1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2- 07 - 29 9- CR NO . 2- 07- 300- CR M I CH AE LS . NE L S ON AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 3 OF TARRA NTCO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON A j ury f ound A ppe l l antM i cha elS. N el so n gui l t y ofr obbe ry byt hr ea t s and ro b b e ryc a u s i n g b o d ilyin j u ry . I n o n ep o i n t, N e l s o n a rg u e sth a t th etri a l c o u rt er r ed by no tal l ow i ng hi m t o quest i on a j ur or , pr i ort o j ur y del i ber at i ons, r egar di ng t he j ur or ’ s possi bl e f am i l i ar i t y w i t h N el son w hen t he juro r, aft er2

cl os i ng a r gum ent s, i nf or m ed t he t r i alcourtt hathe m i ghtha ve kno w n Nel so n. W e wi l l a f f i r m. II . F ACTUA LAN DP ROCEDURALB AC KG ROUND O n J u n e 4 , 2 0 0 6 , N e ls o n a lle g e d lyt h r e a t e n e d t h em a n a g e ro fa F a m ily D ol l arC om pany st ore i n FortW ort h, Texas, w i t h a kni f e and m ade r epeat ed d e m a n d sf o rt h e m a n a g e rt o “ g iv em ey o u rm o n e y .” A ft e rp la c in g h ish a n d sin t he ai r , t he m ana gerunl ock ed t he reg i st eran d s t epp ed aw ay. Nel so n w ent ar ound t he cou nt er , t ookm one y f r om the reg i st er , an d l eftt he st or e. The st or e’ s su rvei l l anc e c am er a c aug htt he i nci den ton t ape , and the tapeoft he e v e n tw a sp la y e d f o rt h e ju rya tt r ia l. A s N el so n l eftt he st or e, an ot herem pl oye e w ho ha d w i t nes se d t he eve nt f ol l ow ed hi m . Th e em pl oyee dem anded t hatN el son “com e back. ” A tt hi s t i m e, N e l s o n a l l e g e d l yth re a te n e d t h e e m p l o y e et o “ g e t b a c k ”o r h ew o u l d “ c u t” h e r. The e m pl oye e c ont i nue d t o f ol l ow N el so n. T he em pl oye e c l ai m s t hatN el so n th e n “h i t [ h e r] o n the ch e st.” T h ee m p l o y e ec e a se d h e r pu rsu i t. A t t ri a l , b o th th e m a n a g e r a n d e m p l o y e e i d e n ti fi e d N e l s o n a sth ea l l e g e d p e rp e tra to r. Ne l s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e h a d t h r e a t e n e d t h e m a n a g e r w i t h a s t r aw an d onl y a sk ed f ort en dol l ar s bec aus e h e w ashung ry. Nel so n de ni ed hav i ng a kni f e. H e al so d e n i e d e verhi tt i ng t he em pl oyee. N el son cl ai m ed t hathe had3

t h r e a t e n e d t h e m a n a g e rin h o p e st h a tt h em a n a g e rw o u ld c a ll 9 -1 -1 , o s t e n s ib ly s o N e l s o n w o u l d b e a rre s te d a n d “ g e t [h i s ] m e d i c i n eta k e n c a reo f.” The r ec or d doe s notr ef l ec thow a j ur or , S . J. , i nf or m ed t he cou rtt hathe m i g h t k n o w th e d e fe n d a n t , b u t a fte r c l o s i n g a rg u m e n ts , p ri o r to th ej u ry ’s del i ber at i ons, an d outs i de t he pr esence oft he j ur y, t he t r i al courtdi scussed
w i t h de f ens e couns elt hati tha d be en br oughtt o t he cou rt ’ s att ent i on t hatS. J. r ecogn i zed N el son. D ef ense co unsel o bj ect ed, cl ai m i ng t hathad he kno w n t hat S. J. w asf am i l i arw i t h Nel so n, “t her e [ w as ] an i ncr ea se d l i ke l i hood I w oul d ha ve us ed a p e r e m p t o ryc h a l l e n g e t o e x c u s eh i m . ”T h et r i a l c o u rto v e r r u l e d t he obj ec t i on. D ef ens e c ouns elt hen r equ es t ed t hathebeal l ow ed t o que st i on S. J. re g a r d in g th e n a tu reo f th e re l a ti o n s h i p S .J . h a d w i th N e l s o n . T h etri a l c o u rt deni ed def ense coun sel ’ s r equest , noti ng t hat t he courthad al r eady i nst r uct ed t h e ju ryt o n o t“ b r in g in a n yp e r s o n a l k n o w le d g eo fp e o p lew it h f a c t sin t o t h e ir del i ber at i ons ors har e t hose w i t h any otherper son. ” The t r i al courtal so e x p la in e d t h a titb e lie v e d “ t h a tin t e r f e r in g w it h [S .J .] a tt h ist im em ig h tu n d u ly em pha si z e [ S. J. ’ s f am i l i ar i t y w i t h Nel so n] . ” D ef ens e c ouns elt hen as ke d t he tr i a l co u rtto re -i n stru c t t h e j u ry c o n c e rning b ri n g i n g p e rso n a l kn o w l e d g e i n to del i ber at i ons . The t r i alco urtr e- i ns t r uct ed t he j ury pr i ort o de l i ber at i on.4

Th e j ur y f oun d N el son gui l t y ofb ot h char ges. N el son had el ect ed t o l et th e tri a l c o u rt a s s e s sp u n i s h m e n t. P ri o r to a s s e s s i n g p u n i s h m e n t, th etri a l c o u rt al l ow ed def ense counsel t o ques ti o n S .J. The f ol l ow i ng col l oqu y t ook pl ace dur i ng de f ens e c ouns el ’ s di r ec tex am i nat i on of S. J. r ega r di ng S. J. ’ s kno w l edg e o f N e l s o n : [ D E F E NSE COUNSE L ] : [ S. J . ] , y o u a r e t h e j u r o r w h o p o i n t ed out yest er day t hat you t hou ght you m i ght have know n m y cl i entorhad so m e so rto f i n tera c ti o n w i th h i m ; i s th a t co rr e c t? A . Y es, I t hou ght I knew w ho he w as. Q . A l l r i ght . O n f urt herr ef l ec t i on, ha ve you dec i ded w het heror not t hatw as, i n f act , t he case? A . I ’ m pr ett y sur e t hatI ’ ve seen hi m a coupl e oft i m es, yes. Q . C an you t el l us w hatt he contextw as? A . M y f am i l y used t o ow n a busi ness [ nearw her e t he al l eged r obbe ry oc cur r ed] , an d I w oul d w or k t her e f r equ ent l y. And I t hi nk t hathe w oul d com e i n a co upl e oft i m es aski ng f orw or k orm oney o r w h a te v e r. Q . So he had ac t ual l y com e t o yourpl ac e o fbus i nes s as ki ng f or m one y? A . Y eah. U sual l y aski ng f orw or k. Q . O ka y. Butal so f orm one y? A . I ’ m notpos i t i ve oft hat , no. Q . O ka y. I s t her e a ny p art i cul arr ea so n w hy t hati nf or m at i on w as notshar ed w i t h us dur i ng t he j ur y sel ect i on pr ocess?5

A . Yes. I t ’ s been s eve r alye ar s, I di dn’ tr ec ogni z e h i m , r ea l l y, unti l he st art ed t al ki ng. A s soon as he st art ed t al ki ng, I r ecogn i zed hi m be ca us e h e h asa very di st i nctm ann er o fs peaki ng a nd I r e c o g n iz e d h im a sb e in g t h ep e r s o n t h a tc a m e in . I n e v e ra c t u a lly ta l k e d to h i m a n d s tu ff, b u t I h a d s e e n h i m c o m e i n a n d I h a d h e a rd hi m t al ki ng befor e.

. . . . Q . Y ou st i l l w oul d have sai d t haty ou di dn’ tkn ow w ho he w as? Beca us e I as ke d s pec i f i ca l l y du r i ng j ury s el ec t i on do esan ybod y kno w m e o r[ N el so n] . You w oul dn’ thave ans w er ed t hatque st i on di f f er ent l y? A . I ’ m sor ry, I m i sunder st ood w hat you asked m e t he f i r stt i m e. Q . Yest er daydur i ng j ury s el ec t i on on e o ft he fi r stque st i on I as ke d, m ayb e t he f i r stonew as , doe s any bodyhe r e k now m e o r [ N el son] , aft erI i nt r odu ced t he t w o ofus. A . A tt h a tt im e , I d id n o tk n o w w h o h ew a sa ta ll. Q . S o ify o u h a d --ift h ere c o lle c t io n c a m e t o y o u la t e r , w o u ld you hav e a ns w er ed t hatque st i on di f f er ent l y? A . Y es. Q . A nd w oul d yo u ha ve gi ven ust he sa m e i nf or m at i on? A . Yes. I w oul d ha ve gi ven you t he i nf or m at i on I j us t now ga ve you thatyou’ r e aski ng m e. Q . A nd s o w hen I asked t he quest i on about w he th e r t h at kno w l edg e w oul d havei nf l uen ce d yourver di ctatt hatpoi nti n t he p ro c e e d i n g s , w o u l d y o u h a v eg i v e n a d i ffe re n t a n s w e r? [ PRO SEC U TO R] : I ’ m goi ng t o – [S .J .]: I w o u l d h a v e s a i d n o .6

[D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: O k a y . [P R O S E C U T O R ]: W e l l -- [ D EFENSE C O U N SEL] : So a t t hat poi nt i n t he t r i al , w i t houtha vi ng hea r d a ny evi den ce , you w oul d hav e ans w er ed t hat you di dn’ tt hi nk th a t t h a t r e l a ti o n sh i p w o u ld h a v ean yi n fl u e n c eo n y o u r ve rdict, t hat ’ s w hatyou w oul d have sai d att hatt i m e? A . R i ght. N otb ecause - -I m ean - -I w oul dn’ thave l eti taf f ect m e w h e th e r I ’m g o i n g to n a m eth em a n i n n o c e n t o r g u i l ty , n o , i t’s t oo i m port anta dec i si on. [ D EFENSE C O U N SEL] : Al l r i ght . Than k y ou. That ’ s al l t he q u e s ti o n s . P a s sth e w i tn e s s . Th e Stat e had no q uesti o n s fo rS. J. , so t he courtt hanked and excused hi m . Def ens e c oun sel a nd t he t r i alco urtt hen pa rt i ci pat ed i n t he f ol l ow i ng col l oquy : [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: I d o h a v ea --I n e e d t o re u r g e , p r o b a b ly s i n c e y o u ’v e n o w g i v e n m eth eo p p o rtu n i tyto q u e s ti o n th ej u ro r, I t h in kt h e ju r o rw a s t r u t h f u l w it h u sa n d h ew a sb e in g h o n e s tin h is a n s w e rs th a t h e g a v e . H o w e v e r, s i n c e I h a v e p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e st o e x e r c is e , I b e lie v et h a tI w o u ld h a v ec h a lle n g e d h im bas ed on t he f ac tt hatheha d be en i n t he st or e as ki ng f orm one y. I w oul d ha ve cha l l eng ed hi m on t hat bas i s. A nd I di dn’ tha ve t he o p p o rtu n i tyt o d o th a t. A n d s o , a t th i sp o i n t, I w o u l d a s kfo r a m is t r ia l. [C O U R T ]: D e n i e d . T h e tri a l th e n p ro c e e d e d to th ep u n i s h m e n t p h a s e . T h etri a l c o u rt se n ten c e d N e l so n to th i rt y -f i v e y e a rs’ i n c a rce rati o n fo r ea c h o f t h etw o co u n ts ofr obbe ry w i t h t he se nt enc est o r un c onc ur r ent l y. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed.7 II I. D I SCU SSI ON I n hi s so l e p oi nt , N el so n c om pl ai nst hatt he t r i alc ou rter r ed by n ot al l ow i ng hi m t o que st i on S. J. r ega r di ng hi s pot ent i alr el at i ons hi p w i t h Nel so n bef or e t he j ury de l i ber at ed. 1 . T h eR i g h t toa n Im p a rti a lJ u ry “I n al l cr i m i nal pr os ec ut i ons , t he ac cus ed sh al l enj oy t he r i ghtt o a s pee dy a n d p u b l i c tri a l , b ya n i m p a rti a l j u ry .”U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V I; s e eal so Tex. C onst . art . 1 § 10 ( “[ i ] n a l l c ri m i nal pr osecut i ons t he accused shal l have a s p e e d yp u b l i c tri a l b ya n i m p a rti a l j u ry ” ); F ran kl i nv. S tate , 138 S. W . 3d 351, 354 ( F ra nkli nII) (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). I n c l u d e d in th ec o n sti tu ti o n a l ri g h t t o a n i m p a rt i a l j u ry i s th e ab i l i ty to co n d u c t ad e q u a te v o i r di re to i d e n ti fy u n q u a l i fi e d j u ro rs . F

ra nkli nII, 13 8 S. W . 3d at35 4. The T exas C ourtofC r i m i nal A ppe al s has“ con si st ent l y he l d thates se nt i alt o t he Si xt h Am end m ent gua r ant ee s oft he as si st anc e o fco uns elan d t r i al bef or e an i m part i al j ury ‘ i s t he ri g h t to q u e s ti o n v e n i re m e m b e rsi n o rd e r to i n t e lli g e n tl ye x e rc i s ep e re m p to ry chal l enges and chal l enges f orcau se. ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng Ra b yv. S tate , 970 S. W . 2d 1 , 1 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 )). W hen a j ur or “‘ w i t hho l ds m at er i al i nf or m at i on du r i ng t he voi rdi r e pr ocess, t he part i esar e d eni ed t he opport uni t y t o e xer ci set hei rch al l eng es , t hus ham per i ng t hei rsel ect i on of a di si nt er est ed and i m part i al j ur y. ’ ” F ra nkli nII, 1388

S. W . 3d at354 ( quot i ng Sa l aza r v. S tate , 5 6 2 S . W . 2 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 19 78 ) ) . Thu s, t he def endan t“m ustshow t hat t he j ur orw i t hhel d m at er i al i nf or m ati on d ur i ng v oi rdi r e, an d t he i nf or m at i on i s w i t hhe l d de sp i t e d ue di l i gence exer ci sed by t he def endan t . ” F ra nkli nII, 1 3 8 S .W .3 d a t 3 5 5

– 5 6 . In or dert o s how m at er i al i t y, t he con ce al ed i nf or m at i on do esnothave t o s how a c tu a l b i a s , j u s t th a t i t h a sa te n d e n c yto s h o w b i a s . Id . a t 3 5 6 . “[M ]e re f am i l i ar i t y w i t h a w i t ness i s not necessar i l y m at er i al i nf or m at i on. ” Frankl i n v. S tate , 12 S. W . 3d 473, 478 ( Frankl i n I) (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); s eeD ecker v. S tate , 717 S . W . 2d 903, 9 07 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1 983 ) . I n t he eve ntt hata j ur or w i t hhol dsm at er i ali nf or m at i on du r i ng v oi r di r e, i ti s notdi sp os i t i ve oft he i ss ue i f th e j u ro r s ta te sth a t i t w i l l n o t a ffe c t h i sv e rd i c t. F ra nkli nII, 13 8 S . W . 3d at 355 –56 . The good f ai t h oft he j ur ori s “l ar gel y i r r el eva ntw hen co ns i der i ng t he m at er i al i t y ofi nf or m at i on w i t hhel d. ” Frankl i n I, 12 S . W . 3d a t478. Th e b ur den i s i ni t i al l y on t he part i es t o be di l i gent dur i ng vo i rdi r e and ask a l l p e rti n e n t q u e s ti o n sto re v e a l p o te n ti a l b i a s . G o nza les v. S tate , 3 S. W . 3d 915 , 917– 18 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1999 ) . Def ens e c ouns eli s ent i t l ed to r el y on th e q u e s ti o n s a s k e d b y th e tri a l c o u rt a n d p ro s e c u to r. A rm stro ngv. S tate , 897 S. W . 2d 361 , 3 64 n. 1 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1995 ) . I n F ra nkli nII, th eT e x a sC o u rt ofCr i m i nalA ppe al s hel d t hata j ur or ’ s w i t hhol di ng ofm at er i ali nf or m at i on,2 ... N el son com pl ai ns t hata pr operhar m anal ysi s cannotbe per f or m ed

bec aus e h e w asuna bl e t o “ es t abl i sh an ev i den t i ary ba si s f or har m bas ed on t he t r i alco urt ’ s ac t i ons . ” W e d i sa gr ee . The t r i alco urtdi d notde ny Nel so n t he o p p o rt u n it yt o d e v e lo p t h e re c o r d ; r a t h e r , t h et r ia l c o u rta llo w e d N e ls o n t o f u lly q u e s ti o n S .J . a fte r th e j u ryd e l i b e ra te d . See F ran kli n II, 138 S. W . 3d a t355; Frankl i n I, 12 S . W . 3d a t478. 9 de s pi t e t hed e f endan t ’ sd ued i l i ge nc e , w a sc on s t i t ut i on a l e r r or . 138 S. W . 3d a t 3 5 7 ; seeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 4 .2 (a ). W e w i l l a s s u m e w i t h o u td e c i d i n g t h a tNe l s o n h a ss h o w n j u ry - s e l ec t i on e rro r a n d th a t h e w a sd e p ri v e d o f th eo p p o rtu n i tyto e x e rc i s ea p e re m p to ry st r i ke orchal l enge S . J. f orcause. Thu s, w e t ur n t o a har m anal ysi s. 2 2. H ar m l ess Er r orRev i ew I fco ns t i t ut i ona l err ori s sh ow n, w e m us tr eve r set he j udgm entof c o n v i c ti o n u n l e s sw e d e te rm i n e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l ed o u b t th a t th ee rro r i n j u ry se l ec t i on di d notco nt r i but e t o t he con vi ct i on orpuni sh m ent . T ex. R . A pp. P. 4 4 .2 (a ); F

ra nkli nII, 1 3 8 S .W .3 d at 3 5 4 . I n ap p l y i n g the “h a rm l e ss e rr o r” tes t, ourpr i m ary ques t i on i s w het hert her e i s a “ r ea so nab l e p os si bi l i t y”t hatt he er r or m i g h t h a v e c o n tri b u te d to th e c o n v i c ti o n . Mo sleyv. S tate , 983 S. W . 2d 249, 2 5 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). O urha r m l es s er r oran al ys i s does notf ocu s on t he pr opr i et y oft he o u t c o m e o ft h e t r ia l; in s t e a d , w ec a lc u la t ea sm u c h a sp o s s ib let h ep r o b a b le im p a c t o n th e j u ryi n l i g h t o f th ee x i s te n c eo f o th e r e v i d e n c e . Wesbrookv.10

S tate , 2 9 S .W .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), cert. denied, 532 U. S. 94 4 ( 20 01 ) . W e consi dert he sour ce and nat ur e of th e e rr o r , t he ext entt hat i tw asem pha si z ed by t he St at e, i t s pr oba bl e c ol l at er ali m pl i ca t i ons , t he w ei ght a j ur orw oul d pr obab l y pl ace on t he er r or, a n d w het herdecl ar i ng i thar m l ess w o u l d b e l i k e l yto e n c o u ra g e th eS ta te to re p e a titw it h i m p u n i ty . Har r i s v. S tate , 79 0 S. W . 2d 56 8, 58 7 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 89 ) . Th i s r equ i res u s to eva l uat e t he ent i r e r ec or d i n a ne ut r al , i m part i al , and ev en- han ded m ann er , not “i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on. ” Id. a t586. H er e, Nel s on w a s a bl e t o qu e s t i on S. J. i n a n e f f ort t o s ho w a c t ua l bi as orpr ej udi ce , an d t he r es ul t s oft hatqu esti on i ng s how ed no a ct ualbi asor p rej u d i c e . See D ecker, 717 S . W . 2d at907 ( hol di ng t hatacqua i nt anc e t hr ough e m p l o y m e n t w a sn o t re l a ti o n s h i p w i th p o te n ti a l f o r b i a so r p rej u d i c e ); Brown v. S tate , 183 S . W . 3d 728, 737– 40 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2005 , no pet . ) ( hol di ng th a t j ur or ’ s di st antacquai nt ance w i t h w i t ness di d not suggest b i a so r p rej u d i c e ). N ot hi ng i n t he r ec or d t hat N el so n w asal l ow ed t o de vel op byque st i oni ng S . J. dem onst r at es a r easonabl e possi bi l i t y t hatthe percei ved er r orcont r i buted to N e l s o n ’sc o n v i c ti o n . See Mosley , 983 S . W . 2d at259. S. J. di d notkn ow N el so n byna m e. S. J. not ed t hati tw as n’ tunt i l hehe ar d Nel so n s pea k t hathe even knew he w as f am i l i arw i t h hi m . S. J. t est i fi e d th a t i t had “been sever al11

y e a rs” s i n c e h e h a d se e n N e l so n an d tha t he h a d “n e v e r ac tu a l l yta lk e d to [ N el so n] . ” W hen ask ed w het herhi s pr evi ouskn ow l edg e o fN el so n w oul d ha ve i nf l uen ce d hi s ve r di ct , S. J. s ai d, “ no. ” S. J. ev en t es t i f i ed t hathew oul d not have l et hi s know l edge of N el son af f ect “w het her I ’ m goi ng t o nam e t he m an i n n o c e n t o r g u i l ty . . . i t’s to o i m p o rta n t a d e c i s i o n .” N o th i n g in t h e re c o rd d e m o n s t r a t e st h a tS .J .’ sd is t a n tm e m o ryo fN e ls o n a f f e c t e d t h eju rya ta ll. T h e rei sa l s o n o th i n g i n th e re c o rd to i n d i c a te th a t th eS ta te u s e d S .J .’s aw ar eness ofN el son t o i nf l uence t he j ur y. But t he S t at e di d of f e r a gr eat am oun to fev i dence r egar di ng N el son’ s gui l toft he char ges. Tw o eyew i t nesses oft he eventsl ea d i n g t o N el son’ s ar r estt est i f i ed att r i al . Both w i t nesses t e s t if ie d t h a tN e ls o n h a d ro b b e d t h em a n a g e r . T h ea lle g e d b o d ily -in ju ryv ic t im t est i f i ed t o N el son’ s havi ng st r uck her . Avi deotape oft he r obb ery w as pl ayed fo r th e j u ry , a n d N e l s o n h i m s e l f a d m i tte d h e w a s t r y in g to g e t a rre s te d . W e con cl udet hatS. J. ’ s l i m i t ed kno w l edg e o fN el so n had l i tt l e t o no i m pac ton t he j ury’ s ver di cti n l i ght oft hi s evi dence. Eva l ua t i ng t he r e c or d i n a ne ut r a l a nd i m pa rt i a l m a nn e r , w e hol d t hat S .J .’s re m o te m e m o ri e so f N e l s o n h a d n o e ffe c t o n th eo u tc o m eo f N e l s o n ’s tr i a l a n d th a t th e re i s n o rea so n a b l ep o ss i b i l i ty th a t S .J.’ s fa i n t f a m i l i a ri ty w i th N e l s o n c o n tri b u te d to N e l s o n ’s c o n v i c ti o n . A fte r c a re fu l l y re v i e w i n g th ere c o rd and pe r f or m i ng t he r equ i r ed har m ana l ys i s unde rr ul e 44. 2( a) , w e h ol d be yond12

a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t th e a l l e g e d e rro r d i d n o t c o n tri b u te to N e l s o n ’s c o n v ic t io n o rp u n is h m e n t . T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 4 .2 (a ). W eo v e r r u leN e ls o n ’s s o le p o i n t. IV . C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d N e ls o n ’ss o l ep o i n t, w ea ffir m th etri a l c o u rt’s j udg m ent s. P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d M C C O Y, J. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 2, 2009