1 ... T h e H o n o ra b le P a t P rie st, sit ting b y a ssig n m e n t.

i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 05 6- CR Wil liam H. WA LLS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 290th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-11287 Honora ble Pat Priest, J udg e Presiding 1 Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 30, 2009 AFF I RMED A jury found W illiam H. W alls g uilty of agg ravated assault with a deadly wea pon, and the tr ia l c ou rt se nte nc e d h im t o f ive y e ars c on fi ne me nt. Wal ls a pp e a ls, c la imi ng(1 ) t

he e vid e nc e is leg ally and fa ctually insufficient to support hi s conviction, and (2) the trial cour t erre d in admitting
cer tain evidenc e. We af

firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.04

- 09

- 00 05 6- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND The Cammac k family owned 250 acr es in B exar County , Texas. The family g rewcrops a

nd kept cattle. J ames B enjamin Cammack ( “B en”) testified that on May 24, 2007, he and a f

riend we re at the Cammac k home when the y lear ned some c attle owned by the Cammacks ha d g otten out. Be n g rabbe d a shotg un, and he a nd his friend we nt to check the fenc es alongthe prope rty line. When they

rea ched a

portion of the fe nce line at the back of t h e C ammack pr operty , Be n testified that just across the fenc e li ne he saw a blue m ini-van, a c amouflag ed dee r blind with two piles of cor

n scatter ed ar ound it, W alls, and t wo other men. The proper ty on the other side of

the fenc e belong ed to Ken G orman. The men had a chain attache d to the back le g of a c ow and we re,
acc ording to Be n, attempting to pull the cow awa y from the fenc e using the mini-van. When Be n asked the men what they wer e doing, Walls conte nded the men, who claimed to ha ve bee n h og hunti ngon Go rm an’ s pro pe rt y wi th his pe rm iss ion , fou nd the c owand

he r c a lf de a d a nd we re jus t tr y ingto d o th e Camma c ks a fa vo r b y ha uli ngthe m of

f. B e n te st ifie d th e c ow s b e lon g e d to his fa mil y , a nd tha t th e y ha d be e n sho t, the c ow ’s ud de r a nd ne c k w e re sli t, a

nd the c a lf ha d it s n e c k s lit and wa s partially

g utted. Be n testified the men looked ne rvous, but there was no hostility
. B e n c a lle d h is fathe r, Pr e nti ss C a mma c k, wh o s a id h e wa s g oin g to c a ll the po lic e . B e n s a id he told the men to stay

put while he and his fr iend went to find Gorman. W hen they found Gorma

n
and tol d him a

bo ut the de a d c a ttl e , G or

man s a id h e ha d a

uth or ize d Wa lls and

the oth e r t

wo me n “ to shoot for targ et pra ctice” on his property . Gorman f ollowed B en back t o wher e the men w ere waiting
. About that time, Pren t i ss and another neig hbor ar

rived. Prentiss informed Walls and the other two men that he had called the sheriff and they could not le ave. Prentiss told B en to put the04

- 09

- 00 05 6- CR

- 3- re st o f t he c a ttl e in t

he fr on t pa sture . Wh e n B e n c a me ba c k f if te e n to tw ent y

min ute s late r, Wal ls was upset. Ac cordingto Be n, Walls had “fig ured out” he and his fr iends wer e not g oing to be
a llo we d to le a ve un til law en fo rc e me nt ar ri ve d. Wal ls wante d to leave , b ut P re nti ss t old him to c a lm down and wa it for the police. At that point W alls beca me ang ry and re trieved a

shotgun f

rom the mini-van. Be n descr ibed Walls as bellige rent a nd hostile. Acco rdi ng to B e n, Wal ls w a s w a ivi ngthe sh otgun aro un d a s if

he we re tr

y ingto f or c e his way out. Be n testified his father was a bout fifteen f

eet in fr o nt of him, and Walls was “talking trash.” Walls was he ard to say “one f lip wi t h o n e round in the cha mber,” and he w as holding the shotgun up a

