1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 15 9- CR J E S S E M AR I ANO VAS QUE Z A P P E L L ANT V. THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 4 OF T ARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- M E M OR AND UM OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- I nt r oduc t i on A ppe l l antJe ss e M ar i ano V as que zap pea l s hi s con vi ct i on f orki dna ppi ng. I n t w o poi nt s, he assert s t hatthe t r i al co urterr ed w hen i td eni ed hi s r equest ed j ury c har ge on t he l ess er - i ncl ude d of f ens e o funl aw f ul r es t r ai ntan d t hatt he e v i d e n c e i sfa c tu a l l yi n s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt h i sc o n v i c ti o n . W e a ffir m .2 B a c k g rou n d F a c ts I n 2004, Le and r a Cas t i l l o a nd Vasq uezbe gan a r el at i ons hi p. Theyha d a so n i n 2006. Cast i l l o c ons i der ed V as que zashe rco m m on- l aw hus ban d. Th ey l i v e d tog et heri n C ast i l l o’ s par ent s’ house unti l A ugu st20 07 , w hen V a sq u e z m o v e d o u t. O n th e n i g h t o f S e p tem b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , V a sq u e z a n d C a sti l l o h a d p l a n s to go ou tt oge t her . Vasqu ezne verpi ck ed up Cas t i l l o, and w hen he cou l d notbe
r e a c h e d , C a s t illo w e n to u tw it h h e rf r ie n d sin s t e a d . V a s q u e za n d C a s t illo f in a lly t al ked on t he pho ne attw o o’ cl ock i n t he m or ni ng. V asquez sai d he had g ot t en a f l att i r e. C ast i l l o t hen w entt o h e rcousi n’ s ( Bel i nda Fer nand ez’ s) house; Fer nan dez , he rhus ban d, an d a n um be roft he hus ban d’ s f r i end s w er e i n t he h o u s e . V a s q u e za n d C a s ti l l o ta l k e d o n th e p h o n e a g a i n , a n d C a s ti l l o to ld V a sq u e z w h e re s h e w a s. V a sq u e z a rr i v e d at F e rna n d e z’s h o u se ab o u t t w e n ty m i nut esl at er. D r i vi ng a bl ue D ur ang o, V as que zpa r ke d i n t he st r ee t , an d C a s ti l l o w a l k e d u p to th e c a r. V as que zw asan gry a nd a sk ed C as t i l l o w hats he w asdoi ng w i t h al l t he
m en. C ast i l l o r epl i ed t hat she di d not know w ho t he m en w er e. V asquez t hen ac cus ed herof“ ho’ i ng a r ound”an d “ f uck i ng a r ound w i t h al l t hes e g uys ” and dem anded C ast i l l o t o “geti n t he f ucki ng car . ” W hen C a sti l l o r espond ed t hat2 ... C a s t illo t e s t if ie d t h a ts h e f e ltlik e s h e h a d n o c h o ic e b u tt o g e tin

V a s q u e z ’sv e h i c l e . S h e s ta te d , “I w a sj u s t try i n g to l i s te n . I d i d n ’t w a n t to -- I w as scar ed. I w as t hi nki ng aboutj um pi ng ou t , butw e w er e on t he f r eew ay a n d I d i d n ’t.”

3 ... C a s ti l l o e x p l a i n e d , “[V a s q u e z ] s a i d n o t to te l l [C a s ti l l o ’sfa th e r] w h e re w e w e re a t.” 3 F e r n a n d e z w o u l d t a k e h e r h o m e i n s t e a d , Va s q u e z g r a b b e d a g u n f r o m t he consol e ofhi s carand hel d i t to C a st i l l o’ s hi p. C ast i l l o got i n t he caras F e r n a n d e zt r i e d t o t a l kt o V a s q u e za n d g e tt h e g u n a wa yf r o m h i m. C as t i l l o t hen gotoutoft he ca r , butV as que zpoi nt ed t he gun a t her , so s he got bac k i n, an d t heydr oveaw ay. 2 V asquez dr ove w esto n I nt er st at e H i ghw ay 82 0 and t ol d C ast i l l o he w as g o i n g to ta k e h e r w h e re “ n o b o d yc o u ld f i n d ” h e r. F e rn a n d e zc a l l e d C a s ti l l o ’s f a t h e r , V ic t o r , a n d t o ld h i m w h a th a d h a p p e n e d . V ic t o rw e n tt o lo o kf o rh is daug ht eras he beg an cal l i ng V asquez an d C ast i l l o, al t hou gh i ti s uncl earw hi ch ce l l phon e h e c al l ed. Vi ct orco ul d he arbot h Cast i l l o cr yi ng and Vas que zs ayi ng n o t t o say anyt hi ng abo utw her e t hey w er e. 3Vasqu ezt ol d Vi ct ort hathe
w oul d dr op Cast i l l o of f at a near by W hat abur ger , but w hen V i ct or go t t her e, V as que zan d Cast i l l o w er e nott her e. Vi ct orca l l ed aga i n, an d Vasqu ezs ai d he
w o u l d ta k e C a s ti l l o h o m e . V a s q u e zth e n d ro v e b a c kto w a rd sF e rn a n d e z ’s hou se.4 ... The i ndi ct m ental l ege d t hatV as que zco m m i t t ed t he of f ens e b y

i nt ent i onal l y or know i ngl y abdu ct i ng C ast i l l o t hr oug h r est r ai ni ng herw i t hou ther con se ntan d m ovi ng he rf r om onepl ac e t o a not he rw i t h t he i nt entt o pr eve nt h e rlib e r a t io n b ys e c r e t in g h e ro rt h r e a t e n in g t o u s e d e a d lyf o r c e w it h a d e a d ly w ea po n . S ee T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 0 .0 4 (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). T h e i n d i c tm e n t c o n ta i n e d a re p e a t o ffe n d e r n o ti c e re l a te d to V a s q u e z ’sJ a n u a ry 2 0 0 6 co n v i c ti o n for a g g rav a ted as sa u l t. 4 Bef or e t heyar r i ved , V as que zpul l ed ove rand st uckt he gun i n hi s m out h. C ast i l l o t ook i toutand seti ton t he f l oorby herf eet . W hen t heyst opp ed at Fer nan dez ’ s hous e, Cast i l l o r an i ns i de, an d Vasqu ezdr oveaw ay. D if f e r e n tw it n e s s e se s t im a t e d t h e t im e V a s q u e za n d C a s t illo h a d b e e n in t he caras bet w een fo rt y- f i ve m i nutesand an ho urand f ort y- f i ve m i nutes . C as t i l l o a sk ed Fer nan dezt o ca l l the pol i ce . Fo rtW ort h Pol i ceD epa rt m ent O f f ic e r C h r is t ia n D o m in g u e z r e s p o n d e d t o t h e c a ll. V ic t o r a r r iv e d s h o rt ly th e re a fte r. The gr and j ury i ndi ct ed V as que zw i t h a ggr ava t ed ki dna ppi ng. 4 A tt r ia l, V as que zr equ es t ed t he i ncl us i on of a cha r ge on t he l es se r - i ncl ude d of f ens e o f unl aw f ul r est r ai nt ; t he t r i al courtdeni ed t hi s r equest . The j ur y f oun d V asquez gui l t y of t he l esser - i ncl uded of f ense of ki dnap pi ng. Th ey f oun d the rep e at o ffen d e r pa rag rap h tr u e an d rec o m m e n d e d tha t V a sq u e z b e se n ten c e d to t w ent y ye ar s’ co nf i nem ent . The t r i alco urts ent enc ed V as que zac cor di ng t o t he j ury’ s r ec om m end at i on. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed.5

The Ex cl us i on ofa Le ss er - i ncl ude d O ff ens e f r om t he Jury Char ge I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , V as que zcont end s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by r ef us i ng t o i ncl ude hi s request ed j ur y i nst r uct i on r egar di ng t he l esser - i ncl uded of f ense ofunl aw f ul r est r ai nt . W e use a t w o -step anal ysi s t o det er m i ne w het her V a s q u e zw a se n t it le d t o a l e s s e r-i n c l u d e d o ffe n s ei n s tru c ti o n . Ha l l v. S tate , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Ro uss ea uv. S tate , 855 S. W . 2d 6 6 6 , 6 7 2

– 7 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 510 U . S. 919 ( 199 3) . Fi r st , t he l esserof f ense m ustcom e w i t hi n art i c l e 3 7 .0 9 oft he code of cr i m i nal p ro c e d u re . T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 7 .0 9 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); Moore v. S tate, 96 9 S . W . 2d 4, 8 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 98 ). “A n of f ense i s a l esser i ncl ude d of f ens e i f . . . i t i s es t abl i sh ed by p r oofoft he sa m e o rl es s t han al l t he f ac t s r equ i r ed t o e st abl i sh t he com m i ss i on oft he of f ens e c har ged . ” Tex. Code C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 7 .0 9 (1 ); s e eHa ll, 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t5 3 6 . T h isin q u iryis a q u e s ti o n o f l a w . Ha ll, 2 2 5 S . W . 3d at535. I tdoe s notde pen d on t he evi den cet o bepr oduc ed att r i albuti s perf or m ed by com par i ng t he el em ent s of t he of f ens e a s t heyar e a l l ege d i n t he i ndi ct m entori nform at i on w i t h t he e l e m e n ts o f th e p o te n ti a l l e s s e r-i n c l u d e d o ffe n s e . Id. a t525, 535– 36. S e c o n d , s o m e e v i d e n c e m u s t e x i s t i n th e re c o rd th a t w o u l d p e rm i t a j u ry t o r at i onal l y f i nd t hati fV asquez i s gu i l t y, he i s gui l t y onl y oft he l esserof f ense. Ha ll, 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 6 ; Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 1 6 3 S . W . 3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 1 ( T e x . C r i m.6

A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e e v id e n c e m u s t b e e v a l u a te d i n th e c o n te x t o f th e e n ti re re c o rd . Mo o re , 9 69 S . W . 2d at8. Ther e m ustbe som e evi dence f r om w hi ch a r at i onal j ur y coul d acqui t V asquez of t he gr eat er of f e n se ( aggr avat ed ki dna ppi ng) w hi l e c onvi ct i ng hi m oft he l es se ri nc l ud ed of f ens e ( unl aw f ul re s tra i n t). Id. Th e courtm ay not consi derw het hert he evi dence i s cr edi bl e, c o n tro v e rte d , o r i n c o n fl i c t w i th o t h e re v i d e n c e . Id. Anyt hi ng m or e t han a sci nt i l l a of e vi de nc e m a y be s uf f i c i e nt t o e nt i t l e Vas qu e z t o a l e s s e rchar ge. Ha ll, 225 S. W . 3d a t536. T h e s e c o n d p r o n g a c k n o w le d g e s t h a t t h e r e a r e f a c t u a l c ir c u m s t a n c e sin
w hi ch an of f ens e i s i nde ed a l es se r - i ncl ude d of f ens e u nde rt he f i r stpr ong, but a j u ryc h a rg e i n s tru c ti o n w i l l n o t b e re q u i re d b e c a u s e t h e c o n d i ti o n — th a t th e re i s atl eastsom e evi dence t hatt he def endan ti s notgui l t y oft he gr eat erof f ense b u t i s g u i l tyo n l yo f th e l e s s e r— i sn o t m e t. S ee Flores v. Sta te , 245 S. W . 3d 4 3 2 , 4 4 1 ( T ex . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); Pi cken s v. S tate , 165 S. W . 3d 675, 679 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). I n such a case, t he of f ense r em ai ns a l esser - i ncl uded o ffe n s e , b u t th e tri a l c o u rt i sn o t re q u i re d to i n s tru c t th e j u ryo n i t. See Flores , 245 S . W . 3d a t441; Pi ckens , 165 S. W . 3d a t679 . T h a t i s w h a t ha p p e n e d i n this ca se . U n d e r V a sq u e z’s i n d i c tm e n t, a g g r a v a t e d k id n a p p in g o c c u r sw h e n a p e r s o n “ in t e n t io n a llyo rk n o w in g ly5 ... “ A bduc t ” m ea ns t o r es t r ai n a pe r so n w i t h i nt entt o pr eve ntt he

per so n’ s l i ber at i on bys ec r et i ng orhol di ng t he per so n i n a pl ac e w her e t he per son i s not l i kel y t o be f oun d orby usi ng ort hr eat eni ng t o use deadl y f or ce. T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 0 .0 1 (2 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ).

6 ... “R e strain” m e a n s re stri c ti n g “a p e rso n ’s m o v e m e n ts w i th o u t co n se n t, so ast o i nt erf er e s ubs t ant i al l y w i t h t he per so n’ s l i bert y, by m ovi ng t he per so n f r om onepl ac e t o ano t her or by con f i ni ng t he per so n. ” Tex. Pen alCode Ann. § 2 0. 01 ( 1) . Rest r ai nti s w i t hou tconsenti fi ti s accom pl i shed by f or ce, i n ti m i d a ti o n , o r d e c e p ti o n . Id. § 2 0 .0 1 (1 )(A ).

7 ... A tt he ti m e t he Texa s C ourtofCr i m i nalA ppe al s dec i ded t he S chwei nle case, t he of f ense n ow kn ow n as un l aw f ul res t r ai ntw as cal l ed “f al se i m pr i sonm ent . ” S e eSch weinle , 915 S. W . 2d a t19. 7 a b d u c ts 5 an ot herpe r so n a nd us esorex hi bi t s a d ea dl y w ea pon d ur i ng t he com m i ssi on oft he of f ens e. ” Tex. Pen alCode Ann. § 20. 04( b) . Unl aw f ul
r es t r ai ntoc cur s w hen a per so n “ i nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y r es t r ai ns 6anot her per son. ” Id. § 20. 02( a) ( V er non 200 3) . Underart i cl e 37. 09, unl aw f ul r es t r ai nt i sa l e s s e r-i n c l u d e d o ffe n s e o f a g g ra v a te d k i d n a p p i n g . S ch wei n lev. S tate , 915 S .W .2 d 1 7 , 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); 7 se eMa yer v. S tate , 274 S. W . 3d 898, 9 0 0 (T e x . A p p .— A m a ri l l o 2 0 0 8 , p e t. fi l e d ); Jen ki n s v. S tate , 248 S. W . 3d 291, 29 8 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] 2 00 7, pet . r ef ’ d) . Thu s, V asquez sat i sf i es th e fi rst pro n g o f t h e tes t. H ow eve r , V as que zca nnots at i sf y t he se con d pr ong. Vasqu ezco nt end s t hata j ur y coul d f i nd t hat he r est r ai ned Cast i l l o ( by r est r i ct i ng herm ovem ent s)8

b u t th a t h e d i d n o t a b d u c t h e r (b yp re v e n tin g h e r l i b e ra ti o n ) a n d th a t th e j u ry cou l d t her ef or e c onvi cthi m ofunl aw f ul r es t r ai ntbutnotag gr ava t ed ki dna ppi ng. W i t nesses t est i f i ed t hatV asquez f or ced C ast i l l o i nt o t he caragai nsther
w i l l at g u n p o i n t, d i d n o t t a k e h e r h o m e , a n d , m o st i m p o rt a n tl y , to l d h e r no t t o te l l o th e rsw h e re th e y w e re . A m o v i n g c a r h a s b e e n h e l d to b e a p l a c e w h e re a p e rs o n i sn o t l i k e l yto b e fo u n d . S e eSa n ders v. S tate , 605 S. W . 2d 612, 614 ( T ex . C r i m . A pp . [ P an el O p.] 1 9 8 0 ); F ran ci s v. S tate , No. 02- 05- 00046

- CR, 200 6 W L 203428 0, a t*4 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h Ju l y 20, 2006 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , notdesi gnated f orpubl i cat i on) . V asquez ar gues t hathe i nt ended t o t ak e Cas t i l l o hom e a nd t husdi d noti nt end t o pr eve nthe rl i ber at i on. H o w e v e r , e v e n ifV a s q u e z o r ig in a llyin t e n d e d t o t a k e C a s t illo h o m e , h is s u b s e q u e n t a c ti o n ss u b s ta n ti a te h i sp re v e n ti o n o f h e r lib e r a t io n fro m h i sc a r. Bykeepi ng C ast i l l o i n t he carf oras l ong as an hourand f orty-fi v e m i nutes , dr i vi ng he rar ound, t el l i ng he rt hathew ast ak i ng he rt o a pl ac e t hat“ nobod y c o u l d fi n d ” h e r, a n d p re v e n ti n g V i c to r fro m fi n d i n g h e r a t th e W h a ta b u rg e r, V asquez pr ecl uded C ast i l l o’ s l i ber at i on; he di d m or e t han m er el y r est r i cther
m ovem ent s. Thus , b a s e d u p o n t h e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b yt h e St a t e , no rati o n a l j u ry c o u ld fi n d V a sq u e z i n n o c e n t of a g g rav a ted kidn a p p i n g b u t gu i l ty9

o f u n l a w fu l re s tra i n t. S e eHa ll, 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 6 . W e o v e rru l e V a s q u e z ’s fi rst po i n t. Fac t ualSuff i ci enc y o ft he E vi den ce In h is s e c o n d p o in t , V a s q u e zc o n t e n d st h a tt h e e v id e n c e isf a c t u a lly i nsuf f i ci entto supp orth i s ki dnap pi ng con vi ct i on. W hen r evi ew i ng t he f act ual su f f i c i e nc y oft hee vi de nc e t o s up po rta c on vi c t i on , w e v i e w a l l t hee vi de nce i n a n e u tra l l i g h t, fa v o ri n g n e i th e r p a rty . Nea l v. S ta te, 256 S . W . 3d 264, 275 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cert. denied, 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); W atson v. S ta te , 204 S. W . 3d 404, 414 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 2006 ) . W e t he n a s kw het her t h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is nev ert hel es s so w ea k t hat t he f ac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd
m ani f es t l y un j us torw het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi de nce s o gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghst he e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n th a t th e fa c tfin d e r’s d e te rm i n a ti o n is
m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. L a n c o nv. S tate , 253 S . W . 3 d 699, 704 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 8 ); Watso n , 204 S . W . 3d at414– 15, 417. To r eve r seunde rt he se con d gr ound, w e m us tde t er m i ne, w i t h so m e obj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he r ec or d, t hatt he g rea t w e i g h t an d p rep o n d e ran c e o f a l l th e e v i d e n c e , th o u g h l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t, c o n tra d i c ts th e v e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s f a c tu a l l y i n su ffi c i e n t to su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not10

e n o u g h tha t th is c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly
w r o n g o r m a n if e s t ly u n ju s t s im p ly b e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ryo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju ry ’s r e s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin t he ev i de n c e . Id . W e m ay nots i m pl y s ubs t i t ut e o urj udgm entf ort he fa c tfin d e r’s . Jo hn so n v. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ca i nv. S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n l e s st h e re c o rd c l e a rl yre v e a l st h a t a d i ffe re n t re s u l t i sa p p ro p ri a te , w e m u s t d e fe r to t h e ju ry ’sd e te rm i n a ti o n o f th e w e i g h t to b e g i v e n c o n tra d i c to ry t est i m oni al evi dence becau se r esol ut i on o ft he confl i ct“oft en t ur ns on an eval uat i on of cr edi bi l i t y a n d d em eanor , and t hose j ur or s w er e i n at t endan ce w hen t he t est i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 23 S . W . 3d at8. Thu s, unl ess w e c onc l udet hati ti s nec es sa ry t o cor r ec t m ani f es t i nj us t i ce , w e m us t gi ve due def er enc e t o t he f ac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “ part i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i ons concer ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . at9. O urdef er ence i n t hi s r ega r d sa f egu ar ds t he def end ant ’ s r i ght t o a t r i alby j ury. L anc on, 253 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 . The j ury con vi ct ed V as que z of ki dna ppi ng, w hi ch occ ur s w hen a per so n “i nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y abd uc t s ano t herpe r so n. ” Tex. Pen alCode Ann. § 20. 03 ( a) ( V er non 2003) . Vasqu ezch al l eng est he evi den ces upport i ng t he11

