NO. PD-1379-14

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
SAMUEL AGUILAR

Petitioner,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

STATE’S REPLY TO PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
STEVEN E. REIS State Bar No. 16757960 Email: steven.reis@matagorda.tx.us Matagorda County Courthouse 1700 7 Street, Suite 325

th Bay City, Texas 77414 Telephone: (979) 244-7657 Telecopier: (979) 245-9409 ROBINSON C. RAMSEY State Bar No. 16523700 Email: rramsey@langleybanack.com LANGLEY & BANACK, INC. Trinity Plaza II, Suite 900 745 E. Mulberry San Antonio, Texas 78212 Telephone: (210) 736-6600 Telecopier: (210) 735-6889
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

______________________________________________ PD-1379-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 12/22/2014 2:38:00 PM Accepted 12/29/2014 2:17:36 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKi TABLE OF CONTE NTS I N D E XO F A U T H O R I T I E S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii STATEMENT REG

ARDI NG ORALARGUMEN T.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v S T A T E M E N TO F T H E C

A S E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v QUE STIONS P RE SENT ED FO R RE VIEW
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Q UE ST ION O NE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Whe ther the trial court was within its discr e ti o n to adm i t tes timony

ab out Aguilar’ s a ss aulting his girl f r i en d d u r i n g a n a r gu m en t abo u t h ers ex ual in volvementwi th th e vi ct im. Q UE ST ION TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Whe ther the trial cour t was w ithin its d i s c r e tion to admi t i nt o evidenc e phot ograph s descri bing the natur e of A

gui la r’s physic al assaul t o n hi s girl fri end du ri ng hi s argumen t w ith her abouther sexu al i n v olv em en t wi t h t he vi ct i m. Q UE ST ION T H REE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Wh et he r t he evi d en c e, w he n vi ew ed i n t he l i gh t mo st fav orabl e to th e verdi ct , is legal ly suffi ci ent to support Agu ilar’s convicti on beca use t hatevi denc e con fi rms th ata ra ti ona l ju ry co ul d have fo un d hi m gui lt y of the off ense char ged.ii

A R G U M E N T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. T he j u d ge r i ght f u l l y a d mi t t ed t est i mo n y o f A gu i l ar ’s assaultin g his ex- girl fri end w hi le a rgui ng abou t h er sexual r e l a t i o n s wi t h t h e vi ct i m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II
. T he t ri al c ou rt

r i gh t f u l l y a d mi t t ed ph ot og ra ph s of A gu i l ar ’s as sa u l t o n h i s gi rl f

ri en d , w ho m h e ac c u sed of havi n g h adsex wi t h t h e vi ct i m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I I I
. T he e vi d e n c e i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t A

g u i l a r’ s c o n vi ct i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 P R A Y E R
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O M P L I A

N C E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R

V I C E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0iii INDE X OF AU THORI TIE S CASES : B ro ok s v. State , 323 S.W.3d 89 3 (Tex. C ri m. A pp. 201 0) .
. . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 B u tl e r v. State , 872 S.W.2 d 2 27 ( Tex. C ri m. A pp. 19 94)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 H e id e l be rg v. State , 14 4 S.W.3d 535 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 2004 ).
. . . . . . . . . . 3 Jacks on v. Vi rgin ia , 4 4 3 U
. S
. 3 0 7( 1 9 7 9 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 , 8 Laste r v. State , 2 7 5 S
. W
. 3 d 5 1 2 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 )
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 M on tg om e ry v. State , 810 S.W.2 d 372 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 19 90).
. . . . . . . . 1-3 Sh u f f ie l d v. State , 189 S.W.3d 782 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 2006 ).
. . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 Wi l s on v. State , 71 S.W.3d346 ( Tex. C ri m. A pp. 2002 ) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
STATUTES: T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . art . 38.04 (Vern on 1 979 ) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
RULE S: T EX . R. A PP . P
. 3 3 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 T EX . R. E VID . 1 0 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 , 5 T EX . R. E VID . 4 0 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 2iv

T O T H E C OU RTOFC RI M INA L A P P EA LS O F T E XA S:

STATEME NT R

EG ARDING

ORAL AR

GUMENT T he St at e d oe s n ot

bel i ev e t ha t o ra l ar gu me n t w ou l d ma t er i al l y a ssi st th is Co urtin reach in g it s deci sion
. Th erefore, the Sta te d oes notreq uest oral arg ume nt, STATEME NT OF THE CASE Th is i s a fel ony c ase in whi ch aju ry fou nd A ppell antSamuel Agu il ar gu i l ty of mu rd eran d as ses sedh i s p u n i sh me n t atl i f e i n pr i so n . 6 RR 35–36, 14 4 .v QUESTI ONS PR

ESE NTE D FOR REVIEW Q UE ST ION O NE (E xt ra n eo u s O f

f en se) Wh e ther the trial cour t was w ithin its disc re tion to admit test imo ny abou t A

gui la r’s as s ault in g his gi rl fri end d uri ng an argum ent abouther sexu al in volvementwi th th e vi ct im. Q UE ST ION TWO (P ho t og ra ph s) Whe the r th e tr ial court was within its disc re tion to admit into evid ence pho to graphs d escri bing the nat ure o f A gui la r’s physic al as sa u l t o n h i s girlfri en d d u ri n g h i s a rg u me n t wi t h he r ab ou t h er sex u al i n v olv em en t wi t h t he vi ct i m. Q UE ST ION T H REE (Evi d en t i ar

y Su f f i c i en c y) Whe ther the evide nce , whe n view ed in the light mos t favora ble to th e verdi ct , is l egally suff ic ientto support Ag ui la r’s con vi ct io n because t hatevi denc e con fi rms t hata ra ti ona l ju ry co ul d have fou nd h im gui lt

y of the off

ense char ged.ARGUMEN T

I. Th e j ud ge righ tf ully a dm itt ed te st imon y of A guilar’s ass aulti ng

hi s ex - g i rl fr i en d w hi l e a rgu i ng

abo u t he r s exu al re l ati o ns wi th the v

i cti m. “When a party at tempt s to add uc e evid ence of ‘o th er cri mes, wron gs or
act s,’ i n o rd ert o pr ese rv e er ro r on ap pea l , th e o pp on en t o f t ha t evi d en c e m u st object in a ti mely f

ashi on.” M

on tg om e ry v. State , 810 S.W.2d 372 , 387 (Tex
. Cri m. A pp. 19 90). Ag ui la r’s fai lu re to do so wai ved a ny al leged err or i n t he ad mi ssi on o f

t hi s t esti mo n y. Se e B u tl e r v. State , 872 S.W.2 d 2 27, 2 37 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1994) (“ A re as onab ly spe cific and time ly ob jection is ne ce ss ary

to pr ese rv e er ro r f

orap pel l at e r evi ew .” ). Re ga rdles s, this te stimo ny w as re levan t to dem ons trate Aguilar’ s s tate of m in d as w ell as hi s mot iv e for mur deri ng th e vi ct im because i t sh owed th at he was a ngry ov er th e prospect of his girl fri end’s havi ng had s exual rel at io ns
wi t h Su t t on . See Montg o mery , 8 10 S .W .2d at 3 82. Furthe rmor e, this argum ent to ok pl ace on ly a short ti me before Sut to n was f oun d mu rdered, and Agu il ar (f

in al ly) admi tt ed t hathe had been i n Sut to n’s hou se o n th e day of th e
mu rd eran d h adsee n Su t t on ’s c or ps e t he re . Ev id e nc e of “ ot her cr imes, wr ongs, oract s” is a dmi ssibl e if ithas
re l ev an c e “ ap art f

ro m i t s t en d en c

y ‘t o pr ov e th e ch ar act er of a per so n i n o rd er to show th at he act ed i n co nfo rmi ty therewi th .’” Montg omery , 810 S.W.2dat 387 (c i t i n g T EX . R. E VID . 404( b)). Th erefore, the pro secut io n “may in tr odu ce2

su ch evi d en c e w

he re i t l og i c al l y ser

v es t o ma ke
.. . mo re pr ob ab l e or less pr ob ab l e an el em en t al f act ; w he re i t ser

v es t o ma ke
.. . mo re pr ob ab l e orl ess probabl e an evi dent ia ry fact thatin ferent ia lly le ad s to an el emental fact; o r where i t serv es to m ake ... more pro bable orl ess probable def ensiv e evid ence th atun dermi nes an el ementa l fact.” Id. Pri me exampl es of permi ssibl e purpo ses to whi ch extr aneou s evid ence of c ri me s, w ro n gs, or act s may be pu t i n cl u d e “p ro of of mo t i v e, o pp ort u n i ty, intent , preparat io n, pl an, kn owl edge, iden ti ty, o r absence of mi stake or
acc id ent.” Montg omery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d at387 (c i t i n g T EX . R. E VID . 404( b)). “Extrane ous offe nse evide nc e th a t log ically s erves any of the se purp os es is rel evantbeyond i ts tenden cy t o pro ve t he ch aracter o f a perso n t o show th at he act ed i n co nfo rmi ty therewi th . It i s th erefore ad missi ble, subj ectonly to th e trial court’s discr etion ne ver thel e s s to exc lude it if its pr ob ative va lue is substan ti al ly o utweigh ed by th e danger of un fai r prej ud ic e....” Montg omery , 81 0 S .W .2 d at387

(c i t i n g T EX . R. E VID . 403). Rul e 403's provisi on th at evid ence “may” be exc lu ded if its p robat iv e value is sub stan ti a ll y

outweig he d by

the da ng er of unfair pre judice, “sim ply
me ans that trial c ourts sh ould favor admis sion in close cas es , in k ee ping with th e presumpt io n of

admi ssibil it

y of r eleva ntevi denc e.” Montgo mery , 8 10 S
. W
. 2 d a t 3 8 9 . A

f t erc o n d u ct i n g t h e p r o ba t i v e- v er su s- p r ej u d i c a l ba l a n c in g3

tes t, the trial c ourt “mus t b e give n wide latitude to ex clude, or, par ticularly in vi ew of th e presumpt io n of admi ssibil it

y of r eleva ntevi denc e, notto excl ud e misc ond uct evid ence as he sees fi t.” Id
. at390. In thi s regard, “[s]o lon g as th e trial court thus o pe rate s within the b oundar ies of its dis cre tion, an app ellate
cou rtshou ldnotdi stu rb it s deci sion , wha tev er itmay be.” Id. In a pp lying thi s a

bu se- of -d i sc re t i on st an d ar d , “ an ap pell at e c ourt should not re ver se a trial judg e w h o s e r uling was within the zo ne of re as onab le di sagreement.” Montg omery , 8 10 S .W .2d at 3 91. He re , the t ri alj u d ge w as w ell wi th in th atzon e in deter min in g th atth e extr aneou s- of fe nse evid ence wa s
re le va ntto issu es such a s mot iv e, opport un it y, in tent , preparat io n, pl an, kn ow l ed ge, i d en t i ty, orab sen c e o f c re d i bi l i ty. Montg omery , 810 S.W.2 d at 387. Th erefore, the t ri al ju dge’s di scret io nary deci sion is notsubjectto being
se cond- gue ss ed on ap pe al. I I . Th e tri al c o u rt wa s wi thi n i ts di sc re ti o n t o adm i t p ho to g ra ph s of Aguila r’s as sau lt on his girlfr ien d , wh o m he accu sed of hav i ng s exwi th the v

i cti m. Agu il ar h as waived h is c ompl ai ntaboutth e admis s ion of th e ph ot og ra ph s o f

t he ph ysi c al i n

j u ri es h e i n f

l i ct ed o n h i s ex -g i rl f

ri en d bec au se hi s o bj ect i on att ri al (tha t t he ph ot og ra ph s d epi ct ed an u n ad j u d i c at ed o f

f en se) doe s no t match his comp laint o n app ea l ( that the pho togr aph s we re unfairly pr ej u d i c i al ). H

e id e l be rg v. State , 14 4 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex . Cri m. A pp. 2004 )4

(c i t i n g T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a)(1 )(A) andT EX . R. E VID . 103( a)( 1)) (“[I ]t is we ll settledth atth e legal basis of a c om pl ai ntrai sed on a ppeal can notvar y from t ha t r ai sedatt ri al .” ); Wi l s on v. State , 71 S.W.3d346, 349 (T ex. Crim. App.
2002 ) (ho ld in g th atto preserve a comp la in t f or a ppell at e revi ew “t he poi ntof
erroron a ppeal mustcom portwi th th e object io n mad e at t ri al ”). Regardl ess, the pho to graphs w ere notun fai rl y preju di ci al , butin stead were rel evantto demon st r a t e th e n a t u re of th e inj uri es Agui la r i nfl icted, whi ch in tu rn w as rel evantto show hi s stat e of mi nd a nd m ot iv e for mur deri ng t he
vi ct i m. T EX . R. E VID . 40 1. Agu il ar c ompl ai ns t hat th e phot ograph s were not necessary because t he ju ry hadal ready heard testi mony descri bing the inj uri es. Bu t “ [t ]he fa ctth at th e ju ry hadal s o he ardtest imo ny regard in g th e inj uri es depicted does no t necessari ly r educ e th e relev anc e of the vi sual depi ct ion.” Sh u f f ie l d v. State , 189 S.W.3 d 7 8 2, 787 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 2006 ). T exas Ru le o f E vi denc e 401 defi nes rel evantevi denc e as “evi denc e havi ng any t endenc y to make t he exist ence of

any f actth atis of co nsequ ence t o t he det ermin at io n of th e act io n more pro bable orl ess probable t han it wou ldbe withou t the evi denc e.” Id. at 78 6

– 87 (c i t i n g T EX . R. E VID . 401 ). Itis sel f-evi dentth atseeing wh at
so me t hi n g l oo ks l i ke i s m or e i n f or ma tive that he ar i n g w ha t i t l oo ks l i ke. Th erefore, the tr ia l cou rtwas withi n i ts d isc reti on i n ad mit ti ng t he5

phot ograph s, whi ch pr ovi ded a more ac cu rat e descri pti on o f th e in ju ri es tha t A gu i l arh adi nflict ed
. See S huffield , 18 9 S. W. 3d a t 38 6 ( “The admis sib ility of a phot ograph is withi n t he soun d di scret io n of th e tri al ju dge.”). Ru l e 4 03 “ al l ow s f

ort he ex cl u si on of othe rw i se re l ev an t evi d en c e w he n its pr ob ative va lue is sub stan tially outweig he d by the da ng er of unfair preju di ce, co nfu sion of the issues, or misl eadi ng the ju ry, or by co nsid erat io ns of u ndu e delay, or n eedless present at io n of cu mul at iv e ev id e nce.” T EX . R. E VID . 403. How ever, th is rul e “favor s th e admi ssion of r eleva ntevi denc e and
car ri es a presumpt io n t hatrel evantevi denc e wi ll be m or e probat iv e th an preju di ci al .” Sh uffield , 189 S.W.3d at787. III. Th e evid e n c e is legally s ufficien t t o supp ort Aguilar ’s c o nv i cti o n. In a legal -suff

ic ienc y revi ew, cou rts e xa m in e th e evid ence in th e li ght mostfav orabl e to th e verdi ctto det ermin e whet her “ any r at i on al f act f i nder
cou ldhav e fou nd gu il t beyonda reason able d oubt .” Jacks on v. Vi rgin ia , 443 U.S. 30 7, 31 9 (1 9 79 ) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi n al ); s e e a l s o B r o o k s v . St at e , 3 23 S.W .3d89 3, 89 5 ( T ex . Cr i m. A pp . 2 01 0) (“ [T ]h e Jacks on v. Vi rgin ia leg al-s ufficie ncy

stan dard is the on ly s tandar d that a re view ing co urt sh ould appl y i n d et er m i n i n g w h eth ert h e evi d en c e i s su f f i c i en t t o s u p p o r t e a ch elementof a cri min al off ense tha t the Sta te i s requ ir ed t o pro ve beyond a6

reasonable do ubt .”). T he Jacks on leg al-s ufficie ncy sta n d ard re quires re view ing co urts to
re so lve an y e vid e n ti a ry inco nsis tencie s in fa vor of the judgm en t, ke ep ing in min d t hatth e fact fi nder is the excl usi ve ju dge of the facts, the cred ibi li ty o f t he
wi t n ess es, an d t he w ei gh t t o gi v e t he i r t est i mo n y. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . art . 38.04 (Vern on 1 979 ) (“The ju ry, in al l cases, is the excl usi ve ju dge of the facts proved, and of the weightto be given t o t he t esti mony ... ”); Br ooks , 3 23 S. W. 3 d at 899 (“Vi ewin g th e evid ence ‘i n t he l ightmostfav orabl e to th e
ver dict’ unde r a leg al-s ufficie ncy stan dard m ea ns that the r evie wing court is
re q u i re d t o d ef

ert o t he j u ry ’s c re d i bi l i ty a n d w ei gh t d et er mi n at i on s be c au se t he j u ry i s t he so l e j u d ge o f

t he wi t n esses ’ cre dibili ty a n d t he w ei gh t t o be gi v en t he i r t est i mo n y.” ). A gu i l ar ’s hi gh l i gh t i n g t he t est i mo n y h e l i kes w hi le gl os si n g ov er t he evi d en c e t ha t go es ag ai n st hi m c on t rav en es the se p ri n c i pl es. Some of th e ev id e nce h e di d no t l ike i ncl ud ed t he fol lo wi ng facts, w hi ch
c on n ect ed h i m t o t he c ri me :

• He t hreat ened t hat“before I go t o court , before I go do wn, so me bo dy’s go i n g d own wi t h me ” and that he “was goin g to do s o m e th ing b ad b ef

ore he wen t into pris on” an d that it w ou l d be s o sh oc

ki n g t ha t it wou l d ma ke f ro n t -p ag e n ew s. 5 RR 2 1– 23, 45, 5

1– 52, 57 –6 0 . 5 RR 21–23 .

• H e kne w Su t t on an d w as atSu t t on ’s ho u se f re q u en t l y. 3 RR 14 2, 1 45.7

• Th e bloo dst ai ns on Agu il ar’s T -shi rt , shoe, baseball cap, a nd bi ke ma t che d Su t t on ’s bl oo d
. 3 RR 239 –40, 24 9–50, 259 –6 0; 4 R R 46 , 14 3, 146 , 17 6 , 205– 06, 2 07

– 08 , 2 2 9 – 31 , 2 39 – 43 .

• H i s bi ke a n d T -s hi rt w er e f ou n d at t he h ou se o f

h i s br othe r B en n y, wh o l i v ed “w

i t hi n sp i t t i n g di st an c e” o f Su t t on . 3 RR 239 –40, 2 49– 50; 4 R R 46 , 14 3, 146
.

• A bl oo d st ai n o n h i s brother B en n y’s f ro n t d oo r ma t che d Su t t on ’s bl oo d
. 3 R R 2 39 .

• Agu il ar i ni ti al ly li ed about havi ng b een atSut to n’s hou se on th e day of

th e murd er, anddi d no t a dmi t th is un til he ha d b e e n c o n f

r o n t e d wi t h i n c r i m i n a t i n g e vi d e n c e . 3 RR 262, 26 4.

• U po n bei n g c on f ro n t ed wi t h t hi s i n c ri mi n at i n g evidenc e, Agu il ar al ter e d hi s sto ry “every st ep of the way” in an attem pt to confo rm with e ach ne w ev i d en tiary incre me nt, and con tinued to mak e chang es in his story to do veta il with each a ddi ti ona l bitof i nfo rmat io n t he in vesti gati ng of fers f ed h i m. 4 RR 102 , 11 4.

• Hi s stor

y abouthavin g tr ipped over Su tt on’s bod y in th e dark was suspectbecause on e of the wi nd ow b linds was op en an d t he re w as a st re etl i gh t r i gh t o u t si d e. 4 RR 10–11, 13 .

• Af ter a ll egedly di scov erin g Sut to n’s body, A gui la r fl ed t he ho u se a n d d i d n ott el l an yo n e abo u t w ha t h e h adf

ou n d
. 4 RR 10–11.

• A gu i l arcl ai me d t ha t t he o n l y p art o f t he ho u se he h adbee n i n w as t he l i vi n gr oo m a re a, bu t t he re w as bl ood all o v er ot her parts of the hou se, inc lu di ng blo ody f

oot pri nt s th at ma t che d t he si ze an d c on f i gu ra t i on of

h i s sh oe s. 4 RR 15 –168

• He h ad no ex plana tion for how the bloo d had go tten on h is ba seb al l c ap . 4 RR 8
.

• He cl ai med t hatth e bloo d on hi s shirt c ame fro m havin g wipe d his h ands afte r touching Sutton to try to ge t him to respond , butth e bloo d on Agu il ar’s shi rtwas i n spat ters, n ot sm ea rs . 4 RR 59 .

• T he c on f

i gu ra t i on and p os it i on o f t he bl oo d o n A

gu i l ar ’s sh i rt w as n ot c on si st en t wi t h hi s st ory , b ut was con sist ent wi th hi s havi ng str uck Sut to n an d c ast o ff bl oo d onto the ba ck o f t he sh irt f

rom t he o bj ect h e u sedt o bea t Su t t on . 4 RR 6 1 .

• A bo u t a w eek

bef or e Su t t on ’s mu rd er A

gu i l arh adac c u sed hi s gi rl f ri en d o f havi n g ha d or al sex wi t h Su t t on f ormo n ey an d h adbec om e a n gr

y an d ph ysi c al l y vi ol en t wi t h he r. 4 RR 17 8, 182 , 184 –85. A le ga l-suf

ficien cy analy sis re quires courts to view all of the e viden ce in th e li ght mostfav orabl e to th e verdi ctto det ermin e whet her a r at io nal tr ier o f fact c oul d have fo un d al l of the essenti al element s of the cri me beyond a
re as onab le doub t. Jacks on , 44 3 U .S. at31 9 ; Laste r v. State , 275 S. W. 3d 5 12, 51 7 ( T ex . C ri m. A

pp . 2 00 9 ). A

gu i l ar t ri es t o re ar ra n ge t hi s st an d ar d t o vi ew th e evid ence i n a mann er he deems mostfav orabl e to hi mself rather t han th e verdi ctby down pl ayin g—or i n some cases, out ri ght igno ri ng—the evi denc e agai nsthi m. B utun der t he l egal-su ffi ci ency st and ard , appel la te c ourts d o no t re-eval uat e th e weightandcred ibilit y of the evi denc e; they on ly en sure t hat t he j u ry r ea che d a ra t i on al d ec i si on . See Las ter , 275 S.W.3d at517 (“Dur in g9

such a revi ew, an appe ll at e cou rtmustnotusu rp t he rol e of the factf in der. Appel la te c ourts are il l- equ ipped to wei gh t he evi denc e.”). Th erefore, as l ong as th e ju ry rat io nal ly a rri ved a t i ts v erdi ct , as itdi d here, there can be no
re v er sa l f

oral l ege d l ega l i n su f

f i c i en c y. Id. PRAYER Forth ese reasons , th e Stat e asks thi s Cou rtto deny t he peti ti on f or di scret io nary r eview
. Respectf ul ly su bmit ted, ST EVE N E . R E IS Stat e BarNo. 1 67579 60 E ma i l : steven.r eis@mat agord a.t x.us M at ag or d a C ou n ty C ou rtho u se 1700 7 Stre et, Room 325

th Bay C ity, Texa s 7 7414 Tel ephone: (9 79) 2 44-76 57 Tel ecopi er: (97 9) 2 45-9 409 /s /Robin son C. Ra mse y ROBI NS ON C. RAMS EY Stat e BarNo. 1 652 3700 Tr in it y Pl aza II, Su it e 900 745 E . Mu lberr

y Sa n Antonio, Te xas 78 212 Tel ephone: (2 10) 736-6 600 T el ec op i er : ( 2 1 0) 73 5- 6 88 9 ATTORNEY S FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS10 CE R TI FI CAT E OF COM PL IAN CE In co mpl ia nce with T exas Ru le o f Appell at e Pro cedu re 9.4( i)( 3), th e Stat e cert if

ie s th at th e number o f wo rds i n t he Sta te’s Repl y to Pet it io n fo r Di sc re t i on ar

y R evie w , i n cl u d i n g i t s h ea d i n gs, f oo t n ot es, an d q u ot at i on s, i s: 1942 . /s /Robin son C. Ra mse y ROBI NS ON C. RAMS EY CE R TI FI CAT E OF SE R

VI CE A t rue an d c orrect c opy of th e for egoin g doc ument was deposit ed in an off ic ia l deposi to ry of th e Uni ted Stat es Post al Servi ce, properly add ressed to : Samuel Agu il ar Co f f i el d U n i t - T DC # 1 6 31 73 6 26 61 FM 2054 T en n ess ee C ol on y, T ex as 75 88 4 Lisa M cM in n St at e P ro sec u t i n g A

t t or n ey E ma i l : in for mat io n@spa.tex as.gov P.O. B ox 1 3046 Au sti n, T exas 7871 1– 3046
on 22 De ce mb er 2014 /s /Robin son C. Ra mse y ROBI NS ON C. RAMS EY

W : \ l bc l i ent \ 07513 \ 00 64\L09298 70. W PD