nd “talking trash.” Be n testified Walls put a round in the chambe r – he sa id he knew this because W al l s pulled back the action on the shotg un and let it loose. Be n said Walls was moving c loser to the m. Be n testified he was conce rned f or himself and his father. He felt Walls had threatened to shoot them. Be n denied e ver holding his shotg un in a threatening manner , and testified his father , who had only

a knife , never

exhibi ted the knife during the conf rontation. Be n believed Walls wa s ang ry beca use Be n still had his shotgun. Prentiss told Ben to unload his weapon, w hich he did, but Walls was still upset. So, at Prentiss’s direction, B en put his shotgun down, but Walls st ill did not put his shotgun down. Eve ntually Prentiss and one of Walls’s fr iends
wer e able to calm him down, an d h e put the shotg un back in the va n. At some point, W alls had called his wife , and whe n she ar rived Wal l s and his friends put their guns in her vehic le and she started to drive awa

y . As she lef

t, a B exar County

deputy arr ived and stopped he r. Af te r c on du c tin g an o n- sit e inv e sti g a tio n, the deput y arr e ste d Wa lls , w ho wa s e ve ntu a lly char g ed with ag g ravated assault.04

- 09

- 00 05 6- CR

- 4- D I S CUS S I ON Legal and Factual I

nsu fficie ncy Th e ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t Wa lls : . . . did intentionally

and knowing ly

THREATEN Pre nti s s Cammack, here inafter ref

err ed to a s complainant, with I MMI NENT BO DI L Y I

NJ UR Y, and [W alls] di d use and exhibi t a deadly wea pon, to wit, a FI REARM, by PI CKI NG UP SAI D DEAD L Y WEAPON AND L OADI NG A ROUN D I

NTO THE CHAMBER OF I T WHI L E WAL KI

NG TOWARD THE COMPL AI NANT. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . §§ 22.01, 22.02 (Ve rnon S upp. 2009). Sections 22.01 and 22.02 of the Texas Penal Code define the offe nse of a g g ravated assault, as a lleg ed in this case, as using or exhib it in g a

d e a d ly w e a p o nw h il e in te n ti o n a ll y

o r kn o w in g ly

thr e a te n in g an o th e r

w it h im mi nent bodily injury
. Id
. The offe nse does not r equire that an offe nder load a round into the chambe r of the
we a po n a s he wa lks tow ard the c omp la ina nt. Ho we ve r, Wal ls a

rgue s th a t be c a

us e the State c ho se to a lle g e the se fa c ts i n th e ind ic tme nt, it w a s r e qu ir e d to pr ov e the m be y ond a reas on able d ou bt. Walls contends that beca use the State fa iled to prove he loaded a round into the chamber of the
wea pon while walking toward Prentiss, the evidenc e is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to support his conviction. I n th e pa st, Te xas c ourt s he ld a lle g a tio ns in an ind ic tme nt that we re no t e sse nti a l to c on sti tut e the offe nse, and w hich could be omitted without af fe ct i n g t h e cha

rg e ag ainst the defe ndant, wer e “surplusag e” a

nd could be disre g arde d. Se e, e .g ., Ea ste p v . S tat e , 9 41 S.W. 2d 13 0, 13 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); W

he tston e v . S

tat e , 786 S.W .2d 361, 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). There was, howe ver,
an e xce pti on to thi s ru le – if the a lle g a tio n in

the ind ic tme nt w a s “ de sc ri pti ve of that w hic h is le g a lly essential to cha

rg e a crime, the State must prove it as alleg ed thoug h needle ssly pleade d.” Id . T his exception to the ge nera l surplusag e rule is often re fer red to a s the “Bu rre ll e xce pti on ” be c a us e it i s04

- 09

- 00 05 6- CR

- 5- attributed to the cour

t’s decision in B u r r e l l

v . S tat e , 526 S.W .2d 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). Gol lih ar v . S tat e , 46 S.W .3d 243, 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). I t is the Bu rre ll exception upon which Walls relies to support his argument. Walls’s reliance on the Bu rre ll exception is mi splace d. I n Gollihar , the cou rt o f c ri minal appea ls overrule d surplusag e l aw , i n cludi ng the Bu rre ll exception. Id. at 256. I nstead, the c ourt
rea ffirme d the fatal varia

nce doc trine. Id. Under

the fatal varia

nce doc trine, a va

rianc e betwe en the wordin g o f an in d ic tm e n t an d th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l is f a ta l o n ly if it is mate r ia l a nd prejudice s th e defe ndant’s substantial rig hts. Id. at 257. “[W] hen fa ced w ith a sufficie ncy of the
e vid e nc e c la im b a se d u

po n a va ri anc e bet ween th e ind ic tme nt a nd the pr oo f, on ly

a ‘m a te ri a l’ varia nce will r ender the evidenc e insuffic ient.” Id. This is because the suffic iency of the e vidence is m e a sure d by a hy

po the tic a lly c or

re c t jur y c ha rg e , an d the hy

po the tic a lly c or

re c t jur y c ha rg e “ wi ll take into consider at i o n t h e fa tal varia nce doc trine and . . . [a]llegations giving rise to immaterial varia nces ma y be disreg ard ed in the hy pothetically

corr ect c harg e.” Id .; se e Ma lik v . S tat e , 953 S.W
. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 9

- 4 0 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ( h o ld in g s u f f ic ie n c y o f e v id e n c e is measure d by hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e). Apply ing the Malik and Go lli ha r principles to this ca se, the que stion is whether the va rianc e betwee n the alleg ation in the indictment, r eg arding the loading of the shell into the wea pon, and the State ’s pr oo f a t tr ia l wa s a “ ma te ri a l” on e that pr e jud ic e d Wal ls’ s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts . In o the r w or ds , did the i ndictment sufficie ntly inform W alls of t he charg e aga inst him so as t o allow him to prepar e a def ense at trial, and would the indictment subje ct him to the risk of being prosec uted later for the
s a m e c r i m e ? See G ollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 258.04

- 09

- 00 05 6- CR

- 6- Th e re is no ind ic a tio n in th e re c or d th a t Wa lls wa s una wa re that th e State wa s atte mpt ingto pr ov e he c omm itt e d th e of fe ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , i. e ., that he int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly threatened Pre ntiss with i mminent bodily injury and used or

exhibi ted a de adly wea

pon. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . §§ 22.01, 22.02. The unne cessa ry alleg ation that Walls did so by walking toward Prentiss while l oading a round into t he we apon did not impair Walls’s ability to prepa re a defe nse. See G ollihar , 46 S.W .3d at 258. Wall’s defe nse wa s that he neve r threa tened Cammac k, but fea

red for his saf

ety and fe lt it necessary t o re t ri eve his shotg un to protect himself be cause Be n held a loaded shotg un on Walls and his friends, and Be n was told by his father

to shoot them if they
a tte mpt e d to le a ve . A c c or din g to Wa lls , h e wa s us ing his we a po n in an a tte mpt to g e t B e n to p ut h is dow n . Wa ll s ’ s d e f

e n s e d id n o t h in g e u

p o n w h e th e r h e lo a d e d a r o u n d in to h is w e a p o n a f te r he retrie ved it. Th e a lle g a tio n th a t Wa lls loa de d a ro un d in to h is we a

po n do e s no t su

bje c t Wa lls to t

he ri sk of retria l f

or the same crime, that is, it does not subje ct him to double jeopar d y . I f W al l s wer e
re ind ic te d fo r a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly we a

po n a s to Pr e nti ss, a re vie w o f t he re c or d w ou ld quickly fore close any possibili ty of a r etrial. See U nited States v. Apodaca , 843 F.2d 421, 430 n.3 (1 0th Cir .) (h old ingtha

t e nti re re c or d, no t ju st i nd ic tme nt m ay be re fe rr e d to in p ro te c tin g a g a ins t double jeopar dy

