. Se e S an ch ez , 70 7 S .W .2dat 5 82 . Dur in g the Sta te ’s cro ss -ex am in at io n o f App el lant , th e fo ll owi ng ex ch an ge oc cu rred : State’s B rief Pag e 17Q. So, an d ju stto be cle ar tha t wh eny ouan d your la wy er turne d you

ov er t o the po li ce atth e b rid ge , y oune ve r ga ve a st at em en t? MR. STAPLETON: I’ll ob ject, Yo ur

Hon or . That ’s -- we’ve pr ev io us ly dis cu ss edth at . It's a vi ol at io n o f 38 .22 , th e ri gh t n otto te st ify. It's c om

pl et el y im pr op er. MR. GUZMAN: I di dn 't m ak e an y co m m en t o n t he factth athe is th e reas on why he di d g iv e a s ta te m en t o r no t. I s ai d d idhe gi ve on e o r no t. THE COURT: I am

su st ai ni ng th e o bjec ti on . MR. STAPLETON: An d I a skth atth e jury be i ns tru ct edto di sr eg ard . THE COURT: Ju ry

is in st ru ct edto di sr eg ard . MR. STAPLETON: An d I m ov e fo r a m is tri al . THE COURT: It 's d en ie d. (R .R. Vol . 5, p p. 1 2- 13 ). At thi s t im e, App el lant ’s cou ns el ob jecte d a ndth e tr ia l co urt s us ta in edhi s ob jecti on . The co urt the n i ns tru ct edth e jury to d is reg ardth e que st io n b y th e pr os ecu to r. App el lant ’s reque stfora mis tri al was d en ie d b y th e co urt. The pr os ecu to r di d n otag ai n c omm en t o n Ap pe ll an t’s p os t-a rres t s il en ce dur in g cro ss -ex am in at io n o r cl os in g a rg um en t. The Sta te co nc ed es th atth e rec or d c le arl y sh ows th atth e St at e im

pr op erl y co m m en te d o n Ap pe ll an t’s p os t-a rres t s il en ce i n v io la ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s an d Tex as Co ns ti tu ti on s. Th is Co urt m us t n ow co ns id er wh ethe r th e tr ia l co urt’s

State’s B rief Pag e 18in st ru ct io n c ur edth e p reju di ce.

Po te nt ia l p reju di ce re su lt in g fr om a qu es ti on co nc ern in g p os t-a rres t s il en ce canbe curedby an in st ru ct io n t o d is reg ard . Se e W aldo v. Stat e , 74 6 S .W .2d75 0, 75 4 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 88 ). An i ns tru ct io n t o d is reg ardwil l b e p res um ed effe ct iv e unl es s the fact s o f th e cas e su gg es t the im po ss ib il ity

of r em ov in g t he im pr es si on pro du cedon th e m in ds of t he jury. Id .; se e a ls o Vet et o v . Stat e , 8 S.W .3d80 5, 8 11 (Tex . App .--Waco 2 00 0, p et . ref’d). The effe ct iv en es s o f a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n i s d et erm in edon a cas e-b y -cas e b as is . Se e Vet et o , 8 S.W.3dat 81 1. Al th ou gh no t s pe ci fic al ly ado pt edas d efi ni ti ve or e xh au st iv e, th e co urts ha ve lo ok edto sev eral fact or s t o d et erm in e whe th er an in stru ct io n t o d is reg ardcured th e p reju di ci al effe ct . Se e W aldo , 74 6 S .W .2dat 7 54 ; se e a ls o Vet eto , 8 S.W.3dat 81 1; Flet ch er

v. Stat e , 85 2 S .W .2d27 1, 2 75 (Tex . App .--Dal la s 1 99 3, p et . ref’d). The y are as fol lo ws: 1) t he na tu re o f th e err or ; 2 ) th e p ers is te nc e o f th e p ro se cu ti on in co m m it ti ng th e err or ; 3 ) th e fl ag ran cy of t he vi ol at io n; 4) t he pa rti cu lar in st ru ct io n g iv en ; 5 ) th e wei gh t o f th e in cri m in at in g e vi de nc e; an d 6 ) th e h arm to th e acc us edas m eas ur edby the sev eri ty of se nt en ce. W aldo , 74 6 S .W .2dat 7 54 . Na tu re of th e Err or Altho ug h the na ture o f th e err oris no t s uc h t ha t anin st ru ct io n c anne ve r cu re i t, the Sta te co nc ed es th ata qu es ti on in fri ng in g o n Ap pe ll an t’s State’s B rief Pag e 19co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edrig ht s i s s eri ou s i n n atur e. Se e Vet et o , 8 S.W.3dat 8 11 .

Pers is te nc e a nd

Flagr an cy Unl ik e th e rep eat edim

pr op er co m

m en ts in Vete to an d Men do za , th e St at e di d n otrep eatit s i m

pr op er que st io n c on cern in g Ap pe ll an t’s p os t-a rres t s il en ce. Vete to , 8 S.W.3dat 8 11 ; Men do za v. Stat e , 95 9 S .W .2d32 1, 3 24 –2 5 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 19 97 , pet . ref’d). The Sta te di d n otbro ach th is subjec t ag ai n dur in g cro ss -ex am in at io n, n or

di d the Sta te co m

m en t o n Ap pe ll an t’s p os t-a rres t s il en ce du rin g the rem ai nd er o f th e tr ia l. Th eref or e, th is Co urt s ho ul d n otfin d a ny pe rs is te nc e o r fl ag ran cy

by the Sta te inth e p res en t ca se . Par ti cu la r In stru ct io n Gi ven The tri al co urt i ns tru ct edth e juro rs as f ol lo ws: “ Ju ry

is in st ru ct edto di sr eg ard .” The c ourts ha ve fou ndsi m il ar i ns tru ct io ns ad equa te to cure the erro r. Se e W aldo , 74 6 S .W .2dat 7 55 –5 6 (“ Ju ry is in st ru ct edto di sr eg ardth e la st co m m en t o f th e wit ne ss .”); Men do za , 95 9 S .W .2dat 3 24 (“ I ag ai n i ns tru ctth e jury th atth ey wil l n otco ns id er the las t s ta te m en t m ad e b y th e St at e's att orne y

for an y pu rp os e wha ts oe ve r.”); Fletch er , 85 2 S .W .2dat 2 75 (“ It i s g oi ng to be ass um edby th e co urt tha t the jury is go in g t o fo ll ow the co urt's in stru ct io ns , no t t o c on si de r th at , andth atli ne of que st io ns .”). Ther efo re, thi s C ou rt s ho ul d fi ndth e tr ia l co urt’s i ns tru ct io n a de qu at e und er the cir cu m st an ces . State’s B rief Pag e 20W

ei gh t o f the Eviden ce The ev id en ce i s u nc on tra di ct edth atApp el lantsh otth e v ic ti m , and App el lantjud ic ia ll y

co nf es se d t o t he co m

mis si on of the off

en se . The que st io n a t tri al was s ol el y

on e o f pu ni sh m en t. As s uc h, the to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g tha t the qu es ti on on App el lant ’s po st -arr es t s il en ce was no t o f a m at eri al ch arac te r cal cu late d t o i nf lu en ce o r affe ctth e jury adv ers el y to App el lant . Se e W aldo , 74 6 S .W .2dat 7 56 . Se ver it y o f Pu nish men t Afte r be in g fo un d g ui lty

of a gg rav at edass au ltwith a n a ffi rm at iv e fi nd in g o f a d ead ly w eap on , th e jury sen te nc edApp el lantto fif ty (50 ) y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t. The ran ge of p un is hm en t af te r affi rm at iv el y

an swe rin g t he sp eci al is su e was fiv e (5 ) to ni ne ty-ni ne (99 ) y ears ’, or l ife , im pr is on m en t. Co ns id eri ng th e n atur e o f th e of fen se of f irs t-d eg ree a gg rav at edass au ltwith t he us e o f a fi rearm , th is Co urt sh ou ldco nc lu de th atth e im pr op er que st io n d idno t i nc reas e th e se ve rit y of t he se nt en ce. Se e Vet et o , 8 S.W.3dat 8 12 . Su mmar y o f Fa ct or s The im pr op er que st io n o n Ap pe ll an t’s p os t-a rres t s il en ce i s s eri ou s i n na tu re, b utno t s uc h tha t an in st ru ct io n c an no t cu re i t. Id . at 8 11 . Becau se th e St at e d idno t re pe atit s que st io n, the in st ru ct io n was ad equa te , andth ere i s n o State’s B rief Pag e 21in di cat io n tha t the jury’ s v erd ic t o r se nt en ce was in flu en cedby the im pr op er qu es ti on , th is Co urt m

us t fi ndth atth e in st ru ct io n c ur edth e p reju di ci al effe ct . Se e Jo hn so n v . Stat e , 83 S.W .3d22 9, 2 32 -3 3 (Te x. Ap p.-- W aco 20 02 , pet . ref’d). Acco rd in gl y , th e tr ia l co urt d idno t err by ov erru li ng th e m ot io n fo r m is tri al . Po in ts forty-sev enan d fo rty-eig htsh ou ldbe ov erru le d.

St at e’s res po ns e to po in ts of e rr or

49 an d 5 0 Inhi s fo rty-ni nth andfif

ti eth p oi nt s o f erro r, App el lantco m pl ai ns th atth e tri al co urt erredinall owi ng th e v ic ti m ’s fathe r to tes ti fy to cert ai n m at te rs th at am ount edto vi ct im

im pa ctst at em en ts . The St at e res po nd s b y ass ert in g t ha t the tri al co urt d idno t err in all owi ng th e v ic ti m ’s fathe r to tes ti fy co nc ern in g t he fo res eeab le effe ct s o f App el lant ’s cri m e o n t he vi ct im ’s imm ed ia te fam il y . Sp eci fic al ly, App el lantco m pl ai ns of t he tes ti m on y

of t he vi ct im ’s fathe r on di rectex am in at io n, wh ere h e d es cri be d t he em ot io na l ef fect s tha t thi s o ffen se ha d on th e v ic ti m ’s imm ed ia te fam il y . App el lant ’s tri al co un se l o bjec te d t o thi s te st im on y as b ei ng irr el ev an t; ho wev er, the tri al co urt o ve rru le d s ai d o bjec ti on . (R.R. Vo l. 3 , pp . 20 -2 1) . App el lantno w com pl ai ns th atth is ev id en ce was irr el ev an t an d a m ou nt edto im pr op er v ic ti m

im pa ctst at em en ts . Inno n- cap it al fel on y

cas es , th e St at e m ay

pre se ntev id en ce “ as to an y m at te r State’s B rief Pag e 22th atth e co urt d eem s re le va ntto sen te nc in g.” Se e Tex. Co de Cri m . Pro c. art . 37 .07

§ 3 (a). Where su chev id en ce co ns ti tu te s v ic ti m im pa cttes ti m on y , th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h as he ldth atrel ev an cy de pe nd s upo n wh ethe r th e te st im on y ha s

“ so m e b eari ng onth e d efen da nt ’s per so na l re sp on si bi li ty andm or al gu il t.” St av in oh a v . Stat e , 80 8 S .W .2d76 , 79 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 91 ). Sta te d d iff eren tl y , th e rel ev an ce o f vi ct im

im pa cttes ti m on y

ina no n- cap it al fel on y

cas e requi res th at su chtes ti m on y

ha ve a “ cl os e, di rectli nkto th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e.” Bro ok s v. St at e , 96 1 S .W .2d39 6, 3 99 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 stDis t.] 19 97 , no writ ). In St av in oh a , th e d efen da nt , a pr ie st , pl edgu il ty to the off en se of a gg rav at ed se xu al ass au ltof ani ne y ear- ol d p ari sh io ne r. Se e Sta vi no ha , 80 8 S .W .2dat 7 7. Dur in g the pu ni sh m en t p ha se , th e tr ia l co urt ad m it te d v ic ti m im pa cttes ti m on y fro m a ps y ch ol og is t d et ai li ng th e m en ta l traum a su ffer edby com pl ai na nt ’s m ot he r as a res ul t o f th e d efen da nt ’s act . Id . On ap pe al , th e Co urt uph el d t hi s t es ti m on y as rel ev an t, re as on in g tha t, b ecau se th e d efen da ntha d c ul ti va te d t he tru stof co m pl ai na nt ’s m ot he r an d u nd ers to odhe r vu ln erab il it ie s as a si ng le pa ren t, h e co ul d e as il y

ha ve an ti ci pa te d the im

pa cthi s b etrayal of

tru stwou ldha ve on he r. Id . at 7 9. Subs eque nt ly, th e Fi rs t Co urt o f App eal s re ach eda si m il ar re su ltin Bro ok s v. St at e , als o ano n- cap it al fel on y tri al . Se e Bro ok

s , 96 1 S .W .2dat 4 01 . In State’s B rief Pag e 23Bro ok

s , a jury fo un d the de fen dantgu il ty of m ur de rin g Wil li am

W oo te n, b ro th er of Bren daW il li am s. Durin g the pu ni sh m en t p ha se , W il li am s t es ti fie d t ha t as a res ul t o f he r br ot he r’s de ath, s he ha d b eensu ffer in g fr om stres s an d t ha t a ph y si ci andi ag no se d h er as be in g o n t he ve rg e o f a n erv ou s b reak do wn. Id . at 3 97 . On ap pe al , th e Bro ok

s co urt uph el d t he im

pa cttes ti m on y

of t he de ced en t’s s is te r as rel ev an t t o s en te nc in g. Id . at 4 01 ; se e a ls o Peo pl es v. Stat e , 87 4 S .W .2d80 4, 80 7 (Te x. Ap p.-- Fo rt Wort h 1 99 4, n o p et .) (fi nd in g t ha t i m pa cttes ti m on y

rel at in g a m othe r’s an gu is h a s h er s on di edinhe r arm s b or e o n the de fen da nt 's p ers on al res po ns ib il ity

an d m or al gu il t b ecau se he sh ou ldha ve an ti ci pa te d t hi s) . App lying th is to th e p res en t ca se , th is Co urt s ho ul d fi ndth atth e tr ia l co urt’s adm is si on of v ic ti m

im pa cttes ti m on y

fro m th e v ic ti m ’s fathe r was a lo gi cal ex te ns io n o f Stav in oh a . Here, App el lantco ul d e as il y ha ve an ti ci pa te d t he ps y ch ol og ic al im

pa ctof h is cri m e o n m em be rs of t he vi ct im ’s ext en de d fa m il y . Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt s ho ul d fi ndth atth e eff ectof Ap pe ll an t’s cr im e o n t he vi ct im ’s imm ed iate fam il y , as t es ti fie d t o b y th e v ic ti m ’s fathe r, was f or es eeab le to App el lantan d thu s re le va nt . Se e a ls o Mo re no v. Stat e , 38 S.W .3d77 4, 7 77 -7 8 (Tex . App .--Ho us to n [1 4th Di st .] 20 01 , no pe t.). Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt s ho ul d ov erru le App el lant ’s forty-ni nt h a ndfif ti eth p oi nt s o f erro r.

State’s B rief Pag e 24St

at e’s res po ns e to po in t o

f erro r 5 1 Inhi s fi fty-firs t an d fi na l i ss ue , App el lantco m pl ai ns th atth e tr ia l co urt erre d a ll owi ng th e adm is si on of h ears ay ev id en ce b efo re the jury. The St at e res po nd s b y

ass ert in g tha t the tri al co urt d idno t err in adm it ti ng sai d h ears ay , and furth er, Ap pe ll an t h as fai le d t o p res erv e th is is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. App el lantsp eci fic al ly com pl ai ns of t he adm is si on of t he tes ti m on y of Offi cer Jul ian R am ire z co nc ern in g s ta te m en ts m ad e b y th e App el lant ’s m ot he r. The se st at em en ts ou tl in edth e fac t tha t Ap pe ll an t’s m ot he r vi si te d Ap pe ll an t wh il e in Mex ic o a ndass is te d h im with m on ey , aft er the co m m is si on of t he off

en se , bu t be fo re h is su rren de r. App el lantall eg es th atth e ab ov e st at em en ts were ad mitte d i n v io lati onof Ru le 80 3( 24 ) of

th e Tex as Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. Sp eci fic al ly, App el lantass ert s tha t th e st at em en ts were n otco rro bo rat edas r equi redby the Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. Gen eral ly spe ak in g, the he ars ay rul e ex cl ud es an y

ou t-o f-co urt s ta te m en t of fere d t o p ro ve th e trut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d. W al te r v. Sta te , 26 7 S .W .3d88 3, 88 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 08 ). Ru le 80 3( 24 ), ho wev er, p ro vi de s an ex cep ti on for st at em en ts ag ai ns t i nt eres t. Id . at 8 90 . The rat io na le be hi ndth is ex cep ti on is th at pe op le ord in ari ly do n otm ak e d am ag in g s tate m en ts ab ou t the m se lv es un le ss th ey be li ev e th atth e st at em en ts are tru e. Id . The ru le set s o uta two -s te p p ro to co l fo r State’s B rief Pag e 25th e d et erm in at io n o f adm is si bi li ty. Id . Firs t, the tri al co urt m us t d et erm in e whe th er the st at em en t, co ns id eri ng all th e ci rcu m st an ces , subjec ts th e d ecl aran t t o cri m in al li ab il ity

an d wh ethe r th e d ecl aran t re al iz edth is when he m ad e th e st at em en t. Id . at 8 90 –9 1. Se co nd , th e co urt m us t d et erm in e whe th er the re ar e su ffi ci en t co rro bo rat in g c irc um st an ces th atcle arl y supp ort the tru stworth in es s o f th e st at em en t. Dewb erryv. Stat e , 4 S.W.3d73 5, 7 51 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 99 ). A tri al co urt s ho ul d c on si de r a num be r of fact or s: (1) whet he r th e g ui ltof t he de cl aran t i s i nc on si st en t wi thth e g ui ltof t he de fen da nt ; (2 ) whe th er the de cl aran t was so si tu at edth athe mig htha ve co m m it te d t he cri m e; (3) th e ti m in g o f th e de cl arat io n; (4) th e sp on tane ity of t he de cl arat io n; (5) th e rel at io ns hi p b etweenth e de cl aran t an d the pa rty to wh om th e st at em en t i s m ad e; an d (6 ) th e ex is te nc e o f in de pe nd en t co rro bo rat iv e fac ts . Id . St at em en ts th atare d ire ct ly agai ns t the de cl aran t’s i nt eres t an d c ol la te ral

