NO. 07-07 -005 2-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B FEB RU ARY13, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ RONI LYNN BYARD, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 33 RD DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L L AN O CO UNT Y; NO . 586 0; H ON ORABLE DA N MI LLS, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t R oni Ly nn By ard appea ls from her co nv icti on of pos ses si on of methampheta mine and the resul ti ng se ntenc e of sev en y ears’ co nfinement, probated for a per iod of ten y ears. Th ro u gh two i ss ues, appel lan t c hal len g es the s uff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce to s uppor

t her co nv icti on. Fi ndi ng the ev ide nce suffici ent, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.See T ex. H ealth & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .12 4 (Verno n 20 03). 1 SeeTex . H eal th &Safety C ode An n. § 481.112 ( Ver non 200 3)
. 2 SeeTex . H eal th &Safety C ode An n. § 481.115 ( Ver non 200 3)
. 3 2 Back g ro und By an O cto b e r 2 0 0 6 indi ctment , app ell ant was charg ed w it h pos ses si on of an immedi ate p re cursor

w it h i ntentto manufacture metham p h e tamine, manufacture of 1 methampheta mine, and poss ess ion of methampheta mine. The j ur y found her not g uil ty 2 3 of Count s I and II but g uil ty of Cou nt I II, pos ses si on of methamphet amine. Ev ide nce at t ri al showed that Llano, T ex as, poli ce w ent to a mobil e home there after th e y ob ta in e d in fo rm a ti o n le a d in g th e m to be lie ve th a t il le gal dru g ac ti vity wa s o cc u rrin g. The le ss ee of the si ng le-w ide home, w ho w as present , c ons e n ted to a search of the re si dence
. Appel lan t and her boyfrie nd had been sta y ing at the h ome. Appel lan t’ s young teenag e s on also w as pre sent
. Appel lan t and her boyfrie nd w ere found as lee p i n the so uth bedroom of the mobi le home. One o ff ic er testif ie d t h a t there was a “ larg e amountof deb ris, trash, clothin g, th ings like tha t” in the bed room w here app ellantw as foun d. Of f icers also found in the be droo m ho t plate s, pet roleum distillates, cof fee p ots, p ackaging mate rial, smal l plasti c b ag s w it h w hat a ppeared to be met hamphetami ne resi due, ro ck sa lt , py re x g las sw are, ps eudoephed rine packag es, and a but ane bur ner w it h a b ottl e att ached
. Off ic er tes ti mony

n o te d al so the p re senc e of three k ey i ndi cat ors o f methamphetami ne manufactur ing --matc h boo ks with the st ri kers remov ed, i odi ne s tai nin g and pseud ophedr ine pac kag ing
.Ev ide nce shows o ne of the bag s was a pi ece of lug g ag e w it h w heel s a nd a handl e, 4 and the ot her ba g w as a ba ckpack. T h e S ta te al so produce d numerous photog ra phs of the mobi le home, de picti ng 5 appel lan t and the other i ndi v idu als as w ell as ch emic als and eq uip ment des cr ibe d as commonl y

uti li z ed i n the manufacture of methamphet amine. 3 Du r i n g t h e se a rc h o f

t h e ro o m , o f

f ic e rs a ls o fo u n d wh a tt h e y d e s c ri b e d a s two c la n d e s t in e m e t h a m p h e t a m in e la b s . T h e it e m s o f f ic e rs re fe rr e d t o we re lo c a t e d in two unl ock ed bl ack bag s found i n the cl oseti n the so uth b edroom. The it ems i n the bag 4 inc lud ed, a mong othe r thi ng s, a g re en g las s b eer bott le, as sor

ted water

bott les , G atorade bottl es, and acet one. The bl ack bag s b elo ng ed to appel lan t’ s b oyfrie nd. Three bottl es cont ain ed s ubst ances of 0.78 g ra ms, 31.17 g ra ms, and 122.59 g ra ms, re specti v ely , t hat teste d po sitiv e for me tha mp het am ine. The se sub stan ces w ere the basis of app ellant ’s 5 conv icti on. Appel lan t’ s b oyfrie nd D av id Joh n so n tes ti fied for the S tate. H e tes ti fied he and appel lan t had been tog ether for s ev eral months , t hat t hey met i n A labama and t hat t hey had come to Lla no in appel lan t’ s car sev eral months before thei r ar re st. Johnson had prev iou sly

l iv ed i n Ll ano. After ar ri v ing there, t he two s tay ed w it h ac q uai ntanc es of Johns on. Johns on admitted the methampheta mine bel ong ed to hi m. H e al so tes ti fied he and app ell ant h ad been co okin g a n d u si ng methamphet amine for s ev eral day s a nd testif ied ap pellan t help ed wi th th e coo k. Johnso n indica ted he an d ap pellan t w ere

“ s l ee pi ng o ff a h i g h” w he n po l i c e fou nd t he m. The in v est ig ati ng off ic ers found d ebr is i n a trash can loc ated on th e frontporch of the h ome thatthey ide nti fied as re si due from a methampheta mine cook
. The it ems in the trash inc lud ed matc h book s w it h the st ri ker pl ates remov ed, a hy poder micsy ri ng e, pa ck ing4

ma terial f rom a t least one case of ma tche s, and cof fee f ilters. An of

f icer testif ied “alm ost ev er ythi ng has w hat’ s c onsi ste nt w it h i odi ne s tai ns on th e mater ial .” Testimony i ndi cat ed that t h e l o c a l t ra s h p i c k - u p o c c u r re d o n c e a w e e k , l e a d i n g o ffi c e rs t o c o n c l u d e t he c ook had oc cur re d w it hin the w eek. Las tl y , officers t est ified to a s trong odor i n the home. Appel l a n t

p re s e nted her

ca se throug h the cross -e x aminat ion of the S tate’ s w it ness es and a w it ness sh e c all ed w ho te sti fied th at w hen appel lan t and J ohnso n s tay ed w it h her for about three w e e ks , sh e n ev er sa w bl ack bag s l ik e tho se found to c ontai n the methampheta mine. She also ide nti fied appell ant’ s poss ess ion s byvi ew ing a ph otog ra ph shown to her by the prose cuto r, none of w hich includ ed b la c kb a gs . Th e w itness a lso testif ied th at ab outa w eek p rior to appe llant’s arrest, Joh nson lef t the w itness’s reside nce and t ook appel lan t’ s c ar w it h hi m. As noted, the jur

y found appel lan t notg uil ty of poss ess ion of

an i mmediat e precursor w it h i ntentto manufacture methamphetamin e and manufacture of m ethamphet amine, but g uil ty of poss ess ion of methampheta mine in an amountof four grams or more but l ess than 200 g rams. Her sent ence include d seven y ears’ imp risonm ent , proba ted for ten years. Ana ly sis By two i ssues, appel lan t c hal len g es: ( 1) the leg al and factu al suffici ency of the ev ide nce to s u p p o rther co nv icti on for poss ess ion of methampheta mine; and (2 ) the t ri alA claim tha t a directe d v erdict w as required is a challen ge to th e legal suf f iciency 6 of the ev ide nce. Can ale s v . St ate, 98 S .W .3d 6 90, 6 93 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; W illiam s v. State, 937 S.W .2d 4 79, 4 82 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. 5 cour t’ s fai lure to g ra nt he r re q uestfor a di re ct e d ve rd ict. W e w il l address both i ss ues togeth er. 6 Appl ic abl e Law In c onducti ng a leg al suffici ency rev iew , w e mustdete rmi ne w hether , after rev iew ing the ev iden ce in the lig ht m o s tf a v orab le to the prosecu tion, any ration al trier of fact cou ld hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the c rim e b e y ond a re asona ble doubt
. Jackson v. Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 18- 19, 9 9 S.Ct . 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 ( 1979) ; Hooper v. Sta te, 214 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; Fowler v. Sta te, 65 S. W .3 d 1 16, 1 18 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2001 , no pet .). If , base d on all t he e v iden ce, a rea sona bly min ded jury must neces sa r i l y

e nter tai n a reason abl e doubtof the d efendant’ s g uil t, due proces s req uires that w e rev erse and order a j udg ment of ac q uittal
. Swear ing en, 101 S.W .3d a t 95, citi ng Nar vai z v. Sta te, 840 S.W .2d 4 15, 4 23 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer t. denied, 507 U. S. 9 75, 113 S.Ct. 142 2, 122 L .Ed .2d 7 91 (199 3). Circum stan tial evidence is as prob ative as direct ev ide nce in est abl is hin g t h e gu ilt of an act or and the s tandard of rev iew on a ppeal i s t he same for both dire ct and ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce cas es. Guev ar a v . St ate, 152 S.W .3d 4 5, 49 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ; Kutz n e r v. State, 994 S.W .2d 180 , 184 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). A rev iew ing court mustg iv e de fe re nce to “the respo nsibility of the trier of

fact to fairly re sol v e c onfli cts i n tes ti mony , t o w eig h the ev ide nce, and to draw reason abl e i n fe re nces f rom b asic facts to ultima te facts.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13.6

A factua l suffici ency

rev iew of the e v ide nce is “ barely dist ing uis habl e” from t he l eg al s u f f icie ncy rev iew

und er Jackson v. Virginia
. Ma rshal l v. State , 2 1 0 S
. W
. 3 d 6 18, 6 25 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). A factu al suf f iciency rev iew

cons iders w het her the ev iden ce supp orting g uilt, tho ugh legally s u f f ic ie n t , is so w eak th at th e jury ’s v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anife s t ly u n ju s t, or evi den ce con trary to the v erdict is such tha t the jury ’s v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id.; W ats on v. State , 204 S. W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 ( Te x.Cri m.App. 2006) ; Johns on v . St ate , 23 S.W .3d 1 , 11 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. In a factual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e ag ain co nsi der all the ev ide nce, but n ow i n a n eutral li g ht. Mar shall , 2 1 0 S .W .3d a t 625 ; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414
. Al thoug h an appel lat e c our t’ s a uthor ity

to re view fact ual su ff ic ien cy per mits the cour

t t o dis ag re e w it h the fact finder ’s deter minat ion s, ev en to a li mite d deg re e tho se conc er nin g the w eig ht an d c re dib il ity

of the ev ide nce, the appel lat e court must ac cord the m due de ferenc e. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; Johns on , 23 S.W .3d a t 9. W e mu st also discu ss the evidence that, ac cordin g to the a ppel lan t, most under mines the jur y 's verd ict
. Si

m s v . St ate, 99 S.W .3d 6 00, 6 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003)
. Appel lan t w as conv icted of poss ess ion of m ethamphet amine. To prov e its ca se, the Stat e mustsh ow

appel lan t ex erci sed care, c ust ody and cont ro l ov er

the methampheta mine and had kn ow led g e th a t th e s ubst ance in her pos ses si on w as cont ra band. Tex . Pe nal Cod e Ann. § 1 .0 7 (a) (V er non 200 3) ; Poi ndexter v. Sta te, 153 S.W .3d 4 02, 4 05 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) ; Br ow n v. State, 911 S.W .2d 744 , 747 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 5); Lass ain t v

. St ate, 7 9 S
. W .3d 736 , 739 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 2002 , no pe t.). Posse ssion ne ed n ot b e e xclusiv e an d evidence w hich sho w s thatan accu sed join tly7

poss ess ed th e c ontraband w it h another is s uff ic ien t. W

hit wort h v . St ate, 808 S.W .2d 5 66, 569 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1991, pet. ref’d)
. W hen an acc used is not in ex cl usi v e pos ses si on and c ontrol of the pl ace w here the c ontraband was found, i t c annot be c oncl uded or presu me d tha t the accuse d had kn owl edge of o r con trol o v er the co ntrab and unless th ere are addi ti onal i ndependen t facts and ci rcumst ances co nnect ing or l ink ing the acc used to the k now ing pos ses si on of con traband. Poin dex ter, 153 S.W .3d a t 406 ; Br own, 911 S.W .2d a t 748 ; Har

gr ove v. State, 211 S.W .3d 3 79, 3 85 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 2006, pet. re f’d)
. In de ter mini ng the leg al suffici ency of ev iden ce in a k now ing pos ses si on of cont ra band c ase, there mustbe e v ide nce of ci rc umstan ces , in addi ti on to mere presenc e, to adeq uatel y

just ify the conc lus ion thatthe acc used know ing ly pos ses sed the c ontraband. Evan s v . St ate, 202 S.W .3d 1 58, 1 62 n. 9 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; W ashi ngton v. State, 215 S.W .3d 5 51, 5 54- 55 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2007, no pet .)
. Presenc e and prox imi ty w hen combi ned w it h oth er

ev ide nce, di re ct or

ci rc umstan ti al, may

be s uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h a know ing pos ses si on of con traband. Evan s, 202 S.W .3d a t 162
. Sta tute provi des tha t a conviction cann ot be had o n the t estim ony o f an acco mp lice unl ess i t i s c or ro borated b y o ther ev ide nce tendi ng to conne ct the d efendant w it h the offense commi tted, and the c or ro borati on i s n ot s uff ic ien t i f it merel y sh ow s t he c ommis si on of the offense. Tex . Cod e C rim
. Pr o c. Ann. § 38. 14 ( Ver non 200 5) ; Dr eur y v . St ate, 225 S.W .3d 491 , 498 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7) (before con v iction m ay rest on a n acco mp lice w itness’s te stimo ny, it mu st be corrobo rated by“indepe nde nt evidence tend ing to conne ct the a cc used w it h the cr ime” ).8

Appl ic ati on By the ti me of tr ial , Johns on had pl ead g uil ty to the o ffense of poss ess ion , w it h i ntent to manufact ure, of an immedi ate p re cursor of methampheta mine. The j ur y w as ins tr uct ed he w as an acc ompli ce as a matt er of law
. See Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. § 38 .14 ( Ver non 2005) ; Kut

z ner, 994 S.W .2d a t 187 , citi ng McF ar lan d v . St ate, 928 S.W .2d 4 82, 5 14 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) (a pers on is an accompl ic e, w hose tes ti mony m ustbe cor ro borated, as a matt er

of law if he w oul d be sus cept ibl e to prosec uti on for the o ffense w it h w hic h the acc used is ch arg ed or

a l ess er i ncl uded offense)
. He had not y et be en s entenc ed w hen he tes ti fied for the State at appel lan t’ s tr ial , and said part of his plea ag re ement req uired th at he te sti fy tr uthfull y

at her tr ial
. Acc ord ing ly , w e first cons ide r w hether hi s t est imony

w as cor ro borated. T he su f f ic ie ncy of

corroborat ing ev iden ce is tested byelimina ting the acco mp lice w itness te stimo ny and then ex am ining the rem aining evi den ce to de term ine th e existence of ev ide nce conne cti ng the defendant w it h the commiss ion of the offense. Mu noz

v. Sta te , 853 S.W .2d 558 , 559 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1993 ). It is not nece ssarythatthe rem aining evi den ce direct ly link the defendant to the cr ime or prov e all the ele ments of the charg ed of fense. Gill v . Sta te , 873 S.W .2d 45, 48 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 4). To corroborat e acco mp lice-w itness tes ti mony , “a ll the law

req uires is thatthere be s o menon- acc ompli ce ev ide nce w hic h tends to con nectthe acc u s e d t o the com mission of the of fense . W hile individuallythese ci rc umstan ces mig ht no t be su f f ici ent t o c or ro borate t he ac compl ic e tes ti mony , t aken t o ge t h e r, ra t io n a l j u ro rs co u ld co n c lu d e t h a tt h is e vid e n c e su f f ic ie n t ly tended

to conn ectBecause of appell ant’ s is sue cont est ing denial of her motion for direct ed v erdict, 7 w e m e n t i o n o n l y

e v i d e n c e t h e j u r

y h e a rd d u r i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e - i n - c h i e f. An of f icer also te stif ied ap pellan t’s son said, w hen asked if th ere w ere oth er peo ple 8 in the resi dence , app ell ant was in the “ back bedroom as lee p w it h her boyfrie nd.” 9 app ellantto the of

fe n se.” Her

nandez v. Sta te, 939 S.W .2d 1 73, 1 78- 79 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) , citi

ng C ox v. State, 830 S.W .2d 609 , 612 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 92) (em pha sis in orig inal); Can telon v

. St ate, 85 S .W .3d 4 57, 4 60-6 1 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2002, no p et.)
. There is no preci se ru le as to the amount of ev ide nce that is re q uired, and each cas e is to be c onsi dered on i ts ow n facts and ci rc umstan ces . Mu noz , 853 S.W .2d a t 559
. W e mustv iew the cor ro borati ng ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict. Knox v. Sta te, 934 S.W .2d 678, 686- 87 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) ; Gill, 873 S.W .2d a t 48. Johns on te sti fied th at ap pel lan t’ s role i n the manufactur ing proces s w as to s crape t he match book cov ers. The St ate’ s b ri ef arg ues J o h n son’s tes ti mony i s c or ro borated by

the presenc e of sc ra ped matc h book cov ers i n the trash. Bu t t hat e v ide nce merel y co rroborates the c ommis si on of t he offense, not appel lan t’ s inv olv ement. Appel lan t arg ues that w it hout John s o n ’s t e stimo ny the ev iden ce sho w s only her prese nce. W hile an accuse d pe rson’s mere presenc e i n the co mpany of the a cc ompli ce before, dur ing , and after the c ommis si on of the of fense is i nsuf

f icient by itself to corrobo rate accom plice testim ony, evidence of such presenc e, c oupl ed w it h oth er suspi ci ous ci rc umstan ces , maytend to conne ct the acc used to t he offense. Dowth itt v. State , 931 S.W .2d 2 44, 2 49 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) , citi ng Gill , 873 S.W .2d a t 49. H ere, t he non- a cc ompli ce ev ide nce i ncl udes an officer ’s tes ti mony that 7 appel lan t “ co- habi tated ” w it h J ohnso n, and tes ti mony thatappel lan t’ s v ehi cl e w as par ked 8 at t he mobi le home duri ng the month before their arrest
. The ju ry

al so coul d hav e i nferred10

from pol i c e te s ti mo ny

tha t c l ot hi ng fol de d i n th e l au nd r y b as k et s fou nd i n th e mo bi l e ho me bel ong ed to appel lan t. Al thoug h the re w as tes ti mony that other females someti mes s tay ed in the mob ile hom e, nothin g indicat es any oth er fem ale was the n staying the re. Appe llant’s purse w as ly ing on t op of the bask ets , w hic h c ontai ned bot h mal e and female c lot hin g . Addi ti onal ly , t he odor asso cia ted w it h methamphe tami ne manufactu ri ng w as desc ri bed attr ial as “ strong .” Test imony i ndi cat ed the odor

emanate d from t he trash can by the h ome’s frontporch but was presenti nsi de th e home a s well
. One o ff ic er tes ti fied i t w as “an imm edia tely strong odo r” even af ter the h ouse h ad b een v ent ilated and the f ront do ors opened. The s ame off ic er sa id the o dor

w as strong i n the bedroom f ro m whic h appel lan t w alk ed, a nd i ndi cat ed a person coul d notbe i n tha t room w it hout smel li ng it
. The odor w as describe d as “kind of

acidic w ith a stron g acid m eta llic sme ll.” The req uirement t hat a cc ompli ce-w it n e s s t e s t i mo n y b e c o rroborated does not p re sent a hi g h threshol d. Mc

Afee v. State, 204 S.W .3d 8 68, 8 78- 79 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 2006, pet. re f’d) ; C a ntelon, 8 5 S.W .3d a t 461
. Ev en i nsi g nific ant c ircums tanc es maysa ti sfythe tes t. Id., R eed v

. St ate, 744 S.W .2d 112 , 126 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 8). W e f ind the evidence that appel lan t had been presentw it h the accompl ic e in the mobi le home dur ing an e xtended per iod of ti me, c oupl ed w it h the ev ide nce o f the s trong odor as soc iat ed w it h methampheta mine manufacture, t ends to connect appell ant w it h the of fense of pos ses si on of methamphetami ne. Beca use we find John son’s te s t imo ny w as corrobo rated , w e no w conside r his tes ti mony

i n det er mini ng the suffici ency of t he ev ide nce to suppo rtappel lan t’ s c onv icti on forTh ere al s o w as ev i de nc e th ato th er p eo pl e s om et i me s o c c up i ed t he mo bi l e ho me 9 w ho c oul d hav e been inv olv ed. 11 poss ess ion of methampheta mine. Taki ng al l of the ev ide nce tog ether and cons ide ri ng Johns on’ s t est imony

thatappel lan t part ic ipa ted in the “ cook ” and us ed metha mphetami ne w hile at th e residen ce, we f ind l egally suf f icient ev iden ce f rom w hich a jury could reason ably infer app ellantcontrolled , and thu s knowingl y posse ssed, the m eth am phe tam ine for w hich she w as charg ed. See S tubblefield v. Sta te, 79 S .W .3d 17 1 , 1 77 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 200 2, pet. ref ’d) (Grant, J. concu rring in part and disse nting in part). View ing the evidence in the p ro per

l ig ht, w e find a ra ti onal tr ier of factco uld hav e found the es sent ial el ements of poss ess ion of methampheta mine bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Turni ng to appel lan t’ s factual suffici ency chal len g e, appel lan t is cor re ct that, outs ide Johns on’ s t est imony , l ittl e ev ide nce bey ond t he c or ro borati ng ev ide nce w e hav e not ed conne cts her

w it h the methamphet amine. Not hin g ind ic ates that appel lan t had dr ug s o n her person or

resi due on her

cl othes , or

thatsh e appea re d to be unde r the i nfluenc e of methampheta min e at the t ime of her ar re st. M any of the i tems ass oci ated w it h me th am ph et am i ne ma nu factu re w ere fou nd in the tras h or i n l oc at i on s i n th e mo bi l e ho me other than the bedroom i n w hic h s he w as sl eepi ng . The bl ack bag s were i n the cl oset , one of them under

a bl anket
. One o ff ic er ans w ere d n e gat ivel y

to the p ro sec utor ’s q uest ion w hether a ph otog ra ph of the ro om w here appel lan t w as found sl eepi ng depi cte d anythi ng t h a tm a y b e a s s o c ia t e d wit h a m e t h a m p h e t a m in e la b
. B u tt h e ju ry wa s f re e t o b e li e ve 9 Johns on’ s t est imony

thatthe methampheta mine w as his and a p p e lla nt he lpe d w it h i ts ma nufactu re. W e do not f ind th e evidence to be so w eak th at th e jury ’s v erdict see ms clea rly12

w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , or

tha t th e e v ide nce cont ra ry to the v erdict i s s uch that the jury ’s v erdict is against the g reat w eight and p repo nde rance o f t he evidence. W e overrule appel lan t’ s i ss ues and affirm the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.