in event of subse quent prosec ution), cert. de nied , 488 U.S. 932 (1988). Ba sed on the for eg oing, w e hold the var iance betwee n the indictment and the State’s proof at trial wa s not material, and the ref ore must be disre g arde d in a suffic iency of the e vidence revie w under a hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e. See G ollihar , 4 6 S. W. 3 d a t 2 5 8
. B e c a u s e Walls’s insufficienc y

claims are based solely

on the immaterial varia

nce, which must be disreg arde d, issues one and two a

re ove rruled.04

- 09

- 00 05 6- CR

- 7- Adm ission of Evidence Wal ls c la ims in h is thir d is su e that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a dmi tti ng c e rt a in ph oto g ra ph s in to evidenc e bec ause the y

wer e irre levant and were more prejudicial than probative. See T EX . R. E V ID . 401, 403. The picture s to which Walls refer s are the picture s of the dea d cow a nd calf
. As to his Rule 403 complaint, that the pi cture s should not have bee n admitted beca use the probative va lue was outwe ighe d by their prejudicia l effe ct, we hold Walls has waive d this alleg ed
err or. At trial, Walls’s only objection was that the photog raphs we re irr eleva nt. This objection does
no t c ompo rt wi th th e Rul e 40 3 p or tio n o f h is a

pp e llate c omp la int . A n a pp e llate c omp la int

mus t
corr espond to the objec tion made at trial. Di x on v . S tat e , 2 S.W .3d 263, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) Br ox ton v . S

tat e , 909 S.W .2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en ba nc). A n objection statingone leg al theory

may not be used to support a diff ere nt leg al theory

on appea l. Be ll v . S

tat e , 938 S.W .2d 35, 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. de nied , 5 22 U. S. 8 27 (1 99 7) ; Broxton , 909 S.W .2d at 918. Wit h reg ard to re levanc y , Walls ar g ues the photogr aphs wer e not r eleva nt to pr oving a

ny fac t at issue; rathe r, their ad m i s s i o n serve d only to “improperly

inflame the minds of juror s.” Admissibil ity

of a photogra

ph is within the t rial court’s discretion. Ga llo v . S tat e , 239 S.W .3d 757, 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), cert. de nied , 128 S.Ct . 2872 (2009). During his testimony , Be n g raphic ally descr ibed the injuries suff ere d by the cow a nd the ca lf. He state d both animals had bee n shot and their throats slit . Be n testified t he cow ’s udder had bee n sli t, a nd the c a lf ha d b e e n p art ia lly

g utt e d. Pr e nti ss s ub se qu e ntl y te sti fi e d, de sc ri bin g the same injuries to the cow a

nd calf . Walls di d not object to any of this testimony . Be cause these witnesse s g raphic ally

testified without objection t o the condition of the c ow and c alf, we hold any err or in the
a d m i s s i o no f

t h e p h o t o g r a

p h s w a s r e n d e r e d h ar

m l e s s b y t h e a d m i s s i o n o f

t h e C a m m a c k s ’ t e s t i m o n y.04

- 09

- 00 05 6- CR

- 8- Se e Lan e v . S

tat e , 1 51 S.W. 3d 18 8, 19 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ) ( ho ldi ngthat e rr or , if any , in admission of evidenc e is cure d wher e same evidenc e come s in elsewher e without objection); Leday

v . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 713, 716-18 (Te x . Crim. App. 1998) (h olding that e rrone ous admission of evidenc e is rende red ha

rmless by admission of simil a

r e v id e n c e w it

h o ut o b je ction). The photog raphs
wer e mere depictions of previously unobjected to testimony
. Se e Ga llo , 239 S.W .3d at 762 (holding that photogr aph is rele vant and a dmissibl e if ve rbal testimony as t o matters depicted in photogr aphs is releva nt and admissible). Ac cording ly , we ove rrule Walls’s third issue. C ONCL US I ON Havingoverr

uled Walls’s issues, we af firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment.
Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH