### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

NO. 03-0 4 -00 401 -CR

Shane Al le n Saun de r s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 04- 241- K3 68 , HO NORAB LE B URT CARNES , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The opinion and judgme nt dated Aug ust 18, 2006, are w ithdrawn, a nd the following is substi tuted in its pl ace .

A jury found appe llant Shane Allen Saunder s g uilty of e n g a g in g

in o r g a n iz e d c r iminal activity , found the de adly wea pon alleg ation in the indictment “true,” and asse ssed punishment at life imprisonment. See Tex. Penal C ode Ann. § 71.02 (West Supp. 2005). Saunders asse rts that the evidenc e is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to sustain the g uilty verdic t. He also c omplains that the ind ic tme nt s ho uld

have be e n q

ua sh e d, and

that th e c ourt

e rr e d in a dmi tti ngir

re le va nt a nd un re lia ble expert testimony

reg ardingthe re sults of gunshot re sidue tests. We will overrule these issues and aff irm the conviction.2 Bac kgr ound Aro un d 3:0 0 a .m. on

July 22 , 2 00 2, law e nf

or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs re sp on de d to re po rt s of g unfire a

nd a hig h-spee d automobile chase in a Geor g etown re sidential neig hborhood. Off icer s set up a roa dblock and stopped two spe eding vehicles: a white Chevrolet pickup truc k driven a nd

so le ly oc c up ie d b y

Ki me la Tr

ump , and a re d M a zda

dr ive n a nd so le ly oc c up ie d b y

Sha wn F or re st. F or re st , who was ble e din g fr om a n in jur y on his ha nd , to ld t he of fi c e rs that so me on e in t

he wh ite truck ha d been shooting at him. Numerous b u l let holes wer e found in the f ront and side of

the Mazda. Ther e we re no bullet holes in the Chevr olet pickup truck.

Pa rtic ipa nts’

Te sti mony F or re st t e sti fi e d th a t a

str ang e r c a me to the do or of his a pa rtme nt at a

bo ut 2 :00 a .m. on the nig ht in question a nd asked for “James.” For rest told the man “ther e is no J ames he re” and order ed him to leave. A s the man walked awa y , For rest noticed f

igur es moving about in the dar k,

on e of wh om r an to a

pic ku p tr uc k p ark e d in

a ne ig hb or ingpa

rk inglot . F or

re st l e ft his a pa rtme nt, g ot into his car , and drove toward the suspicious pickup. He could see a fig ure inside the pickup, but was unable to tell the person’s ge nder. The pickup truck left the parking lot and bega n to drive

awa y . For rest followe d. Suddenly , the t ruck stopped and a fig ure at the s ide of the stree t stepped i n t o t h e l i g ht with an arm e x tended. Gunshots ra ng out, causing For

rest to duck down in his ca r. He he ard bullets striking his ve hicle and felt something g raze his hand. Af ter the shootingstopped, the pic ku p s pe d a wa y . F or re st p ur su e d, c ha sin g the pic ku p thro ug h th e neig hb or

ho od un til bo th vehicles w ere stopped at the police roadbloc k.3 For res t re co g nized Trump when she g ot out of the pickup. She wa s the g irlfriend of Da vid May na rd , a le a de r o f t

he Ar y an B roth erho od of

Te xas, a pr iso n- ba se d g ang . F or re st

a c kn ow le dg e d b e inga

me mbe r o f t

he g ro up . H e te sti fi e d th a t e arl ie r t hat y e ar, he ha d r e fu se d to obey May nard’ s order

to transport a loa d of methamphe tamine. Whil e some off

icer s dealt with For

rest an d T ru mp at the roa dblock, other of fice rs beg an sea rchingthe ar ea w here the s hots had been fired. Reports had been m ade a bout a per son or persons runningthroug h y ards in that neig hborhood. The office rs wer e looking for a ppellant Shane Saunders, whose driver’ s license and ATM ca rd had be en found in the w hite pickup. At 7:00 a.m., Saunders a

nd Way ne Confer , another

Ary an B rotherhood me mber, we re fo und walking in the

are a and w ere taken into custody

. Bo t h m en we re pe rspiring heavily and cove red w ith dirt and g ra ss b ur rs . Shortly

after S au nders’ s arr est, Dete ctive B ill P ascoe of the Ge org etown Police De pa rtme nt c on du c te d a c us tod ia l int e rv ie w of Sa un de rs wh o state d that he ha d no thi ngto d o w ith the shooting. When a sked whether he was a member of the Ary an B rotherhood, Saunde rs re plied “kinda sorta .” A series of rec ording s of telephone conver sations betwee n various member s of the Ary an B rotherhood w ere admitted during trial. I n the re corde d conver sations, May nard a nd Confer discussed Saunder s and his role in the Ary an Brother hood, talking about “putting [ Saunders] to the te st. ” Duri ng ano the r c a ll, Tr ump tol d May

