## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 02- 278- CR
W I L L I AM M AT T HE W S CH I F F E R T AP P E L L ANT A/ K/A JE RRY SCHI FF ERT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 1 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### O PI N I O N ON PET I T I O N FORD I SC RET I O N A RY R EV I EW

----- ----- -- A fter r e v i e w i n g A p p e l l a n t’ s p e ti ti o n for d i sc reti o n a ry rev i e w , w e m o d i fy
o u r o p i n i o n a n d j u d g m e n t i n th i s a p p e a l . S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 50 . W e w i t hdr aw ourN ove m ber21, 2007 opi ni on a nd j udgm entan d s ubs t i t ut e t he f ol l ow i ng. I . I nt r oduc t i on A j u ryc o n v i c te d A p p e l l a n t W i l l i a m M a tth e w S c h i ffe rt a /k /a J e rryS c h i ffe rt
as a part y t o t he m ur derofCor ey M cM i l l an, f ound hab i t ualof f end eral l ega t i ons1 ... S ch iffert v. S tate , 1 5 7 S .W .3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 6 , 4 9 9 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h

2 0 0 4 ), rev’d and j

udgm ’tvacated, 2 0 7 S .W .3 d 8 0 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ).
2 ... 2 0 4S .W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 5 -1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). 2 t o be t r ue, and assess ed A ppel l ant ’ s puni shm entatsevent y- f ive year s’
c o n f in e m e n t . T h e t r ia l c o u rts e n t e n c e d A p p e lla n ta c c o r d in g ly . O n a p p e a l, A ppel l antr ai ses f ourpoi nt s: ( 1) t he t r i al courtegr egi ousl y er r ed i n t he part i es app l i ca t i on par agr aph of t he j ury cha r ge by f ai l i ng t o r equ i r e t he St at e t o pr ove i nt ent ; ( 2) t he evi dence i s l egal l y and f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci ent ; ( 3) t r i al counsel w as i n e ffe c ti v e ; a n d (4 ) th e tri a l c o u rt e r r e d i n th e s e l f-d e fe n s e p o rti o n o f th e j u ry char ge. I n ouror i gi nal opi ni on and j udg m ent , w e hel d t hatt he evi dence w as le g a llys u f f ic ie n tb u tf a c t u a ll y i n s u f f ic ie n tu n d e rt h es t a n d a r d s o fre v ie w in ef f ect a t t he t i m e. 1 O n N o v e m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e c o u rto fc r im in a l a p p e a ls
vac at ed our opi ni on and j udgm entan d r em and ed t he ca sef orr ec ons i der at i on i n l i ghtofi t s opi ni on i n W a tso nv. S tate , 2 i n w hi ch i tr e- art i cul at ed t he f act ual
s u fficie n c ys ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . S ch iffert v. S tate , 207 S . W . 3d 800, 801 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2006 ) . Rec ons i der i ng t he f a c tual s uf f i ci enc y po i nti n l i ghtof W atso n , and r eachi ng t he r em ai ni ng i ssues t hatw e di d not r each i n ouror i gi nal
o p i n i o n , wea f f i r m.3

I I . Back gr ound Brandy U pchu r ch began dat i ng M cM i l l an i n 1 99 9. Soo n af t er , t hey beg an l i v i n g tog e th e r an d ev e n tu a l l ym o v e d i n to the B u d g e t I n n m o tel . A c c o rding to
a s t at em entt hatA ppel l antgave t o t he pol i ce, A ppel l antf i r stm etU pchu r ch
w hen he w ent t o t he m ot el t o vi si t a f r i end . U pch ur ch t ol d Appel l antt hats he
c o u l d n o t c o m e o u ts i d e b e c a u s e h e r “ o l d m a n [ M c M i l l a n ] w o u l d b e a t h e r.” A p p e l l a n t c o n ti n u e d to ta l kto U p c h u rc h w h e n e v e r h e w e n t to th e m o te l . U l ti m a te l y , U p c h u rc h l e ft M c M i l l a n a n d m o v e d i n to A p p e l l a n t’s tra i l e r. A bou ta m onth l at er , A ppel l antar r i ved at t he t r ai l er and f oun d U pchu r ch gon e. A ccor di ng t o U pchu r ch, M cM i l l an had f oun d heri n A ppel l ant ’ s t r ai l er , and af t er he t hr ea t ene d he r , s he w e n t bac k w i t h hi m t o t he m ot el . The f ol l ow i ng da y, N o v e m b e r5 , 2 0 0 1 , U p c h u r c h c a lle d A p p e lla n tt o c o m e g e th e r ; s h e t o ld h im th a t s h e h a d b e e n kidn a p p e d b yM c M i l l a n an d tha t sh e w a n ted A p p e l l a n t t o com e p i ckhe rup. Appel l an t a n d h i s nep hew , A ar on Kenn edy , w entt o t he
m o te l to g e t h e r. I n t he m ea nt i m e, aft era con f r ont at i on w i t h M cM i l l an, U pch ur ch l eftt he
m ot el on f oot . She ca l l ed A pp e l l a ntan d Kenne dy, w ho pi ck ed herup i n a near by r est aur ant par ki ng l ot . Th e t hr ee of t hem t hen dr ove back t o t he m ot el par ki ng l ot . U pchu r ch f i r stt est i f i ed t hatt hei rpur pose i n r et ur ni ng t o t he m ot el3 ... U pchu r ch t est i f i ed t hatA ppel l antat t em pt ed t o r un ov erM cM i l l an

“w hen t heyw er e st art i ng t o f i ght , hi m and A ar on, an d a l l hew ast r yi ng t o do w as st op t hem . ” Bu t W ar d di d not m ent i on A ppel l antm ovi ng hi s carbet w een t he t i m e he st opp ed and t he t i m e he f l ed w i t h K enned y; i nst ead, she t est i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antw as“ sm i r ki ng”athe rdur i ng t hi s per i od. 4 w as t o r et r i eve hercl ot hes, but on cr oss- exam i nat i on she t est i f i ed she expect ed to g o to A p p e l l a n t’s tra i l e r, n o t b a c kto th e m o te l . G i nnyLu W ar d w as i n t he par ki ng l otofEnt er pr is e Ren t - A
- C ar , w hi ch sh ar est he l otw i t h t he m ot el , w hen t he eve nt s t r ans pi r ed. Accor di ng t o W ar d,
w hen A ppel l antdr ove i nt o t he m ot el par ki ng l ot , he “act ed l i ke [ he] di dn’ tsee
w ho [ he w as] l ooki ng f or , and [ t hen he] m a d e a U
- t ur n. ” U pchu r ch t est i f i ed th a t A p p e l l a n t s to p p e d t h e c a r, c a l l e d M c M i l l a n o n th e p h o n e a n d s a i d , “I’m l ook i ng a tyou rpunkbi t ch now . ” Soon aft er w ar ds , M cM i l l an ca m e o uti nt o t he par ki ng l ot . A cc or di ng t o W ar d, “ [ t he dr i ver ] s aw w ho [ he w as ] l ook i ng f oran d [ he] gunn ed i t , an d w hen hegunn ed i t , hel os tco nt r ol f orj us ta m om entan d h i t [a ] re d tru c k .” T h e c o l l i s i o n d a m a g e d th e d ri v e r’s d o o r o f A p p e l l a n t’s c a r; U pchu rc h te s ti f i ed t hatt hey l at erhad t o pr y t he doo ropen. U pchu r ch al so adm i t t ed on cr oss- exam i nat i on t hat she t ol d t he pr osecut orbef or e t r i al t hat A p p e l l a n t t ri e d to ru n o v e r M c M i l l a n at s o m e p o i n t du ri n g the i n c i d e n t. 3 W ar d t est i f i ed t ha tA ppel l antpar ked hi s cart w el ve t o f i f t een i nches behi nd M cM i l l an’ s cari n such a w ay t hat M cM i l l an’ s carcoul d not have pu l l ed5

outw i t houthi t t i ng Appel l ant ’ s ca r . Kenne dy t hen j um ped outoft he ca ran d beg an st abb i ng M cM i l l an. W ar d t es t i f i ed t hat , asKenne dy s t abb ed M cM i l l an, M cM i l l an sai d, “[ W ] hatt he hel l ar e you do in g ? ” and “[ W ] hy ar e you her e?” W ar d s ai d t hatasKenne dy w as st abb i ng M cM i l l an, A ppe l l antt ur ned t o he ran d

“ s m i rk e d .” Kenned y gotba cki n t he ca r , an d Appel l antqui ck l y dr oveaw ay. As t he
carl ef tt he l ot , U pchu r ch l ooked back; she saw M cM i l l an’ s hand overhi s t hr oat
a n d b l o o d o n h i s s h i rt. O f f i ce rM i cha el M cGui r e w asdi sp at c h e d t o t he m ot el , w her e h e f ound M cM i l l an, w ho w asbl ee di ng a nd app ea r ed t o hav e bee n s t abb ed i n t he l efts i de of h i s nec k a nd on t he l efts i de ofhi s che st . M cM i l l an w ast ak en t o t he hos pi t al , w her e h e l at erdi ed. Det ec t i ve Ti m G i l pi n w as al so di sp at che d t o t he
scene. W i t n e s s e s g a v e h i m t h e l i c e n s e n u mb e ro ft h e c a rAp p e l l a n tw as d ri v i n g ; h e ran the l i c e n se an d l e a rne d the ca r w a s re g i ste red to A p p e l l a n t. Th e day af t er M cM i l l an’ s deat h, O f f i cerRi char d C urt i s, w ho w as ass i gned t o t he C r i m e S cene S ear ch U ni t , w as di spat ched t o an apart m entcom pl ex af t er a s ea r ch w ar r antha d be en obt ai ned f or A ppe l l ant ’ s veh i cl e. Pol i ce f ound t he
caratt he com pl ex and i m pou nded i t . W hi l e exam i ni ng t he car , C urt i s st at ed t hat he had t r oub l e get t i ng t he dr i ver ’ s- si de doo r open ; t he doo rw o u ld open6

onl y abou tt w el ve i nches. Ther e w as one l i cense pl at e on t he car , buti tw as
n o t re g i s te re d to th e c a r. U pchu r ch sai d t hat , i n t he days f ol l ow i ng M cM i ll an’ s deat h, she saw A ppel l ant , and he and K enned y t r i ed t o st ay separ at e f r om each ot her . Sh e al so s t a t e d t h a ts h e h e a r d A p p e lla n t d is c u s s le a v in g t o w n b e c a u s e h e w a s o n p a r o le
a n d h e w a s a fra i d th a t th e p o l i c e w o u l d b e l o o k i n g fo r h i m . O n Novem ber9, 2 0 0 1 , O f f i ce rBenj am i n Jo nesw ason p at r ol w hen he
sa w a ca rw i t h a b rak e l i ghtout . He pul l ed t he ca rove ran d a sk ed f or i denti f i cat i on, butt he dr i verhad non e. Th e dr i ver gave hi s nam e as “ M i chael S m i t h. ” O f f i cerK enneth S t ack ar r i ved on t he scene af t erJones had st opp ed t he car . Based on a ph ot o t hathe had seen ear l i ert hatday, Stack r ecogn i zed Appe l l a nt a s t he dr i ve r . Acc or di ng t o St a c k , w he n he s ho w e d th e p h o to to A ppel l ant , A ppel l antsai d, “Yo u got m e. ” A cc or di ng t o Deput y M edi ca l Exa m i nerD ani el Konz el m ann , M cM i l l a n ’s bod y had t w o di st i nctst ab w oun ds, one on the chestan d o n e o n t he neck. Th e neck w oun d w as notl et hal because i tdi d not c ro s s a ny vi t al st r uct ur es. The w ound t o t he che stw asl et halbe ca us e i t w ent i nt o t he hea rt . Konz el m ann sa w no d ef ens i ve w oundson M c M i l l a n’ s uppe rar m s orha ndsan d no si gns i ndi cat i ng a pr ol ong ed st r ugg l e.7

I I I . C har ge Er r or : Th e Law ofPart i es I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , A ppe l l antar gue s t hat t he t r i al cou rt er r ed by m i ss t at i ng t he l aw ofpa rt i es i n t he app l i ca t i on par agr aph of t he j ury cha r ge and t hatt he
e rro r c a u s e d A p p e l l a n t e g re g i o u s h a rm . A . S t andar d ofr evi ew A ppel l at e r evi ew ofer r or in a ju ry char ge i nvol ves a t w o- st ep pr ocess. A b d n o r v. S tate , 8 7 1 S .W .2 d 7 2 6 , 7 3 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). In i ti a l l y , w e
m ustdet er m i ne w het herer r oroccur r ed. I fso, w e m ustt hen eval uat e w het her
s u f f i c i e n t h a rm re s u l te d fro m th e e rro r to re q u i re re v e rs a l . Id. a t 7 3 1

– 3 2 . If t h e r e ise r r o rin t h e c o u rt ’s c h a r g e b u tt h e a p p e lla n td id n o to bje c tt o ita tt r ia l,
w e m ustdeci de w het hert he er r orw as so egr egi ous and cr eat ed such har m t hat
a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t h a v e a fa i r a n d i m p a rti a l tri a l

— i n s h o rt, th a t “ e g re g i o u s h a rm ” h a s o c c u rre d . A l

m a nza v. S tate , 686 S. W . 2d 157, 171 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 1985 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ); see T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 3 6 .1 9 (V e rn o n 1 9 8 1 ); Hutch
v. S tate , 9 2 2 S .W .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). J u r yc h a r g e e r r o ris egr egi ous l y ha r m f ul i fi taffe c ts th e v ery ba si s oft he ca se , de pr i vest he d e fe n d a n t o f a v a l u a b l e ri g h t, o r v i ta l l ya ffe c ts a d e fe n s i v e th e o ry . Stuhler v. S tate , 2 1 8 S .W .3 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Hutch , 92 2 S . W . 2d at 171.8

W h e n e x a m in in g t h e re c o r d t o d e t e r m in e w h e t h e rju r y - c h a r g e e r r o ris egr egi ous , t he r evi ew i ng c ourts houl d con si der t he ent i r et y oft he j ury c har ge i t se l f , t he evi den ce , i ncl udi ng t he con t es t ed i ss ues and w ei ghtoft he pr oba t i ve e v i d enc e, t he ar gum ent s ofco uns el , an d a ny o t herr el eva nti nf or m at i on
r eve al ed by t he r ec or d oft he t r i al asa w h o l e . S tuhler, 218 S. W . 3d a t719; Ba i le yv. S tate , 8 6 7 S .W .2 d 4 2 , 4 3 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); A l m anza , 686 S . W . 2d at17 1. The pu r pose of t hi s r evi ew i s t o i l l um i nat e t he act ual , notj ust th e o re ti c a l , h a rm to th e a c c u s e d . A l m anza , 686 S . W . 2d at174. Egr egi ous har m i s a di f f i cul t st andar d t o pr ove and m ustbe det er m i ned on a case- by- case b a s i s . E

l l i so nv. S tate , 8 6 S .W .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); Hutch , 922 S . W . 2d a t171. B. The c harge Th e Texas Penal C ode st at es t hat“[ a] per son i s cr i m i nal l y r esponsi bl e as a p art y t o a n of f ens e i ft he of f ens e i s com m i t t ed by h i s ow n c onduc t , by t he cond uctofanot herf orw hi ch he i s cr i m i nal l y r esponsi bl e, orby both. ” T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 7 . 01 ( a) ( V er non 20 05 ) . C r i m i nal re sponsi bi l i t y i s def i ned
se v e ral w a y s, o n e o f w h i c h i s t h a t t h e d e fen d a n t, “a c ti n g w i th i n ten t t o pr om ot e orassi stt he com m i ssi on of t he of f ense . . . sol i ci t s, encour ages, di r ect s, ai ds, orat t em pt s t o ai d t he ot her per son t o com m i tt he of f ense. ” Id . § 7 .0 2 (a )(2 ).9

T h e a b s t r a c tp o rt io n o ft h e c h a r g e s u b m it t e d t o t h e j u r y s t a t e d , in rel e v a n t pa rt : A l l per so ns ar e part i es t o an of f ens e w ho ar e gui l ty o f a c ti ng t o g e t h e r in t h e c o m m is s io n o ft h e o f f e n s e . A p e r s o n isc r im in a lly r es pons i bl e a s a part y t o an of f ens e i f t he of f ens e i s com m i t t ed by h is o w n c o n d u c t , b y t h e c o n d u c to fa n o t h e rf o rw h o m h e is cr i m i nal l y r es pons i bl e, orby bot h. A pe r so n i s cr i m i nal l y r es pons i bl e f oran of f ens e c om m i t t ed by t he con duc tofa n o th e r i f , ac t i ng w i t h i nt entt o pr om ot e o ras si stt he com m i ssi on o f th e of f ense, he sol i ci t s, encour ages, di r ect s, ai ds, o r a tte m p tsto a i d th e o th e r p e rs o n to c o m m i t th e o ffe n s e . M e re pr esence al one w i l l notconst i t ut e one a part y t o an of f ense. T h e a p p l i c a ti o n p o rti o n o f th e j u ry c h a rg e s ta te d , i n re l e v a n t p a rt, th a t th e j u ry
w as aut hor i zed t o f i nd A ppel l antgui l t y ofm ur deri fi tf oun d t hat A ar on K enned y di d . . . i nt ent i onal l y w i t h t he i nt entt o cause s e r io u s b o d ilyin ju r y t o C o r e yM c M illa n , c o m m ita n a c tc le a r ly dang er ous t o hum an l i f e, nam el y, t o st ab hi m w i t h a kni f e, w hi ch caused t he deat h of an i ndi vi dual , C or ey M cM i l l an, and you f urt her fi n d tha t t h e D e fen d a n t, W i l l i a m M a tthe w S c h i ffert, ac ted w i th i nt entt o s o l i c i t , en cou r age , di r ec t , ai d, oratt em ptt o a i d Aar on K e n n e d yi n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e o ffe n s e . . . . Thus , w hi l e t he abs t r ac t port i on oft he cha r ge t r ac ke d t he l ang uag e o fs ec t i on 7 .0 2 (a )( 2 ), t h e a p p lic a t io n p o rt io n d id n o t . A p p e lla n td id n o t o b j e c t t o t h is d is c r e p a n c ya tt r ia l. C . A n a ly s is A l t hou gh t he char ge er r oneo usl y f ai l ed t o t r ack t he l angu age of p e nal
c o d e s e c ti o n 7 .0 2 (a )(2 ), w e h o l d th a t A p p e l l a n t c a n n o t s h o w e g re g i o u s h a rm10

because t he char ge r equi r ed af f i r m at i ve j ur y f i ndi ngs on t he sam e el em ent s as th o s e re c i te d i n th e p e n a l c o d e . S e eA l m a nza, 686 S . W . 2d a t171. Th e e l e m e nt s o fp a rt y l i a bi l i t y un de r pe na l c od e s e c t i on 7. 02( a ) ( 2) a r e ( 1) act i ng w i t h i nt entt hatt he of f ense be com m i t t ed, (2 ) th e def endan tsol i ci t s, encou r ages, di r ect s, ai ds, orat t em pt s t o ai d ( 3) anotherper son t o com m i tan o ffe n s e . T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 7 .0 2 (a)( 2 ). T h e c h a rge a u th o ri ze d the j u ry to fin d A p p e l l a n t gu i l ty a s a p a rt yi f he ( 1 ) a c ted w i th i n ten t ( 2 ) to so l i c i t,
enc our age , di r ec t , ai d, oratt em pt t o ai d ( 3) Kenned y i n t he com m i ss i on oft he of f ens e. The or deroft he w or dsi s di f f er ent , butt he m ea ni ng i s t he sa m e: t he j ury coul d not f i nd A ppel l antgui l t y as a part y unl ess i t f oun d t hat he i nt ended t he com m i ssi on of M cM i l l an’ s m ur der . Th e char ge r equi r ed t he j ur y t o f i nd t hat A ppe l l antco m m i t t ed so m e a cti nt end ed t o s ol i ci t , en co u ra g e , di r ec t , ai d, or at t em ptt o ai d i n M cM i l l an’ s m ur der ; sect i on 7 . 0 2 (a )(2 ) r equi r es t he sam e f i ndi ngs . Thoug h t he w or ds“ ac t ed w i t h i nt ent ” ar e s epa r at ed f r om t he w or ds

“ c o m m i s s i o n o f th e o ffe n s e ” i n th e c h a rg e , th e fo rm e r m o d i fyth e l a tte r. St at ed di f f er ent l y, t he phr as e “ ac t i ng w i t h i nt ent t o pr om ot e o ras si stt he
com m i ss i on oft he of f ens e”i n t he pen al cod e has t he sa m e pr ac t i ca l m ea ni ng a n d req u i res the sa m e fi n d i n g s a s th e p h ras e “a c ted w i th the i n ten t to so l i c i t, di r ect , ai d, or at t em pt t o ai d . . . t he com m i ssi on of t he of f ense” i n t he char ge. T h e w o rd s “ s o l i c i t” a n d “ d i re c t” a re ro u g h l ys y n o n y m o u s w i t h t h e w o rd4 ... Th i s anal ysi s pr ov o k e s th e quest i on of w hy t he l egi sl at ur e i ncl uded

bot h t he phr as e “ ac t i ng w i t h i nt entt o pr om ot e o ras si stt he com m i ss i on oft he of f ense” and t he phr ase “s ol i ci t s , d irect s, ai ds, orat t em pt s t o ai d t he ot her p e rso n to c o m m i t t h e o ffen se ” i n se c t io n 7 .0 2 (a)( 2 )’ s d e fi n i ti o n o f pa rt y l i abi l i t y. O ne r ea so n i s t hat i n so m e si t uat i ons , an ac t or m ay ai d a not heri n t he com m i ss i on ofan of f ens e w i t houti nt end i ng t hat an of f ens e b e c om m i t t ed i ft he act ordoes notknow t he ot her ’ s conduct i s an of f e n s e ; u n dert hat c i rc u m s t a n c e , th e a c to r i s n o t a p a rtyto th e o ffe n s e . S e e, e .g ., A m ayav. S tate , 7 3 3 S .W .2 d 1 6 8 , 1 7 5 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) ( h o ld in g d e f e n d a n t s c o u ld notbegui l t y a s p art i esw hen t he St at e f ai l ed t o s how t hey“ kne w t he c ri m i n a l i ty o f t h e c o n d u c t the yas sisted ”). S u c h l a c ko f kn o w l e d g e i s n o t a f ac t or i n a m ur der pr os ec ut i on l i ke t hi s one . S e eid. a t1 7 4(“ [M u r d e r ] is c o n d u c t t h a t by its very nature s u p p lie s p r o o fo ft h e p a rt ie s ’ k n o w le d g e t h a tit i s‘c ri m i n a l .’”). 11 “ p ro m o te ,” a n d th e w o rd “ a i d ” i s c l o s e l y s y n o n y m o u s w i th th e w o rd “ a s s i s t.” Thus , w hi l e t he cha r ge r eor der ed t he w or dsus e d i n th e s t at ut e, t he i nt ent
r equi r ed by t he char ge i s t he sam e as t he i nt entr equi r ed by t he st at ut e. 4 Beca us e t he cha r ge’ s app l i ca t i on par agr aph r equ i r ed t he j ury t o f i nd t he
sa m e e l em ent s ofpa rt y l i abi l i t y l i st ed i n s ec t i on 7. 02( a) ( 2) , w e h ol d t he er r or di d not cause egr egi ous har m t o A ppel l ant , and w e over r ul e hi s f i r sti ssue. I V . C har ge Er r or : Sel fD ef ense I n hi s f ourt h poi nt , A ppel l antar gues t he t r i al courter r ed by subm i t t i ng an er r one ouss el f

- def ens e i ns t r uct i on t o t he j ury. The St at e a r gue s t hatev en i ft he cha r ge w aser r one ous , A ppe l l antdi d nots uf f ereg r egi ousha r m be ca us e n o
r at i onal j ur y coul d have f oun d t hatA ppel l antorK enned y act ed i n sel f

- def ense.12

A . The s el f - defens e i ns t r uct i on Th e t r i al court ’ s i nst r uct i on on sel f

- def ense re a ds, i n pert i nent part , as f ol l ow s: N ow i fyou f i nd f r om t he evi den cebe yond a r ea so nab l e d oubt t hatt he sa i d Def end ant , W i l l i a m M att hew Schi f f ertorA ar on Kenned y, di d s t ab C or ey M cM i l l an w i t h a dea dl y w ea pon . . . but you furt herf i nd f r om t he evi dence, as vi ewed f rom the stand

poi nt of the D ef

endant att he t i m e, t hatf r om t he w or dsorco n d u c t , or bot h, of C or ey M cM i l l an, i tr ea so nab l y a ppe ar ed to the D ef endant th a t his l

ifeo rp e r s o n w a s in d a n g e ra n d t h e r e w a s c r e a t e d in h is m in d a r ea so na bl e ex pe ctati on of f ea ror dea t h o rseri ou s bo dily i nj ur y f r om t he use ofunl aw f ul deadl y f or ce at t he hand s ofC or ey M c M illa n , a n d t h a ta c t in g u n d e rs u c h a p p r e h e n s io n a n d re a s o n a b ly b e l i e v i n g tha t th eus eo f de a d lyf o rc eo nhisp a rtwa sim m e d ia tely n e c ess a ry to p ro te c thim s elf ag ai ns tCor ey M cM i l l an’ s us e o r a tte m p te d u s e o f u n l a w fu l d e a d l yfo rc e , he stabbed Corey McMi

l l an wi t h a k n i f e , a n d t h a ta r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n i n th eD e fen da n t’s pos i t i on w oul d notha ve r et r ea t ed, t hen you s houl d a c qui tt he [ D ] e f e n d a n t o n t h e g r o u n d s o f s e l f

- d e f e n s e , o r , i f y o u have a r e a s o n a b le d o u b ta s t o w h e t h e ro rn o tt h e D e f e n d a n tw a s a c t in g in sel f

- def ense on t he sai d occ a s i on and undert he ci r cum st ances, t hen you s houl d gi ve t he D ef end antt he ben ef i toft he dou b tan d s a yb yy o u r v e rd i c t n o t g u i l ty . [E m p h a s i s a d d e d .] A p p e lla n td id n o to bje c tt o t h e in s t r u c t io n a tt r ia l. B . A n a ly s is A p p e lla n ta r g u e s t h a tt h e c h a r g ee r r o n e o u s lyin s t r u c t e d t h e ju r yt h a tit coul d f i nd A ppel l antnotgui l t y by r eason ofsel f

- def ense onl y i fit fo u n d t hat A ppel l ant sta b b e d M c M i l l a n b e c a u se h e r e a s o n a b l yb e l i e v e d tha t h i so wnl i fe
w as i n dang er . Becau s e it i s undi sput ed t hatA ppel l antr em ai ned i n t he car13

w hi l e Kenn edy con f r ont ed and ki l l ed M cM i l l an, w e a gr eew i t h Appel l antt hatt he cha r ge w as er r one ous ; but w e al so agr ee w i t h t he St at e t hat t he er r ordi d not
c a u s e A p p e lla n te g r e g io u s h a r m b e c a u s e n o re a s o n a b le ju r y , e v e n ifp r o p e r ly i nst r uct ed, co u ld have f oun d beyo nd a r easonabl e doub tt hatK enned y ki l l ed M cM i l l an i n sel f

- def ense. W e f i r stco ns i dert he ent i r et y oft he j ury c har ge i t se l fan d t he st at e o ft he
e v i d e n c e . S ee Stuhler, 218 S. W . 3d at719. The cha r ge pr ope r l y i ns t r uct ed t he ju r y t h a ta n a c t o r ’s u s e o fd e a d lyf o r c e a g a in s ta n o t h e rin s e lf -d e f e n s e is ju s t if ie d o n lyw h e n t h e a c t o rre a s o n a b lyb e lie v e s d e a d lyf o r c eisim m e d ia t e ly
nec es sa r y t o pr ot ec tt he ac t orora t hi r d p er so n f r om t he ot her ’ s us e o r a tte m p te d u s e o f d e a d l y fo rc e . T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . §§ 9. 32 ( V er non Supp . 2 0 0 7 ), 9. 33 ( V er non 2003) . “ D ea dl y fo rc e”m ea nsf or cet hati s i nt end ed or kn ow n by t he ac t or t o ca us e, or i n t he m an ne r of i t s us e or i nt e n d e d u s e is
c a p a b l e o f c a u s i n g , d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d i l yi n j u ry . Id. § 9. 01 . Th e char ge al so i ns t r uct ed t he j ury t hatt he us e o fde adl y f or cei s notj us t i f i ed i fan ac t or pr ovok esan ot her ’ s us e o ratt em pt ed us e o fd e a d l y f or ceby so m e a ctor l a n g u a g e . S ee i

d. § 9 .3 1 (b )(4 ). Br and y Upchur ch t es t i f i ed t hati m m edi at el y be f or e t he al t er c a ti on, A p p e l l a n t te l e p h o n e d M c M i l l a n a n d s a i d , “I’m l o o k i n g a t y o u r p u n kb i tc h n o w ,”
a n d tha t t h o se w e re “ fi g h ti n g w o rds .” U p c h u rch an d G i n n y L u W a rd b o th14

t est i f i ed t hatM cM i l l an had no t hi ng i n hi s hands w hen he cam e out oft he m ot el
r oom . Upchur ch t es t i f i ed t hatM cM i l l an st r uckKenne dy w i th h i s f i st , an d A ppe l l ants ai d t he sa m e t hi ng i n hi s w r i t t en st at em ent t o pol i ce . Consi der i ng t he st at e o ft he evi den ce , a r ea so nab l e j ury pr ope r l y i ns t r uct ed on t he i ss ue of
s e lf -d e f e n s e c o u ld n o th a v e f o u n d t h a tK e n n e d yw a s ju s t if ie d in u s in g d e a d ly f or ce agai nstM cM i l l an ; A p p e l l antpr ovoked t he al t er cat i on, and even A ppe l l ant ’ s and U pch ur ch’ s des cr i pt i onsof t he f i ght sh ow t hat M cM i l l an di d not
use o r a t t e mp t t o u s e d e a d l y f o r c e a g a i n s t K e n n e d y . T h u s , Ap p e l l ant has sh ow n a tm os tt heo r et i ca l ha r m , not ac t ual har m , f l ow i ng f r om t he er r one ous s e l f-d e fe n s e c h a rg e . S eeA l m anza , 686 S. W . 2d a t174. W e t her ef or e h ol d t hatA ppe l l antw asnoteg r egi ous l y ha r m ed by t he
e rr o n e o u s i n stru c ti o n , a n d w e o v e rr u l e h i s fo u rt h p o i n t. V . LegalSu ff i ci ency I n hi s second poi nt , A ppel l antcl ai m s t hatt he evi dence pr esent ed att r i al i s l ega l l y i ns uf f i ci entt o s upporthi s con vi ct i on. A . S t andar d ofRev i ew W h e n rev i e w i n g the l e g a l su ffi c i e n c y o fthe ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta convi ct i on, w e vi ew al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he ver di ct i n or dert o de t er m i ne w het h e r a n y ra t i ona l t r i eroff ac tco ul d ha ve f ound t he
e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Jacks on v.15

V ir gin ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Burdenv. S tate , 5 5 S .W .3 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). T h i s s tan d a rd g i v e s fu l l p l a yto th e res p o n sibi l i ty o f t h e t r ie r o f f a c t t o res o l v e co n fl i c ts i n the tes ti m o n y , to
w e i g h the ev i d e n c e , a n d to d raw rea so n a b l e i n fere n c e s from b a sic fac ts to
u l ti m a te fa c ts . Jacks on , 44 3 U . S . at31 9, 9 9 S . C t . at27 89 . W hen per f or m i ng a l egal suf f i ci ency r evi ew , w e m ay not si tas a t hi rt eent h j ur or , r eeva l uat i ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi den cean d, t hus , s ubs t i t ut i ng ou r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c t fi n d e r. D e wb erryv. S tate , 4 S. W . 3d 735, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 3 1 (2 0 0 0 ). W h e n a j ury r e t ur ns a ge ne r a l ve r di c t a nd t he e vi de nc e i s s uf f i c i e n t t o s u p p o rta g u ilt yf in d in g u n d e ra n y o ft h e a lle g a t io n s s u b m it t e d , t h e v e r d ic tw ill b e u p h e l d . S we a ri

ng env. S tate , 1 0 1 S .W .3 d 8 9 , 9 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); T i pp itt v. S tate , 4 1 S .W .3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.). T h u s , w e a p p l y th e l e g a l s u fficie n c y s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w to e a c h th e o ry s u b m i tte d to th e j u ryi n th e c o u rt’sc h a rg e . Ra b b a n i v. S tate , 847 S. W . 2d 555, 5 5 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ), cert. denied, 5 0 9 U .S . 9 2 6 (1 9 9 3 ); T i pp itt, 41 S. W . 3d a t323. Suf f i ci enc y of t he evi den ce sh oul d bem ea su r ed by t he el em ent s oft he
o ffe n s e a s d e fi n e d b yth e h y p o th e ti c a l l yc o rre c t j u ryc h a rg e fo r th e c a s e . Ma lik
v. S tate , 95 3 S . W . 2d 23 4, 24 0 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 97 ) . Thi s hypoth e tic al16

cha r ge ac cur at el y s et s outt he l aw , i s au t hor i z ed by t he i ndi ct m ent , doe s not
unne ce ss ar i l y i ncr ea set he St at e’ s bur den of pr ooforunne ce ss ar i l y r es t r i ctt he St at e’ s t heo r i esofl i abi l i t y, an d a deq uat el y de sc r i bes t he part i cul arof f ens e f or
w h i c h th e d e fe n d a n t w a s tri e d . Id. B . A n a ly s is A ppel l antw as dr i vi ng t he car w hen he, K enned y, and U pchu r ch ar r i ved att he m ot el . Accor di ng t o a w i t nes s, A ppe l l ants ee m ed t o b e l ook i ng f or so m eon e a s he dr ove t hr ough t he par ki ng l ot . Appel l antca l l ed M cM i l l an f r om hi s carand t ol d hi m , “I ’ m l ooki ng atyourpunk bi t ch n o w .” W hen he saw M cM i l l a n , h e “g unne d” t he ca r . Appel l ants ubs equ ent l y pa r ke d be hi nd M cM i l l a n ’s c ar , an d t hen Kenne dy j um ped outoft he ca ran d be gan s t abb i ng M cM i l l an. The j ury cou l d r at i ona l l y ha ve i nf er r ed t hatA ppe l l ant ’ s f ocu s w ason M cM i l l an, r at hert han get t i ng U pchu r ch’ s bel ong i ngs, and t hatA ppel l antused
w h a t U p c h u rc h c o n c e d e d w e re “ fi g h ti n g w o rd s ” to w a rd M c M i l l a n . M o re o v e r, a r at i ona l j ury c oul d c onc l ude t hat by par ki ng beh i nd M cM i l l an’ s ca r , A ppe l l ant
w ant ed t o ensur e t hatM cM i l l an di d not l eave t he ar ea. G i ven al l t hi s evi dence, as w el l as t he speed w i t h w hi ch K enned y j um ped f r o m A p p e lla n t ’s c a ra n d b e g a n s t a b b in g M c M illa n , a ra t io n a l ju r yc o u ld
con cl udet hatA ppe l l antac t ed w i t h t he i nt entt o a ss i stKenne dy i n t he st abb i ng ofM c M il la n, and t hathe sol i ci t ed, encour aged, di r ect ed, ai ded, orat t em pt ed17

t o a i d Kenned y i n t he st abb i ng of M cM i l l an. Thus , vi ew i ng t he evi den cei n t he l i ghtm os t f avo r abl e t o t he ver di ct , w e f i nd t hata r at i ona l j ury c oul d ha ve f ound b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t th a t A p p e l l a n t w a s g u i l ty o f m u rd e r a s a p a rty . W e o v e rr u l e the l e g a l su ffi c i e n c yp o rt i o n o f A p p e l l a n t’ s s e c o n d p o i n t. V I . Fact ualSu ff i ci ency A . S t andar d ofRev i ew I n ouror i gi nal opi ni on i n t hi s appeal , our f act ual suf f i ci ency r evi ew w as la r g e lyg u id e d b y t h e s t a n d a r d a rt ic u la t e d b yt h e c o u rto fc r im in a l a p p e a ls in Zun i gav. S tate , as f ol l ow s: [T ]he re a re tw o w a y s i n w h i c h the ev i d e n c e m a yb e i n su ffi c i e n t. F i rst, w h e n co n side red b yi tse l f, evi dence suppo rt i ng t he ver di ct m ay be t o o we a k t o s u p p o rt t h e f i n d i n g o f g u i l t b e y ond a r ea so nab l e d oubt . Secon d, t her e m ay be bot h e vi den ces upport i ng t he ver di ct and evi den ce con t r ary t o t he ver di ct . W ei ghi ng a l l t he evi den ceunde rt hi s bal anc i ng sc al e, t he con t r ary evi den ce m ay be s t r o n g e n o u g h t h a tt h e b e y o n d -a -r e a s o n a b le -d o u b t s t a n d a r d c o u ld n o th a v e b e e n m e t , s o t h e g u i l t yv e r d ic ts h o u ld n o ts t a n d . T h is st andar d acknow l edges t hat evi dence of gui l t can “pr epon der at e” i n fav o r o f c o n v i c ti o n b u t sti l l b e i n su ffi c i e n t to p rov e the elem e n ts o f t h e cri m e b e y o n d a re a so n a b l ed o u b t. 1 4 4S .W .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ), over ruled by W

atso n , 204 S. W . 3d at417. I n W atso n , t he cou rtdi sa vow ed and ove r r ul ed Zuni ga ’s
art i cul at i on of t he st andar d ofr evi ew : A ny h ol di ng t hata cr i m i nalap pel l at e c ourt ca n r eve r se and r em and f or a new t r i al eve n w hen t he evi den ce“ pr epo nde r at es ” i n f avo rof18

a convi ct i on i s i ncon si st ent w i t h t hat hi st or i cal l y r equi r ed hi gh l evel o fs k e p t i c i s m.

. . . W e t h e r e f o r e d i s a v o w s u c h l a n g u a g e i n Zuni gaan d re i te ra te th a t i t i s n o t e n o u g h t h a t th e a p p e l l a te c o u rt h a rb o r a subj ect i ve le vel ofr easonabl e doub tt o overt ur n a convi ct i on t hat i s f ounde d on l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce . A n app el l at e cou rtj udge c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n is“ c le a r lyw r o n g ” o r“ m a n if e s t ly unj us t ” si m pl y be ca us e, on t he qua nt um ofev i den ce adm i t t ed, he w oul d ha ve vot ed t o a cqu i tha d he bee n on t he j ury. . . . W e h ave a l w a y s h e l d tha t an ap p e l l a te c o u rtm u st fi rst be ab l e to sa y , w i th so m e o b je c ti v e b a sis i n the rec o rd, tha t the grea twei ghtan d prepon deranceo f t h e (al b e i t l e g a l l y su ffi c i e n t) e v i d e n c e co n tr a d i c ts t he j ur y’ s ver di ct bef or e i t i s j ust i f i ed i n exer ci si ng i t s appel l at e f act ju r is d ic t io n t o o r d e ra n e w t r ia l. W atso n , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t4 1 7 . T h e c o u rtre s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d o fre v ie w in f act ual suf f i ci ency cases as f ol l ow s: [ F] act ual
- suf f i ci ency anal ysi s [ com pr i ses] t w o pr ong s. Th e f i r st p ron g as k s w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i n tr o d u c e d to su p p o rtthe v e rdict, th o u g h l e g a l l y s u fficie n t, i s n e v e rth e l e s s “ s o w e a k ” th a t th e j u ry ’s ver di ct se em s “c l ea r l y w r ong and m ani f es t l y unj us t [ . ] ” The s ec ond p ro n g a s k s w h e th e r, c o n s i d e ri n g c o n fl i c ti n g e v i d e n c e , th e j u ry ’s ver di ct , t hou gh l egal l y suf f i ci ent , i s nevert hel ess agai nstt he gr eat w e i g h t a n d p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . Id . at414– 15 ( ci t i ng Jo hn s o nv. S ta te, 23 S. W . 3d 1, 1 1 (T e x. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 )). To m ake t hi s det er m i nat i on, w e consi der al l of t he evi dence i n a neut r al l i g h t, fa v o ri n g n e i th e r p a rty . Id. at414. I ti s noten ough t hatt hi s cou rt“ har bor
a s u bj e c t i v e l e v e l o fr e a s o n a b l e d o u b tt o o v e rt u r n [ t h e ] c o n v i c t i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n is c le a r ly w r o n g o rm a n if e s t lyu n ju s ts im p ly19

because w e w oul d have deci ded di ff e rentl y t han t he j ur y orbecause w e d i s a g re e w i th th e j u ry ’sre s o l u ti o n o f a c o n fl i c t i n th e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m ay
n o t s i m p l ys u b s ti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th e fa c t-fi n d e r’s . John so n , 23 S . W . 3d
a t 1 2 . U n l e s s th e re c o rd c l e a rl y re v e a l s th a t a d i ffe re n t re s u l t i s a p p ro p ri a te , w e
m u s t d e fe r to th e j u ry ’s d e te rm i n a ti o n o f th e w e i g h t to b e g i v e n c o n tra d i c to ry t est i m oni al evi dence becau se r esol ut i on of t he confl i ct “of t en t ur ns on an eval uat i on of cr edi bili t y and dem eanor , and t hose j ur or s w er e i n at t endan ce
w hen t he t est i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Id. at8. Thus , w e m us t g i v e d ue def er enc e t o t he f ac t - f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “ part i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i ons concer ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . a t9. B . A n a ly s is I n t hi s appeal , t he di f f er ence bet w een t he st andar d ofr evi ew art i cul at ed by Zuni gaan d t he oneart i cul at ed by W atso n c o m p e ls a d iffe re n t o u tc o m e . In
ouror i gi nal opi ni on, w e appl i ed t he f i r st pr ong oft he Zuni gas t a n d a r d a n d h e ld “al l oft he evi dence i n t he i nst antcase . . . t hatcoul d l egal l y suppo rta r at i onal j ury’ s concl usi o n i s nevert hel ess s o w eak w hen vi ew ed i n a neut r al l i ght t hat
ourconf i dence i n t he ver di ct i s under m i ned. ” S ch iffert, 207 S. W . 3d a t498. Bu tappl yi ng t he firs t pr ong oft he W atso nt est, w e c ann ots ay t hat“ t he
e v id e n c e in t r o d u c e d t o s u p p o rtt h e v e r d i c t , t h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is
nevert hel ess ‘ so w eak’ t hatt he j ur y’ s ver di ctseem s ‘ cl ea r ly wrong and20

m anif estly unjust [ . ] ’ “ W

atso n , 204 S . W . 3d at414– 15 ( quot i ng Jo hn s o n, 23 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). The j ury he ar d t hr eeve r si onsoft he eve nt s su r r oundi ng M cM i l l an’ s dea t h: G i nnyLu W ar d’ s, Br andy U p c h u rc h ’s , a n d— vi a hi s w r i t t en st at em ent
— A ppel l ant ’ s. W a rd te sti fi e d tha t A p p e l l a n t d rov e h i s c a r i n to the B u d g e t I n n p a rki n g l o t,

“ a c te d l i k e th e y d i d n ’t s e e w h o th e yw e re l o o k i n g fo r, a n d th e ym a d e a U -tu rn .” W hi l e m aki ng t he t ur n, “t hey saw w ho t hey w ere l ooki ng f orand t he dr i ver gun ned i t , ” l ostcont r ol , and hi ta r ed t r uck. A ppel l antt hen par ked hi s carat
an ang l e b ehi nd M cM i l l an’ s, an d t he pas se nge r j um ped out and beg an sl as hi ng at M cM i l l an. M cM i l l an sa i d, “W hat t he hel l ar e you doi ng? ” and “W hy ar e y ou h e re ? ” a s h i s a s s a i l a n t s l a s h e d a t h i m . M e a n w h i l e , A p p e l l a n t l o o k e d a t W a rd and sm i r ked. Th e passenger t hen j um ped back i nt o t he car , and A ppel l antsped
a w a y . W a rd e sti m a ted tha t t h e i n c i d e n t l a ste d “a m i n u te, m i n u te a n d a h a l f, t w o t ops . ” She s ai d s he w ass t and i ng f i f t ee n f ee tf r om A ppe l l ant ’ s ca rdur i ng th e a l te rc a ti o n . U pchu r ch t est i f i ed t haton t he m or ni ng of M cM i l l an’ s deat h, she m oved h e r b e l o n g i n g s o u t o f h i s m o te l ro o m a n d i n to th e n e x t-d o o r n e i g h b o r’s , w h e re sh e t el eph one d Appel l antt o c om e a nd ge the r . S h e w al ke d a w ay f r om t he
m ot el , an d Appel l antan d Kenne dy p i ck ed her up i n a nea r by r es t aur antpa r ki ng21

l o t. I n ste a d o f d ri v i n g to A p p e l l a n t’ s trai l e r, as U p c h u rch ex p e c ted , A p p e l l a n t, Kenned y, an d Upchur ch dr ove b a c kt o t he m ot el , os t ens i bl y t o r et r i eve U pch ur ch’ s cl ot hes . Appel l antdr ovet hr ough t he par ki ng l ots o t hatt he pas se nge rdoorw oul d be f ac i ng t he m ot el r oom door , al l ow i ng Kenn edy

— w hom M cM i l l an di d n o t kno w — t o j um p outan d r et r i eveU pch ur ch’ s cl ot hes . As he dr ove, A ppel l ant pl aced a cel l pho ne cal l t o M cM i l l an and sai d, “I ’ m l ooki ng at yourpunkbi t ch now . ” A ppe l l ant col l i ded w i t h t he r ed t r uck , t hen dr ovear ound th e p a rk i n g l o t a n d s to p p e d th e c a r b yth e d o o r to th e m o te l ro o m w h e re U p c h u r c h h a d p u th e rc lo t h e s . K e n n e d yju m p e d o u to ft h e c a ra n d s t o o d in fro n t o f i t. M c M i l l a n c a m e o u t o f h i s m o te l ro o m a n d tri e d to o p e n A p p e l l a n t’s
cardoor , buti tw as l oc k e d . A p p el l antand M cM i l l an ar gued t hr oug h t he car
w i ndo w , and K enned y t ol d M cM i l l an t o go back i nsi de. M cM i l l an t hen gr abbed and hi t Kenned y, and U pch ur ch sa w Kenned y “s w i ngi ng on hi m . ” She s ai d t he fi g h t l a s te d “ a m i n u te o r tw o , a c o u p l e o f s e c o n d s , so m e th i n g l i k e th a t.” K enned y got back i n th e car , and A ppel l antdr ove aw ay. U pchu r ch adm i t t ed th a t h e r re c o l l e c ti o n w a s “ fu z z y ” b e c a u s e s h e “ d i d a l o t o f d ru g s b a c kth e n ,” “t hi ngs keep chang i ng w i t hi n [ her ] head, ” and she w as confused as to w h at
a c t u a llyt o o kp la c e . S h e a d m it t e d t h a ts h e g a v e p o lic e a w r it t e n s t a t e m e n tin
w hi ch she st at ed t hatA ppel l antt r i ed t o get out of t he car w hen M cM i l l an cam e o u t o f th e m o te l ro o m .22

I n hi s w r i t t en st at em ent to pol i ce, A ppel l antw r ot e t hatM cM i l l an cam e o u t o f th e m o te l , K e n n e d y“ g o t o u t o f th e c a r a s s o o n a sh e g o t i n ra n g e ,” M c M i l l a n h i t K e n n e d yi n the fac e , a n d K e n n e d y “p a n i c k e d a n d p u l l e d o u t a k n i fe and st uck hi m [ . ] H e di ved i n t he carand w e l ef t . ” I n a ddi t i on t o t he t hr eeey ew i t nes s ac cou nt s, t he t es t i m ony oft he
m edi c a l e x a m ineri s r el evantt o ouranal ysi s. The m edi cal exam i nert est i f i ed t hatM cM i l l an had no def ens i ve w ounds su ch ascu t s orbr ui se s on hi s ar m s or h a n d s a n d th e re w a s n o i n d i c a ti o n th a t h e h a d s tru c ks o m e o n e re c e n tl y . A ppe l l anti s gui l t y, i fatal l , asa p art y t o M cM i l l an’ s ki l l i ng be ca us e t he
u n d is p u t e d e v id e n c e s h o w s t h a tK e n n e d ya c t u a llys t a b b e d t h e v ic t im . A ppel l antper f or m ed act s t hat ai ded K enned y i n t he com m i ssi on of t he of f ense, nam el y, pl aci ng t he t aunti ng pho ne cal l t o M cM i l l an, dr i vi ng K enned y “i n r ange” ofM cM i l l a n , a nd dr i vi ng Kenn edyaw ay f r om t he sc ene . The ke y qu es t i on, t her ef or e, i s w het herhe per f or m ed t hose act s w it h t he i ntent t o pr om ot e o r a s s i s t M c M i l l a n ’sk i l l i n g . S ee T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 7 . 0 2 ( a ) . S t a t e d i n t e r ms oft he f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y s t and ar d ofr evi e w , th e que st i on i s w het hert he evi d e n c e o f Ap p e l l a n t ’ s i n t e n t i s s o we a k a s t o s e e m “ c l e a r l y wr o n g an d
m ani f est l y unj ust . ” See W atso n , 204 S. W . 3d 414– 15. T h e ev i d e n c e tha t su p p o rt s th e j u ry’s fi n d i n g th a t A p p e l l a n t i n ten d e d to pr om ot e o ras si sti n M cM i l l an’ s ki l l i ng i s asf ol l ow s: In s te a d ofdr i vi ng23

Up c h u r c h t o h i s t r a i l e ra s Up c h u r c h e x p e c t e d , h e d r o v e b a c kt o t h e mo t e l . He
m ade a l oop t hr o u g h th e par ki ng l otas t hou gh— accor di ng t o W ar d— he w as l ook i ng f or so m eon e he cou l d not f i nd. A ppe l l antt hen m adea t aun t i ng ph one ca l l t o M cM i l l an, w hi ch pr om pt ed M cM i l l an t o l ea ve hi s m ot el r oom . Appel l ant
c ol l i de d w i t h a no t he rve hi cl e, t he n p arked hi s ca rso tha tK en ne dyw as “ in
r ang e, ” ac cor di ng t o Appel l ant ’ s w r i tte n st at em ent . Accor di ng t o W ar d, Kenn e d yj u mp e d o u to ft h e c a ra n d i mme d i a t e l ys l a s h e d a tMc M i l l an;
m eanw hi l e, A ppel l antl ooked atW ar d and sm i r ked. A l l t hr ee eyew i tn e s ses agr ee t hatK enned y t hen j um ped back i nt o t he carand A ppel l antsped aw ay f r om t he scene. The f ol l ow i ng e vi den cet end s t o s u p p ortt he con cl us i on t hatKenne dy ki l l ed M cM i l l an on t he spuroft he m om entand w ei ghs agai nsta f i ndi ng t hat A ppel l anti nt ended t o pr om ot e orassi sti n M cM i l l an’ s deat h: U pchu r ch t est i f i ed t hatA ppe l l antdr ovehe r bac k t o t he m ot el t o r et r i evehe rcl ot hesan d t hathe dr ove i n a l oop t hr oug h t he par ki ng l ot t o posi t i on K enned y cl osert o t he m ot el
r oom doorso t hathe coul d r un i n and get he r b a g s . W ar d and U pchu r ch
es t i m at ed t hatt he ens ui ng a l t er ca t i on l as t ed asl ong a s t w o m i nut es , l end i ng som e cr edence t o U pchu r ch’ s t est i m ony t hat som et hi ng m or e t r anspi r ed t han Kenned y’ s l ea pi ng ou tan d s t abb i ng M cM i l l an ass o o n a s t he ca rs t oppe d.24

A p p e lla n ta n d U p c h u r c h b o t h a s s e rt e d t h a tK e n n e d ys t a b b e d M c M illa n o n ly
a f t e rM c M illa n s t r u c kh im . Butot herev i den ceco nt r adi ct s t he not i on t hat M c M i l l an i ni t i at ed a stru g g l e tha t cu l m i n a ted i n h i s d e a th . F i rst, A p p e l l a n t’ s tau n ti n g p h o n e ca l l to M cM i l l an con t r adi ct s U pch ur ch’ s t es t i m ony t hatth e p l a n w asf or Kenned y— w ho w asunk now n t o M cM i l l an— t o da s h i nt o t he m ot el r oom an d
re tri e v e h e r b a g s . S e c o n d , th e m e d i c a l e x a m i n e r’ste s ti m o n yth a t M c M i l l a n ’s
cor pse had no d ef ensi ve w oun ds and sh o w e d no si gns ofhavi ng st r uck
so m eon e r ec ent l y c ont r adi ct s t he pos si bi l i t y ofa pr ol onge d s t r uggl e a nd A ppe l l ant ’ s and U pch ur ch’ s cl ai m t hatM cM i l l an hi tKenne dy f i r st . Fi nal l y, U pch ur ch’ s t es t i m ony t hats he w asco nf us ed abo utw hatha ppe ned an d “ f uz z y” f r om dr ug us e d i m i ni sh est he i m pac tofhe rot hert es t i m ony. I n hi s pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r evi ew , A ppel l ant poi nt s t o ot herevi dence t hathe cont ends r ender s t he ver di ctm ani f est l y unj ust . U pchu r ch t est i f i ed t hat h e r r e l a ti o n sh i p w i th M c M i l l a n w a s v i o l e n t, tha t he h a d co e rce d h e r w i th thre a ts i nt o r et ur ni ng t o t he m ot el aft erhef ound h e r l i vi ng i n Appel l ant ’ s t r ai l er , an d th a t h e h a d s a i d th a t h e “ h a d a b u l l e t ” f o r A p p e l l a n t. A fri e n d o f M c M i l l a n ’s tes ti fi e d tha t sh e h a d se e n M c M i l l a n sh o v e U p c h u rch o n o n e o c c a sion a n d l i ft5 ... A p p e ll a n t’ s re p res e n tati o n tha t t h e w i tn e ss tes ti fi e d tha t “ on m any

occasi onss he w as w i t nes s t o M cM i l l an hi t t i ng U pch ur ch and l i f t i ng he rup b y th e th ro a t” i s n o t s u p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd . [E m p h a s i s a d d e d .] 25 herby t he t hr oat on ano t heroc ca si on. 5W ar d t est i f i ed t hatshe saw M cM i l l an a rgu i n g w i th an d s h o v i n g a w h i te fe m a l e i n fr o n t of th e B u d g e t I n n fi ftee n to t w ent y m i nutes bef or e t he st abbi ng. M cM i l l an w as ol der , l ar ger , and heavi er t han Kenne dy. Thi s i s so m e e vi den cet hatM cM i l l an had a pr ope ns i t y f or vi ol enc e, butdoe s notpr ovet hat he st art ed t he f i ght t hat r es ul t ed i n hi s dea t h;
n o risits o s t r o n g a s t o re n d e rt h e ju r y ’s v e r d ic tc le a r lyw r o n g o rm a n if e s t ly
u n j u s t. See W

atso n , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 . A j u ryi sre s p o n s i b l e fo r re s o l v i n g th e c o n fl i c ts i n th e e v i d e n c e . Wesbrook
v. S tate , 2 9 S .W .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), cert. denied, 532 U. S. 9 4 4(2 0 0 1 ). F u rth e r, a j u rym a yb e l i e v e s o m e , a l l , o r n o n e o f a w i t n e s s ’s te s ti m o n y . Ch a m b ers v. S tate , 8 0 5 S .W .2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ). H e re, t h e j u ry res o l v e d the co n fl i c ts i n the ev i d e n c e ag a i n st A p p e l l a n t. C onsi der i ng al l oft he evid e n c e in a n e ut r al l i ght, w e cannot say t hati ti s so
w e a kth a t th e j u ry ’sv e rd i c t s e e m s c l e a rl yw ro n g a n d m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t o r, con si der i ng c onf l i ct i ng evi den ce , t he j ury’ s ver di cti s aga i ns tt he gr ea tw ei ght
a n d p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft h e e v id e n c e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e e v id e n c e isf a c t u a lly
s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th e j u ry ’sv e rd i c t. S e eW a ts o n, 204 S . W . 3d 414– 15.26

I n ouror i gi nalopi ni on, w e ana l yz ed i n de t ai l t he evi den cer ec ount ed i n t he
cou rtofcr i m i nalap pea l s’ s opi ni on i n Vodo chodsky v. State, 158 S. W . 3d 502, 511 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 5) ( op. on r eh’ g) . I n t hat ca se , t he cou rtr eve r se d f or f act ual i nsuf f i ci ency V odo chod sky’ s convi ct i on as a part y t o t he sl ayi ng of t hr ee p e a c e o ffice rs . Id. The c ourtde ci ded Vodo chodskyb e t w e e n it s d e c is io n s in Zuni gaan d W

atso n , but i t di d not ci t e Zuni gaw h e n a rt ic u la t in g t h e a p p lic a b le
s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . See i d. at510. The cou rtci t ed John so n f o rt he pr opo si t i on t hata courtm ust“setasi de t he ver di cti f‘ pr oof ofgui l ti s so o b v i o u s l yw e a ka s to u n d e rm i n e c o n fi d e n c e i n th e j u ry ’s d e te rm i n a ti o n . . . . ’” Id. ( quot i ng John so n , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 ). U n d e r W atson’ s r e- art i cul at i on oft he f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y t es t , a cou rt i s aut hor i z ed t o se t as i de a ver di ct onl y i f“ t he
e v id e n c e in t r o d u c e d t o s u p p o rtt h e v e r d ic t , t h o u g h le g a llys u f f i c i e n t , is
nev ert hel es s ‘ so w ea k’ t hatt he j ury’ s ver di cts ee m s ‘ cl ea r l y w r ong a nd
m ani f est l y unj ust [ . ] ’ “ W atso n , 204 S . W . 3d at414– 15 ( quot i ng Jo hn s o n, 23 S. W . 3d at11) . T h o u g h t he cou rtquot ed John so ni n bot h Vodo chodskyan d W atso n , i t s em pha si s i n t he l att erca seon Jo hn s o n ’s“ cl ea r l y w r ong a nd
m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t” l a n g u a g e i n s te a d o f i ts “ u n d e rm i n e c o n fi d e n c e i n th e j u ry ’s det er m i nat i on” l ang uag e ca l l s i nt o doubtt he st and ar d a ppl i ed i n Vodo chodsky . Th er ef or e, w e decl i ne t o appl y t he st andar d ofr evi ew orr easoni ng art i cul at ed i n Vodochodsky and i ns t ea d a ppl y t he st and ar d ofr evi ew art i cul at ed i n W atso n.27

W e h o l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th e j u ry ’s
ver di ct t hat A ppe l l ant , ac t i ng w i t h i nt entt o pr om ot e o ras si stKenne dy i n t he st abbi ng death ofM cM i l l an, sol i ci t ed, encou r aged, di r ect ed, ai ded, orat t em pt ed t o ai d K enned y i n t he st abbi ng deat h of M cM i l l an. W e over r ul e t he r em ai nder
o f A p p e l l a n t’ s s e c o n d p o i n t. V I I . I neff ect i ve A ssi st ance I n hi s t hi r d poi nt , A ppe l l antag ueshi s tri al co uns el r end er ed i nef f ec t i ve assi st ance by f ai l i ng t o obj ect t o er r or s i n t he char ge, by f ai l i ng t o r equestan i n stru c ti o n o n i n d e p e n d e n t i m p u l se an d ex tr a n e o u s o ffen se s, a n d b y fai l i n g to obj ectt o t est i m ony thatA ppel l antw as “on par ol e. ” A . S t andar d ofr evi ew To es t abl i sh i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el , ap pel l antm us ts how by a pr epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den cet hathi s cou ns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l bel ow t he
s t a n d a r d o fp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m s a n d t h a tt h e r e isa re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hat , but f or cou ns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul toft he t r i al w oul d ha ve b e e n d i ffe re n t. Str

i ckl and v. W ashi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4(1 9 8 4 ); Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 163 S . W . 3d 734, 740 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ); Ma l

le tt v. S tate , 6 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 , 6 2

– 6 3 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Thomps on v. S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ).28

W h e n e v a l u a ti n g th e e ffe c ti v e n e s s o f c o u n s e l u n d e r th e fi rs t p ro n g , w e l ookto the t ot al i t y oft he r epr es ent at i on a nd t he part i cul arci r cum st anc esof
ea ch ca s e . T

h o mp s on , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 3 . T h e i s s u e i s w h e th e r c o u n s e l ’s
as si st anc e w asr ea so nab l e u nde ral l t he ci r cum st anc esan d pr eva i l i ng p ro fe s s i o n a l n o rm s a t th e ti m e o f th e a l l e g e d e rro r. See Str i ckl and, 466 U. S.
a t 6 8 8

– 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t . a t 2 0 6 5 . R e v ie w o fc o u n s e l’s re p r e s e n t a t io n ish ig h ly def er ent i al , and t he r evi e w in g c ourti ndu l ges a st r ong pr esum pt i on t hat
cou ns el ’ s con duc tf el l w i t hi n a w i de r ang e o fr ea so nab l e r epr es enta t i on. Sal i nas , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 0 ; Ma l le tt , 65 S. W . 3d at63. To ov er com e t he pr es um pt i on ofr ea so nab l e p r of es si ona l as si st ance , “ anyal l ega t i on of i ne ffect i veness m ustbe f i r m l y f oun ded i n t he r ecor d, and t he r ecor d m ust af f i r m at i vel y dem onst r at e t he al l eged i nef f ect i veness. ” Id. ( quot i ng Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at813) . I n t he abs enc e of di r ec t evi den ce ofco uns el ’ s r ea so ns f or t he cha l l eng ed con duc t , w e w i l l as su m e a s t r a te g i c m o t i vat i on i fan y c an be i m a g i n e d . Ga rci

av. S tate , 5 7 S .W .3 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ), c ert. denied, 537 U . S. 1 195 ( 200 3) . A f ul l i nqui r y i nt o t he st r at egyort ac t i csof
cou ns el s houl d bem adeonl y i f , f r om al l ap pea r anc esaft ert r i al , t her e i s no p l a u s i b l e b a s i s i n s tra te g yo r ta c ti c s fo r c o u n s e l ’ s a c ti o n s . See Johns on v. S tate , 6 1 4S .W .2 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . [P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 1 ); E xp a rte29

Bur ns , 6 0 1 S .W .2 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); S ten so nv. S tate , 695 S .W .2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 1 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 1 9 8 4 , n o p e t.). T h e se c o n d p ron g o f Str i ckl and re q u i re s a s h o w i n g th a t c o u n s e l ’se rro rs
w er e so ser i ous t hatt h e y d e p rived t he def endan tofa f ai rt r i al , i . e. , a t r i al
w h o s e re s u l t i s re l i a b l e . S tri ckl a n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . In ot herw or ds , ap pel l antm us ts how t her e i s a r ea so nab l e pr oba bi l i t y t hat , butf or coun sel ’ s unpr of essi onal er r or s, t he r esul t oft he pr oceedi ng w oul d have been d i ffe re n t. Id. at69 4, 1 0 4 S . C t. at20 68 . A r easonabl e pr obab i l i t y i s a p ro b a b i l i ty s u fficie n t to u n d e rm i n e c o n fi d e n c e i n th e o u tc o m e . Id. T h e u l ti m a te f oc u s o fo u ri n q u i r ymu s tb e o n t h e f u n d a me n t a l f a i r n e s s o ft h e p r oce edi ng
w h o s e re s u l t i s b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d . Id. a t697, 104 S. Ct . a t2070 . A r e v ie w in g c o u rt w ill r a r e ly b e in a p o s it io n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l t o f a ir ly
e v a l u a te th e m e ri ts o f a n i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e c l a i m . Thomps on , 9 S . W . 3d at 81 3– 14 . “I n t he m aj or i t y of cases, t he r ecor d on di r ectappeal i s undevel oped
a n d c a n n o t a d e q u a te l y re fl e c t th e m o ti v e s b e h i n d tri a l c o u n s e l ’ s a c ti o n s .” Sal i nas , 163 S . W . 3d at740 ( quot i ng Ma l le tt, 6 5 S .W .3d at63) . O f t en, i n e ffec ti v e as sistan c e clai m s a re b e tter rai se d w i th i n th e fr a m e w o rk o f a p o stconvi ct i on w r i tofhabeas cor pus und erart i cl e 11 . 07 oft he code of cr i m i nal p ro c e d u re . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art . 11. 07 ( V er non Supp . 2007 ) ; s ee R yl a n der v. S tate , 1 0 1 S .W .3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (“[T ]h e re c o rd30

o n d i r ec tap pea l w i l l ge ner al l y ‘ notbes uf f i ci entt o s how t hatco uns e l ’s
r epr esent at i on w as so def i ci entas to m eett he f i r stpartoft he Str i ckl and st andar d’ as ‘ [ t ] he r easonabl eness of coun sel ’ s choi ces of t en i nvol ves f act s t hat d o n o t a p p e a r i n th e a p p e l l a te re c o rd .’”); s e ea l s o Bo nev. State , 77 S. W . 3d 8 2 8 , 8 3 7 n .3 0 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (“T h i s re so l u ti o n i n n o w a yaffe c ts appel l ant ’ s ent i t l em entt o r e- ur ge t hi s o r o t herappr opr i at e const i t ut i onal
c o m p l a i n ts o n a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s .” ). B . A n a ly s is Fi r st , A ppe l l antar gue s cou ns el w asi nef f ec t i ve by f ai l i ng t o obj ec tt o t he char ge er r or s m ade t he basi s of hi s f i r st and f ourt h poi nt s and di scussed above. Th e A l m anza stan dar d f oreg r egi ousha r m — cha r ge er r ort hatde pr i ved t he def end antofa f ai r tri a l

— i s es se nt i al l y t he sa m e a s t he se con d pr ong o f Str i ckl and

— c o u n s e l ’se rro r th a t d e p ri v e d th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fa i r tri a l . A l m anza , 6 8 6 S .W .2 d a t 1 7 1 ; S tri ckl a n d , 466 U . S. at 687 , 104 S. C t . at 206 4. H avi ng a lr e a d yd e t e r m in e d t h a tt h e c h a r g e e r r o r s d i d n o td e p r iv e A p p e lla n to fa f a ir tr i a l , w e n o w h o l d tha t A p p e l l a n t ha s fa i l e d to s h o w tha t co u n se l ’s fai l u re to
o bje c tt o t h o s e s a m e c h a r g e e r r o r s d e p r iv e d h im o fa f a irt r ia l. N e x t, A p p e l l a n t arg u e s c o u n s e l w a s i n e ffec ti v e b yfai l i n g to re q u e st a cha r ge i ns t r uct i on on i nde pen den ti m pul se . Ther e i s no e num er at ed def ens e o f “i nde pen den ti m pul se ” i n t he pen al co de, an d a t r i al c o u rt d oesnoter rby31

re fu s i n g to g i v e s u c h a n i n s tru c ti o n . So lo m o nv. S tate , 49 S . W . 3d 356, 368 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 1 ). Ther ef or e, A ppe l l antca nnots how t hatbutf or c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e t o r e q u e s t a n in d e p e n d e n t im p u ls e in s t r u c t io n , t h e ju r yw o u ld h a v e rea c h e d a d i fferen t ve rdict. A ppel l antal so contends t hatcounsel w as i nef f ect i ve by f ai l i ng t o r equest
a sp e c i fi c ap p l i c a ti o n o f t h e ac ts r e li e d o n b ythe S tate to p rov e the “s o l i c i t,
enc our age , di r ec t , ai d, oratt em ptt o ai d” el em entofpa rt y l i abi l i t y. Appel l ant
r el i eson Jo hn so nv. S tate t o s up po rtt hi s c on t e nt i on . 739 S. W . 2d 299, 305 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1987 ) . I n John so n , t he cou rtofcr i m i nalap pea l s hel d t hatt he tr i a l co u rtrev e rsi b l yerred w h e n i t f a i l e d to e x p l i c i tl y a p p l ythe l a w o f pa rt i e s to t he f ac t s oft he ca seup o n th e def end ant ’ s t i m el y obj ec t i on t hatt he cha r ge f ai l ed “t o a l l eget he sp ec i fi c a ct s t hatt he St at e i s r el yi ng on t o m ak e [ t he d e fen d a n t] a p a rt y . I t d o e s n o t sa yd e p e n d i n g o n so l i c i tati o n , e n c o u rag e m e n t, d ir e c t io n , a id [, ] o ra t t e m p tt o a id [t h e p r in c ip a l] in t h e c o m m i s s i o n o ft h is of f ense. ” Id. at30 0, 30 5. The cou rtexpl ai ned t hat “expl i ci t l y appl y t he l aw ofpart i es t o t he f act s” m eans t hata char ge shoul d i nf or m t he j ur y w hi ch sp ec i f i c m odeorm ode s ofco nduc ten um er at ed i n pe nalco de s ec t i on 7. 02 ( a) ( 2) , “sol i ci t ed, encour aged, di r ect ed, ai ded, or at t em pt ed t o ai d, ” f or m ed th e b a s i s fo r c o n v i c ti o n a s a p a rty . Id. a t305 n. 4.32

I n t hi s ca se , th e ch ar ge r ec i t ed al l oft he m ode s enu m er at ed i n s ec t i on 7. 02( a) ( 2) ; t hi s w ass uf f i ci entt o c om pl y w i t h John so n . John so ndoe s not
r equ i r e r ec i t at i on oft he sp ec i f i c a ct s r el i ed on byt he St a te to p r oveoneor
m o r e o ft h o s e m o d e s . T h u s , A p p e lla n th a s f a ile d t o s h o w a re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hatbutf or hi s f ai l ur e t o r equ es ts uch a r ec i t at i on, t he r es ul toft he p roc e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. N e x t, A p p e l l a n t a rgu e s c o u n se l w a s i n e ffec ti v e b y( 1 ) fai l i n g to o bj e c t t o Br and y Upchur ch’ s uns ol i ci t ed com m entt hatA p pel l antw ant ed t o ge toutof to w n afte r t h e kil l i n g “b e c a u se h e w a s o n p a role” an d ( 2 ) fai l i n g to re q u e st a j ury c har ge on ext r ane ous of f ens es t o m i t i gat e t he “o n pa r ol e”s t at em ent . The
r ec o r d i s s i l e n t a s t o wh y c o u n s e l d i d n o t o bj e c t t o U p c h u r c h ’ s s t a t e me n tor
r e q u e s ta n e x t r a n e o u s o f f e n s e in s t r u c t io n , b u ta s t h e S t a t e p o in t s o u t , h e c o u ld hav e b ee n m ot i vat ed by s ound t r i al st r at egy , nam el y, t o avo i d em pha si z i ng or cal l i ng t he j ur y’ s att ent i on t o U p c h u rch’ s st at em ent . Thu s, i n t hi s i nst ance, A ppel l anthas f ai l ed t o satis fy th e fir sthal foft he Str i ckl and te s t. S ee Str i ckl and, 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 8

– 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 ; Ga rcia , 57 S. W . 3d at 440. F i n a l l y , A p p e l l a n t co n ten d s c o u n se l w a s i n e ffec ti v e b y fai l i n g to o bj e c t t o t he char ge’ s appl i cat i on par agr aph t hatal l ow ed t he j ur y t o conv i ctA ppel l antas t he pr i nci palac t ori n M cM i l l an’ s ki l l i ng. W e c a n n o t s eehow t he i ncl us i on of33

t hi s l angu age i n t he c h a rge dep r i ved A ppel l antofa f ai rt r i al . The un di sput ed evi d e n c e s h o we d t h a tAp p e l l a n tr e ma i n e d i n t h e c a rwh i l e K e n n e d yst abbed M c M i l l a n ; th u s, A p p e l l a n t co u l d o n l yb e g u i l ty a s a p a rt y , a n d the p o ss i b i l i ty t hatt he j ury c oul d ha ve con vi ct ed A ppe l l antasth e p ri nci pali s f arf et che d. Th us, once agai n, A ppel l ant has f ai l ed t o show t hatbutf orcounsel ’ s al l eged
u n p rofe ss i o n a l co n d u c t, the j u ry w o u l d h a v e retu rne d a d i fferen t ve rdict. H avi ng d e te rm i ned t hatA ppe l l antf ai l ed t o e st abl i sh atl ea stoneoft he Str i ckl and p r o n g s w it h re g a r d t o e a c h o f c o u n s e l’s a lle g e d e r r o r s , w e o v e r r u le h i s th i rd p o i n t. V I I I . C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f A p p e l l a n t’s p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e t ri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL A : C A YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d GA RD N ER, JJ. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 20, 2008