### NUM BER 13-06- 0070 1-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
M A N U EL S A L IN AS GA R C IA J R . A /K /A M A NU EL SA LIN AS-GA RC IA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 27 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez Follow ing a jury

trial, appe llan t , Manue l Salinas Ga rcia Jr. a/k/a Manu el Salina sGarci a, w as conv ic ted o f murder , a firs t- deg re e felony , and att empted murder , a sec ondd e gre e f e lon y . See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. §§ 15 .0 1, 19 .0 2 ( Ve r no n 20 03 )

. The juryB e c a u s e G a r c ia d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g h is c o n v ic tio n s , o n ly 1 a b rie f re c i ta ti o n o f th e fa c ts i s n e c e s s a ry. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .1

. 2 assesse d pu nishm ent a tt we n t y y ears’ imp risonm entplus a $1 0,0 00 f ine for the o f fense of murder

and ten y ears’ i mpri sonmentpl us a $10, 000 fine for t h e o f f e n se of attempted murde r. See i

d. §§ 1 2.32, 12.3 3 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. The tr ial co urt ordered th e sent ences to ru n c oncur re ntl y . By three is sues , Garc ia cont ends thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by : (1 ) all ow ing the admis si on of a pr ior st atement made unde r oath by Garci a; ( 2) fail ing to charg e the j ur y on t he l ess er-i ncl uded offense of cr imi nal ly neg li g ent ho mi c i de ; an d ( 3) fai l i ng t o g i v e th e j ur y a d efi ni ti on o f “ r ea s on ab l e do ub t. ” W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 1 Lui s L opez , hi s b ro ther C ar los L o p e z, a nd th eir fri end, Jai me Al v arado, spentthe major ity of the e veni ng hours o f June 2, 2005, and the e ar ly mor nin g hours o f June 3, “h ang ing out” and dr ink ing at thei r frie nd J ason’s h o use and ata c lub

. After lea v ing the cl ub atapprox imat ely

2:00 a.m., the m en retur ned t o J ason’ s h ouse and c onti nued “h ang ing out. ” Thro ug hout the n ig ht, Lui s left the group sev eral ti mes to v is ithi s g ir lfri end
w ho l iv ed near by

at Ev erg re en Apa rt ments. At some poi nt, Lui s’ s g ir lfri end bec ame ups et that he w as g oin g out w it h hi s fr ien ds, and she and Lui s a rg ued. Lui s l eft the a par tment and w ent b ack

to Jas on’ s h ouse but l ater retur ned t o hi s g ir lfri end’ s a par tment. At app rox ima tely 3:0 0 a.m ., Lu is, w ho was hig hly intoxicated , returne d to J a s o n ’s h ouse
u p s e t

. A l t h o u g h L u i s ha d be e n w e a r i n g kh a k i sh o r t s , a P o l o s h i rt , a n d s h o e s w h e n h e l e ft Jason ’s, he retu rned w earing only a Polo shirt and bo x er shorts. Carlos testif ied th at Lu is
w as upsetbecause “ some g uy s” at Ev erg re en Apa rt ments “w ere s tar ti ng st uff w it h [Lu is ].” Lui s s ug g est ed that he and his f ri ends “ g o f uck those gu y s up.” Car los told L uis , “ No man. Go inside , have a drink, chill out .” Luis com plied, but ap proximate ly tw ent y minu tes late r,G a rc i a d e fin e d a “b e e r b o n g ” a s a “fu n n e l w i th a l o n g tu b e ” u s e d to “c h u g b e e r.” 2 O t her wi t nesses descr i bed Lui s’ s shor t s as shor t s f or “ gi r l s” t hat por t r ay ed a “ T i nker Bel l ” sy m bol 3 a n d h a d th e w o rd “fli rty” w rit te n a c ro s s th e fro n t. 3 Lui s a nd Alv arado attempted to l eav e J ason’ s i n Lui s’ s t ru ck

. Car los took the key s a w ay from Lui s b ut t hen ag re ed to l et Lu is dr iv e Al v arado and hi m to E v erg re en Apa rt ments. That s ame nig ht, a group of people, in cl udi ng Garc ia, w ere “ par ty ing ” at E v erg re en Ap ar tm en ts

. Garc i a te s ti fi ed tha t he a r r i v ed a t Ev erg r ee n Ap ar tm en ts a t 9: 00 o r

9 :3 0 p. m. on J une 2, 2005, to par ty w it h some of

his frien ds. Garci a did tw o beer bong s a nd hung out w it h hi s frie nds by the pool

. Garci a cont inu ed par ty ing w it h hi s fr ien ds, g oin g bac k a nd 2 forth betw een an apar

tment uni t and the pool

. In t he ear ly mor nin g hours o f June 3, 2005, Garci a not ic ed a man, l ater i denti fied as Lui s, weari ng “ shor t s hor ts” and “b ein g r ude” to peo ple atthe pa rty

. Garcia stated tha t Luis asked “ if w e w ere g oing to be there, ” to w hich 3 Garci a respon ded, “Y eah w e’re g oin g to be here.” Lui s w alk ed aw ay and, aboutthi rty minut es lat er , Garci a and a few others left the pool and w alk ed back tow ards the a par tment
c o m p le x. W hen Lui s, Car los , and Al v arado ar ri v ed at t he apar tment compl ex , Lui s g ot ou t of the t ru ck and beg an w alk ing tow ards the apar tments

. Car los and Al v arado c aug ht up w it h him, and w hen t hey

rounded a c or ner , t hey saw a g ro up of

people, in cl udi ng Garc ia. The tw o g ro ups w alk ed to w ards each other , and Lui s ask ed Garci a’s frie nds “w ho w as tal ki ng shi t.” Lui s a nd one of G ar ci a’s frie nds beg an to arg ue, a nd a fig ht be tw een t he tw o g ro ups ensue d. Car los tes ti fied th at w hen t he fig ht be g an, G ar ci a pus hed Lui s, and Lu is st epped back a nd h it one of

Garcia’s f riends. Carl os stat ed th at G a rc ia t h e n pun ched Luis, so4

Car los punc hed G ar ci a and beg an f ig hti ng w it h one of Gar ci a’s fri ends. D ur ing the fig ht, Car los sa w

Garci a and tw o other men hi tti ng Lui s a nd r ushed to hel p hi m. W hen C ar los
re ached Lui s, Lui s w as blo ody and sw ay ing and fell int o C ar los ’s ar ms. C ar los testi fied that Garci a c ame up b ehi nd hi m and hit him sev eral ti mes in the back as Car los l ow ered L u is t o t h e gro u n d

. Be c a u s e Ca rl o s wa s fo c u s e d o n L u is , h e d id n o tim m e d ia t e ly r e a li ze that he had been s tabbed. C ar los st ated that Garci a and his fri ends ra n aw ay , and C ar los beg an admi nis ter ing C PRto Lui s. Garcia test if ied that aft er Luis asked, “ w ho w as talking shit,” Luis hit him, an d he fell to t he g ro und. Garci a s tated that Lui s posi ti oned hims elf on top o f Garc ia and c onti nued hit ti ng hi m. Garci a tes ti fied th at he tr ied to push Lui s o ff of him and t hen hea rd so meone say , “ Saca l o
. Saca l o[,] ” meanin g “ tak e i t out .” G ar ci a w as unsure w ho made the sta tement; how ev er , upo n hear ing i t, Garci a too k a kni fe ou t of hi s p ock et, flipp ed i t ope n t o e x p o s e t h e b l a d e , a n d s t a b b e d L u i s o n e t i me i n a n a l l e g e d at t e mp tto d e fe n d h i ms e l f. Garci a s tated that he beg an “b lan ki ng out” after he sta bbed Lu is and then g ot up and ra n a way. W hen as ked if he remembere d s tabbi ng C ar los , Lui s repl ied

. “I don’ t remember sta bbi ng hi m, butI must hav e bec ause I w as the o nly one w it h the kn ife the re .” Lui s sus tai ned six

stab w ounds , thre e to his chest area and three to hi s fla nk area; the f atal stab w o u n d p e n e t r a t e d t h e b a s e o f h i s a o rt a
. S h o rt l y a ft e r t h e fi g h t , L u i s w as pronounc ed dead in the emerg ency ro om of M cAl len Me dic al Cen ter

. Carlo s su stained seven stab w oun ds an d w as ho spitalized for seven days. T he co urt instructe d the jury on m urde r and m ansla ughter, bu t it denie d Garcia’s
re q uestfor a n i nst ru cti on on cr imi nal ly neg li g ent homic ide

. The jur y found Garci a g uil ty

of the murder

of Lui s a nd th e att empted murder of Car los

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§T r i al or i gi nal l y com m enced on M ay 23, 200 6, but end ed i n m i st r i al on M ay 26, 200 6. T he t est i m ony 4 in q u e s tio n w a s a p p a r e n tly g iv e n b y G a r c ia a t s o m e p o in t d u r in g th e o r ig in a l tr ia l. 5 15.01, 19.0 2. The ju ry

as ses sed puni shment at tw enty y ears’ impr is onment p lus a $1 0,000 fine for the o ff ense of murder and ten y ears’ i mpri sonmentpl u s a $10,0 00 fine for th e off ense of attempted murder

. See i d. §§ 12.32, 12.33. The sent ences w ere ordered to r un
conc ur re ntl y . This appeal ens ued. II. A DM I SS I ON OF P RI OR S TA TE MENT By hi s first is sue, Garci a c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s dis creti on by all ow ing the Stat e to q uest ion hi m about tes ti mony he g av e in a pri or

tr ial “ in an effort t o show that[G ar ci a] ha d [prev iou sl y] l ied aboutus ing dr ug s.” O n appea l, Garci a arg ues that 4 his pr ior tes ti mony

w as “i rrele v ant, ina dmis si ble , and har mf ul. ” The St a te contends that Garci a has fail ed to pr eser v e er ro r becau se he did not ra is e a re lev ancy obj ect ion to the testim ony in q uest ion attrial. A . Relevant Facts After the S tate beg an c ro ss -e x amini ng Garci a, a hear ing w a s h e ld o uts ide the pr esenc e of the jur

y to deter mine w hether

the Stat e coul d q uest ion Garci a about his pr ior tes ti mony conc er nin g dr ug us e and an ar re st for th e pos ses si on of mar ij uana. D ur ing the hea ring, the Stat e asse rted th at it w ant ed to q uest ion Ga rcia abou t his prior testimo ny in
order to attac k h is credi bil ity by demons trating th a t “he li ed i n frontof the j ur y l astti me.” Defense co unsel objec ted on the g ro unds that suc h q uest ion ing by the Stat e “ w oul d be
extremely

preju dic ial .” Arg ument be tw een t he St ate a nd defense couns el cont inu ed: [ Th e S t a t e ] : [ Th e d o o r] [ d ] o e s n ’ t h a v e t o b e o p e n e d i n t his cas e. I

can alw ay s u se somebody ’s pr ior tes ti mony

under oath to i mpeach thei r credi bil ity i f they l ied under

oath , w he th er i t i s a t th i s h ea r i ng , or reg ardi ng t he s am e6 c i r c um s ta nc es , i f th ey ha v e l i ed u nd er o at h ata ny

t i me I’m allowed to bring tha tb e f o re the jury. And in this cas e he li ed unde r oath. [ D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ] : Y ou r H o n o r , w e c a n n o t i n a n y a s p e c t [ s i c ] b e c a u s e of

the prejudicial ef

fect get in to w hathap pen ed in th e last trial. It has prob ative v alue , butit is— [The St ate]: I di sag re e. [D efense c ounse l] : Und er 403. [T he St ate ]: It is the ba lancing test, Y our Hono r. [D efense couns el] : It spec ific all y —s tatement s, if unfair ly preju dic ed by the tes ti mony , w hic h i t has not been op e n e d y et [ si c], the re’s been no, no ne whatsoe v er, no e vid ence prese nte d w hat soever abou t any type of o the r arrests, n o qu e s t io n s a s k e d a b o u ta n y— [The Stat e]: I w on’ t ask him about the ar re st. I w il l ask him if he l ied

under oath

. The is sue w as did he l ie under oath w hen he was asked: Do y ou u se drugs? [D efense c ounse l] : Judg e, y ou c an’ t g et i nto t hat, Judg e. [T he Sta te]: T here ’s no— if y ou’re saying can’t get into tha t beca use he lied , or beca use— [ D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ] : Y o u r H o n o r , w h a t i s s h e i mp e a c h i n g i f i t has n’t been

eli ci ted from the sta nd? [T he St at e] : T he i mp ea c hm en t i s th at he l i ed un de r oa th to a jury

re g ardin g the same i nci dent. I don’ t hav e to g et i nto t he ar re st or as k h im: Di d y ou l ie u n d e r o ath a bout y our dr ug us ag e? The Co urt: W il l y ou as k h im t hat? [The Stat e]: I w il l ask him if he li ed w hen he w as ask ed under oath , do y ou us e dr ug s, did y ou l ie, per iod

. I don ’thav e to ask

about the ar re st, the ci rc umstan ces7 of the ar re st. I don’ t hav e to ask hi m w ho he w as w it h. The Cou rt : If the for m of the q uest io n i s th a t way , I w il l all ow it

.

Obj ect ion ov er ru led

. [Defense coun sel]: Just as long as my obje ction is n o t e d fo r t h e re cord

under 403. The Co urt: Y our obj ect ion i s n oted under 403. [D efense c ounse l] : Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. The Co urt: Y es.
. . . The Stat e c onti nued c ro ss -e x amini ng Garci a and t h e n pursued the fol low ing l ine of que st io n in g: [The Stat e]: And y ou’ v e been abl e to g iv e some tes ti mony before ; is t hat

cor re ct? [Garcia] : Yes. [The Stat e]: And at that ti me y ou w ere as ked[ ,]

. . . Do y ou us e dr ug s? Is

that cor re ct? [Garcia] : Yes. [The St ate]: Oka y . And y our ans w er at that ti me w as: N o. [Garci a]: Y es. Bu t I mis understo od th e q uest ion

. [T he Sta te]: Okay.

. . . But y our answer [sic] on the record at tha t time w as:

Do y ou u se drugs? And y our an sw er at tha t time w as: No, sir. Is that cor re ct? [Garcia] : Yes. [The St ate]: W as that a l ie? O r the t ru th un der oath ? [Garcia] : W ell, I thou ght thathe w as—8

[The St ate]: That’s not myq uest ion

. W as that a l ie or the tr uth? [G a rci a ]: W h a t a re you as kin g? [The Stat e]: Do y ou use dr ug s? And y our answ er w as: No, si r. W as that

the t ru th? Or

w as that a l ie? [Garci a]: But w hen are y ou as ki ng me? [T he Sta te]: W hen y ou were asked u n d e r o a t h p re vio u s ly : Do y ou use

dr ug s? And y our

ans w er w as: N o, s ir

. [Garci a]: Pr ior

to w hat? Or

w hen? [The St ate]: W hen w e’v e been in cour t before, and o n Ma y 2 4 th of 2006, [defense couns el] as ked y ou: Do y ou us e dr ug s? And y ou sai d: No, si r. I s t hat c or re ct? [ G a rc ia ] : I kn o w. [The St ate]: Do y ou recal l that? [Garcia] : Yes. [The St ate]: Oka y . W as that the t ru th? Or w as that a l ie? [Garci a]: But w hat w as the q uest ion as ked? [T he St ate ]: T he quest ion asked: Do y ou u se drugs? And the an sw er w as:

No, sir. I’m asking y ou n ow, w hen y ou ca me to court an d said that under

oath , w as y our

a l ie [si c]? [G a rci a ]: Yes . B u t you ai n ’t[s ic] le tt in g me f in ish ta lki n g. [T he St at e] : And y our an sw er i s th e r ea s on y ou s ai d[ ,] “ [N]o, sir[,]” is

be c au s e y ou di dn ’ t un de rs ta nd th e q ue s ti on : D o y ou use dr ug s? Is thatco rrect ? [Garci a]: I t houg ht he sa id that nig ht. [The St ate]: Oka y . But he di dn’ t s ay “ that nig ht.”9

[Garci a]: That’s w hy I mis understo od th e q uest ion

. B. A pp licab le L aw To preser

v e er ro r, a de fendant mustmake a ti mely and spec ificobject ion , and the compl ain t on appeal mustco mportw it h the tr ial obj ect ion

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) (1 )( A) ( prov idi ng that, in orde r to p re senta c omplai nt on appeal , a ti mely req uest , obj ect ion , or

moti on mus t hav e been made to the tr ial cour t, w hic h “ sta tes the g ro unds for the r uli ng thatthe compl ain ing party soug ht f ro m the tr ial courtw it h s uff ic ien t s peci fici ty to make t he tr ial co urt aw are of the co m p laint , unl ess the spec ificg ro unds w ere apparent from th e co n te xt” ); see als o Heidelb er g v . St ate , 144 S.W .3d 5 35, 5 37 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 4). C. A nal ysis At trial, Garcia specif ically o bjecte d to the t estim ony u nde r Texas Rule of Ev iden ce 403. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 403. H ow ev er , on appeal , G ar ci a c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d in all ow ing the Stat e to eli ci t t est imony from hi s p ri or

tr ial by arg uin g that the tes ti mony w as not rele v ant u nder

r ule 401. See i

d. at R . 401

. Tex as Rul e of Evide n ce 401 defin es re lev ant e v ide nce as “e v ide nce hav ing any tendency

to make t he ex is tenc e of anyf actthat is of cons eq uence to the d eter minat ion of the a ction m ore prob able or less probab le tha n it w ould be w ithou t the ev iden ce.” Id. Rule 403 allow s for the e x clusion o f o t h e rwi se relevant evidence w hen its probat iv e v alue “is subs tanti all y

outw eig hed by

the dang er

of unfair

preju dic e, co n f u sion of the i ss ues, or mis lea din g t h e j u r

y , o r b y c o n s i d e ra t i o n s o f u n d u e d e l a y , o r n e e d l e s s p r e s e n t a t i o n of
cum ulative ev iden ce.” Id. at R . 403

. Thus, “R ule 403 appl ies onl y to re lev ant e v ide nce. ”10

Long v . St ate , 823 S.W .2d 259 , 271 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91). An obj ect ion under

r ule 403 does not p re ser v e er ro r under

r ule 401. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a) (1 )( A) ; Zi m m er m an v . St ate , 860 S.W .2d 89, 97-98 ( Tex . Cr im. App. 1993) (B aird, J ., conc ur ri ng ) (n oti ng thata rele v ancy object ion does “not preser v e er ro r as to an y
v iol ati on of

Rule 403” ), vac ated on ot her gr ounds , 510 U .S. 938 ( 1993) ; Sony v. Sta te , 307 S.W .3d 3 48, 3 55- 56 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2009, no pet.) ( hol din g thata de fendant w ho
ra is ed onl y

a r ule 401 compl ain t fail ed to preser v e a c omplai nt un der

r ule 403) ; Lop ez

v. Stat e, 20 0 S. W .3d 2 46, 2 51 ( Tex . App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2006, pet. ref’d) ( noti ng that “A r ule 403 obj ect ion i s n ot i mp lic it ly contai ned i n [a] rele v ancy
. . . obj ect ion []; rather , a specif ic rule 403 obje ction must be raised to prese rv e error.”). Garcia’s trial coun s e l d id not a rg ue th at Garci a’s pr ior tes ti mony

w as ir re lev ant; ins tead, he s peci fical ly st ated that
w hile the testim ony “has probative v alue ,” it is inad missible “und er [rul e ] 4 0 3 ” be cause Garci a w ou l d be “ un fai r l y p r ej ud i c ed ” b y

i ts a dm i s s i on
. B as ed o n th e r ec ord be fore us, Garcia raised only a rule 40 3 objection to the adm issio n of his prior testimo ny. T hus, Garci a w aiv ed hi s rele v ancy co mplai nt. On ap pea l, Garcia also cites T exas Rules of Ev iden ce 60 8 and 6 13; howev er, it is uncl ear w hether he c it es thes e r ule s t o s uppor t hi s a ss erti on th at hi s p ri or tes ti mony

w as ir re lev ant a nd th erefore i nadmis si ble , or i f the r ule s a re offered as al ternate g ro unds for
re li ef. See T EX
. R. E V ID . 608 (g overning the adm ission of ev iden ce regarding a w itness’s charact er

or prev iou s c onduc t) , 613 ( g ov er nin g i mpeachmentof w it n e ss e s w it h pr ior inc onsi ste nt s tatement s) ( Ver non 2003). Garci a’s counsel did not objectto Garci a’s pr ior tes ti mony

bas ed on charact er

ev ide nce under

r ule s 6 08 or 613. And, alt houg h the i ss ue of impeac hme n t by

a pr ior i ncons is tent sta tement w as dis cus sed, Garci a’s co unsel11

cont inu all y

i nsi ste d tha t hi s o bje cti on w as sol ely bas ed on ru le 403. Thus, Garci a w aiv ed any appel lat e c omplai nt ba sed on a ru le other than 403. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33 .1(a)(1)(A); Heidelb erg , 144 S.W .3d a t 537

. Ev en i f w e as sume t hat G ar ci a preser v ed er ro r in the a dmis si o n of hi s p ri or tes ti mony , the e rror

i s n ot of c onst it uti onal di mensi on. See Johnso n v . St ate , 967 S.W .2d 410, 416- 17 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 1998) (a ppl y ing har m anal y si s under Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Pro ce dure 44. 2( b) w here the Sta te fail ed to l ay the proper

predi cat e for the a dmis si bil ity of the defendant’ s stat ement)

. Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 44.2 (b ) dic tates thata non -constitu tiona l error “thatdoe s not af fect subst ant ial rig hts m ust be disregarded. ” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.2( b)

. The cour t of cr imi nal appeal s has cons tr ued thi s t o mean t hat a n er ro r is rev ersi ble onl y

w hen i t has a subs tanti al and inj ur iou s eff ector i nfluenc e i n det er mini ng the j ur y ’s v erdict. T

ayl or v. Sta te , 268 S.W .3d 571 , 592 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 8). W e w ill not o v ertur n the co nv ic ti on i f w e hav e fair ass urance from an e x aminat ion of the record as
a w hol e tha t t he er ro r did not influ ence the j ur y , or had but s li g ht effect. Id. Garcia con ten ds tha t “[a]ny ef fort to sho w

tha t[ h e] w as som eon e w ho would lie under oath w oul d hav e a s ubst anti al eff ecton t he j ur y and the resul t reache d” because “t he
credi bil ity

of [Garci a] an d hi s fr ien ds w as pit ted ag ain st the credi bil ity of [ot her w it ness es] .” Dur ing the Stat e’s q uest ion ing , G ar ci a ex pla ine d to the j ur y thathe mi sunde rs tood a q uest ion as ked dur ing hi s p re v iou s t est imony and that he had not i ntended t o l ie under oath w hen he answ ered it. On re -d irectex aminat ion , G ar ci a ag ain ex pla ine d tha t he had not i ntended to li e under oath but that he had simpl y m is understo od the ques ti on. In l ig ht of the ev ide nce e xpla in in g hi s p ri or i ncor re ct answ er , w e bel iev e tha t t he er ro r, i f any , of allowi ng the Sta te to impe ach Ga rcia’s credib ility had but a slig ht ef

fect, a nd was therefore12

har mles s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.2( b)

. W e ov er ru le Garci a’s first is sue. III . L ESSER -I NCL UDE D O FFEN SE By hi s s econd i ss u e , Ga rcia c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by deny ing hi s req uest to c harg e the j ur y on t he l ess er-i ncl uded offense of cr imi nal ly neg li g ent homic ide

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19. 05 (Ve rnon 200 3). A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e use a tw o- par

t t estto deter mine w hether a de fendant i s e nti tl ed to an i nst ru cti on on a lesser-include d of fense . “Fi rst, the lesser-include d of fense mustbe includ ed wi thin th e proo f ne c es s ar

y t o es ta bl i s h th e offen s e c ha rg ed ; secon d, the r e mu s t be s om e ev ide nce in the record that if the defendant is g uil ty , he is g uil ty onl y of the l ess er-i ncl uded of fense .” Young v. State , 283 S.W .3d 8 54, 8 75 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009)

. If the el ements of the l ess er

offense are “ ‘es tabl is hed by pro o f of the same o r les s t han al l the fact s required to esta blish the comm ission of t he of fense ch arged,’” t he f irst prong of the te st is sat is fied. Hal

l v. State , 22 5 S. W .3 d 5 2 4 , 53 6 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 37 .09 (1) (Vernon 2 006 )). The sec ond prong as ks w hether there i s e v ide nce tha t suppor ts g iv ing the ins tr uct ion to the j ur

y ; anythi ng more tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce may suffice to enti tl e the defendant t o a c harg e on the l ess er-i ncl uded offense. Id. T he evidence p rodu ced m ust est a b lis h the l ess er-i ncl uded offense as “ a v ali d, rati onal al ter nati v e to the c harg ed of fense .” Id. (quo ti n g For est v. Sta te , 989 S.W .2d 365 , 367 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p.1 999 )). B. A pp licab le L aw Cr imi nal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide i s a l ess er-i ncl uded offense of murder

. See Grotti v. State , 273 S.W .3d 2 73, 2 76 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ; Car denas v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 84,13

392 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; see als o Gue rr er o v . St ate , N o
. 1 3
- 0 5
- 0 0 7 0 9
- C R , 2 0 0 8 WL 5179740, at *8 ( Tex . Ap p.– Co rp us Chr is ti M ar . 13, 2008, no p et.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Thus, w e must cons ide r w hether there w as ev ide nce adduc ed at t ri al thatw oul d suppor t gi v ing a c ri minal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide i nst ru cti on to the jur y . See Hall , 225 S.W .3d at 536 . In order to me et th e seco nd p rong, there mustbe som e evidence tha t w ould perm it a ration al jury to find tha t if Garcia i s guilty , he is guilty only of criminally neg li g ent h omic ide

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 37.0 9; Hall , 225 S.W .3d a t 536

. Murder, m ansla ughter, an d crimina lly neglig entho m ic id e dif fer in the culp able mental st ate req uired. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 19.02( b) (1 )- (2 ), 19.0 4( a) , 19. 05( a) (V er non 2003). A pers on w ho c auses the death of another co mmits ( 1) murder

i f he act s inten tiona lly

or know ingly , or inten ds to cau se serious b odily injuryand comm its an act cl ear ly dang erous to hu man l ife tha t c auses the death of an indi v idu al; ( 2) mansl aug hter if he a cts reck les sl y ; and ( 3) cr imi nal ly neg li g ent h omic ide i f he act s i n a c ri minal ly neg li g ent
manner
. See i

d. §§ 19 .02 (b)(1)-( 2), 19. 04(a ), 1 9

. 0 5(a). Th e requisite me nta l states are def ined as follows: (a) A p erson a cts inten tiona lly

. . . with respect to the na ture of his condu ct or to a resul t of hi s c onduc t w hen i t i s h is co nsc iou s o bje ct iv e or des ire to eng ag e i n the co nductor ca use the resul t. (b ) A person act s k now ing ly

. . . w it h respect t o the natu re of his co nductor to c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng hi s c onduc t w hen he is aw are of the nature of his co nductor that the circums tanc es ex is t. A person act s k now ing ly

. . . w it h respe ct to a result o f

his condu ct w h e n h e is aw are tha t his cond uct is re asona bly

ce rt ain to caus e the resul t. (c ) A person act s reck les sl y . . . w it h re spec t t o c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng his cond uct or the result of his condu ct w hen he is aw are of but con sciously dis re g ards a s ubst anti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk thatthe ci rc umstan ces ex is t or the resul t w il l occ ur
. The ri sk m ustbe of suc h a nature and deg re e tha t i ts14

dis re g ard c onst it utes a g ro ss dev iat ion from t he s tandard of care t hat a n ordin ar y person w oul d ex er ci se under al l the ci rc umstan ces as v iew ed from the a cto r’ s s tandpoi nt. (d ) A person act s w it h c ri minal neg li g ence
. . . w it h respect t o c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng hi s c onduc t or the re su lt o f

h is c onduct w hen he oug ht t o be aw are of a s ubst anti al and unj ust ifiab le ri sk thatthe ci rc umstan ces ex is t or the resul t w il l occ ur
. The r is k mus t be of such a na ture and deg re e tha t t he failure to p erceive it const itute s a gross deviation from the sta nda rd of care that an ordin ar

y person w oul d e xercis e under al l the c ircums tanc es as v iew ed from t he ac tor ’s st andpoi nt. Id. § 6.0 3 ( Ver non 200 3)

. W hen c onsi d e rin g w hether an i nst ru cti on on cr imi nal ly neg li g ent h omic ide w as re q uired, w e ex amine the c ase in li g ht of i ts par ti cul ar facts and ci rc umstan ces and deter mi ne w he th er th e de fen da nt w as aw are of th e r i s k of de at h as s oc i at ed w ith his condu ct. See Thom as v. State , 699 S.W .2d 8 45, 8 50 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985)

. “B efore a charge on cri min ally negligent hom icide is required, the record must con t a in ev iden ce s h o win g an u nawarene ss of the risk.” W

hipple v. Sta te , 281 S.W .3d 482 , 503 (T e x. Ap p .– El P a so 2 0 0 8 , p e t. r e f ’d ) (ci ti n g Me ndieta v . St ate , 70 6 S. W .2 d 65 1, 6 53 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1986) ; Lic on v

. St ate , 99 S. W .3d 918 , 928 (Tex. App. –El Pa so 20 03, no pe t.)). C. A nal ysis In sup port of

his arg um entthathe w as en titled t o a n i n s t ruction on crimina lly
n e gl ig e n th o m ic id e , G a rc ia p o in t s t o t h e fo ll o win g s t a t e m e n t s m a d e d u ri n g h is t e s t im o n y: [ De fe n s e Co u n s e l] : Di d yo u in t e n d t o ki ll L u is L o p e z? [Garcia] : No, sir. [D efense C ounse l] : W hat d id y ou i ntend to do ? [Garci a]: To protec t my sel f and g et hi m off of me.15 . . . . [Defense Counse l]: Did y ou kn ow the sev erityof Luis’ w oun ds? [Garci a]: No, I did n’t

. Al thoug h thi s t est imony se rv es as ev ide nce from w hic h a j ur y co uld dete rmi ne th at itw as not G ar ci a’s co nsc iou s d esi re that his act ion s w oul d resul t i n Lui s’ deat h, i t doe s n ot show thatGarci a w as unaw are of the ri sk created by

hi s c onduc t. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 6.03; see als o Pitony ak v. State , 253 S.W .3d 8 34, 8 47 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2008, pet.
re f’d) ( “[ I]ti s n ot s uff ic ien t t hat t he j ur y mig ht ha v e c hosen to d isb e li ev e tha t app ell ant [acte d] inte ntion ally

o r know ingly

. . . there m ust be ev iden ce tha t app ellantw as guilty only of acti ng reck les sl y

or w it h c ri minal neg li g ence. ”) . On directex aminat ion , G ar ci a tes ti fied that he an d L u is eng ag ed i n an alt er cat ion and that, at some p oin t, Lui s w as on to p of Garcia as Ga rcia lay

on the g roun d. Garcia test if ied th at he tried to pu sh Lu is of f of him and t hen hea rd someone say , “S aca lo. Saca lo, ” meanin g “ tak e i t out .” G ar ci a s tated that he w as unsure w hether the sta tement w as made by one of his frie nds or one of t he men
w it h Lui s. H owever, u p o n hear ing the sta tement, Garci a too k a kn ife outof his poc ket , f lipped it open to expose th e blad e, an d stab bed Luis. On cross-examin a t io n , Garcia ack now led g ed th at s tabbi ng so meone w it h a k nife w as an act cl ear ly dangerous to hu man l i fe a nd t ha t he i nt en de d to h ar m L op ezb y s ta bb i ng h i m. Beca use there is no ev ide nce that Garci a w as unaw are of the ri sk as soc iat ed w it h his co nduct , the tr ial co urt di d noter r by deny ing hi s req uestto charg e the j ur y on t he les ser-i nclu d e d offense of cr imi nal ly neg li g ent h omic ide

. See Pitony ak , 253 S.W .3d a t 847; W hipp le , 281 S.W .3d a t 503

. W e ov er ru le Garci a’s se cond is sue.16 IV. R EA SON A B LE D OUBT By his thi rd iss ue, Gar ci a contends that the tri al cour t abused it s dis creti on by fail ing to g iv e a j ur

y i nst ru cti on on the d efini ti on of reason abl e doubt

. Und er former ca se law , a jur

y i nst ru cti on on the defini ti on of reason abl e doubtw as required; ho w ever, the cou rt of criminal a p p e a ls ex plicitly ov erruled th is req uirem entin Paul son v. State , 28 S.W .3d 570, 57 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. Garci a ex press es a g eneral dis ag re ement w it h Paul son and arg ues that it s h old ing “ shoul d be re v is it ed.” H ow ev er , as
re ce n tl y as A p ril o f

th is ye a r, th e co u rtof

crim in a l a p p e a ls, cit in g Paul son , hel d tha t t ri al courts “ma y

or may not def ine th e term ‘reasona ble do ubt ’” and tha t “‘the bet ter practice ’” is to av oid def ini ng it. Ma ys v. Sta te , N o. A P- 75 ,9 24 , 20 10 W L 16 87 77 9, a t * 12 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . Ap r. 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( quo ti n g Paul son , 28 S.W .3d a t 573 ). Be caus e w e are bound by
e xis t in g p re c e d e n te s t a b li s h in g t h a ta t ri a l c o u rtn e e d n o td e f in e re a s o n a b le d o u b t , we o v e r r u l e G a r c i a ’ s t h i rd i s sue. Se e Wiley v. Sta te , 112 S.W .3d 173 , 175 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 03, pet. ref ’d). V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of G ar ci a’s is sues on appe al, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial
cour t.

_________ _________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.