“bl am e-s harin g” st at em en ts m ay be adm is si bl e und er Ru le 80 3( 24 ) if co rro bo rat in g c irc um st an ces cle arl y in di cat e th ei r tr

us two rth in es s. W

al te r , 26 7 S.W .3dat 8 96 . Howev er, “bl am e-s hi fti ng ” st at em en ts th atm in im iz e th e sp eak er’s cu lp ab il ity

are n otadm is si bl e, ab se ntex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces . Id . Thu s, the tri al jud ge is ob li ga te d t o p ars e a g en eral ly self -in cu lp at ory

na rrat iv e an d wee d o ut th os e sp eci fic factua l s ta te m en ts th atare s el f-ex cu lp at ory or t ha t s hi ft b la m e to State’s B rief Pag e 26an ot he r. Id . at 8 97 . The tria l co urt’s ru li ng onth e adm is si bi li ty of a h ears ay

st at em en t p ur su an t t o a n e xc ep ti on is rev ie wedun de r anab us e o f di sc ret io n st an da rd . Zu li an i v. Sta te , 97 S.W .3d58 9, 5 95 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 03 ). The st at em en ts at i ss ue inth e p res en t ca se were s ta te m en ts m ad e b y App el lant ’s m ot he r th atwere s el f-i nc ul pa to ry or “bl am e-s ha rin g” , inth atsh e adm it te d t o h av in g a ss is te d Ap pe ll an t ev ad e ap pr eh en si on by the po li ce. The st at em en ts were co rro bo rat edby App el lant ’s tes ti m on y , who tes ti fie d tha t h is m ot he r di d v is ithi m

whi le he was h id in g o utinMat am or os , Mex ic o, an d t ha t s he di d a ss is t h im

with m on ey . (R.R. Vol . 5, p . 24 ). Ther efo re, the tri al co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th is ev id en ce. Mo reo ve r, anerro r in adm is si on of e vi de nc e is curedwher e subs tant ia ll y th e sa m e ev id en ce co m es inels ewh ere wi th ou t o bjec ti on . Se e Hud so n v . Stat e , 67 5 S.W .2d50 7, 5 11 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 84 ). Ass um in g, ar gu en do , th atth e co m pl ai ne d- of

ev id en ce was in adm is si bl e, App el lantdi d n otpre se rv e err or be cau se th e sa m e o r subs tant ia ll y th e sa m e ev id en ce was adm it te d wi th ou t ob jecti onth ro ug h t es ti m on y fro m App el lanthi m se lf. Id . There fo re, thi s C ou rt sh ou ldov erru le App el lant ’s fift y -fi rs t i ss ue .

State’s B rief Pag e 27PRAYER

WH EREFORE , PREMISE S CONSI DERED , th e St at e o f Tex as pra y s th atth is Co urt wi ll ov erru le App el lant ’s is su es on ap pe al , andaffi rm bo th th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti onan d the sen te nc e h erei n.

State’s B rief Pag e 28Res pe ct fu ll y Subm it te d, LUI S V. SAENZ Camero n Cou ntyDis tri ct Atto rney 96 4 Eas t Harris on Str eet , 4th F lo or Bro wns vi ll e, Tex as 78 52 0 Ph on e: (95 6) 54 4- 08 49 Fax : (9 56 ) 54 4- 08 69 By : /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z René B. G on zá le z Ass is tantDis tri ctAtt orne y St at e BarNo. 0 81 31 38 0 rg on zal ez1 @c o.c am ero n.t x.u s Atto rney s fo r the Sta te o f Tex as

CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE I certi fy th atth is do cu m en t co nt ai ns 6,1 31 word s (e xc lu di ng th e co ve r, tabl e of co nt en ts an d t ab le of aut ho rit ie s) . The b ody tex t i s i n 1 4 p oi ntfon t, an d t he fo ot no te tex t i s i n 1 2 p oi ntfon t. /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

State’s B rief Pag e 29CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

I certi fy th ata co py of th e fo reg oi ng Sta te ’s app el la te Bri ef was serve d upo n Mr. Edm un d K. Cygan ie wicz , Att orne y at Law, 1 00 0 Eas t M ad is on Str eet , Bro wns vi ll e, Tex as 78 52 0, ed cy ga ni ewic z@ rg v.t wcb c.co m on th e 1 8t h d ay

of Sep te m be r, 20 15 . /s/ Ren é B. Gon zá le z Ren é B. Gon zál ez

State’s B rief Pag e 30