j ury’ s f i ndi ng t hathe i nt ended t o pr event C ast i l l o’ s l i ber at i on bysecr et i ng her i n a pl ac e s he w asnotl i ke l y t o bef ound; hedoe s notchal l en ge tha the
r es t r ai ned Cast i l l o. Speci f i ca l l y, V as que zcont end s t hathei nt end ed t o t ak e Cas t i l l o hom e a nd t hus l acked any i nt entt o pr eventherl i ber ati o n . H e ar gues t hatbecause her hom e i s nota pl ac e s he i s notl i ke l y t o bef ound, hedi d notsat i sf y t he se cr et i ng req u i rem e n t. Se eSch weinle , 915 S . W . 2 d at19. He ac t ed i nt ent i ona l l y by p rev e n ti n g l i b e rati o n thro u g h se c reti n g C a sti l l o i n a p l a c e sh e w a s no t l i k e l yto be f oun d i f i t w a s hi s c on s c i ou s obj e c t i ve or de s i r e t o do s o; heact ed k n o w i n g l yi f h e w a s a w a r e th a t th e p re v e n ti o n o f h e r l i b e ra ti o n w o u l d o c c u r. S ee T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 6 .0 3 (a ), (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). Th e i nt ent i onal orknow i ng st at e ofm i nd of a def endan tm ay be pr oved
w i t houtdi r ec tev i den ce ; s uch a st at e o fm i nd m ay be “i nf er r ed f r om c i rc u m s ta n ti a l e v i d e n c e s u c h a s [th e d e fe n d a n t’s ] a c ts , w o rd s , [o r] c o n d u c t.” G u e va ra v. S tate , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d 4 5 , 5 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); s e eMa sh b urn v. S tate , 2 7 2 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 4 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , p e t. s tru c k ); K rause v. S tate , 2 4 3 S .W .3 d 9 5 , 1 1 1 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st.] 2 0 0 7 , p e t. r e f ’d ) ( e x p la in in g t h a t“ [p ]r o o fo fa c u lp a b le m e n t a l s t a t e a lm o s tin v a r ia b ly dep end s upon ci r cum st anti al evi den ce ”) . W hen r evi ew i ng t he j ury’ s dec i si on t hatV as que zi nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y pr eve nt ed C as t i l l o’ s l i ber at i on by8 ... Fer nand ez’ s house w as onl y abou tt en m i l es f r om C ast i l l o’ s par ent s’

hous e, w her e s he w ass t ayi ng. 12 secr et i ng heri n a pl ace she w as no tl i kel y t o be f oun d, i ti s “notnecessary t hat [ w e] f i nd t o [ our ] ow n sat i sf ac t i on t hatsuch w as[ hi s] i nt ent . I ti s eno ugh f or u s t o f in d t h a t‘a n y ’ r a t io n a l ju ryc o u ld h a v e s o f o u n d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le dou bt . ” Bri

m ag ev. S tate , 9 1 8 S .W .2 d 4 6 6 , 4 7 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). T h e e v i d e n c e in t h e re c o rd i sfa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt V a s q u e z ’s con vi ct i on. Bec aus e Vas que zdi d notpr es entan y e vi den cet o c ont r ad i ct t he opi ni onsan d obs ervat i onsoft he w i t nes se s, t he j ury’ s i m pl i ci tde t er m i nat i on abou tV asquez’ s st at e o fm i nd coul d onl y be r ever sed f orf act ual i nsuf f i ci ency i ft he evi den cew as so w ea k t hatt he det er m i nat i on w ascl ea r l y w r ong a nd
m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. See L anc on, 25 3 S . W . 3d at70 5. W e can not concl ude t hat st and ar d ha s bee n s at i sf i ed. V asquez’ s ass ert i on t hathe i nt ended t o t ake C ast i l l o hom e does notm ake s e n s e b e c a u s e t h e r e isn o t h in g in t h e r e c o r d in d ic a t in g w h yh e d id n o ts im p ly d o tha t. 8I n s te a d , h e fo rc e d C a s ti l l o i n to th e c a r a n d d ro v e h e ra r o u n d fo r a l ong per i od of t i m e d u ri ng w hi ch she w as notf oun d. A nd even i ft her e w as m or e e vi den cei n t he r ec or d t hats upport ed V as que z ’ s as se rt ed i nt ent i ons , t he j ury w asf r eet o e i t herbe l i eveordi sb el i evehi s con f l i ct i ng t heo ry. S e eG o o d

m a nv. S tate , 66 S. W . 3d 283 , 287 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2001 ) ( st at i ng13

t hati t“i s a j ur y, nota r evi ew i ng cou rt , t hataccept s orr ej ect s r easonabl y equal c o m p e ti n g t h e o ri e s ” ); Greg o ry v. S tate , 159 S . W . 3d 254, 261 ( Tex. A p p .— B e a u m o n t 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ). A fford i n g the j u ry’s d e c i sion ap p ro p ri a te d e fere n c e u n d e r t h e au th o ri ty c it e d a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e t h a tt h e e v id e n c e in t h e re c o r d a n d re c it e d a b o v e is f act ual l y suf f i ci entt o show t hatV asquez i nt ent i onal l y orknow i ngl y pr event ed C as t i l l o’ s l i ber at i on bysec r et i ng hert o a pl ac e shew asnotl i ke l y t o bef ound. W e the refo re o v e rr u l e V a sq u e z’s s e c o n d p o i n t. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o f V a s q u e z ’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J un e 4, 2009