na rd that, wh e n sh e dis c us se d the pla nn e d h it o n F or

re st with Saunders, he “ knew plenty about it.” I n a re cor d ed conve rsation af ter the shooting , Saunders a nd Matthew Cox, a “probationary ” Ar

y an Brother

hood member, discussed attempting to e vade c apture by police af ter the shooting a

nd wiping dow n th e we apons used during the shooting. In another conver sationAt all rele vant times, May nard w as in jail following his a rre st for an unr elated shooting . The 1 ja il h a s a c omp ute ri zed

sy ste m th a t r e c or ds a ll c a lls ma de by inm a te s. 4 betwee n Saunders and Confer ’s g irlfriend Christina Allen, Saunde rs stated that he and var ious other g angmem b er s wh o wer e dire ctly or indirec tly

involved in the shooting we re g oing to g et a ne w tattoo. Finally , Saunders told anothe r Ar y an Br otherhood membe r that he ha d told the police a

“ b[]s[]” sto ry

a bo ut g e tti ngdr

un k a nd no t kn ow ingwh e re he wa s. Confer g ave se vera l statements to the police. He admitted membership in the Ary an Br otherhood a

nd o wn er s h i p of the white Chevr olet pickup truck. H e said that May nard, in a

s er i es o f t el ep h o n e c al l s , h ado rd er ed h i m t o co l l ec t $ 8 0 0 fr o m Fo rr es t
. T h e j u ry h ea rdre co rd i n gs of these te lephone calls, made by May nard from the Travis County jail. On J uly

22, Confer dr ove 1 to Forr est’s apa

rtment, ac companied by

T rump, Saunders, a

nd Cox . Confer kne w that Trump, Saunders, an d C ox wer e ar med, but he denie d having a we apon himself. Confer said he sent Saund er s an d C o x t o For rest’s door

to ask for “ Shawn.” Confe r said that he w as standing in the parkinglot as Forr est left his apa rtment, g ot into his Mazda, and followed Trump when she drove

awa y i n Confer’ s truck. Confer told the police that he sa w Saunder s and Cox shoot at Forr est’s Mazda. Confer denied firing any shots that night, sa y ing that he “jumped down” in the g rass whe n the shooting star

ted. Trump testified that she be came rom an t i cally involved with May

nard a fter he

wa s r e le a se d f

ro m pr iso n in

F e br ua ry 20 02 . T hr ou g h h e r i nv olv e me nt w ithMay na rd , T rump b e c a me acqua inted with the Ary an B rotherhood or g anization and lear ned it was involved in manufac turing drug s, se ll in g dr

u g s , an d s e ll in g w e a

p o n s . Sh e s a id

th a t s h e s e r

v e d M ay n ar d in th e A ry an5

B ro the rh oo d b y

makin g pa

y me nts , w ri tin g le tte rs , a

nd oth e r s uc h ta sk s. Tr

ump te sti fi e d th a t, i n July 20 02 , s he a nd

Cox bo th l ive d w ithCon fe r a nd his g ir lf ri e nd . Wh ile sta

y ing wi th C on fe r, Tr

ump lear ned of the exis tence of a violent p l o t by the Aryan B rotherhood a g ainst Forr est, a membe r. May na rd , th e arc hit e c t of

the pla n, wa nte d to kil l F or

re st be c a us e F or re st ow e d him mon e y fr om a drug deal. At the time of

the shooting, Ma

y nard w as involved in a power strug g le within the g ang leade rship. Trump testified that a ma n named “ Dutch,” a

nother hig h-ra

nking g angmember, se nt Saunders f

rom Houston to take par

t in Forre st’s shooting as well as another shooting that Dutch had planned a g ainst someone in Austin.

Trump testified that she, Confer, Cox , and S aunder s, all high on methamphetamine, went to F orre st’s house in the ear ly morning hours of J uly 22, 2002, with weapons a nd ammunition. Trump testified that, whe n they arr ived at F orre st’s apar

tment building, Cox g ot out of the truck a nd walked to the f

ront door of F orre st’s apar tment. After Confe r and Saunders left the truck a nd Cox had lef t F orre st’s doorstep, Trump re alized a commotion was taking place , so she pulled the truc k into the street in front of

For rest’s a partment. F orre st followed her in his ve hicle. Af

ter they drove a short distance , Trump t estified that she observed C onfer , Cox , and appe llant fire their wea pons at F o r r e s t ’ s v e h i c l e . A f

t e r t h e s h o o t i n g s t o p p e d , T r

u mp s aw t h e t h r e e s h o o t e r s r u naw ay. Trump then testified that F orre st started up his car and drove toward her. Shocked, sh e dr ov e awa

y and F or re st fo llo we d. Al tho ug h sh e loo ke d fo r Con fe r, Cox, and Sa un de rs , s he did not see th em . After

a hig h speed c hase, she encounte red a police roa dblock at the inter section of Wil liams and L akew ay , wher e both she a nd For rest we re de tained.6

Ot he r T esti mony Calvin St ory , a fo re nsic fire arms examiner, testified a bout the ballistics evidence in the c a se . I n Janu ary 20 03 , Of fi c e r Jimmy Se a ls re c ov e re d a 9mm Ta ur us han dgun in a tra sh dumpster locate d near the shooting sc ene. H e also re cover ed a 9mm Glock ha ndg un from nea

rby bu sh e s. Sto ry

c omp are d th e Ta

ur us and Gl oc k h and g un s r e c ov e re d b y Se a ls t o v ari ou s bull e ts, jacke ts, a nd fra g ments rec overe d from the shooting location and from For rest’s vehic l e. S tory de te rm in ed th at tw o of

the bu lle t f

ra g me nts re c ov e re d w e re fr om t he Ta ur us fi re arm . St or

y a lso deter mined that a third ty

pe of w eapon, ne ither the Ta urus nor the G lock, had be en use d i n the shooting. Story

testified that two of the bullet c asing s rec overe d from the crime sc ene ha d been f ired b y t h e T au ru s fi re ar m , fi v e o f t h e c as i n gs h adb ee nfi re d b y t h e Gl o ck , an d

t h at ei gh to f t h e c as i n gs had bee n fired by

the third, unrec overe d wea pon. J oan Mailloux , evidenc e tec hnician for the Geor g etown Police De partment, testified that she re cover ed a shipping car ton and i nstruction manual for the 9mm Taurus model ha ndg un fr o m t h e to o lb o x o f

Co n f e r ’ s w h it e p ic k

u p . T h e s e r ia l n

u mb e r o nth e g u nb o x matc h e d

th e s e rial number on the Ta

urus fire arm sec ured by

Seals in J anuar

y 2003. I nside the truck, Mailloux l ocate d the finger prints of Trump, Confer , Cox , and Saunder s. Mailloux also locate d Saunders’ s fing erpr int on the instruction manual for the Taurus. Mailloux rec overe d two additional firea rms from inside the toolbox of the trunk.

Christopher B enavide z, an ag ent with the fe dera l Bure au of A lcohol , Tobac co, and F irea rms, testified that the Ta

urus and Gloc k wea

pons rec overe d by

Seals wer e both purc hased from a Williamson Co u n t y pawn shop in Jul y

2002 by Kar l Roth, C ox ’s associate. B enavide z7

testified that it was a common prac tice of g ang members to use a ssociates without criminal re cords to p ur c ha se fi re arm s to be us e d in the c omm iss ion

of g ang -r e la te d c ri me s. Joey Go rd on , a Te xas Rang e r, te sti fi e d c on c e rn inghis e va luatio n o f F or re st’ s v e hic le

an d th e e n tr

y an g le s o f th e b u ll e ts f

ir e d

. G o r d o n te s ti f

ie d th a t, b a s e d o n h is e xa mi n a ti o n o f the vehicle, multiple shooters ha d fired the wea pons which cause d the damag e to the vehicle, and that the shooters we re in c lose proxim ity to the vehicle w hen the shooting occur red. Rob bie Vo lk, a

de te c tiv e wi th t

he Ga ngUn it o f t

he Au sti n Po lic e De pa

rtme nt, te sti fi e d th a t in

the su mme r o f 2 00 2, Da

vid May na rd (a /k/ a “ B a by Hu e y ” ) w a s in

a po we r s tr ug g le

ov e r s ta te wi de le a de rs hip of the Ar y an B ro th erh oo d o f T e xas g ang . F ro m hi s in ve sti g a tio n in to th e Ar y an Br otherhood, Volk de termined that May nard a nd other Ar

y an B rotherhood me mbers

wer e planninga murde r in the Austin metropolitan are a. Volk testified that the Ar y an B rotherhood leade rship in the Austin ge og raphic al re g ion c ommonly used a member or aff iliate of the g ang from the Houston are a to c arr

y out or take pa

rt in g ang -re lated assa

ults or murders in the Austin ar ea. H e testi fi ed that the Ary an B rotherhood w as involved in various ty pes of c riminal activity , including manufa cturing and selling methamphetamine, bur g lary , and murde r. He testified that Confer wa s a “ma de member ” of the Ary an B rotherhood holdingthe ra nk of major. Charles Hay

hurst, a g ang intelligenc e office r with the Wil liamson County Sheriff’ s Offic e, testified conce rning photogr aphs of Saunders’ s tattoos that w ere admitted i n t o evidenc e. These tattoos feature d emblems such as a double lightning bolt, a swastika, an iron cross, a G erma n eag le, and “ 187,” a r efe renc e to the California P en al C o d e s t atute for

