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

NO. 03-04-00639- CR

Al vin Br own, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2003- 160, HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Alvin Brow n appea ls his conviction b y a j u ry for the mur der of his common law spouse. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.02 (West 2003)
. I n five issues, he c halleng es seve ral of the trial court’ s evidentiary ruling s. For the rea sons that follow, we a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.
BACK GR OUND Caldwell County

Sheriff’ s deputies and medical per sonnel responde d to appellant’s 911 call in the ea

rly m o rn i n g h o u rs o f April 5, 2003. Upon ar rival at the r esidenc e shar ed by appellant a n d No d ie Fe nnell, they discovere d Ms. Fenne ll’s body with appellant’s shotg un on the g round nea

rby . Appellant wa s arr ested for murder.2 Ap pe lla nt g a ve tw o v ide ota

pe d s ta te me nts to t

he po lic e : on e on

the da y of the de a th and a se cond one on A

pril 7 in which he e x p l ai n ed t h at M s . Fe nnell had bee n shot due to the
acc idental dischar g e of his shotg un as the two strug g led with the wea pon. Be cause appellant doe s not challeng e the suff

iciency of the e vidence , we will addre ss the fac ts a s nece ssary to discuss eac h issue. DI SCU SSIO N

On appe al, appe llant challe n ges t he admission of (i) e vidence of prior e x trane ous
a ssa ult s c omm itt e d b y

a pp e llan t a g a ins t th e de c e de nt, (i i) he ars ay te sti mony

of a pp e lla nt’ s th re a ts ag ainst a family member, (iii) a police office r’s expert testimony , and (iv) a utopsy photogr aphs. He also cha lleng es the fa ilure of the t rial cour t to inst ruct the jury

to disreg ard ina dmissibl e hea rsay evidenc e.
Admiss ion of

Ev ide nc eof

Prior Ass aul ts a ga inst De c e de nt I n his first issue, appellant conte nds th at t he trial c ourt err ed in allowing witnesses to testify that appellant had assaulted the dece dent during t heir relationship. Specifica lly , appellant argues the evidenc e was irrele vant and that the da ng er of unfair pr ejudice substantially outweig hed its probati v e v al u e. I n t he same issue, he urg es that the c ourt err ed in admitting testimony of
a dju dic a te d e xtra

ne ou s a ssa

ult s be c a us e the fa c ts w e re dis sim ila r t o th os e he re and

re mot e in t ime
and the re fo re no t r e le va

nt. B e c a us e a pp e lla nt t e sti fi e d th a t th e sh oo tin g wa s an a c c ide nt, the State responde d that the assaults we re a dmissibl e to show appe llant’s intent, m o t i v e, and absenc e of
acc ident or mistake, and to r ebut appe llant’s claim that the victim cause d the dischar g e of the fi re arm .3 Ev ide nc e of

oth e r c ri me s, wr on g s, or a c ts of a de fe nd ant i s n ot a dmi ssi ble un le ss i t is r eleva nt to prove some issue other than the def endant’ s criminal cha

rac ter. Te x . R. Evid. 404(b); Mo ntgom e ry

v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 387-88 (Te x . Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’ g ). Such other iss ue s in c lud e ide nti ty , in te nt, mot ive , op po rt un ity , pr e pa

ratio n, and a

bs e nc e of mis take or

a c c ide nt. Mo ntgom e ry , 810 S.W .2d at 377. We revie w t he trial c ourt’s ruling on the admissibilit y of the extraneous offe nses under an abuse of discre tion standard. Id . at 391. The State wa s require d to prove, a s an ele ment of the c harg ed off ense, that appellant intended to ca

use death, serious bodily

injury , or bodily injury
. Both parties ha d been dr inking a nd the issue turned on w hether there was a strug g le and the g un acc idently discharg ed or the appellant purposef ully discharg ed the we apon. The defe nsive theory appellant presented at trial was that he did not intend to shoot the dec edent. Appellant contende d that, during an ar g ument, the dec edent g rabbe d the g un he was holding to g o hunting, that he pushed her awa y , and that the gun discharg ed
acc idently . Thus, the sole contested issue at trial wa s whether appellant ha d the re quisite intent when h e f i re d t h e gu n . T h e j u ry ’s d et er m i n at i o ntu rn e d o n wh et h er t h e a ct wa s i n t en t i o n al , kn o wi n g,
rec kless, or the re sult of acc ident or mistake.

At trial, Ms. Fe nnell’s two s ons, eig hteen- y ear -old Kristopher a nd twenty -four -y ear old Cory Fe nnell, testified to the evidenc e challeng ed by appellant. Kristopher Fenne ll testified that he had k n o w na p p e ll an t f o r a b o u t t e no r

e le v e ny e ar s w h il e a

p p e ll an t l iv e d

w it h h is mo the r. Kristopher te stified that he had onc e obser ved appe llant slap his mother and, on a se parate occ asion wi thi n w e e ks of

his mot he r’ s d e a th, a

pp e lla nt h a d thre a te ne d h im w itha sh otgun duri ngan a

rgume nt. Kristopher ide ntified the fire arm involved in his mother’s death as t he one appellant used to threate n4

him. Appellant’s objection on g rounds of rele vance to a question as to w hether Kristopher ha d ever
seen a ppellant “a ssault” his mother was ove rruled. Cory Fe n n e ll , a

dr il l i n s tr

u c to r w it h th e H ay s Co u n ty

Ju v e n il e D e te n ti o nCe n ter, te sti fi e d th a t he ha d o bs e rv e d ap pe lla nt str ike his mot

he r, le a vin g he r w itha

bla c k e y e and

br uis e s, that he ha d b ro ke n u

p a fi g ht b e tw e e n th e m, a

nd that, a ft e r t

he fi g ht, a pp e lla nt ha d thr e a te ne d to k ill the family . Cory

also testified t h at the day befor e his mother died, a ppellant had “ pulled” the shotgun on K

ristopher. Appe llant’s objection on g rounds of rele vance to a question as to whethe r Cory had eve r see n appellant “ strike” his mother wa s overr uled. The de cede nt’s sister, Ba

rbar a F ennell, testified that ther e we re occa sions when she observe d th a t M s . F e n n e ll h a d

“ b e e nh it
. ” Sh e r e c a ll e d anin c id e n t i nth e s u mm e r o f 1 9 9 7 when appellant summoned Ms. Fe n n ell from a f amily g ame of dominoes. When Ms. Fenne ll later ret u r n e d , s h e w a s w e ar in g s u n g la s s e s an d h a d a b la c k e y e . D u r in g th e s a me s u mm e r, B arba ra
a c tua lly saw a pp e lla nt h it h e r s ist e r. Th e fa

mil y ma de a

pp e lla nt l e a ve and

c a lle d th e po lic e . In Apr il 2003, Ba rbar a expressed to Ms. Fe nnell her conce rn for Ms. F ennell’s sa fety . She also testified that she had r e c e iv e d

a c a ll f r o m K r is to p h e r w it h in th e w e e k s b e f

o r e h e r s is te r ’ s d e a th
. I na

v o ic e indicating he wa s scar ed, Kr istopher t o l d h er t h at appellant had pulled a gun on him. As Bar bara
arr ang ed to r emove Kristopher from the home, one of Kristopher ’s frie nds drove him to her house
. A p p e l l an td i d

n o to b j e c tt o B ar

b ar a F e n n e l l ’ s t e s t i m o n y. Ge ra ld C lou g h, a

Ca ldw e ll Co un ty She ri ff ’s de pu ty , te sti fi e d to fo ur c on vic tio ns in 1998 and 1999 for misdemeanor assault committed by appellant a g ainst Ms. Fenne ll, including the assault that was the subject o f Barbar a F ennell’s testimony . The c ourt overr uled appe llant’sI n Mo ntgom e ry v . S tat e , 810 S.W .2d 372, 388-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on re h’g ), 1 the cour t of criminal appe als o b s erved that the prope r objec tion to an ext rane ous offe nse ca lls for an objec tion under Rule 404(b) that the evidenc e has no rele vance apar t f rom proving the cha

rac ter of a pe rson in order

to show that he ac ted i n confor mity there with. Then if the pr osecution per suades the trial judg e that the e vidence has re levanc y apar t from proving char acte r, a fu rt h er Rule 403 objection must be lodg ed that the pr obative value is substantially outweig hed by the unfa ir prejudice or other c onsiderations set for th in the rule. Id. 5 objection that the convictions wer e more prejudicia l tha n probative and ther efor e inadmissible. On appea l, appellant ra ises the s ame concer ns as t o the ot her acts—that t he acts wer e remote and did not have pr ob a tiv e va lue to t

he c ur re nt r e la tio ns hip be tw e e n a pp e lla nt a nd the de c e de nt. We f ir st o b s e r v e t h a t a p p e l l an t f a i l e d t o p r e s e r

v e e r r o r o n t h i s i s s u e . F i r s t, h is objection at tr ial to testimony by Kristopher a

nd Cory Fe nnell conce rning whether they had see n appellant strike or

assault their mother w as simply to “re levanc e.” See Tex. R. Evi d. 401-402. On appea l, he complains t hat t he acts wer e dis simil ar and remote in ti me and ther efor e lac ked suff icient probative va lue apa

rt from c hara cter

confor mity
. See id. 403, 404(b). Be cause the objection does 1 not comport with the complaint on appea l, a ppellant has not preser

ved er ror. Gu e v ara v . S

tat e , 97 S.W .3d 579, 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

I n a dd iti on , to pr e se rv e a c omp la int fo r a pp e llate re vie w, the c omp la ini ng pa rt y mus t
m a k e a t i m e l y an d

s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i o n . T e x . R
. E v i d
. 1 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 3 3
. 1 ( a )
. G e n e r a l l y, a par ty must object eac h time alleg edly inadm i s s ible evidenc e is offe red or obtain a running objection. Va llev . S

tat e , 1 09 S.W. 3d

50 0, 50 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Et hin gto n v . S

tat e , 819 S.W .2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Also, any err or in admitting e vidence is cured w here the
same evidenc e comes in e lsewher e without objection. Et he rid ge v . S tat e , 9 0 3 S. W. 2 d

1 , 1 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1994). Be cause Ba rbar a F ennell testified to the same or similar incidents and a ppellantAppellant also a cknowledg es that this issue may be multifarious bec ause it cove rs var ious 2 complaints of “other acts.” A m ultifarious issue is one that embra ces more t han one specific g round. Although by

combining mor e than one contention in a si n g le point an appe llant risks rejec tion on the g round that nothing is presente d for r eview, a n appellate court may

addre ss a multifarious point that is sufficiently

develope d in the brief. Se e Fo ste r v . S tat e , 1 0 1 S. W. 3 d 490, 4 9 9 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Appe llant offer ed to re brief this issue if re quested. 6 did not object to her testimony , his e arlier g ener al objections to the testimony of Kristopher and Cory Fe nnell did not prese rve err or whe n the same e vidence reg ardingthe incidents of a ssault ag ainst the dece dent was a dmitted. 2

Even if the a lleg ed er

ror ha d been pr eser

ved, we would overr

ule this issu e. The his tor y of ph y sic a l a

bu se in t he re la tio ns hip wa s r e le va nt. Th e e xtra

ne ou s- of fe ns e e vid e nc e re bu ts
a pp e lla nt’ s c la im o f a c c ide nt a

nd sh ow s h e int e nd e d to c a

us e de a th, se ri ou s bod ily inj ur y , or b od ily injury . The trial c ourt instructed the jury that it could consider any such evidence only if it believed the evidenc e beyond a re asonable doubt and only for the pur

pose of de termining intent, or absenc e of m istake or accide nt, or other pe rmissible purpose set for th by the cour t. Se e Ge or

ge v . S tat e , 890 S.W .2d 73, 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

C i t i n g J oh ns ton v . S

tat e , a pp e lla nt u rg e s th a t th is e vid e nc e is i mpr ope r b e c a us e it
me r e ly s h o w s a “ p a tt e r

n o f c o n d

u c t” th a t is th e ty

p e o f e v id e n c e f

o u n d to b e in a d mi s sible by t h e court of cr iminal appeals. 145 S.W.3d 215, 221-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Johnston is distinguishable. In that case involving injury to a child, the State soug ht to introduce other acts of abuse. B ut the issue in Johnston wa s th e ide nti ty of the a bu se r a nd wh e the r the e vid e nc e te nd e d to show that it was appe llant rather than another

individual who committed t h e ac t
. T hus, the7

e xtra ne ou s- of fe ns e e vid e nc e wa s n ot r e le va nt t o a fa c t of c on se quence in th e c a se a pa rt fr om i ts tendenc y to prove c onduct in confor mity with char acte r. The c ourt stated:
Extr ane ou s o ff

e ns e e vid e nc e mig ht b e re le va nt u nd e r Rule 40 4( b) to p ro ve ide nti ty by rebutting a def

ensive theor

y t h at s omeone other

than the def

endant c aused the sp e c if ic inj ur y a lle g e d. I n suc h a ca se , ev ide nc e of ano the r ac t of m isc on du c t c ou ld be off ere d to show that it was the def endant, a nd not some other person, who was the assailant in the charg ed incident, beca use t he def

endant c ommitt ed anothe r ac t very sim ila r t o th e c ha

rg e d a c t. P ro of

of ide nti ty is a leg iti ma te no n- c ha ra c te r p ur po se un de r R ule 40 4( b) . B ut, be fo re a dmi tti nge vid e nc e of ano the r a c t of

mis c on du c t to sh owthe ide nti ty

of the a ssa ila

nt u nd e r t his pa rt ic ula r t he or y , th e State mu st fir st sh owthat th e de fe nd ant i s, in f a c t, t he pe rs on wh o c omm itt e d th e oth e r a c t.
Id . at 220-221. He re the e vid e nc e wa s c le arl y re le va nt t o p ro ve tha

t th e a pp e lla nt a c te d w iththe state of min d r e qu ir ed by th e off e ns e of wh ic h h e wa s a c c us e d a nd to r e bu t a

pp e lla nt’ s th e or y of his de fe ns e . B e c a

us e the e vid e nc e wa s re le va nt to pr ov e a le g iti ma te no n- c ha ra c te r pur po se un de r R

ule 404(b)—intent and a

bsence of accident—a

nd beca use t he probative value of the evidenc e wa s not
su bs tanti a lly

ou tw e ig he d b y

the da ng e r of un fa ir pr e

jud ic e , we c on c lud e the tr ia l court did no t a bu se its discretion in admitti ng the ex trane ous offe nses commi tted by appellant. Appellant’s f irst issue is overrule d.
He ar sa y Te sti mony I n his second issue, appellant challeng es the admission of brief testimony

by Ba rbar a F e nn e ll that a

fe w w e e ks be fo re the sh oo tin g sh e re c e ive d a te le ph on e c a ll f ro m K ri sto ph e r w ho tol d her that appellant had thr eate ned him with a shotgun. Appellant objected on g rounds of he arsa y and8

the State then soug ht to introduce t h e s t at em ent as an excited utterance . The c ourt overr uled the objection. On appe al, appe llant c halleng es the a dmission of the testimony beca use the State fa iled to lay the necessar

y predic ate to esta

blish that the statement was a n excited utteranc e. See Te x. R. Evid. 803(2). Appe llant’s objection at trial doe s not comport with his objecti o n o n ap p eal. See Gu e v ara , 9 7 S. W.3 d at 58 3. Ev e n a ssumin g a pp e lla nt h a s p re se rv e d e rr or , a

ny e rr or is h arm le ss beca use Kristopher

testified about the incide nt without objection. Appellant complains in his third issue that the t rial cour t erre d in refusingto instruct the jury to disreg ard ina dmissibl e hear say evidenc e. At trial, Cory Fe nnell testified that, on the day befor e the shooting, he examined appellant’s shotg un beca use he ha d hear d appellant ha d pulled a g un on Kristopher: Q: Did y ou see that shotgun at y our Mom’s house on Apr il 4th? A: Yes, sir. Q: An d w he re did

y ou se e it? A: Idon’t reme mber. Q: Well, how did y ou come into contac t with it or— A: Ic a me int o c on ta c t w ithit b e c a us e so me rumor s h a d b e e n a bo ut t hat [a pp e lla nt] pu lle d a g un on my lit tle br oth e r a

bo ut— Ap pe lla nt’ s o bje c tio n to the wi tne ss’ s state me nt that he ha d he ard a pp e lla nt h a d p ull e d a

g un on his brother w as sustained, but the c ourt ref used to instruc t the jury to disre g ard the testimony . Cory then testified that he e x amined the gu n and observed that it was not loade d. Appellant ar g ues that the9

limit ing instruction w as nece ssary to a meliorate the prejudicia l e ffe cts of the err or. He ur ges t h at the fa ilure to issue an a dequate instruction is error.

Hea rsay is a statement, other than one made by the dec lara

nt while testify ing of

fer ed in evidence to prove the truth of the matter a sserted. Te x . R. Evid. 801(d). I n his testimony , Cory
e xpla ine d ho w he c a me int o c on ta c t wi th the sh otgun and wh a t c a us e d h im t o e xami ne it. B e c a us e the statement wa s offe red to show why Cory came to examine the s hotgun and was not offer ed for th e tr u th o f th e s tate me n t, it is n o t h e ar s ay an d an in s tr u c ti o n w a s n o t n e c e s sary . See 2 S t ephen Goode, e t al., Texas Practice : Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidenc e , § 801.2 (3d ed. 2002) . Even assuming it wa s improper he arsa y and the tria l judge err ed in f ailing to g ive an instruction, the rec ord fails to demonstrate that the err or re quired re versa l. Se e Bo urqu e v . S tat e , 156 S.W .3d 675, 676-77 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pe t. ref’ d).

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 44.2(b) provides that we “ must disreg ard anonconstitutional error that does not aff ect a criminal def

endant’ s ‘substantial rig hts.’” Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 12 6 S. W.3 d 9 21 , 9 27 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); see Te x. R. Ap p. P. 44. 2( b) (“ Any oth e r er ro r, de fe c t, ir re g ula ri ty , o r v ari anc e that do e s n ot a ff e c t su bs tanti a l r ights must b e dis re g ard e d. ” ). Un de r r ule 44.2(b), a n appellate court may not r ever se for nonconstitutional e rror if, afte r examining the re cord
as a w hole, we ha

ve fa ir assura

nce that the err or did not have a substantial and i n

j u ri o u s ef

fe ct or in f lu e n c e o n th e ju

r y ’ s v e r d ict. Gar c ia , 126 S.W .3d at 927. Afte r examining the e ntire re cord of appellant’ s trial, we ha

ve fa ir assura

nce that the asser

ted er rors urg ed in his second a nd third issues did not have a substantial a nd injurious effe ct or influenc e on the jury ’s ver dict. Id . Appellant’s second a nd third issues are overr

uled.10

Po lic eOf fic e r’ s T esti mony I n his fourth issue, appe llant contend s t h at the trial cour t erre d in allowing police office r Chris McMahan t o testify as to the inconsistencie s betwee n appellant’ s two videotaped statements bec ause the testimony “invade d the province of the jury .” The State responds that Of fice r McMaha n was prope rly

qualified a s an expert and r ender ed appr opriate e x pert testimony
. Rule 702 provides for

the admissibilit y

of expert testimony in the form of a n opinion

“ [i]f s c ie nti fi c , te c hn ic a l, o r oth e r s pe c ia lize d k no wl e dg e wi ll as sis t

the trier of

fac t to understand the evidenc e or to de termine a fac t in issue.” Tex. R. Evi d. 702 (empha sis added)
. C o u rt s have admitted expert testimony conce rning a matter within most jurors’ unde rstanding when it appe are d that the jurors would none theless be assisted in their fac tfinding f unction. The e x tent to which expert testimony

may be of a ssistance to the jury in understandingthe evidenc e is a matter of deg ree and will vary

acc ording to the circ umstances of the ca se. See United States v. Milton , 555 F.2d 1198, 12 03 -0 5 ( 5th

Cir . 197 7) (l aw en fo rc e me nt expe rt ’s int e rp re ta tio n of de fe nd ants ’ c on ve rs a tio ns did not invade provinc e of jury ). L aw e nforc ement off

icer s with s ufficie nt qualifications may testify
conce rning the methods an d t ec h n iques employ ed in law e nforc ement and in a n are a of c riminal
a c t i v i t y. B a s e d

o nh i s t r a i n i n g an d

e x p e r i e n c e , an

o f f i c e r ’ s o b s e r

v a t i o n s m ay b e v a l u a

b l e t o t h e j u r

y. We revie w t he cour

t’s ruling for a

n abuse of

discretion. Ke lly

v . S tat e , 8 2 4 S. W. 2 d

5 6 8 , 5 7 2 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1992).

Both of a ppellant’s videotape d statements wer e admitted into evidenc e an d play ed for the jur y . Offic er Mc Mahan the n testified to inconsistencies be tween the statements, conc luding11

that th e dif

fe re nc e s in

the a c c ount s sh ow e d th a t th e re wa s so me de c e pti on . A lth ou g h d e fe ns e counsel objec ted when the office r wa s asked whe th er t h er e we re a ny differ ence s betwee n the two
acc ounts, he did not object to the conc lusion drawn by the offic er. Rul e 70 4 a

bo lis he s the pe r se ru le a g a ins t te sti mony re g ard ing ult imate iss ue s of fa c t. Tex. R. Evi d. 704. By

the same toke n, howeve r, cour ts must remain vigilant a g ainst the admission of leg al conc lusions. See H uff v. United States , 273 F.2d 5 6 , 6 1 (5 t h C i r. 1959). In this case, the jur y ’s ta sk wa s to he ar a

nd re vie w the a

pp e lla nt’ s v ide ota

pe d s ta te me nts . T he of

fi c e r’ s a na ly sis
c on ta ine d s ome e xpe rt ise that, b a se d o n h is s kil l and tr a ini ng , co uld a ssi st a nd g uid e the jur

y in i ts task. We cannot say

the trial cour

t abused its discretion in al l o wi n g t h e testimony . Appellant’s fourth issue is overr

uled.
Admiss ion of

Auto ps y Pho tog ra phs I n his f ifth issue, appellant argues that the trial court a bused its discretion in admitting autopsy photogr aphs bec ause their probative va lue was outwe ighe d by their pre judicial eff

ect. The State responds that the photog raphs we re c ircumstantial evidenc e bea ring on the issue of intent and
wer e thus rele vant. The S tate further arg ues t hat their probative value substantially outweig hed any dang er of unfair pr ejudice. Rule 403 provides that althoug h rele vant, evidenc e may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejud i ce , confusion of the issues, or mis le a din g the jur

y . T e x. R. E vid . 4 03 ; Eraz o v . S tat e , 144 S.W .3d 487, 491-92 (Te x . Crim. App. 20 04 ); Cha mb e rla in v . S

tat e , 998 S.W .2d 230, 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). “Unf air pre judice” doe s12

not simpl y

mean that the evidence will injure or prejudice the opponent’s ca se. Torre s v . S tat e , 794 S.W. 2d 59 6, 60 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 90 , n o p e t.) . Rathe r, it r e fe rs to “ an und ue te nd e nc y

to sug g est dec ision on a

n improper ba sis, commonly , though not ne cessa rily , an emotional one.” Id
. The a dmissibi lity

of photog raphs is within the sound di s cr etion of the trial judg e. Sh uff ie ld v . S tat e , No. AP-74,574, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. L EXI S 365, at *8 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 15, 2006); Cha mb erl ain , 998 S.W .2d at 237. Sever al fa ctors may be conside red in de termining wh e the r t he da ng e r of un fa ir

pr e jud ic e su bs tanti a lly

ou tw e ig hs the pr ob a tiv e va lue of ph oto g ra ph s, including the number of e x hibits offere d, their g ruesomene ss, de tail, a nd siz e, whether they are black and white or color, whether they are close-up, whether the body is na ked or cloth ed , an d t he availability

of other me ans of p ro o f and the c ircumstance s unique to eac h individual case. Cha mb e rla in , 9 98 S.W. 2d a t 23 7; Narv aiz

v . S tat e , 840 S.W .2d 415, 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Autopsy photogr aphs are gene rally admissible unless they depict mutilation of the victim caused by the autopsy

itself. Ha

y es v . S tat e , 85 S.W .3d 809, 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Chang es re ndere d by the a uto ps y pr oc e ss a

re of min or sig nif ic anc e if the dis turbin g natur e of the ph oto g ra

phis primarily due to the i njuries caused by the appellant. Id. Using an abuse -of- discretion standa rd, we
mus t de te rm ine wh e the r the tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g wa s r e a so na ble in v ie w o f a ll r e le va nt f a c ts. Sh uff ie ld , 2006 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 365, at *9. Ap pe lla nt o bje c te d to the a dmi ssi on of a ut op sy ph oto g ra ph s, wh ic h in c lud e d e xhibi ts 41 throug h 66. Specifica lly , he objected to e x hibits 43 throug h 46 and 49 throug h 66 on v ar ious Rule 403 g rounds. The e x hibits were of fer ed to document the injuries describe d by the medica l examiner. Exhi bits 43 through 46 were particula rly g raphic showing the interior of the dec edent’ s13

chest c avity

and the de struction of the c hest and hear t c aused by

the “e x plosive nature of

the shotg un blast.” Exhibi ts 59 through 66 a lso depicted interna l views of the de cea sed.

Of the ph oto g ra

ph s a dmi tte d in to e vid e nc e , a pp e lla nt s ing le s ou t e xhibi t 49 be c a us e it doe s not de pic t an inju

ry bu t wa s adm itt e d to sh owthat th e re wa s n ot a n e xit wo un d a

nd e xhibi ts 53-58 which pur

ported to show bruising on the dec ease d’s abdomen a nd brea s t
. At t ri al, counsel objected g ener ally

that the probative value of the photog raphs wa s outweig hed by their dang er of unfair pr ejudice. O n appea l, counsel c o mplains that the photogr aphs we re la rg e, in color a

nd g ruesome, a

nd that the dec edent is nake d and placed upon an autopsy table. Althoug h some of the photogr aphs depic ted the g unshot wound, counsel urg es that none of the complained- of photog raphs depicted the path of the gunshot or related to appellant’s tria l acc ount of the eve nt. He conte nds that
o n l y t h re e e x h i b i t s d ep i ct edt h e a ct u al gu n s h o two u n d t o t h e d ec ed en t ’s l ef

tb re as t
. Al t h o u gh
a pp e lla nt f a ile d to pa

rt ic ula ri ze t he se ob je c tio ns a t tr ia l, w e wi ll n e ve rt he le ss a dd

re ss t he m. The issues at trial wer e appellant’ s intent a nd the circ umstances of Ms. Fe n nell’s death. The task for the jury was to dete rmine whe ther the injurie s we re s el f-inflicte d, cause d by
acc ident, or were intentionally inflicted. The appellate recor d includes eig ht-and-a -half- by -ele veninch color p h o t o gra p h s admitted into evidence . Dr. Rober t Ba y ardo, the chief

medical e x aminer, ide nti fi e d th e ph oto g ra

ph s, te sti fy

ingthat th e de c e de nt’s wo un d w a s a c on ta c t sh otgun

wo un d in which the muzzl e of the g un was “ place d tightly ag ainst the brea st at the time that the g un was fir ed.” He de scribed the plastic wad f rom the shotg un shell depicted in e x hibits 44 and 47. The photog raphs at issue w e r e p r o b a ti v e o f th e ma nner in whic h the dec edent incur red the fatal injury , and we re ne cessa ry for the State i n d ev el o p i n g its case a nd respondingto the14

appellant’ s theory

of the incide nt. As the cour t of criminal appe als has obser ved, “V isual evidenc e
acc ompanying te stimony

is most p ersua sive and ofte n g ives the fa ct finder a point of compa

rison ag ainst which to test the cr edibility of a witness and the validity of his conclusions.” Cha mb e rla in , 998 S.W .2d at 237. Although the photogr aphs we re e x plicit and g ruesome, w e ca nnot say the trial
c ourt a bu se d its disc re tio n in

a dmi tti ngthe m, a s th e da ng e r o f u nf a ir pr e jud ic e did

no t su bs tanti a lly outweig h the probative value of the photog raphs. See id. Appellant’s f ifth issue is overruled.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled appe llant’s issues, we a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 16, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh