C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

MARY J EAN WHI PPL E, Ap pe lla nt,

v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 06 -0 02 02 -C R

Appea l from 384th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 20030D05163)

O P I N I O N Mary J ean Whipple appe als her c onviction of murder . A jury found Appe l l an t gu i l t y

and

a sse sse d h e r p un ish me nt at im pr iso nme nt f

or nin e ty -n ine y e ars . F ind ingno e rr or , w e a ff ir m. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY Appellant wa s convicted of murder ing he r seve nty -one- y ear -old business partne r, Art L oustaunau, by

shooting him in the che st with a firear m on Aug ust 7, 2003. I n finding Appellant g uilty , the jury impliedly reje cted Appellant’s claim of self- defe nse. B eca use Appe llant challeng es the leg al and f

actua l sufficie n cy

of the e vidence supporting the jury ’s re jection of he r def

ensive the or y , w e wi ll s e t f

or th t he e vid e nc e in c on sid e ra

ble de ta il. ThePr ior Re lat ion sh ip Between A

ppellant and Loust aunau L ou sta un a u ha d be e n ma

rr ie d to Pa

uli ne L ou sta

un a u f or fo rt y -s e ve n y e ars a t th e tim e of his-2-

death. He and Appe llant had oper ated a bingo ha ll togethe r since 1994 or 1995. Appellant ofte n complained that he was short-c hang ing he r fi nancia lly and owe d her mone y . I n addition to the business relationship, L oustaunau ha d an affair with Appellant, who was about twenty y ear s y oung er than he a nd also marrie d. I n 2001, Appellant divorc ed her husband, James “Buc k” Whipple. She

e xpe c te d L ou sta

un a u to div or c e his wi fe so the y c ou ld marr y , bu t he did

no t do so . App e lla

nt t old oth e rs be fo re the sh oo tin g that she and L ou sta un a u we re no lon g e r ro manti c a lly inv olv e d, bu t it is not clear from the r ecor d when that a spect of the ir relationship ended. I n addition to her complaints about the business, Appe llant acc used L oustaun au of being phy sically , emotionally , and sexually abusive. She claimed he used the knowle dg e that she ha d been sexually abused by

her f ath er t o manipulate her . Def ense w itness Mike Olivares, one of L ou sta un a u’ s b us ine ss p art

ne rs , te sti fi e d th a t L ou sta

un a u w a s d omi na

nt, manip ulativ e , a

nd ve rb a lly abusive towa

rds Appellant. The defense introduced into evidenc e a police report dated October 14, 2000 in which both Appellant and L oustaunau c omplained of be ing a ssaulted by the other. But the State introduc ed evide nce that Appellant had threatened to kill L oustaunau on more than one occa sion a

nd had committed a cts of violence ag ainst him. Albert Guer ra rec all ed that Appellant and L oustaunau a rg ued most of the time the y wer e toge ther and Appellant often scr eame d

a t L ou sta un a u. Duri ngon e argume nt, he saw A pp e lla nt s ho ve L ou sta

un a u an d kic k the sid e of

his

car . Guer ra ha d also hea

rd Appe llant threate n to kill L oustaunau a s well as her self. L ou stau n a

u ’ s s o n , R ay

m o n d “ B o ” L o u s t a

u n a u , t e s t i f i e d t h a ti n1 9 9 8 o r

1 9 9 9 , h e w a s in El Paso visiti ng his pare nts. His fathe r receive d a telephone call indicating a problem at the off ice and B o acc ompanied him to chec k it out. Bo did not want to meddle in his father ’s business so he

rema ined j ust outside the door in t he hallwa y , but he could smell a strongodor of g asoline. When-3-

L oustaunau e ntere d the office, Appellant y elled that he had ruined her l ife and she called him vulga r names. When B o hear d his father g runt loudly

as thoug h he had been hit in the stom ach, he enter ed th e roo m and fo un d h im d ow n o n th e fl oo r. Ap pe lla nt w a s k ic kin g him

in t he sto ma c h a

nd g ro in while try i n g t o s t rike a

match to light the g asoline that she ha d poured throug hout the office

. L oustaunau wa s terrifie d and unable to defe nd himself. Bo pla ced A ppellant in a

bear hug to preve nt her f rom setting his father a

nd the offic e on fire . He picke d her up and car ried her to the couc h and he l d h e r d o w n . Ap p e l l an t c o n t i n u e d t o s t r u g g l e an d s ay “ h o r

r i b l e t h i n g s ” t o L o u s t a

u n a u . T o th is point, Bo did not know that Appell an t and his father had bee n having an af

fair but Appe llant’s comments reve aled this to be true. B o said that it took a ll of his mig ht to hold Appe llant. His father tried b u t w a s n o t s u c c e s s f

u l i nh is e f

f o rts to c a lm

A p p e ll an t. Sh e d id

n o t c a lm d o w nu n ti l h er husband ar

rived seve ral minutes later

. Rene Gonzalez, anoth er o f L oustaunau’s business pa rtners, te stified that Appellant ofte n complained a

bout L oustaunau. On one occa sion, Appellant arr ived at L oustaunau’s of fi ce wi t h a g un and thre atene d to kill bot h Gonzalez and L oustaunau before killing herself. I t took L oustaunau 35 to 40 minutes to convince Appellant to put the g un awa y . After war d, L oustaunau a sked Gonzalez to n ot c a ll the po lic e . On ano the r o c c a sio n, L ou sta un a u le arn e d th a t so me on e ha d c ra sh e d in to h is

car in the parking lot. He found Appellant si tting in her pickup a short distance away from his own damag ed car . L oustaunau confr onted Appellant and they argued for a while be fore leavingtoge ther. The Disappearance The da y befor e the s h o oting, L oustaunau ha d dinner with his cousin, Rafa el L oustaunau. Ov e r a on e a nd a ha lf ho ur pe ri od , App ell ant ca lle d L ou sta un a u’ s c e ll p ho ne e ig ht t o te n ti me s. L oustaunau did not answe r any of t he calls but his fac ial expressions indicated to Rafae l that he was-4-

wo rr ie d. Con c e rn e d a

bo ut a n a rgume nt he wa s h a vin g wi th A pp e lla nt, L ou sta un a u a sk e d Ra fa e l to follow him home. Rafae l did so and he wa ited outside until L oustaunau wa s safe ly inside. The followingday , L oustaunau, dre ssed in a sweat suit, l eft his house for the bing o hall at 6 a.m. as he ty

pically did. Cell phone rec ords showed that Appellant ca lled L oustaunau’s c ell phone

se ve ra l ti me s th a t mo rn ingbe tw e e n 7 and 8 a .m. He re tur

ne d h ome sh or

tly a ft e r 8 a .m. and

tol d h is wife, Pauline, that he was g oing to the g y m but he wanted to g et a c hang e of clothes in the eve nt he

we nt s tr a ig ht t o th e of

fi c e a ft e r h is w or

ko ut. B e fo re he le ft , h e a sk e d Pa uli ne to retri eve a

manil a envelope containing money from their be droom dresse r dra wer . Pauline g ot the envelope , which she descr ibed as “ bulky ,” and g ave it to him. L oustaunau lef t at around 8:45 a.m., and Pauline ne ver sa w him ag ain. Al be rt Gu erra, a

bin g o h a ll e mpl oy e e , s po ke wi th L ou sta un a u o n th e ph on e so me tim e betwee n 9 and 9:30 that same morning . L oustaunau asked hi m to g et s ome deposit books and che cks from h is d e s k an d me e t h im a t L o u s ta u n a u ’ s h o u s e a t 1 p . m. G u e r r a w e n t to th e h o u s e at 1, but L ou sta un a u n e ve r s ho we d u

p. Gu e rr a ta lke d w ithPa

uli ne and le ft the de po sit bo ok s and c he c ks wi th her. D uring the re mainder of the day , Gu er ra tried to contac t L oustaunau both in person a nd by phone but he c o u ld

n o t l o c ate h im

. Pa

u li n e w a s n o t o v e r ly

c o n c e r n e d w h e nh e r h u s b an d d id n ot

c ome ho me fo r d inn e r b e c a us e he of te n w or ke d late , b ut s he be c a me con cern ed wh e n o ne of his employ ees c alled that eve ning lookingfor him. She did not sleep at a l l t h at n i gh t and she be g an l o o k i n g f o r h e r h u s b an d e ar l y t h e f

o l l o w i n g d ay. U p s e t a n d w o r r ie d , Pa u li n e c a ll e d

G u e r r a a t 7 a . m. th e n e xt m o r

n in g an d to ld h im th at L oustaunau ha d not come home. Gue rra told her he w ould make some c alls and try to find him. He immediately

g ot in his t ruck a

nd drove to Appe llant’s house to look for L oustaunau. When Gue rra-5-

pulled up in f

ront of the house, he saw Appellant standing in the front y ard water ing her la wn. As soon as she saw him and their ey es m et, s he dropped the hos e and r an inside. He waited to see if she

wo uld c ome ba c k o ut, bu t sh e did no t and he le ft

. Gu e rr a re tur ne d to the bin g o ha ll and wa ite d w ith another of L oustaunau’s business a ssociates, He ctor Mena , to se e if L oustaunau would show up. At 1 p . m. , th e y c a ll e d B o in F o rt Wo rth an d to ld h im th a t h is f a th e r w a s mi s s in g . B o c a u g h t t h e n e xt flig ht to El P aso and a

rrived at 6:30 that same e vening . I n the meantime, Gue rra continued ca lling L oustaunau’s c ell phone. B efor e B o arr ived, Guerra drove to Appe llant’s house ag ain and notice d that so me of

the ve hic le s h a d be e n mov e d aro un d sin c e that mor nin g and a that mo tor c y c le wa s in the ba c k o f A

pp e lla nt’ s p ic ku p. He did no t se e Ap pe lla

nt. Upon hea ring the news that his fathe r was missing, Bo immediately suspected that Appellant ha d k ill e d h is f

a the r b a se d o n h e r p ri or

his tor y of threats and

vio le nc e . Sh or

tly a ft e r a rr ivi ngin El Paso, Bo c alled the police depar tment and re ported his father a s missi ng . A police of fice r we nt to A pp e lla nt’ s h ou se bu t w a s unab le to m a ke c on ta c t w ithhe r. I n th e me anti me , B o me t w ith Guer ra, Me na, and Ra fae l and put a plan toge ther to look f or L oustaunau. The y

looked at the phone

rec ords and saw, based on the t iming of the ca lls, that “ever y thing pointed to [Appellant].” Bo c alled Ap pe lla nt s e ve ra l ti me s bu t sh e did no t ans we r. Con se qu e ntl y , he le ft me ssa g e s te lli nghe r t

hat hi s fathe r w a s mi ssi ngand

he wa s lo ok ingfo r h im, bu t sh e did no t re tur n his c a lls

. Th e y a lso we nt t o Ap pe lla nt’ s h ou se bu t she e ith e r wa s n ot a t ho me or wo uld no t ans we r t

he do or . B o n oti c e d th a t a light had be en turne d on which led him to believe A ppellant was in the house . Bo took Gue rra , Mena, a nd Rafae l home at around 10:30 p.m., and then re turned to Appe llant’s house. He parke d two houses down wher e he was partially conce aled by

some bushes but still had a clea r view of her house. B o rema ined there most of the night a nd left onl y for about an hour a nd a half to drive ar ound-6-

looking f or his fathe r’s L exus. He did not see any activity around the house the e ntire nig ht. After the sun came up, B o drove to the g y m where his father

worke d out but they

had not see n him. He also went to the Pebble Hills police substation to see if he c ould ge t some assistance. H e informe d the pol ice of his suspicions about Appellant but the ser g eant he spoke with told him t hat they did not have e no ug h e vid e nc e to g e t a se arc h wa

rr ant fo r he r ho us e . B o the n d e c ide d h e wo uld dr ill so me ho le s in Ap pe lla nt’ s g ara g e do or

and loo k insi de fo r h is f

a the r’ s L e xus. B y

the tim e he re tur

ne d to Appellant’s house with the drill, the police we re the re a nd they eventua lly

made e ntry

into the house. Bo waited outside for a long while befor e he saw the detec tives exit to g et came ras a nd put crime sc ene ta

pe ar ound the ar ea. A t that point he knew that his father’s body had bee n found and

o n e o f t h e d e t e c t i v e s c o n f

i r m e d t h a tt h e y h a d

f o un d a b o dy. Appellant’s Activities Whil e Guerra and others were looking f or L oustaunau on F riday , Aug ust 8, Appellant spent time w ith he r friends, Br ian and Stella Phelps. The couple was moving to O reg on and Ap pellant ag ree d to help them move their motorcycl e in her pickup. The Phelpses planne d to leave F riday afte rnoon and stop in Colora do Springs to visit with Stella’s pare nts. Appellant intended to leave on Saturday

and mee t them in C o l o ra d o Springs be fore they trave led on to Ore g on toge ther. Appellant ar

rived at the Ph el p s es ’ h o u s e at a round 2 on F riday

afte rnoon and he lped Stella clea n. She initially

seeme d fine but Stella noticed that Appe llant was upset and ag itated. Appellant beg an to c ry be c a

us e sh e wa s wo rr ie d th a t L ou sta un a u w ou ld s e e the mot or c y c le on he r p ic ku p. Ste lla tol d Ap pe lla nt no t to wo rr

y a bo ut i t. T he Phe lps e s le ft the ho us e so me tim e be tw e e n 4 and 6 th a t sa me

ev en i n g.-7- Appellant’s Statements to Teresa Gutierrez On Saturday

morning , Aug ust 9, Appellant’s fr iend, Tere sa Gutierr ez, was g etting r eady for work. She wa s listening to her phone messag es at 7:15 a.m. whe n she hea rd a me ssag e fr om Appellant. Conce rned that Appellant had c alled her so ear ly , Gutierre z im mediately re t u rned the call. Appe llant sounded disoriented a nd asked if she could come ove r. Gutierre z said she wa s on the way to her off ice and asked Appellant to me et her there

. But Appellant wa s on foot so Gutierre z picked he r up. I t was obvious to Gutierre z that Appellant had been cry ing a nd had not slept. When Gutierre z asked what was wrong , Appellant beg an cry ing so hard that she could har dly speak. She finally said that “a

horrible acc ident had happe ned and that she had a ccide ntally shot [ L oustaunau].” Gu ti e r r e z k n e w a b o u t A p p e ll an t’ s r e lati o n s h ip w it h L o u s ta u n a u . G u ti e r r e z b e li e v e d

th e s h o o ti ng had just happene d and she sa id they should c all the police and an ambulanc e. Appe llant continued to c ry and fi na lly sa id t hat th e y c ou ld n ot c a ll a

n ambu la nc e be c a us e he wa s d e a d. Ap pe lla nt t old Gutie rr e z that sh e did

no t me an f

or it t o h a pp e n, it w a s a

n a c c ide nt, and sh e did no t wa nt to g o to he ll for it. She also said she wanted to do the rig ht thing. Gutier rez replied that they

had to ca ll the authorit ie s an d

te ll th e m w h a t h a

p p e n e d

. A p p e ll a

n t t h e ne xp la in e d

to G u ti e r

r e z th a t s h e h ad mutilated L oustaunau’s body and didn’t know why

since she c ouldn’t stand the sig ht of her ow n blo od . A t th a t po int , G uti e rr e z sug g e ste d tha t App e lla nt spe a k with a pa sto r or so me on e wh o c ou ld help her , and she thoug ht of a psy cholog ist she had see n on a prof essi o n al b as i s , Dr. Ka

ren G old. Wit h Appellant’s pe rmis s i o n , Gu t ierre z called Dr. G old and made a n appointment for 1:00 that afte rnoon. Gutierre z waited with Appellant and c ontinued to talk with her before g oing to Dr. Gold’s of fi c e . D ur ingthi s ti me , App e lla nt t old Gut ie rr e z that L ou sta

un a u h a d c ome ov e r t o h e r h ou se to-8-

mow the lawn but she did not want him to do it . Gutierre z did not know whethe r L oustaunau ha d actua lly mowed the lawn, but at some point he went to the store a nd returne d with some beer which the y dr ank . T he y

be g an a rguin g be c a

us e he did no t want he r to lea ve El Pa so . Ap pe lla

nt ha d to ld him she was traveling to O reg on with f riends who wer e moving and she was g oing to look f or work while she wa s there. They also argued because he wanted t o have sex with her before she l eft. As they argued, Appe llant walked down the hallway and retrie ved a gun that she had on a shelf. She told Gutierrez, “I

did what I

alway s do, Teri, I went and g ot my g un.” Gutier

rez knew that Appellant customarily

threatened to kill herself when they foug ht, L oustaunau would c alm her dow n and take the we a po n a wa y , a nd the y wo uld c ome to t e rm s w iththe iss ue c a us ing th e argum ent. Th us , Gutie rr e z un de rs too d App e lla nt’ s c omm e nt t o me an tha t she g ot the g un int e nd ing to thr e a te n to kil l he rs e lf . App e lla nt t old Gutie rr e z that L ou sta

un a u w a s st and ingc los e to he r and the g un a c c ide nta lly fired. A ppellant denied pulling the t ri gger an d thought L oustaunau mig ht have bumped into her causingthe g un to acc identally fire. She did not kno w wh et h er t he bullet had struc k L oustaunau. The gun shot startled both of them and they stood there star ing at eac h other. Appellant took a step back f rom L oustaunau a

nd then he sudde nly

char g ed at h er. She put her ar m up over he r fa ce beca use she be lieved L oustaunau wa s go i ng to hit her but he suddenly fell to the floor. G utierre z asked A ppellant whethe r she r emember ed pulling the trig g er, a nd she said, “Well, I

g uess I did. She said, Yes, I

-- I -- I shot [L oustaunau] a

nd he fell to the floor.” Appellant rec alled L oustaunau telling her it wa s not her fault and he knew it was an acc ident. Appellant did not know how many times she shot him but thought it was onc e. Ap pe lla nt’ s S tat e me nts to D r. Kar e n G old Dr. Ka ren G old is a clinical and f orensic psycholog ist and a for ensic c onsultant. On-9-

Aug ust 9, she rec eived a telephone c all from a pa tient, Tere sa Gutierr ez, around 7:30 a.m., a dvising her that a friend wanted a consultation for crisis intervention. Dr. Gold sche duled the appointment for 1:00 that af

ternoon. Upon the ir arr ival, Dr. Gold took A ppellant and Gutier

rez into the therapy

are a. Gutier

rez stay ed i n t h e ro o m at fi rst to “bre ak the ice ” but she soon lef t and waited in the kitchen. Dr . Gold asked G utierre z to come back in the r oom and sit with Appellant on a fe w

o cc as i o n s . Dr

. Go l d

m et wi t h Ap p el l an tfr o m 1 p . m . u n t i l ab o u t7 : 4 0 p . m . t h at ev en i n g. Appellant told Dr. Gold that she ha d done a terrible thing and w anted to make it right. She had shot Art L oustaunau a nd wanted to know

if Dr. Gold c ould help her. L oustaunau wa s dead a nd h i s b o dy w a s i nh e r

h o m e . T h e y w e r e ar g u i n g a b o u t t h e p r o c e e d s o f

a b u s i n e s s t h e y o p e r a t e d

j o i n t l y. Dr. Gold told Appellant that she shoul d g et l eg al advice and she asked for Appe llant’s permission to tr y to c ontact a lawy er. Appellant ag ree d. Dr. Gold c alled seve ral attorney s but only one, Willi am El lis , w a s w ill ingto c ome . Wh ile wa iti ngfo r E llis, Dr . G old c on tin ue d to ta lk w ithAp pe lla

nt. Appellant explained that she had been in a long- term re lationship with L oustaunau a nd that he had called he r that morning wanting to come o v er t o do some y ard w ork. She re sisted at first, but

e ve ntu a lly

the y wo rk e d in

he r yard tog e the r. Af

te r the y fi nis he d, L ou sta

un a u wa nte d to take he r t o dinner, but Appe llant didn’t feel like it. L oustaunau left to buy beer and steaks. When he retur ned, the y dr ank a sig nif ic ant a mou nt o f b e e r a

nd be g an to argue a

bo ut the mon e y

he ow e d h e r f

ro m th e ir business. Appellant told Dr. Gold that he owed her m ore than $20,000 and said she had bee n upset

a bo ut t his fo r a lon g tim e . Th e y a lso argue d be c a us e sh e wa s leavin g fo r O re g on and he wa nte d to have se x with her be fore she left. Appe llant told L oustaunau that pa rt of their r elationship was ove r but he per sisted. She said no and walked into a hallway near the ki tchen. She looked dow n and saw a g un in her right hand. As she was looking at the gun, it suddenly fired. When the gun discharg ed,W h en s ea r ch i n g A ppel l an t ’ s home pur s u an t t o a s ea r ch w ar r an t , t h e pol i ce r ec ov er ed a mea t c l ea v er a n d a 1 b o o k e n tit le d , “B a sic B u tc h e rin g .” -10- L oustaunau wa s in the hallway near the kitchen. Appellant was surprised that L oustaunau c ontinued to approa ch her , but he did. She war ned him not to come any

closer or she would shoot him, but he lunge d at her and the g un fired twic e more . After he fe ll to the floor, Appellant cr ied and a sked for his forg iveness. L oustaunau said, “ Ilove y ou, Ba be. Call 911.” Af

ter rea liz ing that L oustaunau wa s dead, A p p ellant bec ame f

rig htened a

nd decide d to ge t rid of the body . She told Dr. Gold that she consulted a book on butc heringand then c ut up the body with a meat cle aver . Appellant said that 1 it took a long time to dismember the body beca use L oustaunau was a big ma n . S h e st arte d dismembering the body

at dusk on Thursday and did not finish until the ear ly hours of the following

mor nin g . App e lla

nt p ut t he bo dy pa rt s in pla sti c ba g s and sto re d the m in he r f re e zer . App e lla

nt a lso explained to Dr. Gold that it was har d work but she ha d clea ned up all the bl ood. She then wande red around a imlessly

“catching catna

ps in y ards” until she phoned Gutierr ez that morning. A ppellant was star tled when she lear

n ed i t was S aturda

y beca use she thoug ht only

twenty -four

hours had elapse d since the shooting

. At some point, Appe llant told Dr. Gold that there was a duff el bagin her home containing$20,000 and she e x presse d co n cer n about g etting some one she truste d into the house to retr ieve it. She told Gutierre z that she wanted the mone y to be g iven to her mother

. Wil liam Ellis arrived at a

bout 2:30 p.m. and met privately with Appellant. Afte r Appe llant reta ined him, Ellis draf

ted a consent-to- sear ch form which Appellant sig ned and D r. Gold witnessed. The consent-to- sear ch was limit ed to the fre ezer in A ppellant’s g ara g e. Appellant told Ellis about the bagof money

in her h o u s e which wa s to be used as a reta iner for

his leg al servic es. At

a pp ro xima te ly

6 o r 7 p. m., El lis we nt t o App e lla nt’ s h ou se and

e nte re d w ithso me de te c tiv e s. El lis-11-

and the de tectives re trieved the duffe l bag and counte d the m oney in the ki tchen. They deter mined that th e ba g c on ta ine d $ 21 ,0 41 a nd the mon e y

wa s tu rn e d o ve r t o E lli s. Th e det ect iv es, in E lli s’ prese nce, the n enter ed the g ara g e and ope ned the f ree zer. Dete ctive Arturo Ruiz saw seve ral blac k plastic bag s and opene d one. Upon seeing a human head, he re place d the bagin the fre ezer, de clar ed the house a

crime sc ene, a

nd order ed eve ry one out. He subse quently obtained a se arc h war

rant for the pr e mis e s and

a wa rr ant f or Ap pe lla nt’ s a rr e st. Appellant’s Statements to the Phe lps es Appellant c al led the Phelpses on Saturda y , Aug ust 9, at 5 or 6 p.m. and told them she had killed L oustaunau be cause he had tr ied to rape her. She w as sorry that she could not bringthem the motorcy cle. Stella knew

that Appellant and L oustaunau ha d an af fair in the past and that Appellant was no long er r omantically involved with him. Examination of the Body Dr. Corinne Stern, a

fore nsic patho lo g is t a

nd the medica l examiner, was ca lled to Appellant’s ho us e o n t h e m o r

n i n g o f A u g u s t 1 0 t o r e m o v e b o dy p art s f o u n d i n t h e f

r e e z e r . S h e r e mov e d s ix black plastic ba g s and one c lear Z ip-L ock bagcontaining a total of 110 body parts. At the morg ue on Aug ust 12, D r. Stern rea ssembled the parts and de termined that the torso a nd its int erna l org ans

wer e missing. De tective Ruiz noti fied Appe llant’s attorney , Wil liam Ellis, t hat the torso was missing. The f

ollowing da

y , Ellis accompanie d the detec tives t o an are a in the dese rt wher e Ap pe lla nt h a d t ol d him th e tor so c ou ld b e fo un d. B ut t he of fi c e rs we re un a

ble to f ind it d e sp ite looking f or seve ral hours. Appellant ac companied E llis and the detec tives the following day and she sh ow e d them ex act ly

wh e re the tor so wa s b ur ie d. Th e e xcavatio n p ro c e ss t oo k s e ve ra l ho ur s. Dr . St e rn su bs e qu e ntl y ex amin e d th e tor so and de te rm ine d th a t th e c a

us e of de a th w a s mu lti ple-12-

g unshot wounds, two in the chest a nd one in the axilla or armpit. She also deter mined that one of the g unshot wounds in the chest had a downwar d path indicati n g that L oustaunau ha d been shot while bendingover, lying on the g round, or kne eling . Due to the c ondition of the remains, Dr . Stern could not deter

mine the path of the sec ond shot to the chest or the a rmpit, but the arm had to have been r ai s ed wh en L o ustaunau wa s shot in the armpit. Bec ause the re w as no g unpowder stippli ng around a ny of the wounds, Dr. S tern concluded that the g un was more than eig hteen inche s from the body when f ired. Dr. Stern’ s examination of the body reve aled severa l antemorte m injuries including br uises

on the arm s and wr ist s and a la c e ratio n on on e of the arm s c a us e d by blu

nt fo rc e tr a

uma . Sh e a lso found a throug h-and- throug h puncture wound t o the right fore arm which had been caused by a shar p instrument suc h as an ice pick or a scre wdriver

. She conclude d that this wound had also bee n cause d while L oustaunau wa s still alive. Add i t i o n al l y , Dr. Stern noted postmortem lac erations on the shoulders ca

used by a shar p instrument such as a knif e, sca lpel, or a cl eave r. Dr. Ster n rec overe d

e no ug h li ve r t iss ue to r

un a c omp le te dr

ugand a lc oh ol s c re e n. Con tr ary to Ap pe lla nt’ s st a te me nts that th e y ha d c on su me d a

lot of be e r, the re wa s n o a lc oh ol i n L ou sta un a u’ s sy ste m. Dr

. St e r n s e n t s o me o f th e b o n e s to D r . H ar o ld G il l- K in g , a f o r e n s ic an thr o p o lo g is t, for

e xami na tio n. He de te rm ine d that the lon g bo ne fr a g me nts and ve rt e br a e fr a g me nts ha d b e e n c ut w ith some ty pe of ma nual saw w ith a straig ht blade appr ox imately one milli meter w ide. I n his opinion, a hac ksaw found in Appe llant’s g ara g e wa s consistent with the class of sa ws that could have been

us e d to c ut t

he bo ne s. The Defensiv e Ev idence Cur tis F ly nn , a n a c c ide nt r e c on str

uc tio n e xpe rt , w a s hir e d in 2 00 5 to inv e sti g a te a bu lle t ho le-13-

in a ca b i n et d o o r i n Appellant’s kitche n that had bee n missed by the police in their inve stigation. Fly nn perf ormed a trajec tory

analy sis a

nd deter mined that the shooter wa s standing in the ha llway and the gun was pointed downw ard. This e vidence tended to suppor t Appellant’s cla im that the gun

acc identally

discharg ed whe n she wa s in the hallway and holding the g un out to her side. The defense also offe red e vidence that Appellant had suf fer ed a br ief re active psychosis afte r the shooting. Dr. Ang el Rodrigue z-Chevres, a psy chiatrist, examined Appellant for c ompetency and sanity purposes. He con cluded, ba sed on his interview of Appellant and the rec ords he r eviewe d, that Appellant wa s so traumatized by the shooting that she disa ssociated f rom rea lity . I n his opinion, Appellant knew

rig ht from wrongat the time she shot and k i lled L oustaunau, but she wa s in a psy chotic state at the time of the dismemberme nt. The brief re ac t i ve psy chosis could have ended b e f o r e s h e w e n tt o t h e P h e l p s e s h o u s e t h e n e x td ay. Another psy chiatrist, Dr. A rthur Ramirez, offere d his opinion that Appellant suffe red f rom Battered Woman Sy

ndrome. L ike Dr. Rodrigu e z- Ch e v r e s , h e a ls o o p in e d th a t A p p e llant experience d a bre ak fr om rea lity

during the dismemberment. Dur ing cross-e x amination, Dr. Ramirez sa id he was surprised to lea

rn that Appe llant had bee n ab l e t o t ell both Gutierre z and Dr. Gold about the dismemberment as this would be inconsistent with a f inding of brief psychotic episode

. LEGAL AND F ACTUAL SUF F ICIENCY I n Po int of Er ror One , App e lla

nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to support the jury ’s re jection of he r self-defe nse claim. Self-def ense is a justi fication for other wise unlawf

ul conduct. Gi esb e rg

v . S tat e , 984 S.W .2d 245, 249 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). A p e rs on is j us tif ie d in us ing for ce a g a ins t ano the r w he n a nd to t he de g re e that sh e re a so na bly be lie ve s th e fo rc e is imme dia te ly ne c e ssa

ry to pr ote c t her se lf a g a ins t the oth e r’ s u se or a tte mpt e d u se-14-

of unlawf ul force . T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9 .3 1( a )( Ve rn on Sup p. 20 07 ). A pe rs on is j us tif ie d in using deadly forc e ag ainst another ( 1) if she w ould be justified in using for ce a g ainst the other unde r Section 9.31; (2) if a

rea sonable pe rson in the ac tor’s situation would not have re t reated; and (3) when, a nd to the deg ree that she re asonably believes the deadly forc e is immediate ly nece ssary either to protect he rself a g ainst the other’ s use or attempted use of unl awf ul deadly forc e or to pre vent the other’s imminent commission of ag g ravated kidnapping , murder, sexual a ssault, ag g ravated sexual assault, robber

y , or ag g ravated robber

y . T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9.32(a) (Ve rnon 2003). The Penal Code define s “dea dly

forc e” a s “for ce that is int ended or known by t h e ac t o r t o ca use, or in the

ma n n e r o f it s u s e o r in te n d e d u s e is c a p a b le o f c a u s in g , d e a th o r s e r io u s b o d ily injury .” Id . at § 9.01(3). An a c c us e d b e ars the burd e n o f p ro du c tio n w ithre sp e c t t o defe ns e s, re qu ir inghe r t o r a ise evidenc e that supports the de fense

. Zul ian i v . S tat e , 97 S.W .3d 589, 594 (Tex.Crim.App. 20 03); Sa x ton v . S tat e , 8 04 S.W. 2d

91 0, 91 4 (Tex .Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). On c e the de fe nd ant h a s me t th is b u rd en , the State then shoulders the burden of persua sion to disprove the defe nse. Zu liani , 97 S.W .3d at 594. The bur den of pe rsuasion is not one that require s the production of e vidence , rathe r it requires only

that the State prove its case be y ond a re asonable doubt. Id. When a jury finds the defe ndant g uilty , there is an implicit finding ag ainst the defe nsive theory

. Id. Sufficiency Standards of Rev iew I n r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to s up po rt

a c ri min a l c on vic tio n, we mus t

re vie w a ll the e vid e nc e , b oth State and

de fe ns e, in th e lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t to de te rm ine wh e the r any ratio na l trie r of fa c t cou ld have fo un d the e sse nti a l ele me nts of the of fe ns e bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 4 3 U. S

. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61-15-

L .E d. 2d 56 0 ( 19 79 ); Lan e v . S

tat e , 151 S.W .3d 188, 191-92 (Te x .Crim.App. 2004). We do not resolve any conflict of fac t or assign credibility to the wit nesses, as it was the function of the trier of fact t o do so. Se e Ad

e lm an v . S tat e , 82 8 S. W.2 d 4 18 , 4 21 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); Ma tso n v . S tat e , 819 S.W .2d 839, 843 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). I nstead, o u r d u t y i s only to determine if both the expli cit and implicit findings of the trier of fac t are rational by

viewing all of the e vidence admitted

a t tr ia l in a li g h t mo s t f

a v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t. A del man , 828 S.W .2d at 422. I n so doing, a ny inconsistencies in the e vidence are resolved in f avor of the ver dict. Matson , 819 S.W .2d at 843. When an appe llant challeng es the leg al suffic iency of the e videnc e supporting a fac t finder’ s reje ction of a n o n -a ffirmative defe nse, we look not to whether the State pr esente d evidenc e that ref uted the appe llant’s defe nse, but rathe r we deter mine whether

afte r viewingall the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the pr o s ec u t i on, any rational trier

of fa ct would have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a rea sonable doubt a nd also could have found ag ainst the appe llant

on the defensive is sue bey ond a re asonable doubt. Saxton , 8 04 S.W. 2d a t 91 4; Da v ids on v . S

tat e , No. 08-0 4

- 0 0 1 1 7

- CR , 2 0 0 6 WL 1 0 3 6 7 3 6 , a t * 4 ( T e x. A p p . - - E l P a s o , A p r il 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.) (not de sig nate d f

or pu bli c a tio n) ; Do tso n v . S

tat e , 146 S.W. 3d 28 5, 29 1 ( Te x.Ap p. -- F or t Wor th 2 00 4, pe t. ref ’d). I n revie wing the fac tual sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to suppor t a conviction, we are to view all the evidenc e in a neutra l lig ht, f avoring neither pa

rty
. Se e Zun iga v . S

tat e , 144 S.W .3d 477, 481 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The only question to be answe red in a fac tual sufficie ncy revie w is whether , c on sid e ri ngthe e vid e nc e in a ne utr a l li g ht, the fa c t f

ind e r w a s r ati on all y justif ie d in fi nd ingg uil t bey ond a re asonable doubt. Id . at 48 4. Th e re are tw o way s evi de nc e may be fa c tua lly

ins uf fi c ie nt: (1) the e vidence supporting the verdic t or judg ment, considere d by itself, is too weak to support the-16-

finding of g uilt beyond a rea sonable doubt; or (2) when there is e vidence both suppor t i n g and contra dicting the verdic t or judgme nt, w eig hing all of the evidenc e, the contra ry evidenc e is so strong that g uilt cannot b e p ro v en bey ond a re asonable doubt. Id . This standard a cknowledg es that evidenc e of guilt can “pr eponder ate” in favo r o f conviction but st ill be insufficient to prove the elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. Id . at 485. I n other wor ds, evidenc e supporting a g uilty finding can outwe igh the contra ry proof but st ill be insufficient to prove the elements of a n offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. Id. I n perf orming a fac tual sufficie ncy revie w, we a re to g ive defe renc e to the fa ct finder ’s deter minations, including dete rminations involving the cre dibilit y and demea nor of witnesse s. Id. at 481. We may not substitute our judgme nt f or that of the fa ct finder

. Id. at 482. When revie wing the fa ctual suff iciency of the e v i d en ce in the context of the jury ’s reje ction of a non-af

firmative de fense , we e mploy the Zuniga standard of

revie w bec ause onc e the defe ndant has met he r burden of production of evidence as to a defense, the State bear s the burden to prove the de fenda

nt’s g uilt of t he charg ed offense bey ond a reasonable doubt. Ro yv . S tat e , 161 S.W. 3d 30 , 37 (T e x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [14t h Di st. ] 2 00 4, no pe t.) ; Dotson , 146 S.W. 3d a t 29 1. Thus , we re vie w a ll o f t

he e vid e nc e in a

ne utr a l lig ht and a sk wh e the r the State ’s e vid e nc e take n a lon e is too weak to support the f

inding of g uilt beyond a re asonable doubt and weig hing a ll of the evidenc e, the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the de fe ns e is s tr on g e no ug h th a t th e fa c t f ind e r’ s r e je c tio n o f t

he de fe ns e does not meet the be y ond-a- rea sonable-doubt standa rd. Davidson , 2006 WL 1036736, at *4. The leg al and f

actua l sufficienc y

standards of

revie w are the same for case s based on direc t and cir cumstantial evidenc e. King v . S tat e , 2 9 S.W .3d 556, 565 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). I n a sufficie ncy

revie w, howeve r, t h e j u ry ’s infer ence of intent is affor ded more defe renc e than the

ev i d en ce s u

p p orting proof of conduct, a

nd ci rc u m s t an t i al ev i d en ce o f a d ef en d an t ’s gu i l t y

k n o wl ed ge-17-

is not “re quired to me et the same rig orous criter ia for sufficie ncy as circ umstantial pr oof of ot her offe nsive eleme nts.” Ma rg ra v es v . S tat e , 34 S.W. 3d 91 2, 91 9 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). Th e jur y is the exclusive judge of the c redibility of the e vidence on the self- defe nse issue and is fr ee to believe or disbelieve a

ny or all of the de fenda

nt’s self-de fense evidenc e. See Sax ton , 804 S.W .2d at 914. Appellant’s Argument I n this point of er

ror, Appe llant conten d s t h at she prove d her se lf-def ense c laim by

overw helming e vidence and the State failed to ref ute i t by producing

evidenc e of pr emeditation. B ut the State was not re quired to offer e vidence of planning or pre meditation either to prove that Appellant murde red L oustaunau or to disprove her self-de fense claim. Cra ne v . S tat e , 786 S.W .2d 33 8, 34 9- 50 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ). Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot a

rgue that th e e vid e nc e is le g a lly or fa c tua lly insufficient to prove that s h e i ntentionally cause d L oustaunau’s de ath by shooting him with a fi re arm . Sh e argue s on ly

tha t th e State fa ile d to dis pr ov e he r t he or y of se lf -d e fe ns e . T hu s, we wi ll restric t our revie w to that issue. For the j ury to find Appellant ac ted in self-de fense , it had to find that (1) Appe llant was just ified i n using deadly forc e aga inst L oustaunau unde r Section 9.31; (2) a

rea sonable person in Appellant’s sit uation would not have retre ated; and (3) she r easona bly believed the dea dly forc e wa s immediately

ne c e s s a r y to p r e v e nt L o u s ta

u n au’s imminent commission of sex ual assault. See T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . at § 9.32(a ). Duty to Retreat We beg in with the s econd element because Appellant erroneously argues i n her brief that she ha d no du ty to re tr e a t. Th e Pe na l Cod e pr ov ide s th a t a pe rs on us ingde a dly

fo rc e in s e lf

-d e fe ns e is relieve d of the duty to retre at i f t he other person is commi tting an of fense of unlawf

ul entry in the actor ’s habitation. See T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9.32(b)( Ver non Supp. 2007). Appe llant presente d-18-

no evidenc e that L oustaunau ha d ente re d Ap p ell ant’s home unlaw fully . To the contra ry , the

e v i d e n c e e s t a

b l i s h e d t h ath e w a s a

g u e s ti nh e r

h o m e a tt h e t i m e o f

t h e s h o o t i n g . C o n s e qu e n t l y, Appellant had a

duty t o re t re at fr o m L oustaunau a nd she had the burden at trial to offer evidenc e sh ow ingtha

t a re a so na ble pe rs on

in h e r s itu a tio n w ou ld n ot h a ve re tr e a te d. Ap pe llan t fai le d to prese nt any

evidenc e in support of this element of self-de fens e. For

this reason a lone, the jury ’s reje ction of Appe llant’s self-de fense claim is r easona ble under both the le g al and f actua l sufficienc y sta nd ard s. Reasonablene ss of Appellant’s Belief The jury could also have found that Appellant did not rea sonably believe de adly

forc e wa s imm e diate ly

ne c e ssa ry to p re ve nt L ou sta

un a u’ s immin e nt co mmi ssi on of se xua l ass a ult . The Sta te argues that the jury

could have based its rejection of Appe llant’s self-de fense claim on the evide nce showing : (1) Appe llant’s prior threats and viol ence ag ainst L oustaunau; (2) Appellant had a motive other than se lf-def

ense for ki lling L oustaunau; (3) Appellant ar med her self prior to the c onfrontation for a purpose other than s elf-pr otection; (4) ther e we re inc onsistencies betwe en Appe llant’s version

o f th e e v e n ts an d th e p h y s ic a l an d me d ic a l e v id e n c e , an d th e te s ti mo n y o f o th e r w it n e s ses; (5) Appellant’s f

light and a

ttempts to conc eal the body and other e vidence ; and (6) A ppellant’s fa ilure to call the police or

summon medical assistance

. There is evidence demonstrating that Appellant had threatened to kill L oustaunau on more than one oc casion a

nd had committed violent acts ag ainst him in the past. Her animosity

appea red to have be en roote d in belief that their a ffa ir had ruine d her life , he owe d her mone y , and he was not fairly distributing the proc eeds f rom the business. Appellant a n d L o u s t au nau we re a rg uing a bout the se same iss ue s at th e tim e of the sh oo tin g . Th e jur y c ou ld have re a so na

bly fo un d, ba se d o n th is-19-

e vid e nc e , th a t th e sh oo tin g oc c ur re d a s th e re su lt of Ap pe lla nt’ s p e rp e tua l ang e r a

nd bitte rn e ss tow ard L ou sta un a u o ve r t he ir pe rs on a l and

bu sin e ss d e a lin g s and

sh e c arr ie d o ut h e r p ri or

thr e a ts t o kill him

. T h e j u ry also hea rd evide nce that Appellant re trieved the g un from the she lf, not for self

protec ti o n , b u t b ec ause she often picke d up a g un and thre atene d to kill herself in order to make L oustaunau listen to her. This is pre cisely what she told Gutier

rez. Ba sed on this evidence , the jury could have deter

mined that Appellant had r etrieve d the g un to make L oustaunau do what she wante d

and no t be c a us e sh e wa s a fr a id o f h im. Severa l portions of Appellant’s story wer e inconsistent with other e vidence prese nted in the

case . First, Appe llant told Gutierrez and Dr . Gold that she and L oustaunau ha d been dr inking at the time of the shooting. D r. Stern dete rmined that L oustaunau ha d no alcohol in his sy stem. Second, Appellant’s v er s i o n o f the eve nts did not i nclude a n explanation for the bruises, la cer ation, and puncture wound which Dr. Stern found on L oustaunau’s arms. Third, Appellant told Gutierr ez and Dr. Gold that she a

nd L oustaunau we re star

tled when the g un acc identally discharg ed and the y stared

a t e a c h o the r f

or a pe ri od of tim e be fore he char ged a t he r a nd sh e fi re d tw o mo re sh ots . T his conf l i ct edwi t h t h e t es t i m o n y

o f A p p el l an t ’s n ei ghb o r, R am o nGa x i o l a, wh o h ea rdwhat sounded like thr e e g un sh ots in r a

pid su c c e ssi on . F ourt

h, Ap pe lla

nt t old Dr . G old that L ou sta

un a u s tuc k a bo ttl e of Viag ra in he r fa ce w hen he was insisting on having sex wit h her, but the bottle of V iag ra w as found inside t h e v i ct im’s briefc ase. G iven these inc onsistencies, the jury could have found that Appellant’s c laim of self-de fense was not cr edible. I n a dd iti on

to the fo re g oin g e vid e nc e , w e no te that App e lla nt m a de c on tr a dic tor

y state me nts about her intent. She initi ally

stated that the we apon ac cidentally discharg ed but later

added that she-20-

sh ot L ou sta

un a u b e c a us e sh e be lie ve d h e int e nd e d to se xua lly ass aul t her. While a de fe nd a nt i s

cer tainly entitl ed t o prese nt inconsistent defense s, Appellant’s a ssertion that she ac cidentally shot L oustaunau is inconsistent with her self -def ense c laim. See Sax ton , 804 S. W.2d at 914. Given Appellant’s c ontradictory statements about the shooting , the ju ry co u l d have found that the selfdefe nse cla im was simply not believable. After alleg edly shooting L oustaunau in se lf-def ense, Appellant did not call 911 to summon the po lic e or

EM S. I ns te a d, sh e sta

y e d u p a ll n ig ht d ism e mbe ri ngthe bo dy , a nd sh e c le ane d n e a rl y all of the blood fr om the scene . Appellant burie d the torso in the dese rt at s o m e point befor e she called G utierre z early Saturday morning

. Ba sed on this e vidence , the prosec utor argued to the jury that Appellant intended to dispose of the re st of the body

parts and join the Phelpses in Colorado, but her plans we re disrupte d by Bo’ s arr ival on the sce ne and his surve illance of the house. The jury

c ou ld h a ve re a so na

bly inf e rred fro m th e dis me mbe rm e nt o f t he bo dy , th e c le anin g of

the c ri me

scene , and Appe llant’s disposal of the tors o --which reve aled the c ause of death- -that Appe llant murdere d L oustaunau a

nd did not kill him in self-defe nse. Se e Mi lle r v . S tat e , 177 S.W .3d 177, 184 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. re f’d) (def endant’ s acts of bur

y ing gun and burningclothes he wa s w e ari ngsu

pp or te d ju ry ’s re je c tio n of s e lf

-d e fe ns e ); Va lde

z v . S tat e , 841 S.W .2d 41, 43 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. re f’d) (def endant’ s acts of c hang ing clothes, hiding gun,

and dis po sin g of

the bu lle ts s up po rt e d ju

ry ’s re je c tio n o f s e lf

-d e fe ns e ); se e als o B ra dle yv . S tat e , 960 S.W .2d 791, 80 3 ( Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, pet. re f’d) (def endant’ s mutil ation of wife ’s body showed

c on sc iou sn e ss o f guil t) ; Le e v . S tat e , 8 66 S.W. 2d

29 8, 30 2 ( Te x.Ap p. -- F or t Wor th 1 99 3, pe t. ref ’d)( defe ndant’s ef

forts to conc eal de composing body in his rent-house by

pouring Pine Sol and ammonia on the body

three times a day

showed a consciousness of

g uilt).-21-

Whe n th e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l i s t a k e n i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e v e r d i c t , i t i s le g a lly

su ff ic ie nt t o su

pp or t the jur y ’s de te rm inatio n that Ap pe lla nt int e nti on a lly c a

us e d L ou sta

un a u’ s d e a th by s h o o t i n g h i m wi th a fire arm. F urther, the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt to support the jury ’s

re je c tio n o f A

pp e lla nt’ s se lf -d e fe ns e c la im.

Factual Sufficiency When the evidenc e is viewe d in a neutra l lig ht, the re is some evidenc e that Appellant shot L oustaunau be cause she believe d he int ended to sexually assault her. But the State’ s evidenc e, whe n take n a lon e , is no t so we a k th a t it do e s n ot su

pp or t the jur y ’s fi nd ingof

g uil t be y on d a

re a so na ble doubt. Furthe r, the evidenc e supporting the claim of se lf-def ense is not so strong that the jury ’s reje ction of the de fense does not meet the be y ond-a- rea sonable-doubt standard. Having found the evidenc e both leg ally

and fa ctually

sufficie nt, we over

rule Point of Error

One. RU LE OF OP TIO NA L C OM P LETEN ESS I n Point of Error Two, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discre tion by ref using to admit the entirety

of Dr. G old’s memo into evidence . During direc t examination by the pr os e c uto r, Dr . G old

te sti fi e d at le ng th ab ou t he r f ir st m e e tin g wi th A

pp e lla nt. Duri ngc ro ssexamination, the defe nse established that Dr. Gold had prepa red a six -pag e me m o ra ndum summarizing the session. Def ense counsel offe red the memo into evidence and the pr osecutor r aised

a he ars ay ob

je c tio n. Th e tr ia l court did no t rul e imm e diate ly and too k th e iss ue un de r a dv ise me nt. The de fense continued the c ross-examination: [Defense counsel]: And, actually , Ithink y ou told the jury when Mr. L oustaunau wa s walking towards he r he a ctually lunge d towards he r, didn’t he? [Dr . G old ]: Th a t’ s th e wo rd sh e us e d, and

it’ s in my me mo in qu otatio n ma

rk s. Ye s, that is the word she use d.-22-

[De fe ns e c ouns e l]: Ri g ht. Wel l, t hat’ s th e inf

or ma tio n sh e pr ov ide d to you , c or re c t? [Dr . G old ]: Th a t’ s c or

re c t. [De fe ns e c ouns e l]: A nd

the n e ve n a ft e r t

he fi rs t sh ot w he n s he sa id i t a c c ide nta lly went off , that he continued to lung e at he r, didn’t he? That’s what she said? [Dr. Gold]: I believe so. I -- I would have to look at m y notes to see ex actly how that was wor ded. [D e f e n s e c o u n s e l a

p p r o a c h e d

th e w it n e s s ]. [De fe ns e c ouns e l]: I s th a t c or re c t? [Dr. Gold] : I t rea ds, She stated that she believed she told him not to come a ny closer or she would shoot him, and he lung ed. She stated that she was looki ng down at the g un in her ha

nd and not at [ L oustaunau] when the gun fired. She r eca lls that [L oustaunau] continued to lunge

. On re -direc t, the State questioned whe ther Appellant had also stated that she retr ieved the w eapon befor e L oustaunau lung ed. The prosec utor direc ted Dr. Gold’s attention to the second pa rag raph on the third pag e of the memo and aske d her to re ad the portion of the memo discussing when Appe llant g ot the g un: [Dr. Gold] : She had mentioned to him that she had bee n planning to visit Ore g on, which she ha d alway s longe d to do, in the company of some fr iends. He told her that she wa s not goingto go to Or eg on without send-off se x . He produced a bottle of Viag ra a nd stuck it in he r fac e and told her that he wa s rea dy . She asked him to leave her al o n e, but he advance d upon her. She a dmitted that by this ti me they

both had ha d f ar t oo muc h to dri nk . She tol d h im t o le a ve he r a lon e , b ut h e c on tin ue d to pu sh c los e to h e r. She ind ic a te d tha t she los t foc us and fl a sh e d ba c k to bei ng12 y e ars old and assa ulted by her f ather . She stated that s h e gra bbed one of

the wea pons in her home and be came awa

re that she had it in her r ight ha nd. She stated that she be lieves that s h e tol d [L oustaunau] not to come any closer or she would shoot him, and he lunge d. Citi ngthe ru le of op tio na l c omp le te ne ss, de fe ns e c ouns e l th e n a sk e d th a t D r. Go ld b e pe rm itt e d to

rea d the next “sentence .” Dr . Gold rea d the re st of the par ag raph:-23-

She stated t hat s he was looking down at t he gun in her hand and not at [ L oustaunau] when the gun fired. She rec alls that [L oustaunau] c ontinued to ‘lung e’ at her, a nd she continued to fire. She stated t hat he had reac hed the plac e whe re she was standing and still upright whe n he said, L ove y ou, babe, a nd then fe ll to the floor. L ater in the trial and immediately bef ore de fense witness Dr. Rodrig uez-Chevre s took the sta nd , d e fe ns e c ouns e l of

fe re d D r. Go ld’ s me mo p ur su ant t o Ru le of Ev ide nc e 80 3( 5) . T he State objected that the memo was not admissible. The tria l court took the issue und er ad v i sement and Dr. Rodrig uez-Chevre s testified. His evaluation of Appellant included a revie w of Dr. Gold’s memo. Simi larly , Dr. Ram i re z t es t i fi ed that he ha d revie wed Dr . Gold’s memo. During Dr. Ramire z’s testim ony , Ap p el l an t ag ain offe red the memo without articulating the basis of the offe r. This time, the t rial court excluded the evidence. Prior to re sting, the de fense re- offe red the memo and for the first time cited the rule of optional completene ss as a basis for the pr offe r. The trial court r efuse d to admit the memo. We reviewa trial court’s decision to a dmit or ex clude e vidence under a n abuse of discretion standard. Ap oli na r v . S

tat e , 15 5 S.W. 3d 18 4, 18 6 (T e x.Cr im.App . 200 5) ; Sa uc e da v . S tat e , 129 S.W .3d 116, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The trial c ourt abuses its discretion only when the de cision lies “outside the zone of re asonable d i s ag ree ment.” Apolinar , 155 S.W .3d at 186. Hea rsay state me nts are g e ne ra lly

no t a dmi ssi ble un le ss t

he state me nt f

a lls wi thi n a re c og nize d exce pti on to the hea rsay rule. W alt e rs v . S

tat e , 247 S.W .3d 204, 217 (Te x . C ri m . Ap p . 2 007). Rule 107 of the Texas Rules of Evidence , also known as the r ule of o p t i o n al completene ss, is one such rule. Id

. Rul e 10 7 p ro vid e s: When part of an act, decla ration, conve rsation, writing or re corde d statement is g iven in evidence by

one par ty , the whole on the sa

me s ubject may

be inquired into by

the ot h er , an d an y o t h er ac t , d ec l ar at i o n , wr i t i n g o r r ec o rd eds t at em en twh i ch i s n ec essar y to make it fully

understood or to e x plain the same ma y also be g iven in evidenc e, as-24-

when a letter is rea d, all letters on the s ame subject betwee n the same pa rties may be g ive n. ‘Wr iti ngor

re c or de d s ta te me nt’ inc lud e s d e po sit ion s. T EX .R.E V ID . 107. Th is r ule is o ne of

a dmi ssi bil ity

and perm its the int

ro du c tio n o f o the rw ise ina dmi ssi ble evidenc e when that evidenc e is nec essar y to fully and fa irly

explain a matter “ope ned up” by the adver se par

ty
. W alt e rs , 247 S .W.3d at 218. I t is designe d to reduc e the possibility of the jury

rec eiving a false impression from hear ing only a part of some act, conver sation, or writing

. Id. Rul e 10 7 d oe s n ot p e rm it the int ro du c tio n o f o the r s imi lar, bu t in a dmi ssi ble , e vid e nc e un le ss i t is

nece ssary to expl ain prope rly admitted evidenc e. Id. Fur ther, the r ule is not invoked by

the mere ref ere nce to a document, statement, or a ct. Id. The rule ’s application is l imited by the re quirement that th e omi tte d p or

tio n mu st ( 1) be on

the same su

bje c t and (2) be necessary to m a ke it f

ull y understood. Sauceda , 1 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d at 1 2 3

. An d

i ti s l i m i t edb y

R u l e 4 0 3 , wh i ch p er m i t s a t ri al j u d ge to exclude otherwise r eleva nt evidence if its unfa ir prejudicia l e ffe ct or its likelihood of conf using the issues substantially

outweig hs its probative value. W alt e rs , 2 47 S.W. 3d

a t 21 9; see T EX .R.E V ID . 403. Th e State argue s th a t the tr ia l court pr op e rl y e xclu de d Dr . Gol d’ s mem o be c a us e the e nti re ty of it was not on the same subjec t as the portion re ad aloud by Dr. Gold duringdirec t examination. Dr. Gold’s me mo cover ed her entire conversation with Appellant which took plac e over more than six hours. At the prose cutor’s re quest, Dr. Gold r ead only a small portion of the memo whic h perta ined to the moment of the shooting when Appe llant retrieve d the wea pon and fire d it as L oustaunau lung ed at he r. The r est of the memo cover s topics including how the appointment was

ma de thr ou g h G uti e rr e z, App e lla nt’ s h ist or

y (p e rs on a l, m ari ta l, w or

k, fi na nc ia l, a nd me nta l- he a lth-25-

history), Appe llant’s relationship wit h L oustaunau, the e vents on the d a y o f th e s h o o ting , Appellant’s

a c tio ns a ft e r the sh oo tin g , inc lud ing the dis me mbe rm e nt, the inv olv e me nt o f atto rn e y Willi a m E lli s and the police , Dr. Gold’s de cision to allow Gutierre z to take Appellant to her sist er’ s home, and the admission of Appellant to a psy chiatric hospital. Much of the memo was not on the same subjec t as the portion re ad into evidenc e by the prosec utor. Ther efor e, it was not a dmissibl e under Rule 107. Finding no abuse of

discretion, we overr

ule Point of Error Tw o. ADMISSION OF P HYSICAL EVIDENCE I n her third point of e rror , Appellant cha lleng es the a dmission of numerous items and g ener al cate g ories of e vidence

. She argues that all of the evidenc e was a dmitted in viol ation of Rules 401 and 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence

. Appellant first c omplains about the admission o f a video showing a news re port about the trial (De fense Ex hibit 1A). This video, which wa s admitted only for appellate purposes, de picted the “B asic B utcher ing” book which had not been admitted into evidenc e at the time of the news story . Appellant’s request for a mi strial due to the news covera g e wa s denied be cause none of the jur o r s h a d

a c tu a ll y v ie w e d th e n e w s r e p o rt. B e c a

u s e th e v id e o w a s n o t a d mi tt e d in to e vidence , Ap pe lla nt’ s argume nt i s w ith ou t me ri t. Appellant also c ontends t h at t h e trial court e rre d in admitting “numer ous photos of the dis me mbe re d b od

y pa rt s” and “a grues om e vid e ota pe c on ta ini ngthe he a d a nd the bo dy pa rt s

remove d from the f

ree zer.” Reg ardingthe cr ime scene videos, Appellant stated that she had no objection to thei r ad m i s s i o n . There fore , she has not pre serve d err or for revie w. See T EX .R.A PP . P

. 3 3

. 1

. A s f o r t h e p h o t o g r a

p h s , A p p e l l an td o e s n o ti d e n t i f y an y o f t h e m b y e xh i b it

numbe r, e xce pt f

or so me thi ngsh e re fe rs to a s Exhi bit 14 7. Th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a dmi t an e xhibi t-26-

147. Appellant has not provide d any rec ord re fer ence s where th e “n u m erous photos of the dismembered body parts” wer e offe red and admitted over he r objec tion. Rul e 38.1(h) of the Rules of Appe llate Proce dure r equire s the appe llant to include appropr iate citations to authorities and the

re c or d. Th e re c or d in this ca se is vol umi no us and many e xhibi ts we re a dmi tte d dur ingthe c ours e of the trial. We dec line to scour the r ecor d in an ef fort to i dentify which exhibits might be r efe renc ed in this poi nt of err or. We overr ule the ar g ument reg arding the “numer ous photos of the dismembere d body parts” a s improperly

briefe d. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1(h). Appellant next asserts that num erous weapons, including fire arms, a ma chete , and a ha cksaw

wer e seized fr om her home a nd introduced into evidenc e even t houg h the S tate did not connec t them to the offe nse. She provides exhibi t numbe rs of these wea pons, but a g ain, she does not provide any

rec ord r ef er ence s where the exhibit s were offe red into evide nce a nd admitted over he r objec tion. We overrule this portion of Appellant’s a rg ument as improper ly

briefe d. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1(h). Ev e n if Ap pe lla

nt ha d a de qu a te ly br ie fe d the se iss ue s, our re vie w of the re c or d r e fl e c ts that de fe ns e counsel a ffirmatively

stated that he ha d no objection t o the admis sion of t he fire arms, the mac hete, and the ha cksaw

. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 33.1. Finally , Appellant ar g ues the trial c ourt err ed by admitting “[p]hotogra

phs from the de sert

are a wh e re the he a d a

nd oth e r b od

y pa rt s w e re dis c ov e re d . . . . Se e Exhi bit s N o. 11 7- 13 6. ” F ir st, we note that the torso was found bur ied in the dese rt and the he ad and othe r body parts we re f

ound in Appellant’s fr eezer . The e x hibits Appel l an t re fe re nces in he r brief are not photos of the deser t

are a where the torso was discove red. D efe nse counse l affir matively stated that he ha d “no objec tion” to all but one of the photogr aphs from the deser t are a whe re the torso was found. Counsel objec ted that on e of

the se ph oto g ra

ph s w a s c umu la tive. Th e al le g e d e rr or pe rt a ini ngto t

hat ph oto g ra

phis-27-

wa ive d b e c a

us e the ob

je c tio n ma de a t tr ia l do e s n ot c omp or t w it h the argume nt r a ise d o n a pp e a l. For all of these r easons, we overr ule Point of Error Thr ee. CH AR G E ERRO R I n Point of Error Four , Appellant raises sever al complaints reg arding the court’s c harg e. She first contends the e vidence did not support the i nclusion of an instruction on voluntary intox ication. Ap pe llate re vie w o f a lle g e d e rr or in a jur y c ha rg e inv olv e s a

tw o- ste p p ro c e ss. Ab dn or v . S tat e , 871 S.W .2d 726, 731 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). I nitially , we deter mine whether

err or occ urre d. Id. I f so, we then e valuate whether sufficie nt ha rm resulted f

rom the er

ror to re quire re versa l. Id . at 731-32. A trial cour

t must charg e the jury

on the law a

p p l icable to e very

issue raised by

the evidenc e. See T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art . 3 6. 14 (V e rn on 20 07 )( jur y c ha rg e of tr ia l ju dg e sh a ll “ dis tin c tly

se t[ ] fo rt h the law ap pli c a

ble to t he c a se ” ); Tay lor v . S

tat e , 885 S.W .2d 154, 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 19 94 ). Se c tio n 8 .0 4( a ) o f t he Pe na l Co de pr ov ide s th a t vo lun tary intox ic a tio n d oe s n ot c on sti tut e a def ense to the commission of crime. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 8.04(a) . I f there is evidence from

any so ur c e tha

t mi g ht l e a d a

jur y to c on c lud e tha

t th e de fe nd ant’ s into xicatio n s ome ho w e xcu se d h is actions, a voluntar

y intox ication instr u ct i o n is proper. See Taylor , 885 S.W .2d at 158. Her e, Ap pe lla nt t old Gutie rr e z an d D r. Go ld that sh e and L ou sta un a u h a d d ru nk “ too muc h” jus t pr ior

to the shooting. She a lso made statements that the shooting was a ccide ntal. Be cause the jury might have dr awn

an in fe re nc e tha

t App e lla nt m ish and le d th e we a

po n d ue to h e r i nto xicatio n caus in g it to a c c ide nta lly

dis c ha rg e or tha t he r int oxic a tio n othe rw ise e xcu se d he r co nd uc t, the tr ia l c ourt

did not err in g iving this instruction. Appellant also contends that the t rial court err ed by ref using to instruct the j ury on the lesser

inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of c ri min a lly

ne g lig e nt h om ici de. I n d e c idi ngwh e the r a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e-28-

should have be en given, we apply a two prong ed test. First, the offe nse must be a lesse r-include d offe nse of the c harg ed off

ense. Ma thi

s v . S tat e , 67 S.W .3d 918, 925 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Second, we must eva luate the e vidence to determine whether a rational jury

could find that if the de fenda nt is g uilty , she i s g uilty

of only the lesser offe nse. Id . The e vidence must establish the lesser-inc luded offe nse as a

valid rational a lternative to the c harg ed off ense. Id .; W

esb ro ok v . S tat e , 29 S.W .3d 103, 113-14 (Te x .Crim.App. 2000). The c redibility of the e vidence and whe ther it c onflicts with other evidenc e or is contr overte d may not be consi d ered in determining whether an instruction on a lesser- included off

ense should be g iven. Ba nd a v . S tat e , 890 S.W .2d 42, 60 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Re g ard le ss o f i ts s tr e ng th o r w e a kn e ss, if any e vid e nc e ra ise s th e iss ue that th e de fe nd ant wa s g uil ty only of the lesser offe nse, then the char g e must be g iven. Sa un de rs v . S tat e , 840 S.W .2d 390, 391 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). An ac cused is g uilty only of a lesser -included of fense if there is evidence that a ff ir ma tiv e ly re bu ts o r ne g a te s an el e me nt of the g re a te r of fe ns e , or if the e vid e nc e is s ub je c t to dif fe re nt i nte rp re ta tio ns , o ne of wh ic h r e bu ts o r n e g ate s th e c ru c ia l e le me nt. Se e Ra mi re z v . S tat e , 976 S.W .2d 219, 227 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1998, pet. ref ’d). That the jury may disbelieve crucial evidenc e per

taining to the g reater off ense i s n o t s u fficient to warra nt the submissi on of the lesser- included off

ense submis sion to the jury ; there must be some e vidence direc tly g erma ne to the lesser- included off

ense to wa

rra nt such submission. Se e Sk inn e r v . S tat e , 956 S.W .2d 532 , 543 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Th e fi rs t pr on g is m e t because, a s th e State c on c e de s, c ri min a lly ne g lig e nt h omi c ide is a lesser included offe nse of murde r. Se e Lic on v . S tat e , 99 S.W .3d 918, 928 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2003,

no pe t.) ; Car

do na v . S tat e , 973 S.W .2d 412, 415 (Tex.App.--Austin 1998, no pet.). Turning to the second pr ong , there must be evidence which would permit the j ury to rationally

find that if Appellant-29-

is guilty , she is g uilty

only of the lesse r offense. A person commits criminally neg lige nt homicide by causingthe deat h o f anothe r throug h criminal neg lige nce. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.05 (V e rn on 20 03 ). A p e rs on

a c ts w ithc ri min a l ne g lig e nc e , o r i s c ri min a lly ne g lig e nt, wi th r e sp e c t to circ umstances surrounding his conduct or the result of hi s conduct when he oug ht to be awa re of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the cir cumstance s exi st or the result will oc cur. T EX .P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 6. 03 (d ). Th e ri sk mu st be of su c h a natur e and

de g re e that th e fa ilure to p e rc e ive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of car e that an ordina ry person would e x erc ise under all the circumstances as viewed from t he ac tor’s standpoint. Id. Thus, criminally neg lige nt homicide

re qu ir e s a fi nd ingtha

t th e de fe nd ant ou g ht to have be e n awa re of the ri sk bu t f

a ile d to pe rc e ive it. Be fore a cha

rg e on cr iminally

neg lige nt homicide is require d, the re cord must contain e vidence showing an unaw are ness of the r isk. Licon , 99 S.W .3d at 928, c iti ng Me nd ie ta v . S tat e , 706 S.W .2d 651, 653 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). The e vidence s h o wed that Appellant was quite fa miliar with firea

rms as she possesse d approximately

twenty firea rms in her home a

nd held a c oncea led handgun license. The re is no evidenc e that Appellant was unaware of t he risk in ar ming he rself w ith a loaded f irea rm during an argument and pointing it in the dire ction of anothe r per son. I n support of her argument that she wa s

e nti tle d to an in str

uc tio n o n c ri minally

ne g lig e nt h omi c ide , App e lla nt p oin ts t o h e r s ta te me nts indicating that the wea

pon acc identally

fired. E vidence of ac cidental d ischarg e of a wea pon does not nece ssaril y ra i s e t he issue of c riminal neg lige nce. Se e Tho ma s v . S tat e , 699 S.W .2d 845, 850 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 85 ); Ga ds de n v . S tat e , 915 S

. W

. 2 d 6 20, 622-23 (Te x .App.--E l Paso 1996, no pet.). The e v id e n c e s ti ll mu s t s h o w th a t t h e d e f e n d an t w a s u n aw ar e o f

th e r is k c r e a te d b y h er

c on du c t un de r t

he fa c ts o f the c a se . B e c a

us e the re is n o s uc h e vid e nc e , th e tr ia l c ourt a c te d p ro pe rl y-30-

by denying the reque sted instruction. Appellant next arg ues that the trial court err ed by denying he r re quested instruction on selfdefe nse. The instruc tion Appellant requ es t ed i s not a self- defe nse instruction but rather is an instruction on the justification of nec essity under Sec tion 9.2 2 o f t he Penal Code. This sec tion provides that conduc t is just ified if: (1 ) t he a c tor re a so na bly bel ie ve s th e c on du c t is imm e diate ly ne c e ssa ry to a vo id imm ine nt h arm ; (2 ) t he de sir a bil ity and ur g e nc y of a vo idi ngthe ha

rm c le arl y ou tw e ig h, a c c or din g to ordinary standards of

rea sonablene ss, the harm sought to be pre vented by the law proscr ibing the c onduct; and (3) a leg islative purpose to exclude the j ustification claimed for t he conduct does not otherwise pla inly

appea r. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 9. 22 . Wh e n de a dly fo rc e in se lf -d e fe ns e is the c on du c t th a t is a lle g e dly

“ imm e diate ly

ne c e ssa ry” un de r the fi rs t e le me nt o f t he ne c e ssi ty

de fe ns e , th e de fe ns e of

ne c e ssi ty does not apply

. S

e e B u t l e r v . S t a te , 6 6 3 S.W .2d 492, 496 (Tex.App.--Da llas 1983), aff’d , 736 S.W .2d 668 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). Consequently , Appellant was not entitled to an instruction on the def ense of nece ssity

. Appellant also c ontends that the trial court err ed by ref using he r instructions on “rig ht to arm and see k an ex p l an ation,” “r ight to possess ar ms” and “ rig ht to continue shooting.” We have previously

held that a de fenda

nt is not entit led to such self- defe nse embe llishm ents bec ause the y are not r ecog nized by or labe led as de fense s by the L eg islature. Cas tan e da v . S tat e , 28 S.W .3d 216, 226 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2000, pet. ref ’d)( “rig ht to arms,” “rig ht to shoot to scar e,” and “rig ht to pur sue,”

are no t r e c og nize d b y

the Pe na l Co de a s d e fe ns e s; c on se qu e ntl y , d e fe nd ant i s n ot e nti tle d to t he se additional self-de fense instructions). Other courts have a lso held that the defe ndant is not entitled-31-

to these additional self- defe nse i nstructions beca use t hey are not rec og nized by the L eg islature and the self- defe nse instructions authorized by the Penal Code a

re suf ficient to expl ain the def

endant’ s rig ht to use forc e and d ea d ly forc e in self- defe nse. Se e Ph ile n v . S tat e , 683 S.W .2d 440, 444-45 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 )( de fe nd ant n ot e nti tle d to “ ri g ht t o c on tin u e s ho oti ng ” ins tr

uc tio n) ; McG owan

v . S tat e , 188 S.W .3d 239, 241-42 (Te x .App.--Wac o 2006, pet. re f’d) (def endant not entitl ed to “r ight to a rm and se e k e xplanatio n” ins tr

uc tio n) . T he tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

re fu sin g to

su bmi t th e se a dd iti on a l se lf -d e fe ns e ins tr

uc tio ns . F ind ingno e rr or in t he jur y c ha rg e , w e ov e rr

ule Ap pe lla nt’ s f ourt h a nd fi na l po int

of e rr or and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. Aug ust 21, 2008 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. (Publish)