murder. H ay

hurst testified8

that th e se ta tto os we re a ll e mbl e ms c omm on ly a sso c ia te d wi th wh ite su pr e ma c ist g ro up s o r g a ng s. Hay hurst also testified that Saunder s admitted being a member of the Ar y an B rotherhood. Count one of the indictment containe d three p ara g raphs a ccusingSaunders of or g anize d c ri min a l a c tiv ity . Pa ra g ra ph s o ne and

thr e e a lle g e d th a t Sa

unde rs , w iththe int e nt t o establish, maintain, or par ticipate in a combination or in the profits of a c ombination: (1) committed ag g rava t ed assault by

intentionally , knowing ly , or re cklessly causingbodily

injury to Forr est by shooting a

firea rm; and (2) committed ag g ravated assault by intentionally

or knowing ly

threatening For rest with imminent bodily injury while using or exhibi t i n g a fire arm. Para g raph two a lleg ed t h a tS a u n d e r s , a s a

m e mb e r o f a c r i m i n a l s t r e e tg an g , c o m m i t t e d a g g r a v a t e d

a s s a u l tb y i n t e n t i o n a l l y, knowing ly , or recklessly causing bodily injury to For rest by shooting a firea

rm. All three pa

rag raphs

wer e s u b m i tted to the jury in the court’s c harg e, which a uthorized Saunders’s c onviction either

a s th e p r im ar

y a c to r in o r a s a p arty to th e a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt

. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 7.02 ( W e s t2 0 0 3 )

. T h e j u r

y r e tu r n e d a g e n e r a l v e r d i c to f

g u i l t y.

Discussion Sufficiency of

the Evidence I n h is f ir st two is su e s, Sa

un de rs ur g e s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to sustain the jury ’s ver dict. The que stion presented is whe ther a ra t i o n al trier of

fac t could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. See J ackson

v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 24 (1 97 9) (l e g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Gr iff in v . S tat e , 614 S.W .2d 155, 158-59 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ) ( le g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Zun iga v . S

tat e , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (f actua l sufficienc y

). In a leg al suffic iency

revie w, all the evidenc e is revie wed in the lig ht9

m o s tf a v o r a b l e t o t h e v e r d i c t ; i t i s a s s u m e d t h a t t h e t r i e r o f f a c t r e s o l v e d c o n f

l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y, weig hed the evidenc e, and dre w re asonable infere nces in a manner that supports the verdic t. Gr iff in , 6 1 4 S

. W

. 2 d

at 1 5 9 (c i t i n g Jack

son , 443 U.S. at 318-19). In a fa ctual suffi ci en cy re v i ew , all the evidenc e is consider ed eq u al l y , including the testimony of def ense w itnesses and the e x istence of alternative hy

potheses. Or on a v . S

tat e , 8 3 6 S

. W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no pet.). Al tho ug h d

ue de fe re nc e sti ll mus t be a c c or de d th e fa c t f ind e r’ s d e te rm inatio ns , p art ic ula rl y tho se

conce rning the weig ht and cr edibility of the e vidence , the re viewing court may d i s agr ee with the result in order

to preve nt a manife st injust ice. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 00 ). Th e e vid e nc e wi ll be de e me d f a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt i f t he e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is

so we a k a s to make the fi nd ingof g uil t c le arl y

wr on g or manif e stl y un jus t, o r if the ve rd ic t is a g a ins t the gre at we i gh t and pre pondera nce of the ava ilable evidenc e. W ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 41 4- 15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11.

Saunders a

rg ues that the State e stablished h i s p re s ence nea r the sce ne of the confr ontation with Forre st as well as his associati o n wi th Trump, Confer, a nd Cox , but urg es that there is no evidence that he fired a g un at For rest. Saunder s also asser

ts that there is no evide nce that he so lic ite d, e nc oura g e d, dir e c te d, a ide d, or a tte mpt e d to a id ano the r pe rs on to sh oot at Forr e st,

no r t hat Sa un de rs a c te d w iththe int e nt t hat F or re st b e fi re d u

po n. “ Me re pr e se nc e is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o

su sta in a g uil ty ve rd ic t” su mma

ri zes Sa un de rs ’s argume nt that the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt. Th e j u r y c o n v i c t e d S a

u n d e r s o f t h e f

i r s t d e g r e e f

e l o n y o f f e n s e o f e n g a g ing in org anized criminal ac tivity . The unde rlying f elony offe nse alleg ed wa s ag g ravated assault. The jury was pre sented with two alternative theories of the conspira cy

offe nse: either a

ppellant committed10

the offe nse as a member of a criminal combination or a member of

a cr iminal street g ang . The jury was also prese nted wit h alternative theories as to the manner of the c ommissi on of the unde rly ing offe nse: either Saunde rs intentionally , knowing ly , or rec klessly cause d bodily injury to F orre st and

us e d o r e xhibi te d a

de a dly we a

po n, a fi re arm ; or inte nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly

thr e a te ne d F or

re st w ith imminent bodil y

injury and used or

exhibi ted a deadly

wea pon, a fire arm. The jury

was c harg ed on the law of parties. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 7.02(a) (2) ( West 2003). Saunders doe s not challeng e the sufficienc y of the e vidence to show he wa s a member of a c r im in a l c o mb in a ti o n o r c r im in a l s tr e e t g an g . Sa u n d e r s ’ s aw ar e n e s s o f th e in te n t b e hind the visit t o For

rest’s r esidenc e wa s shown t h ro ug h the conve rsations among Confer, Tr ump, and May nard, in pa

rticular, the one about Saunders proving hi mself. Trump’s testi mony showed that the Ar y an B ro the rh oo d le a de rs hip in Ho us ton se nt Sa un de rs to Au sti n to pa

rt ic ipate in k ill ingF or

re st and one othe r per son. I n terms of phy sical evidenc e, Saunders’ s fing erpr ints were f ound in Confer’s tr uc k a nd on the ins tr

uc tio n man

ua l for on e of the fi re arm s u se d in the sh oo tin g . H is d

ri ve r’ s li c e ns e and ATM car d wer e also found i n Confer’ s truck. After the shooting, S aunder s and Cox discussed the ir a tte mpt s to a vo id b e ingc a ug ht, wi pin g do wn

the we a po ns us e d, and the po lic e e ff or ts to question Trump about the s hooting. Fur ther, S aunder s’s admittedly “b[] s[] ” st ory to the police about g etting dr

unk and not knowing wh er e h e was leads to a re asonable infere nce of a

c on sc iou sn e ss o f guil t.

All of the above evidenc e, and the rea sonable infe renc es there from, ar e a suf ficient ba sis fo r a con clu si on by the jur y be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, t

hat Sa un de rs wa s g uil ty

a s a pa rt y to c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult . Furth er, th e jur

y c ou ld a lso have re a so na

bly11

conclude d that the evidenc e wa s sufficient to hold Saunder s g uilty as a pr incipal. Story , the ballistics expert, testified that at lea st three diff ere nt gu n s we re fi red dur ing the shooting. The re w ere only four pe ople at the sc ene of the s hooting, a nd there was no e vidence that Trump fire d a we apon. Saunders’ s fing erpr int was found on the instruction manua l of the Taurus, one of the guns involved in the sh oo tin g . The e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

Sa un de rs ’s c on vic tio n. We o ve rr ule issue one. I n his second issue, Saunder s contends that the e vidence is factua lly insufficient to support the conviction. Saunder s contends that the onl y ev i dence that could sug g est that he committed the offe nse of a g g ravated assault is Trump’s testimony that she drove him to Forre st’s house with the intent to shoot Forre st. He urg es that T ru m p ’s t es t imony has no probative value beca use she not only

admitted to ly ing a

bout the events of tha t n i gh t, but also was impeac hed by F or re st a nd ha d a mot ive fo r t e sti fy

ingun tr uth fu lly . He a sse rt s tha t her te sti mony a t most r e fl e c ts

a po or ly c on c e ive d a

nd bo tc he d e ff

or t to c oll e c t a

de bt. The jury is the sole judge of the cre dibilit y of the witnesses and the weig ht to be g iven the evidenc e, and may choose to be lieve all, some, or none of it. Ma rg ra v es v . S tat e , 34 S.W .3d 912, 91 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Ra c ha l v . S tat e , 91 7 S. W.2 d 7 99 , 8 05 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Thus , the jury is permitted to believe or disbelieve any part of the t estimony of any witness. J

on es v . S tat e , 9 8 4 S

. W

. 2 d

2 5 4 , 2 5 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 )

. R e c o n c i l i a t i o no f e v i d e n t i ar

y c o n f l i c t s i s s o l e l y a function of the tr ier of f

act. Los ad

a v . S tat e , 721 S.W .2d 305, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). There is nothing i rrational about a jury ’s decision to resolve conflicts i n the evidence in fa vor of the State. Se e Cai n v . S

tat e , 958 S.W. 2d 40 4, 40 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ) ( “ A d e c isi on is n ot m anif

e stl y un jus t12

beca use the jury

resolved the manifestly conflicting views of the evidence in favor of the State.”). Evidence is not factually insufficient mer ely

becau se the fa ct-finde r re solved conflicting views of the e vidence in the State’s favor. Ro ise v . S tat e , 7 S.W .3d 225, 233 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. re f’d)

. The jury

hear d Trump testify

that she wa s in jail at the time of trial, that she had made

a ple a ba rg a in to tes tif

y in re tur n for a fo rt

y -y e ar se nte nc e a s opp os e d to the lif e se nte nc e sh e c ou ld have re c e ive d, that sh e ha d use d dru g s hea vil y and se rv e d time fo r a state ja il f

e lony . T he jur

y a lso hear d about her fea

rs for her safe ty and the safe ty of her c hildren and f amily beca use of r etaliation from the Ar

y an B rotherhood. T he jury was fr ee to sift and weig h Trump’s testimony and make judgme nts about its value based on its eva luation of the cr edibility , motive to fabricate, and contra dictions or inconsistencies in that e vidence

. Fur ther, as discussed a

bove, Trump’ s testimony

wa s n ot t he on ly e vid e nc e c on c e rn ingSa

un de rs ’s pa

rt ic ipatio n in th e c ri me of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , including phy sical evide nce linking Saunders to the scene of the c rime and w eapon use d. Even whe n the e vid e nc e is v ie we d in

a ne utr a l man ne r, it i s su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingbe y on d a

re a so na ble doubt that Saunders’ w as g uilty of ag g ravated assault on F orre st. W e over rule issue two.

Mo tio n to Qua sh I

ndic tment I n his third issue, Saunders contends that the trial court should have g rante d his moti on to qua sh the indictment beca use it failed to name or identify the per sons who participated in the alleg ed combination, thus violating a rti cl e 2 1

. 0 7 o f the c ode of c riminal proce dure. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 21.07 (West Supp. 2007). I n is s u e fo u r, Saunders ur g es that the fa ilure to name the other pa rticipants in the alleg ed combination re ndere d the indictment13

constitutionally

inadequate. See U.S. Const. amends. VI , XI V; Tex. Cons t. art. I , § 10. We review the cour t ’s ru l i n g d e novo. Sta te v . M off , 1 54 S.W. 3d

59 9, 60 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); Y anes

v . S tat e , 149 S.W .3d 708, 709 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. ref ’d). Saunders did not make these arguments to the trial cour t. SeeTex. Code Crim. P roc. Ann. art . 1 .1 4( b) (We st 2 00 5) ; T e x. R. A pp . P. 33 .1 (a ). Sa

un de rs fi le d a

n ame nd e d mo tio n to qu a sh and exception to substance c omplaining that the indictment did not set for th the offe nse in plain and intelligible languag e bec ause it did not alleg e the names of the c o-def endants. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. a

rts. 27.08 (West 2006)

. The only authority cited in the motion was article 27.08; ther e

was no me n t ion of the fe dera l or state constitutions or of ar ticle 21.07. Fur

ther, ne ither the constitutions nor article 21.07 we re br oug ht to the court’s attention when it ruled on the motion.

I n o rd e r t o p ro ve tha

t a defe ndant p art ic ipate d in a c ri min a l c omb inatio n, the State must prove that he pa

rticipated with two or more other persons in a c ontinuing cour se of c riminal activities. Ngu

y e n v . S tat e , 1 S.W. 3d

69 4, 69 7 ( Te x. Cr im

. App. 19 99 ). Sa un de rs argue s th a t in order to give a def

endant a dequate notice in orde r to prepa re a defe nse, the State must alleg e the

names o f t h e o t h er persons in the c ombination. The court of criminal appe als has held to the contra ry , howeve r. While the State may be required to prove the names of the ot her members of the

co m b i n at ion as an e videntiary matter at trial, the omission of their names does not re nder the indictment defe ctive. State v. Duk e , 8 6 5 S

. W

. 2 d 466, 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (re versing

or de r g ra nti ngmot ion

to q ua sh ). An

ind ic tme nt ne e d no t a lle g e e vid e nti ary ma tte rs fo r t he purp os e of notice w hen i t cl ear ly states the off

ense c harg ed. W

ils on v . S

tat e , 825 S.W .2d 155, 159 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pe t. ref’ d) (discussing constitutional requisites of indictments). SaundersWe wi ll a ssume e rr or wa s p re se rv e d. Af

te r t he c ourt ru le d th a t Ro

ja s c ou ld t e sti fy

on ly a s to 2 his conclusions, but not to t he under ly ing te st results on eac h of the four samples, the State wa

nted to withdraw h i m as a witness. The defe nse objec ted bec ause the jury had bef ore it testimony

that swabs had be en take n to perfor m a g unshot residue test. Af ter much b ac k an d fo rt h, the par ties appea red to agree that Ro

ja s w ou ld t e sti fy

a s to his c on c lus ion s. 14 cites no authority

that persua des us that the indictment in this c ase denied him his constitutional right to notice of the of

fense of which he was a ccuse d. I ssues three and four

are overr uled. Exp e rt T esti mony After Saunders’ s arr est and a pproxi mately

five hours aft er t h e shooting , police swabbe d his hands for the prese nce of g unshot residue. Police a lso swabbed the ha nds of Confer , Tr ump , a nd F or re st a ft e r t he sh oo tin g . T he sw a

bs we re su

bmi tte d to the De pa

rtme nt o f Pub lic Sa fe ty Crime L ab, whe re the y

wer e ana ly

zed by fore nsic che mist, J uan Rojas. I n his f ifth issue, Saunders contends that the tria l court er red in a dmitti ng Rojas’s testimony reg ardingthe r es u l t s o f g unshot

r e s i d u e t e s t s . S a

u n d e r s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t e s t s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d t o o l o n g a f t e r t h e s h o o t i n g to be re liable. 2 I n deter

mining whe ther to admit expert testimony of a sc ientific nature , a trial c ourt must first determine that the pr offe red te stimon y i s sufficie ntly reliable and re levant to assist the jury in rea ching an ac curate re sult. Mo ra le s v . S tat e , 32 S.W .3d 862, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 401. A tria l court’s de cision on the admissibili ty of such testimony

is reviewe d for a n abuse of

discretion. Se

x ton v . S tat e , 93 S.W .3d 96, 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The te st for abuse of discretion is whethe r the trial c ourt ac ted without refe renc e t o any g uiding r

ules or15

principles. Ro isev . S

tat e , 7 S.W. 3d 22 5, 23 3 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 99 , p e t. r e f’ d) . A n a

pp e llate

co urt mu s t u

p h o ld th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s r

u li n g if it w a s w it

h in th e zo n e o f r e a s o n a

b le discretion. W e ath e rre d v . S

tat e , 15 S.W .3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). To be re liable, evidenc e must satisfy three criter ia: (a) th e u

n d e r ly in g s c ie ntif ic theory must be valid; (b) the tec hnique applying the theory must be valid; and (c) the technique must have been pr operly

applied. Ke lly

v . S tat e , 824 S.W .2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Fa ctors that could af fec t a trial cour

t’s deter mination about reliability , include, but ar e no t l i m i t ed to: (1) the extent to which the underlying sc ientific theory and technique are acc epted as valid by the re levant scientific c ommunity ; (2) the qua lifications of the e x pert testifying; (3 ) t h e ex istence of literature supporting or

reje cting the under ly ing sc ientific theory or tec hnique; (4) the potential err or rate of the te c hn iqu e ; (5) the a va ila bil ity of oth e r expe rt s to test and e va luate the te c hn iqu e ; ( 6) the c lari ty with which the under ly ing scientific theory and technique can be explained to the cour t; and (7) the experience and skill of the per son who applied the te chnique on the oc casion in question. Id

.

There was no c halleng e to Ro ja s ’ s c r e d e ntials. Rojas testified during voir dire outside the jury ’s pre sence that under the g uidelines of the Te x as De partment of Public Safe ty , swabs take n from suspec ts over four

hours af ter the oc curr ence of the c rime we re g ener ally not analy

zed for the pr e se nc e o f

g u n s h o tr e s i d

u e d u e t o t h e u s u a l d i s s i p a t i o no v e r t i m e o f t h e c h e m i c a l e l e me nts associate d with the discharg e of wea pons found on a per son’s hands. He testified that the four -hour g uideline was based on the di minished likelihood of finding t he elements associate d with gunshotSe e ge ne ra lly 2 Ste v en Goode et al., Texas Practice : Guide to the Tex as Rules of Evidenc e 3 § 702.6, at 57-58 (3d e d. 2002) (discussing influence on admissibili ty of whether err or rate in testing would resul t i n false neg ative, we ighingtoward a cquittal, or fa lse positive, weig hing towa rd conviction). 16 residue in suff

icient quantities for a positive r esult, not the potential occur renc e of a fa lse positive. 3 He said it was possi ble, although not likely , that the test could re sult in a positi ve finding six or eig ht hours l ater
. H e r e f

e r r e d to r e s u lt s o b ta in e d

f r o m s a mp le s o v e r

f o u r h o u r s o ld

a s “ in c o n c lu s ive” rathe r than unre liable. He a g ree d that the test itse l f d i d n o t b ecome unreliable ; the likelihood of evidenc e that had onc e bee n prese nt disappear ing w as the c oncer n. Rojas further

explained that the lab t ested for antimony , barium, and lead, the thr ee

c omp on e nts of

g un sh ot r e sid

ue . In or de r to c on c lud e that a re su lt wa s p os iti ve , a ll thr e e e le me nts must be prese nt above c erta in minim um threshold levels. (He testified that demandingthat all three elements be prese nt was a more conser vative appr oach tha

n the Fe dera l Bure au of I nvestig ation’s approa ch, which only

require d finding two elements to ca ll a result positive.) Rojas then detailed the measur ements on the samples taken fr om all four individuals. The samples taken fr om Confer, Trump, and F orre st contained tra ces of all three ele m en ts, but in each c ase no more than one of the ele me n ts w a s f

o u n d in ana mo u n t a

b o v e th e r e qu ir e d

mi n im u m t h r e s h o ld

. A s a

r e s u lt , Ro

ja s considere d these tests “ne g ative.” Saunde rs’s sam p l es s howed the pr esenc e of ba rium and lea d above the require d minimum thresholds, with only antimony being below the thre shold level. Rojas considere d this result to be “inconc lusive.”

Th e tr ia l c ourt

ru le d th a t Ro

ja s w ou ld n ot b e pe rm itt e d to t e sti fy to t he sp e c if ic amounts of the thre e ele ments found in the samples take n from th e fo u r individuals. However ,There is no contention that the underly ing the ory was invalid or that technique was invalid or 4 incorre ctly

perf ormed. Se e Ke lly

v . S tat e , 824 S.W .2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

17 the cour t permitted Rojas to te stify to his ultimate c onclusions that the test results wer e neg ative or inconclusive. Rojas repe ated much of hi s voir dire testim ony befor e the jury

. He e x plained what g unshot residue wa s and how it might c ome to be deposited on someone’s hands, inc luding the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a ti tc o u l d

b e d e p o s i t e d

o ns o m e o n e w h o h a d n o t h an d l e d a g u n , b u tw a s i ni t s v i c i n i t y. He de s cr i bed how gunshot residue dissipates over time, the lab’s policy

of not testing a fter f

our hours, and the ne cessity

of finding minimum threshold amounts of all three elements in orde r to have a positive test. And in the testimony of which Saunde rs now complains, Rojas told the jurors that Confer’ s, Trump’s, and F orest’s ha nd swabs we re ne g ative for g unshot primer res i due, and that Sa u n d e r s ’ s h an d

s w a b s w e r e in c o n c lu s iv e f

o r g u n s h o t p r im e r

r e s id u e . D u r in g c r o s s an d

r e d ir ect examination, R ojas testified that Saunder s’s results wer e neg ative if the only choice s were “positive” or “ne g ative,” but they

wer e inconc lusive if g iven that additional choice

. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ad m itting the ch al l en ged testimony . The c ourt had be fore it the expert’s testimony that the g unshot residue test was re liable af

ter four hours but that the state of the evidenc e may have de g rade d. The c ourt 4

a lso kn e w the de ta ils of

the te sti ngperf

orm ed on the fo ur

ind ivi du a ls, wi th t

he ult imate re su lts consistent with the testimony conce rning the test methodology

. The court was e ntitled to acce pt that testi m o n y an d d eter

mine that the test was r eliable a nd the expert’s testimony admissible. See Be thu ne v . S

tat e , 821 S.W .2d 222, 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1991), aff’d , 828 S.W .2dIn his moti on for r ehea ring , Saunders a ss er t s without further e laboration that “the Hartman 5 case , rea d in c onjunction w ith the case s cited in Appellant’s br ief a ctually dictate[s] a re versa l in the c a se .” Th e oth e r opi nio ns c ite d in Saun de rs ’s br ie f we re : W e ath e rre d v . S

tat e , 15 S.W .3d 540, 542 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ) (d isc us sin g a dmi ssi bil ity of “ so ft ” sc ie nce ev id enc e ); Ne nn o v . S tat e , 97 0 S. W.2 d 5 49, 56 0-6 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ) ( same ); Ro isev . S tat e , 7 S.W .3d 225, 234 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin

19 99 , p e t. r e f’ d) (s a me ). W e have r e vie we d th e se op ini on s and re ma in c on vin c e d th a t ou

r i nit ia l c on c lus ion

wa s c or re c t. S a u n d e r s w a s c h ar g e d

a s a p art y a s w e l l a s a

p r i n c i p a l

. T o s e c u r e a

c o n v i c t i o n a s a p a rt y, 6 t h e S t at e d id not have to show that Saunder s himself pulled a trig g er. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 7.02(a) (2) ( West 2003). 18 14, 1 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (admitting DN A evidenc e; expert testimony that DNA test ve ry

re lia ble fo re ns ic te st; no po ssi bil ity of fa lse po sit ive be c a

us e any de g ra datio n o f sam pl e wi ll o nly lead to no re sult at all). The trial c ourt serve s as the “g ateke eper ” and de termines the r eliability of the test; not the corr ectne ss of the expert’s conc lusions. Se e Ha rtm an v . S tat e , 946 S.W .2d 60, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 5

Ultimately , appellant’ s objection to the testimony wa s to the contra st betwee n “inconc lusive” and “ neg ative,” a problem larg ely cure d during his cross-e x amination of Rojas when Roj a s te sti fi e d th a t the te st re su lts c ou ld b e vie we d a s n e g a tiv e fo r a ll f our i nd ivi du a ls. An

a pp e llate

co u rt will not reverse a judg ment if the appe llate cour t determines that the e rror did not affe ct the

su bs tanti a l r ig hts of

the de fe nd ant. Te x. R. A

pp . P. 44 .2 (b ). As pr e vio us ly dis c us se d, a larg e vo lum e of evide nce w as admitted duringthe ca se. Given the overw helming e vidence i n t h e ca se, the testimony conce rning the g unshot resi d ue, which w as not emphasized or c rucia l to Saunders’s conviction, was ha

rmless err or. We overrule appellant’ s fifth issue.

619 Conclusion Saunders’ s motion for rehe aring is ove rruled. We a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med on Motion for Rehea ring Filed: May

8, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh