## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. A P

- 7 6

, 8 1 0

R O D E R I C K H A R R I S

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N D I R E C T A P P E A L F R O M C A U S E N O

. F 0 9

- 0 0 4 0 9

I N T H E C R I M I N A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T N U M B E R 7

D A L L A S C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e u n a n i m o u s C o u r t

.

O P I N I O N

I n M a y 2 0 1 2

, a j u r y c o n v i c t e d R o d e r i c k H a r r i s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r f o r t h e s h o o t i n g

d e a t h o f A l f

r e d o G a l l a r d o d u r i n g a h o m e

- i n v a s i o n r o b b e r y

. B a s e d o n t h e j u r y ’ s a n s w e r s t o 1

t h e s p e c i a l i s s u e s s e t o u t i n T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 1

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.03(a) (2). 1H a r r i s P a g e 2

s e n t e n c e d H a r r i s t o d e a t h

. A f t e r r e v i e w i n g H a r r i s ’ s 1 3 2

- p a g e b r i e f o n d i r e c t a p p e a l

, w h i c h 2

s e t s o u t f o r t y p o i n t s o f e r r o r

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t h i s c l a i m s a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, 3

w e a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

F a c t u a l B a c k g r o u n d

O n t h e e v e n i n g o f M a r c h 1 7

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t r o b b e d t h e G a l l a r d o f a m i l y i n t h e i r e a s t

D a l l a s m o b i l e h o m e

. H e h e l d t h r e e a d u l t s

, o n e t e e n

- a g e g i r l

, a n d t w o b o y s a t g u n p o i n t

.

D u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y

, h e s h o t a n d k i l l e d t h e f a t h e r

, A l f

r e d o

, a n d h i s b r o t h e r

, C a r l o s

.

T h e e v i d e n c e s h o w e d t h a t

, a t a b o u t 9 : 0 0 p

. m

. o n S t

. P a t r i c k ’ s D a y

, A l f r e d o w a s a t

h o m e w i t h h i s w i f

e

, M a r i a

, h i s b r o t h e r

, C a r l o s

, a s o n

, a g r a n d s o n

, a n d h i s t h i r t e e n

- y e a r

- o l d

d a u g h t e r

, Y a h a i r a

. A l f r e d o w a s a b o u t t o g o o u t t o l o o k f o r Y a h a i r a ’ s o l d e r s i s t e r w h e n a

“ b l a c k g u y ” b u r s t t h r o u g h t h e d o o r a n d p o i n t e d h i s g u n a t A l f r e d o ’ s h e a d

. Y a h a i r a w a s

“ s h o c k e d ” a n d “ s c a r e d

, ” t h e m o r e s o w h e n t h e m a n

– a p p e l l a n t

– t o l d h e r

, “ C o m e h e r e

, b i t c h

. ”

Y a h a i r a ’ s m o t h e r s t a r t e d t o c r y a s a p p e l l a n t p o i n t e d h i s g u n a t t h e m a n d

, i n a l o u d v o i c e

,

a s k e d f o r m o n e y

, j e w e l r y

, a n d d r u g s

. Y a h a i r a t r a n s l a t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s d e m a n d s f o r h e r p a r e n t s

b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t s p e a k m u c h E n g l i s h

. S h e t o o k h e r m o t h e r ’ s p u r s e f r o m t h e c o u n t e r a n d

g a v e a p p e l l a n t a l l o f t h e m o n e y i n s i d e

– t w o d o l l a r s

.

Y a h a i r a ’ s f

a t h e r w a s s i t t i n g o n t h e s o f a

, b u t w h e n h e s t a r t e d t o s t a n d u p

, a p p e l l a n t h i t

h i m s o h a r d i n t h e f

a c e w i t h t h e b a c k o f h i s g u n t h a t h i s c h e e k s t a r t e d b l e e d i n g

. T h e n

, w h e n

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 37.071 § 2(g ). 2

See J udg e Alex Kozins ki, The W rong Stuff

, 1992 BY U L

. R E V . 325, 327. 3H a r r i s P a g e 3

C a r l o s t r i e d t o g e t h i s w a l l e t o u t o f h i s p o c k e t

, a p p e l l a n t h i t h i m n e a r t h e e y e b r o w w i t h t h e

g u n

. C a r l o s a l s o s t a r t e d b l e e d i n g

. A p p e l l a n t t o l d A l f r e d o a n d C a r l o s t o g e t d o w n o n t h e

f l o o r

, a n d t h e n

, s t i l l p o i n t i n g h i s g u n a t t h e m

, a p p e l l a n t t o o k t h e i r w a l l e t s f r o m t h e i r p a n t s

p o c k e t s

.

T h e n h e t o o k e v e r y o n e t o t h e m a s t e r b e d r o o m

, a n d Y a h a i r a h a n d e d h i m t h e l i t t l e b i t

o f j e w e l r y

– a n e c k l a c e a n d t w o r i n g s

– t h a t t h e y h a d

. A p p e l l a n t p u s h e d t h e m a l l t h r o u g h t h e

b a t h r o o m a n d t o w a r d a c l o s e t

, s t i l l p o i n t i n g h i s g u n a t t h e m

. H e t o l d Y a h a i r a t o t i e h e r

u n c l e ’ s h a n d s w i t h s o m e b e l t s w h i l e h e t i e d h e r f a t h e r ’ s h a n d s

. H e w a s s h o u t i n g a t t h e m a s

h e k e p t t r y i n g t o c l o s e a n d l o c k t h e c l o s e t d o o r

, a n d Y a h a i r a ’ s m o t h e r w a s c r y i n g

. Y a h a i r a

t h o u g h t

, “ W e w e r e g o i n g t o d i e

. ” A p p e l l a n t t h e n a s k e d f o r t h e k e y s t o t h e i r r e d t r u c k

, b u t

Y a h a i r a t o l d h i m t h a t h e r b r o t h e r O m a r h a d t h e m a n d t h a t h e w a s a t a p a r t y

. 4

A p p e l l a n t “ t o l d u s l i k e

, w h a t k i n d o f f a m i l y l i k e u s d i d n ’ t h a v e m o n e y ? A n d t h a t i f

w e d i d n ’ t h a v e m o n e y

, w e s h o u l d d o l i k e

– w e s h o u l d d o w h a t h e d i d ; t h a t h e d i d n ’ t h u r t

p e o p l e

, h e j u s t r o b b e d h o u s e s

. ” T h e n h e p o i n t e d t o Y a h a i r a ’ s m o t h e r a n d s a i d t h a t s h e w a s

t o g o w i t h h i m b e c a u s e “ h e w a n t e d t o t a k e h e r

. ” S h e w a s c r y i n g a n d p r a y i n g i n S p a n i s h

, s o

a p p e l l a n t p o i n t e d a t Y a h a i r a a n d s a i d t h a t h e w a s g o i n g t o t a k e h e r i n s t e a d

. W h e n Y a h a i r a ’ s

m o t h e r k e p t c r y i n g

, a p p e l l a n t f i n a l l y p o i n t e d h i s g u n a t A l f r e d o w h i l e t e l l i n g Y a h a i r a ’ s

Yaha ira knew that Omar was in his room in the house, but she didn’t want appellant to find 4

him. Unbeknownst to Yaha ira, Omar had hear d his fathe r speaking in a “panic ked” voice from the

living room, so he peeke d out the door of his bedroom and saw appellant pointing a g u n at his

fathe r’s head. Omar quietly closed and locked his bedroom door, climbed out the bedroom window,

and found the secur ity

g uard f or the mobile-home pa

rk. The secur ity g uard c alled 911 af ter Oma r

told him about the ongoing robber y at his home.H a r r i s P a g e 4

m o t h e r t o c a l m d o w n o r h e w o u l d “ h u r t ” t h e m

. Y a h a i r a t h o u g h t h e w o u l d s h o o t t h e m

.

T h e n a p p e l l a n t g r a b b e d A l f r e d o ’ s s h i r t a n d s t a r t e d w a l k i n g h i m t o w a r d t h e r e s t r o o m

,

b u t t h e y f

e l l o n t o p o f t h e J a c u z z i “ a n d t h a t ’ s w h e n t h e s h o o t i n g c a m e o u t [

. ] ” A p p e l l a n t s h o t

A l f r e d o i n t h e f

a c e a n d c h e s t

. T h e n C a r l o s

, Y a h a i r a ’ s u n c l e

, g o t u p a s i f h e w e r e t r y i n g t o

h e l p

, a n d a p p e l l a n t s h o t h i m i n t h e f a c e a n d s h o u l d e r

. Y a h a i r a a n d h e r m o t h e r w e r e c r y i n g

o n t h e f l o o r o f t h e c l o s e t w h e n Y a h a i r a f e l t t h e w i n d f

r o m a n o t h e r b u l l e t p a s s b y h e r

. S h e

t h o u g h t a p p e l l a n t h a d f i r e d a t o t a l o f a b o u t s i x b u l l e t s

.

Y a h a i r a l o o k e d b a c k o u t t o t h e b a t h r o o m a n d s a w a p p e l l a n t p u s h “ m y d a d o f f o f h i m

l i k e h e w a s d i s g u s t [ e d ]

, b e c a u s e o f t h e b l o o d

. ” H e f i n a l l y r a n o u t t h e d o o r

. Y a h a i r a h e a r d

“ s n o r i n g ” s o u n d s f

r o m e i t h e r h e r f

a t h e r o r h e r u n c l e l y i n g o n t h e f l o o r a n d s a w h e r f

a t h e r

s h a k i n g

. F i n a l l y

, a p o l i c e m a n r a n i n a n d t o o k t h e m o u t o f t h e h o u s e

. 5

A p p e l l a n t h a d k i l l e d b o t h A l f r e d o a n d C a r l o s

.

D u r i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

, t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e o f s e v e r a l o t h e r a g g r a v a t e d

r o b b e r i e s

, i n c l u d i n g a n o t h e r c a p i t a l m u r d e r

, t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e m o n t h

b e f o r e t h e c h a r g e d c a p i t a l m u r d e r

. O n F e b r u a r y 1 5

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t a n d h i s c o h o r t

c o n f r o n t e d L u i s G o n z a l e z a t h i s a p a r t m e n t d o o r

, f o r c e d h i m i n s i d e

, t i e d h i m u p

, a n d r o b b e d

h i m o f h i s w a l l e t w i t h $ 4 5 0 i n i t

, h i s w a t c h a n d s h o e s

, a s e t o f w h e e l r i m s

, a s t e r e o

, a n d h i s

The poli ce responded immediatel y to the s ecur ity g uard’ s 911 call and wer e surrounding 5

t he Gallar do’s home when appellant shot Alfre do and Carlos. One office r hear d five s h o t s an d

shortly there afte r, appellant came running outside. When the office rs saw him, they y elled, “Police,”

and told appellant to g et down on the g round. He didn’t. I nstead, he shot at them. As he ran toward

the bac k of the tra iler, he bumpe d into one office r, who then shot appe llant in the back a nd leg

.H a r r i s P a g e 5

f r i e n d ’ s w a l l e t

, w h i c h w a s h i d d e n i n t h e s o f a

, w i t h $ 9 0 0 i n i t

. T h e n t h e y d r a g g e d M r

.

G o n z a l e z i n t o t h e b e d r o o m w h i l e t h e y r a n s a c k e d h i s a p a r t m e n t

. M r

. G o n z a l e z m a n a g e d t o

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

, a n d

h e r a n a n d l o c k e d t h e m o u t o f h i s a p a r t m e n t

. A p p e l l a n t s t a r t e d b e a t i n g o n t h e d o o r

, s a y i n g

,

“ [ O ] p e n t h e d o o r

, y o u s o n

- o f

- a

- y o u

- k n o w

- w h a t

. ” M r

. G o n z a l e z d i d n o t o p e n t h e d o o r

, b u t

h e c o u l d n ’ t c a l l t h e p o l i c e b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t h a d s t o l e n h i s c e l l p h o n e

. T h e r o b b e r s f i n a l l y

l e f t i n a p p e l l a n t ’ s c a r

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s D N A w a s o n a g l o v e l e f t a t M r

. G o n z a l e z ’ s a p a r t m e n t

.

A t a b o u t 1 0 : 3 0 p

. m

. o n M a r c h 3

, 2 0 0 9

, K a r e n D e L a C r u z E s p i n o z a w a s w a l k i n g

t h r o u g h t h e p a r k i n g l o t o f h e r a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x w i t h h e r e l e v e n

- y e a r

- o l d s o n w h e n s h e s a w

t h r e e b l a c k m e n c o m i n g h u r r i e d l y t o w a r d h e r

. A s s h e g o t t o h e r f r o n t d o o r

, o n e o f

t h e m

– a p p e l l a n t

– p u s h e d o p e n t h e d o o r a n d s h o v e d h e r a n d h e r s o n i n s i d e

. H e r h u s b a n d a n d

t h r e e o f h e r f

o u r o t h e r c h i l d r e n w e r e a l r e a d y i n s i d e

. T h e r o b b e r s i m m e d i a t e l y c l o s e d a l l o f

t h e s h a d e s

, p o i n t e d t h e i r g u n s a t t h e h e a d s o f t w o o f h e r c h i l d r e n

, a n d t o l d K a r e n t h a t t h e y

w a n t e d h e r h a n d b a g w i t h m o n e y a n d t h a t “ i f w e d i d n ’ t g i v e t h e m w h a t t h e y w a n t e d

, t h a t t h e y

w e r e g o i n g t o k i l l u s a l l

. ” O n e o f t h e r o b b e r s w e n t t o t h e b a c k r o o m

, g r a b b e d K a r e n ’ s

h u s b a n d

, p u l l e d h i m i n t o t h e l i v i n g r o o m

, a n d t h r e w h i m o n t h e f l o o r

.

T h e r o b b e r s t h e n r a n s a c k e d t h e b e d r o o m s

, p u l l i n g o u t a l l o f t h e d r a w e r s a n d e m p t y i n g

t h e c o n t e n t s o n t h e f

l o o r a n d b e d s

. T h e y t o o k K a r e n ’ s w a l l e t w i t h h e r p a y c h e c k i n i t

, a s w e l l

a s h e r h u s b a n d ’ s w a l l e t

, h e r w a t c h

, a n X b o x

, D V D s

, a n d o t h e r i t e m s

. A s t w o o f t h e r o b b e r s

s t a r t e d t a k i n g i t e m s d o w n t h e s t a i r s

, K a r e n h e a r d s e v e r a l s h o t s a n d t h o u g h t t h a t t h e r o b b e r sH a r r i s P a g e 6

h a d “ f o u n d s o m e o n e e l s e ” t o h u r t

. T h e t h i r d r o b b e r i m m e d i a t e l y p i c k e d u p t h e r e s t o f t h e

b a g s o f p r o p e r t y t h a t t h e y h a d c o l l e c t e d

, b u t K a r e n r u s h e d f o r w a r d

, p u s h e d h i m o u t t h e d o o r

,

a n d l o c k e d i t

. T h e y a l l s t o o d b a c k f r o m t h e d o o r b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e w o r r i e d t h e r o b b e r w o u l d

s t a r t s h o o t i n g t h r o u g h i t

.

A p p e l l a n t t h e n w e n t t o a n o t h e r a p a r t m e n t a t t h e c o m p l e x

, t h a t o f R o b e r t o R a m o s

.

R o b e r t o ’ s 2 7

- y e a r

- o l d b r o t h e r

, E u s t a c i o

, h e a r d a c o m m o t i o n i n t h e h a l l w a y w h i l e h e w a s i n

t h e b a t h r o o m t a l k i n g o n t h e p h o n e t o h i s g r a n d m o t h e r i n M e x i c o

. W h e n h e l o o k e d o u t

, h e

s a w R o b e r t o s t r u g g l i n g w i t h a p p e l l a n t

, w h o h a d g o t t e n i n s i d e t h e a p a r t m e n t

. R o b e r t o w a s

t r y i n g t o p u s h h i m b a c k o u t s i d e

, b u t a p p e l l a n t w a s t o o b i g a n d s t r o n g

. W h e n E u s t a c i o w e n t

t o h e l p R o b e r t o

, a p p e l l a n t s h o t E u s t a c i o i n t h e c h e s t f r o m a b o u t f

o u r f e e t a w a y

. R o b e r t o

c r i e d

, “ O h

, h e s h o t y o u

, h e k i l l e d y o u

, h e h i t y o u i n t h e h e a r t

. ” E u s t a c i o w a s “ s t u n n e d ” a n d

f e l l b a c k w a r d s a s h e s a w h i s b r o t h e r s t r u g g l i n g w i t h a p p e l l a n t

. E u s t a c i o s a i d

, “ I h e a r d a s h o t

a n d t h e n a m o m e n t l a t e r

, s e c o n d s l a t e r

, I h e a r d a n o t h e r s h o t

. A n d I w a s s a y i n g

, o h

, G o d

, a n d

I w a s s c r e a m i n g t o m y b r o t h e r

. A f t e r t h a t

, I d i d n ’ t k n o w a n y t h i n g e l s e

. ”

A t h i r d b r o t h e r

, M a r t i n

, c a m e i n t o t h e l i v i n g r o o m a n d s a w R o b e r t o s t r u g g l i n g w i t h

a p p e l l a n t

, b u t w h e n M a r t i n c a m e t o w a r d t h e d o o r

, a p p e l l a n t r e a c h e d o v e r R o b e r t o ’ s s h o u l d e r

a n d s h o t h i m i n t h e f

a c e

. T h e n

, a s a n o t h e r n e i g h b o r w a t c h e d f r o m h i s d o o r

, R o b e r t o

“ b e a r h u g g e d ” a p p e l l a n t w h o t h e n s h o t R o b e r t o t h r e e t i m e s

– i n t h e u p p e r b a c k

, i n t h e m o u t h

,

a n d i n t h e l e f

t t h i g h

. R o b e r t o d i e d i n t h e a p a r t m e n t b r e e z e w a y

, b u t h i s t w o b r o t h e r s

, E u s t a c i o

a n d M a r t i n

, s u r v i v e d

. R o b e r t o ’ s t h i r t e e n

- y e a r

- o l d d a u g h t e r

, J a s m i n e

, c a l l e d 9 1 1 a n d t h e nH a r r i s P a g e 7

f o u n d h e r d e a d f

a t h e r o u t s i d e : “ I t o l d h i m I l o v e d h i m a n d I k i s s e d h i m o n h i s c h e e k

. ” T h e

r o b b e r s e s c a p e d

.

T h e S t a t e a l s o o f

f e r e d e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s y o u t h f u l c o n d u c t : H e w a s a s s i g n e d t o

a b e h a v i o r a l a d

j u s t m e n t c l a s s r o o m f

o r d i s r u p t i v e s t u d e n t s w h e n h e w a s i n m i d d l e s c h o o l

.

A s c h o o l r e s o u r c e o f

f i c e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d a p o o r r e p u t a t i o n f o r b e i n g p e a c e f

u l a n d

l a w

- a b i d i n g a t a g e f

o u r t e e n a n d r e c a l l e d a n i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h a p p e l l a n t b e c a m e “ c o m b a t i v e ”

w h e n h i s m o t h e r r e p o r t e d h i m a s a r u n

- a w a y

. I n h i g h s c h o o l

, h e c a r r i e d a k n i f e w i t h a s i x

i n c h b l a d e t o s c h o o l

. W h e n i t w a s d i s c o v e r e d

, h e w a s a r r e s t e d

. H e w a s a r r e s t e d t h e n e x t

y e a r f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i

j u a n a

.

A p p e l l a n t h a d n u m e r o u s g a n g t a t t o o s o n h i s b o d y

, i n c l u d i n g “ H U S T L A ” o n h i s r i g h t

f o r e a r m

. T h e S t a t e ’ s g a n g e x p e r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h i s t a t t o o i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s

“ h u s t l i n g f

o r h i s m o n e y

. H e i s h u s t l i n g i n l i f e

. H e i s h u s t l i n g t o g e t a h e a d

, ” u s u a l l y b y

s e l l i n g n a r c o t i c s

. H e a l s o h a d a “ F i s h T r a p ” t a t t o o

, s t a r s

, a n d t h e n u m b e r s 2 1 2 a n d 3 5 0 0

,

w h i c h i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s a F i s h T r a p B l o o d s g a n g m e m b e r

. T h e e x p e r t s a i d t h a t t h e

F i s h T r a p B l o o d s a r e a p a r t i c u l a r l y v i o l e n t g a n g k n o w n f o r “ m u r d e r s

, a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r i e s

,

n a r c o t i c s s e l l i n g

, a s s a u l t s

, h o m e i n v a s i o n r o b b e r i e s

. Y o u n a m e i t

, t h e y h a v e d o n e i t

. ”

T h e S t a t e a l s o c a l l e d s e v e r a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s w h o t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e y h a d a r r e s t e d

a p p e l l a n t i n D a l l a s f

o r v a r i o u s o f

f e n s e s : o n D e c e m b e r 5

, 2 0 0 2

, f o r u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f a

m o t o r v e h i c l e ; o n D e c e m b e r 2 3

, 2 0 0 3

, o n w a r r a n t s f o r p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n a n d b u r g l a r y ; o n

S e p t e m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 0 6

, f

o r t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s i n w h i c h h e w a s l a t e r c h a r g e d w i t h b e i n g a f e l o nH a r r i s P a g e 8

i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e a r m ; o n A p r i l 1 7

, 2 0 0 7

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

o n D e c e m b e r 2 7

, 2 0 0 7

, f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i

j u a n a

.

I n h i s p u n i s h m e n t c a s e

, a p p e l l a n t c a l l e d f o u r f a m i l y m e m b e r s t o t e s t i f y t o h i s f a m i l y

h i s t o r y

, y o u t h

, e d u c a t i o n

, a n d g o o d c h a r a c t e r

. T h e y s a i d t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s d i a g n o s e d w i t h

a t t e n t i o n d e f

i c i t d i s o r d e r a t a g e s i x o r s e v e n a n d t h a t h e w a s p l a c e d i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n

c l a s s e s b e c a u s e o f h i s b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m s

. W h e n h e w a s y o u n g

, a p p e l l a n t s e t a r o o m o f h i s

f a m i l y ’ s h o u s e o n f

i r e

. F a m i l y m e m b e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t h e r

, w h o s u f f e r s f r o m

m a n i c d e p r e s s i o n a n d s c h i z o p h r e n i a

, g a v e h i m i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n a n d a f

f e c t i o n w h e n h e

w a s y o u n g

. B y t h e t i m e h e w a s e l e v e n o r t w e l v e

, h e w a s h e l p i n g t o c a r e f o r h i s t w o y o u n g e r

b r o t h e r s a n d p r o t e c t i n g t h e m f r o m h i s p a r e n t s ’ v i o l e n c e a n d f i g h t i n g

.

A p p e l l a n t s t a r t e d u s i n g d r u g s

– a l c o h o l

, m a r i j u a n a

, a n d P C P

– w h e n h e w a s y o u n g

. H e

w o u l d b e c o m e p a r a n o i d a n d h e a r v o i c e s w h e n h e u s e d d r u g s

. A p p e l l a n t h a s t h r e e c h i l d r e n

.

W h i l e i n j a i l a w a i t i n g t r i a l

, a p p e l l a n t t o l d t h e m o t h e r o f o n e o f h i s c h i l d r e n

– w h o h a d a c c u s e d

h i m o f n o t “ c a r i n g ” o r h e w o u l d n o t h a v e p u t h i m s e l f i n h i s p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n

– t h a t h e h a d

“ m o t h e r f u c k i n g b i l l s t o p a y

. ” I n a n o t h e r p h o n e c a l l

, a p p e l l a n t t o l d a f r i e n d t h a t w h e n h e g o t

t o p r i s o n h e w o u l d “ p u t b r e a d i n h i s p o c k e t ” a n d c o n t i n u e “ t h e h u s t l e

. ” H e w a s a l r e a d y

r u n n i n g t h e j a i l t a n k b y b u l l y i n g o t h e r i n m a t e s a n d u s i n g t h e i r c o m m i s s a r y f u n d s

.

S u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e E v i d e n c e

A

. S u f

f i c i e n c y t o p r o v e c a p i t a l m u r d e r

I n h i s f i f t e e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s l e g a l l yH a r r i s P a g e 9

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

– a n i n t e n t i o n a l k i l l i n g i n t h e c o u r s e o f

c o m m i t t i n g r o b b e r y

– a s o p p o s e d t o p l a i n m u r d e r a n d a n u n r e l a t e d t h e f t

. A p p e l l a n t f

i r s t

a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e w a s n o n e x u s b e t w e e n t h e t w o : “ T h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e

t h a t A p p e l l a n t w e n t t o t h e [ G a l l a r d o ’ s ] h o u s e t o m u r d e r t h e C o m p l a i n a n t i n o r d e r t o r o b

h i m

. ” S e c o n d

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e d i d n o t a c t w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n t t o k i l l A l f

r e d o ; 6

r a t h e r

, a p p e l l a n t ’ s g u n “ w e n t o f f ” w h e n A l f

r e d o f e l l a g a i n s t h i m ( o r p u s h e d h i m )

, a n d t h e

t w o f e l l i n t o t h e J a c u z z i

.

W h e n r e v i e w i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i d e n c e

, w e c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e 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 j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t a n d d e c i d e w h e t h e r a n y r a t i o n a l t r i e r o f f a c t c o u l d

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

. T h i s s t a n d a r d 7

“ r e c o g n i z e s t h e t r i e r o f f a c t ’ s r o l e a s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f t h e w e i g h t a n d c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e

e v i d e n c e a f

t e r d r a w i n g r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e

. ” T h e r e f o r e

, o n a p p e l l a t e 8

r e v i e w

, w e d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e n e c e s s a r y i n f e r e n c e s m a d e b y t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a r e

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

. ” W e c o n d u c t t h i s r e v i e w 9

b y m e a s u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y s u f f i c i e n c y w i t h “e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s u b s t a n t i v e e l e m e n t s

Appellant’s B rief at 90. 6

Jack son v. Virginia

, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); A d a m e s v

. S t a t e

, 353 S

. W

. 3 d 8 5 4

, 8 6 0 7

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

Adames, 353 S.W .3d at 860. 8

Id. 9H a r r i s P a g e 1 0

o f t h e c r i m i n a l o f

f e n s e a s d e f

i n e d b y s t a t e l a w

. ” 1 0

U n d e r T e x a s l a w

, a p e r s o n c o m m i t s c a p i t a l m u r d e r i f h e ( 1 ) i n t e n t i o n a l l y c o m m i t s

m u r d e r ( 2 ) i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g o r a t t e m p t i n g t o c o m m i t r o b b e r y

. A p e r s o n a c t s 1 1

i n t e n t i o n a l l y

, o r w i t h i n t e n t

, w i t h r e s p e c t t o a r e s u l t o f h i s c o n d u c t w h e n i t i s h i s c o n s c i o u s

o b j e c t i v e o r d e s i r e t o c a u s e t h e r e s u l t

. I n t e n t t o m u r d e r c a n b e p r o v e n t h r o u g h 1 2

c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s a c t s a n d w o r d s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e c r i m e

. I n a 1 3

c a p i t a l

- m u r d e r c a s e b a s e d o n a r o b b e r y

, t h e r e i s n o r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e i n t e n t t o c a u s e d e a t h

b e p r e m e d i t a t e d b e f

o r e t h e r o b b e r y

. I n s t e a d

, t h e i n t e n t m a y b e f o r m e d w h e n t h e m u r d e r i s 1 4

a c t u a l l y c o m m i t t e d

. “ T h e j u r y m a y i n f e r t h e i n t e n t t o k i l l f

r o m t h e u s e o f a d e a d l y w e a p o n 1 5

u n l e s s i t w o u l d n o t b e r e a s o n a b l e t o i n f e r t h a t d e a t h o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y c o u l d r e s u l t f

r o m

t h e u s e o f t h e w e a p o n

. ” 1 6

T h e j u r y c o u l d i n f

e r a p p e l l a n t ’ s i n t e n t t o k i l l A l f r e d o G a l l a r d o a t t h e m o m e n t t h a t h e

p u l l e d t h e t r i g g e r o f h i s g u n

, f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s a c t s

, w o r d s

, a n d c o n d u c t

Jack son , 443 U.S. at 324. 1 0

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 19.03(a) (2). 1 1

Id. § 6.03(a)

. 1 2

Ex parte W

einstein, 421 S.W .3d 656, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 1 3

Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W .2d 666, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 1 4

Id. 1 5

Jones v. State, 94 4 S.W .2d 642, 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). See also Godsey v. Stat e, 1 6

719 S.W .2d 578, 580-81 (Te x . Crim. App. 1986).H a r r i s P a g e 1 1

d u r i n g t h e h o m e i n v a s i o n

, i n c l u d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g :

! A p p e l l a n t b u r s t i n t o t h e G a l l a r d o ’ s h o m e a t n i g h t b r a n d i s h i n g a G l o c k p i s t o l

w h i c h h e t h e n p o i n t e d a t A l f r e d o ’ s h e a d ;

! H e b e g a n d e m a n d i n g m o n e y a n d j e w e l r y w h i l e t h r e a t e n i n g w i t h h i s g u n ;

! H e h i t b o t h A l f

r e d o a n d C a r l o s i n t h e f a c e w i t h t h a t g u n ;

! H e t o o k t h e i r w a l l e t s w h i l e p o i n t i n g h i s g u n a t t h e m ;

! H e p o i n t e d h i s g u n a t Y a h a i r a a n d c a l l e d h e r a “ b i t c h ” ;

! H e m o v e d t h e f

a m i l y t h r o u g h t h e h o u s e w h i l e p o i n t i n g h i s g u n a t t h e m ;

! H e w a s a n g r y a n d t h r e a t e n i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e r o b b e r y a n d s a i d t h a t h e w o u l d

“ h u r t ” t h e m i f Y a h a i r a ’ s m o t h e r d i d n o t c a l m d o w n a n d k e e p q u i e t ;

! H e p u l l e d A l f

r e d o o u t o f t h e c l o s e t b y h i s s h i r t a n d s t a r t e d p u s h i n g h i m

t h r o u g h t h e b a t h r o o m b e f o r e t h e t w o m e n f

e l l i n t o t h e J a c u z z i ;

! H e i m m e d i a t e l y s h o t A l f r e d o t w i c e : o n c e i n t h e h e a d a n d a g a i n i n t h e c h e s t ; 1 7

a n d

! H e t h e n i m m e d i a t e l y t u r n e d h i s g u n o n C a r l o s a n d s h o t h i m t w i c e : o n c e i n t h e

f a c e a n d a g a i n i n t h e s h o u l d e r

.

C o n s i d e r i n g t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s w o r d s

, a c t s

, a n d

c o n d u c t

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e

, b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

,

t h a t a p p e l l a n t i n t e n d e d t o k i l l A l f r e d o G a l l a r d o w h e n h e s h o t h i m i n t h e h e a d a n d c h e s t

.

Appellant arg ues that the eviden c e w o u ld s u p p o rt a finding that Alfre do “pushed” appellant 1 7

into the Jacuzzi and that, while the two me n “strug g led,” “ the g un discharg ed.” A ppellant’s Br ief

at 92. Although one portion of Yaha ira’s testimony would support such an infere nce, other portions

of her testimony support the jury ’s finding that appellant immediately and intentionally shot Alfre do

afte r t hey fell i nto the tub, and that there was no strug g le. We must view the evidenc e in t he li g ht

most favor able to the jury ’s verdic t rathe r than appellant’ s theory

. See Adames

, 353 S.W .3d at 860.H a r r i s P a g e 1 2

A p p e l l a n t a l s o c l a i m s t h a t t h e t h e f t o f i t e m s f

r o m t h e G a l l a r d o f

a m i l y w a s j u s t a n

“ a f t e r t h o u g h t ” t o t h e m u r d e r

. A s h e n o t e s

, p r o o f o f r o b b e r y “ c o m m i t t e d a s a n a f t e r t h o u g h t

a n d u n r e l a t e d t o a m u r d e r ” i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r

. H o w e v e r

, i n t h i s 1 8

c a s e

, t h e e v i d e n c e i s c l e a r l y s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e

, b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

, t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d

t h e i n t e n t t o c o m m i t r o b b e r y a t t h e m o m e n t t h a t h e p u s h e d i n t h e G a l l a r d o ’ s d o o r a n d b e g a n

h i s h o m e i n v a s i o n r o b b e r y

- m u r d e r

. T h e r e i s a m p l e e v i d e n c e o f a n e x u s b e t w e e n t h e m u r d e r

a n d t h e r o b b e r y

. I n d e e d

, t h e r e i s n o o t h e r r a t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a p p e l l a n t ’ s p r e s e n c e i n t h e

G a l l a r d o h o m e a t t h e t i m e t h a t h e m u r d e r e d A l f r e d o a n d C a r l o s

. A s a p p e l l a n t t o l d t h e m

h i m s e l f

, i f t h e y d i d n ’ t h a v e e n o u g h m o n e y

, t h e y s h o u l d d o a s h e d i d

– r o b h o u s e s

. T h e

e v i d e n c e i s s u f

f i c i e n t t o p r o v e t h a t a p p e l l a n t i n t e n t i o n a l l y k i l l e d A l f r e d o G a l l a r d o d u r i n g t h e

r o b b e r y o f t h e G a l l a r d o f a m i l y

. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s f i f t e e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

. 1 9

B

. S u f

f i c i e n c y t o p r o v e “ f

u t u r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s ”

I n h i s t w e n t y

- t h i r d p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o

p r o v e t h e “ f

u t u r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s ” s p e c i a l i s s u e b e c a u s e ( 1 ) t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t 2 0

a p p e l l a n t h a d p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r v i o l e n t f

e l o n i e s

, a n d ( 2 ) h i s w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e

e s s e n t i a l l y w a s a l o w r i s k f o r f u t u r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s

. T h e S t a t e h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e

Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W .2d 199, 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 9 5 ); Nelson v. State, 848 1 8

S.W .2d 126, 131-32 (Te x . Crim. App. 1992).

Jack son v. Virginia

, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); A d a me s v. State

, 353 S.W .3d 854, 860 1 9

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 37.071, §§ 2(b) (1), 2( c). 2 0H a r r i s P a g e 1 3

f u t u r e

- d a n g e r o u s n e s s p u n i s h m e n t i s s u e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. I n d e c i d i n g t h a t i s s u e

, 2 1

t h e j u r y m a y c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e a d m i t t e d a t b o t h t h e g u i l t a n d p u n i s h m e n t s t a g e s

.

A p p e l l a n t r e l i e s o n R o n e y v

. S t a t e

, i n w h i c h w e s t a t e d

,

2 2

A l t h o u g h t h i s w a s a s e n s e l e s s m u r d e r

, t h a t f a c t i s t r u e o f e v e r y m u r d e r i n t h e

c o u r s e o f a r o b b e r y

. T h e f a c t s o f t h i s o f

f e n s e

, s t a n d i n g a l o n e

, d o n o t c a r r y t h e

m a r k s o f a “ c a l c u l a t e d a n d c o l d

- b l o o d e d c r i m e ”

. . . . T o s u p p o r t a “ y e s ”

a n s w e r t o t h e s e c o n d p u n i s h m e n t i s s u e

, t h e e v i d e n c e m u s t s h o w b e y o n d a

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e r e i s a p r o b a b i l i t y a p p e l l a n t w o u l d c o m m i t c r i m i n a l

a c t s o f v i o l e n c e t h a t w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a c o n t i n u i n g t h r e a t t o s o c i e t y

. T o h o l d

t h a t t h e f

a c t s o f t h i s o f

f e n s e

, s t a n d i n g a l o n e

, w o u l d s u p p o r t s u c h a v e r d i c t

,

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

w a r r a n t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y

. 2 3

B u t t h i s j u r y h a d a m p l e e v i d e n c e

, b e s i d e s t h e d o u b l e m u r d e r d u r i n g t h e h o m e

- i n v a s i o n

r o b b e r y

, t o s u p p o r t i t s f

i n d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t w o u l d l i k e l y c o m m i t c r i m i n a l a c t s o f v i o l e n c e

.

T h a t e v i d e n c e i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g :

! O n F e b r u a r y 1 5 t h

, a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e m o n t h b e f o r e t h i s c a p i t a l m u r d e r

,

a p p e l l a n t c o m m i t t e d a n o t h e r a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y a t t h e h o m e o f L u i s G o n z a l e z

i n w h i c h a p p e l l a n t a l s o p o i n t e d h i s g u n a t t h e h e a d o f h i s r o b b e r y v i c t i m

, d e m a n d e d m o n e y

, a n d r a n s a c k e d h i s v i c t i m ’ s a p a r t m e n t

.

! O n M a r c h 3 r d

, a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o w e e k s b e f o r e t h i s c a p i t a l m u r d e r

, a p p e l l a n t

c o m m i t t e d a n o t h e r h o m e

- i n v a s i o n a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y a t t h e a p a r t m e n t o f

M a r g a r i t o T o r r e s a n d K a r e n D e L a C r u z E s p i n o z a ; a p p e l l a n t p o i n t e d h i s g u n

a t t h e h e a d s o f c h i l d r e n a s h e t h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l t h e f a m i l y ; a g a i n h e r a n s a c k e d

Russ eau v. State

, 291 S.W .3d 426, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“[T]he State had the 2 1

burden of proving bey ond a rea sonable doubt that there is a probability that appellant, if allowed to

live, would commit criminal acts of violenc e, so as t o constitute a continuing t hrea t to people and

proper ty .”); Druery v . State, 225 S.W .3d 491, 506-07 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007) (same ).

632 S.W .2d 598 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). 2 2

Id. at 603. 2 3H a r r i s P a g e 1 4

t h e i r a p a r t m e n t a n d s t o l e c a s h

, a p a y r o l l c h e c k

, a w a t c h

, a n d o t h e r h o u s e h o l d

i t e m s

.

! I m m e d i a t e l y a f

t e r t h a t r o b b e r y

, a p p e l l a n t t r i e d t o e n t e r R o b e r t o R a m o s ’ s

a p a r t m e n t i n t h e s a m e a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x

. W h i l e a p p e l l a n t a n d R o b e r t o

s t r u g g l e d a t t h e d o o r

, R o b e r t o ’ s b r o t h e r

, E u s t a c i o

, c a m e t o h e l p

, b u t a p p e l l a n t

s h o t h i m i n t h e c h e s t

. A p p e l l a n t s h o t a t h i r d b r o t h e r

, M a r t i n

, i n t h e f a c e

, a n d

t h e n s h o t R o b e r t o t h r e e t i m e s

– i n t h e m o u t h

, u p p e r b a c k

, a n d l e f t t h i g h

– a n d

k i l l e d h i m

.

A d d i t i o n a l l y

, a p p e l l a n t h a d a l e n g t h y c r i m i n a l r e c o r d

, a l b e i t n o n e o f h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s

w e r e f o r v i o l e n t o f

f e n s e s ; t h e y w e r e f

o r s u c h o f

f e n s e s a s d r u g p o s s e s s i o n

, u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e

o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e

, f

e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a w e a p o n

, a n d b u r g l a r y

. B u t a p p e l l a n t ’ s m o r e

r e c e n t d a n g e r o u s a n d d e a d l y c r i m e s s h o w e d a n e s c a l a t i n g p a t t e r n o f v i o l e n c e

. H e h a d a 2 4

l o n g h i s t o r y o f d i s r u p t i o n

, d r u g s

, g u n s

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

, w h i c h b e g a n i n m i d d l e s c h o o l a n d

c o n t i n u e d u p t o t h e t i m e o f t r i a l

, i n c l u d i n g b u l l y i n g o t h e r p r i s o n e r s w h i l e b e i n g h e l d i n j a i l

b e f o r e t h e t r i a l b e g a n

.

V i e w e d 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 j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t

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

p r o v e

, b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

, t h a t a p p e l l a n t w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a c o n t i n u i n g t h r e a t t o

s o c i e t y

. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s t w e n t y

- t h i r d p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

2 5

Russeau

, 291 S.W .3d at 433-34 (“O n this rec ord, a rational jury could have conclu d ed 2 4

bey ond a rea sonable doubt that appellant exhibi ted a dang erous aber ration of char acte r, that he was

a chronic and incre asing ly dang erous violator of our state’s criminal laws, and that if he wer e

allowed to live, ther e is a probability that he would commit c riminal acts of violence in the future,

so as t o constitute a continuing t hrea t to people and proper t y

. ”); Swain v. Stat e

, 181 S.W .3d 359,

370 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“B oth the fac ts of the instant offe nse and the other evidenc e showing

appellant’ s esca lating pattern of violenc e support a f inding of future da ng erousne ss.”).

See id. 2 5H a r r i s P a g e 1 5

J u r y S e l e c t i o n C l a i m s

A

. B a t

s o n c l a i m s

I n h i s f i r s t f o u r p o i n t s o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g

h i s B a t s o n c h a l l e n g e t o f

o u r o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s u s e d o n A f r i c a n

2 6

A m e r i c a n s

. I n B a t

s o n

, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t

, w h i l e a p r o s e c u t o r

o r d i n a r i l y m a y e x e r c i s e p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s f o r a n y r e a s o n o r n o r e a s o n

, “ t h e E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n

C l a u s e f o r b i d s t h e p r o s e c u t o r t o c h a l l e n g e p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s s o l e l y o n a c c o u n t o f t h e i r r a c e [

. ] ” 2 7

A B a t s o n c h a l l e n g e t o a p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e s t e p s : ( 1 ) t h e o p p o n e n t o f

t h e s t r i k e m u s t e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; ( 2 ) t h e p r o p o n e n t o f

t h e s t r i k e m u s t t h e n a r t i c u l a t e a r a c e

- n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n ; a n d ( 3 ) f i n a l l y

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e m u s t

d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e o p p o n e n t h a s p r o v e d p u r p o s e f u l r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

. O n c e t h e 2 8

p r o s e c u t o r o f

f e r s r a c e

- n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r h i s p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s

, t h e b u r d e n i s o n t h e

d e f e n d a n t t o c o n v i n c e t h e t r i a l j u d g e t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s r e a s o n s w e r e n o t r a c e

- n e u t r a l

, b u t

w e r e

, i n f

a c t

, p r e t e x t u a l

. T h u s

, t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n s h i f t s f r o m t h e d e f

e n d a n t i n s t e p 2 9

o n e t o t h e S t a t e i n s t e p t w o

, b u t t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n n e v e r s h i f t s f r o m t h e d e f

e n d a n t

. 3 0

Batson v. Kentuck

y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 2 6

Id . at 89. 2 7

See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995); Y oung v. State, 283 S.W .3d 854, 866 (Tex. 2 8

Crim. App. 2009).

Ford v. State, 1 S.W .3d 691, 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 2 9

Id. 3 0H a r r i s P a g e 1 6

T h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g i n t h e t h i r d s t e p

– w h e t h e r t h e r e i s p r o o f o f p u r p o s e f u l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

–

m u s t b e s u s t a i n e d o n a p p e a l u n l e s s i t i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s

. 3 1

I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r a r g u e d a t t r i a l t h a t a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t m a k e a p r i m a f a c i e

s h o w i n g t h a t h e h a d e x e r c i s e d h i s p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s o n t h e b a s i s o f r a c e

, b u t w i t h o u t

c o n c e d i n g t h a t a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g h a d b e e n m a d e

, h e w a n t e d t o p u t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r

e a c h o f t h e f

o u r c h a l l e n g e d s t r i k e s o n t h e r e c o r d

.

H e e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e s t r u c k D o n n a B r e w e r b e c a u s e s h e h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y s t a t e d

, i n b o t h

h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d t e s t i m o n y

, t h a t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i s n o t a p p l i e d f a i r l y i n T e x a s o r

D a l l a s

. S h e w r o t e

, “ T h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i s u s e d l e s s w i t h m a j o r i t y

. ” S h e t h e n e x p l a i n e d t h a t

s h e t h o u g h t t h a t “ b l a c k s a n d H i s p a n i c s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y m o r e t h a n t h e

m a j o r i t y ” e v e n t o d a y

. S h e b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e r e ’ s a r a c i a l b i a s r e g a r d i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y

. T h e

p r o s e c u t o r s a i d t h a t t h e o n l y o t h e r j u r o r w h o t h o u g h t t h a t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y w a s n o t f a i r l y

a p p l i e d w a s T r o y G a m b l e

, a l s o a n A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n

, a n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r s t r u c k h i m a s w e l l

.

H e e x p l a i n e d t h a t “ o u r o p i n i o n i s t h a t i f t h a t ’ s h e r b e l i e f s y s t e m

, t h e n s h e ’ s g o i n g t o h a v e a

l o t t o u g h e r t i m e t h a n p e o p l e w h o d o n ’ t h a v e t h a t b e l i e f t h a t f a l l s a l o n g r a c i a l l i n e s

. ” T h e t r i a l

j u d g e d e n i e d t h e B a t

s o n c h a l l e n g e t o M s

. B r e w e r

.

T h e p r o s e c u t o r e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e s t r u c k D o r i s B e n n e t t ( a n d T r o y G a m b l e ) f o r t h e

s a m e r e a s o n t h a t h e s t r u c k t w o w h i t e j u r o r s ; s h e

, l i k e t h e y

, c i r c l e d t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t

“ A l t h o u g h I d o n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y s h o u l d e v e r b e i m p o s e d

, a s l o n g a s t h e l a w

Grant v. State, 325 S.W .3d 655, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Snyder v. Louisi ana, 3 1

552 U.S. 472, 477 (2008)).H a r r i s P a g e 1 7

p r o v i d e s f

o r i t

, I c o u l d a s s e s s i t u n d e r t h e p r o p e r s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s ” o n h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e

.

T h e p r o s e c u t o r s a i d t h a t h e c a t e g o r i c a l l y s t r u c k a l l p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s w h o c i r c l e d t h i s

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

. T h e j u d g e d e n i e d t h e B a t s o n 3 2

c h a l l e n g e t o M s

. B e n n e t t

.

T h e p r o s e c u t o r n e x t e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e s t r u c k T r o y G a m b l e b e c a u s e h e h a d o r i g i n a l l y

a g r e e d w i t h t h e s a m e s t a t e m e n t a s M s

. B e n n e t t a b o u t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y

, b u t t h e n c r o s s e d o u t

t h a t a n s w e r

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, h e v a c i l l a t e d d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y a n d “ b a s i c a l l y t o l d t h e S t a t e

t h a t h e c o u l d n ’ t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s

. H e c o u l d n ’ t t a k e t h e o a t h b e c a u s e o f h i s f e e l i n g s

r e g a r d i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y

. ” A n d h e w a s a t r a c k c o a c h

, a t e a c h e r

, a n a s s i s t a n t p a s t o r

, a n d

h e s a i d t h a t “ I ’ m o k a y w i t h r e g u l a r j u r y s e r v i c e

, j u s t n o t a c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y

. ”

T h e n

, w h e n q u e s t i o n e d b y t h e d e f e n s e

, “ [ h ] e b e c a m e a v a c i l l a t i n g j u r o r

. ” A d d i t i o n a l l y

, “ h e

r e q u i r e d a h i g h e r b u r d e n o f p r o o f

, a h u n d r e d p e r c e n t p r o o f

. ”

F i n a l l y

, M r

. G a m b l e c i r c l e d t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e w o u l d a c c e p t v o l u n t a r y i n t o x i c a t i o n

a s a d e f e n s e t o t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a c r i m e

, a n d t h e n s c r a t c h e d i t o u t

, b u t h e d i d a g r e e t h a t “ a

p e r s o n ’ s u s e o f d r u g s o r a l c o h o l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e [ w o u l d ] a u t o m a t i c a l l y p r e v e n t y o u

f r o m a s s e s s i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i f y o u f o u n d h i m g u i l t y o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r

. ” O n l y h e a n d o n e

o t h e r p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r

– w h o m t h e p r o s e c u t o r a l s o s t r u c k

– c i r c l e d t h i s s t a t e m e n t

. T h e

p r o s e c u t o r n o t e d t h a t h e h a d o r i g i n a l l y c h a l l e n g e d M r

. G a m b l e f o r c a u s e

, b u t t h a t t h e j u d g e

The defe nse pointed out that the last alterna te, Mary Wallace, a lso circled that statement 3 2

and the prosec utor did not s t ri ke her, but as the prosec utor explained, he did not have any more

strikes for the alterna te jurors, so he c ould not strike her.H a r r i s P a g e 1 8

o v e r r u l e d t h a t c h a l l e n g e

. T h e d e f e n s e n o t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a d o v e r r u l e d t h e c h a l l e n g e

f o r c a u s e w h e n M r

. G a m b l e s t a t e d t h a t h e w a s “ d i s c i p l i n e d e n o u g h t o a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n s

h o n e s t l y a n d m a k e t h e r i g h t d e c i s i o n

. I f I ’ m p u t t h e r e

, I ’ l l d o w h a t I ’ m s u p p o s e d t o d o [

. ] ”

T h e j u d g e o v e r r u l e d t h e B a t s o n c h a l l e n g e t o M r

. G a m b l e

.

T h e l e a d p r o s e c u t o r s a i d t h a t h e h a d s t r u c k D i a n e M o o r e

, b e c a u s e h i s c o

- c o u n s e l h a d

s o m e “ u n i q u e i n f

o r m a t i o n ” a b o u t h e r w h i c h h e w o u l d e x p l a i n

. T h i s s e c o n d p r o s e c u t o r

e x p l a i n e d t h a t M s

. M o o r e w a s t h e c o u s i n o f t h e o f f i c i a l c o u r t r e p o r t e r i n a n o t h e r d i s t r i c t

c o u r t

, s o t h i s p r o s e c u t o r a s k e d t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r i f t h e r e w a s

a n y t h i n g w e n e e d e d t o k n o w a b o u t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r w h o w a s

h e r c o u s i n

, a n d b a s i c a l l y i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t

, y o u k n o w

, t h i s w a s t h e t y p e o f c a s e

w h e r e

, b a s e d o n t h e f

a c t s w e h a d

, w e e x p e c t e d w e w e r e g o i n g t o g e t a d e a t h

s e n t e n c e a n d t r y i n g t o f i n d o u t i f s h e c o u l d d o i t

.

T h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r i n f

o r m e d m e t h a t s h e c o u l d

, b u t w h a t s h e t o l d m e

w a s t h a t i t w o u l d

– i t w o u l d m a k e f o r i n t e r e s t i n g f

a m i l y g a t h e r i n g s

, w a s h e r

w o r d s

. A n d t h e f

a c e s h e m a d e

– I k n o w h e r

. I ’ v e b e e n i n t h a t c o u r t f o r a b o u t

a y e a r n o w

. T h e f

a c e s h e m a d e

, h e r e x p r e s s i o n a n d h e r d e m e a n o r a n d t h e w a y

s h e s a i d i t

, c l e a r l y

, u n e q u i v o c a l l y

, u n a m b i g u o u s l y t o l d m e t h a t w h a t s h e w a s

s a y i n g i s t h a t i t w o u l d c r e a t e f r i c t i o n i n t h e f

a m i l y w h e n t h e y g o t t o g e t h e r i f

s h e w e n t t o t h e f

a m i l y s a y i n g t h a t s h e h a d v o t e d f o r a d e a t h s e n t e n c e i n a

p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

.

. . .

A t t h i s p o i n t

, b e l i e v i n g t h a t w e h a d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t h e r t h a t c o u l d

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

p e n a l t y

, w e c h o s e t o e x e r c i s e a s t r i k e o n t h i s

.

A n d w e f e l t l i k e t h i s

– w e f

e l t l i k e t h i s f

a m i l y p r e s s u r e c o u l d p o s s i b l y b e

a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h c o u l d i n f l u e n c e h e r v e r d i c t

. I t c o u l d b e s o m e t h i n g t h a t c o u l d

a f f e c t h e r a b i l i t y t o m a k e t h a t d e c i s i o n

.

T h e p r o s e c u t o r e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e d i d n o t a s k M s

. M o o r e a n y t h i n g a b o u t h e r c o u s i n o r f a m i l y

g a t h e r i n g s b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t t a l k t o t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r u n t i l a f t e r M s

. M o o r e h a d a l r e a d yH a r r i s P a g e 1 9

b e e n i n t e r v i e w e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r s a n d d e f e n s e

. A n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r s a i d t h a t h e h a d n o

r e a s o n n o t t o t r u s t t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r

, w h o m h e k n e w w e l l

. T h e j u d g e d e n i e d

t h e B a t s o n c h a l l e n g e t o M s

. M o o r e

. 3 3

1

. A p

p e l l a n t d i d n o t m a k e a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g o

f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

.

F i r s t

, w e a g r e e t h a t t h e d e f e n s e d i d n o t m a k e a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g o f r a c i a l

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s u s e o f p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s

. B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l j u d g e

o v e r r u l e d t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s o b j e c t i o n t o t h a t f

a i l u r e

, t h e S t a t e h a s p r e s e r v e d t h e i s s u e f o r

a p p e a l

. T h e p a n e l o f q u a l i f i e d p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s c o n s i s t e d o f 3 8 w h i t e s

, e i g h t A f r i c a n

3 4

A m e r i c a n s

, a n d t w o A s i a n s

. T h e S t a t e e x e r c i s e d o n l y e l e v e n p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s i n s e l e c t i n g

t h e j u r y a n d t h e n t w o m o r e f o r t h e a l t e r n a t e s

. F o u r o f i t s t o t a l o f t h i r t e e n s t r i k e s

, o r l e s s t h a n

a t h i r d

, w e r e u s e d o n A f

r i c a n A m e r i c a n s

. A p p e l l a n t e x e r c i s e d a t o t a l o f n i n e t e e n p e r e m p t o r y

s t r i k e s w i t h e i g h t e e n o f t h e m o n w h i t e s a n d o n e o n a n A s i a n

.

On appea l, appellant lists rea sons why Ms. Moore would have made an ideal juror for the 3 3

State, but the issue is not whether the juror is death- qualified or even strong ly in f avor of the death

penalty

, but rathe r whether the prosec utor struck her beca use of her rac e. Appellant arg ues that “the

rac e neutra l rea son g iven for striking prospec tive juror, Diane Moore, was implausible in that it was

based on a casua l conver sation with a distant cous i n wh o wa s ag ainst the death penalty

, not the

prospec tive juror.” Appellant’s Br ief at 54. I ndeed, t he trial judge could have reje cted the

prosec utor’s explanation as implausible, irrational, or fanta stic. But he did not. He believed that

f acia lly neutra l explanation while looking at the prosec utor and judging h is d e me a n o r a n d c r e d ib il it

y

. We cannot do so on this cold recor d. We must defe r t o the t rial j udg e when it comes to assessing

cre dibilit y

. Purkett v. Elem

, 514 U.S. 765, 769 (1995); Harris v. State

, 827 S.W .2d 949, 955 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1992) (“B eca

use the trial judge is able to evalua te the cre dibilit y of the witnesses at the

Batson hear ing befor e he makes his ruling

, a revie wing court must view the rec ord in the light most

favor able to that ruling and must not disturb that ruling unless it is clear ly err oneous.”)

.

Cf. Chambers v. State, 866 S.W .2d 9, 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (whe n the prosec utor did 3 4

not obje ct to the trial judge ’s failure to r ule on the defe ndant’s prima facie case , that issue beca me

moot and could not be ra ised on appe al).H a r r i s P a g e 2 0

T h e f i n a l j u r y w a s c o m p o s e d o f e i g h t w h i t e s

, t h r e e A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n s

, a n d o n e A s i a n

,

w i t h o n e w h i t e a n d o n e A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s

. W h i l e 1 6

. 7 % o f t h e q u a l i f i e d

p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s w e r e A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n

, 2 5 % o f t h e f i n a l j u r y w a s A f

r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n

, a s

w e r e 5 0 % o f t h e a l t e r n a t e s

.

A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e m a y r e l y s o l e l y o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e S t a t e s t r u c k h a l f o r 5 0 %

o f t h e A f

r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s

. B u t

, b y i t s e l f

, t h e n u m b e r o f A f

r i c a n

3 5

A m e r i c a n s s t r u c k b y t h e S t a t e o r t h e n u m b e r o f w h i t e s s t r u c k b y t h e d e f e n s e i s a n i r r e l e v a n t

s t a t i s t i c

. W h a t m a t t e r s i s t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e e n t i r e q u a l i f i e d p a n e l a n d t h e n u m b e r o f 3 6

j u r o r s o f a p a r t i c u l a r r a c e w h o w e r e s t r u c k

. T h e p a n e l o f q u a l i f i e d j u r o r s i n t h i s c a s e w a s 4 8

p e r s o n s

. O f t h e s e 3 8 ( 7 9 % ) w e r e w h i t e

, e i g h t ( o r 1 7 % ) w e r e A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n

, a n d t w o ( o r

4 % ) w e r e A s i a n

. I f t h e t w e l v e j u r o r s a n d t w o a l t e r n a t e s w e r e c h o s e n a t r a n d o m o u t o f t h e

4 8

, o n e w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t e i t h e r t w o o r t h r e e b l a c k j u r o r s w o u l d b e s e l e c t e d ( 1 7 % o f

f o u r t e e n ; t h e s a m e r a t i o a s A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n s t o t h e e n t i r e j u r y p a n e l )

. I n t h i s c a s e

, f o u r

A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n s w e r e a m o n g t h e t w e l v e j u r o r s a n d t w o a l t e r n a t e s

, w h i c h i s m o r e t h a n

Appellant struck 50% of t h e As i an s on the panel, but there is littl e signific ance to that 3 5

statistic because there wer e only two Asians on the pane l to beg in with.

See W oodward v. Epps

, 580 F.3d 318, 339 (5th Cir. 2009) (althoug h State struck 100% of 3 6

the black jurors, that fac t alone does not support a finding of discrimination); Mede llin v. Dretke

, 371

F.3d 270, 278 (5th Cir. 2004) (“F or the statistical evidenc e to be rele vant, data conce rning the entire

jury pool is nece ssary

. The number of strikes used to excuse minority and male jury members is

irrele vant o n i t s o wn.”)

. Cf

. United St ates v. Alvarado

, 923 F.2d 253, 255 (2d C ir. 1991) (“[T] he

prosec ution’s c halleng e rate ag ainst minorities was 50 perc ent (thre e of six) in the selection of the

jury of 12, and 57 perc ent (four of seven) in the selec tion of the jury of 12 plus alterna tes. Whether

this rate cre ates a statistical disparity would require knowing the minority perc entag e of the venire ;

for example, if the minority perc entag e of the venire was 50, it could be expected that a prosec utor,

acting without discriminatory intent, w ould use 50 perc ent of his c halleng es ag ainst minorities.”).H a r r i s P a g e 2 1

w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d b y r a n d o m s e l e c t i o n

. T h e S t a t e d i d n o t u s e a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e n u m b e r 3 7

o f p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s t o e x c l u d e A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n s

. W e f i n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t m a d e

a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r B a t s o n

.

2

. T h e p r o s e c u t o r s g a v e r a c e

- n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f

o r t h e i r s t r i k e s

.

H o w e v e r

, e v e n i f w e c o n c l u d e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d m a d e s u c h a s h o w i n g

, w e a g r e e

w i t h t h e t r i a l j u d g e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r s g a v e r a c i a l l y n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e i r s t r i k e s 3 8

a n d t h a t a p p e l l a n t f

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

.

T h e S t a t e ’ s b u r d e n a t t h e s e c o n d s t a g e o f a B a t s o n c l a i m i s t o m e r e l y p r e s e n t a f a c i a l l y

v a l i d

, r a c e

- n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r i t s s t r i k e s

. A s n o t e d a b o v e

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r g a v e r a c e

3 9

Cf. W atkins v. S t a t e

, 245 S.W .3d 444, 451-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“[O]f the first 3 7

thirty -seve n prospec tive jurors—those who wer e ‘in rang e’ to be chosen as jurors or as the alterna te

juror—22% (or eig ht divided by thirty -seve n) wer e Afric an–Amer ican. A random selec tion would

be expected to y ield 2 or 3 (or 22% of 12 total jurors, plus one alterna te) Afric an–Amer icans on the

[defendant’ s] jury

. I nstead, only one (8% of 12 total jurors, plus one alt er n at e) was orig inally

selec ted. Moreove r, the State used 55% of its pere mptory challeng es (six of eleve n) to exclude 88%

(seve n of eig ht) of the Afric an–Amer icans from the prospec tive jury pool. Clearly

, the State used a

disproportionate number of its pere mptory challeng es (55% of its challeng es ag ainst an identifiable

rac ial g roup t hat m ade up only 22% of the venire that was ‘in ra n ge’ ) t o exclude almost all of t he

Afric an–Amer ican ve niremen f rom jury service in [ defe ndant’s] case.” ).

Actually

, four d i ff

er ent j udg es (J udg es Biard, P arke r, Fry

, and S nipes) were involved in 3 8

the Batson hear ing be cause four diff ere nt judge s participate d in the jury selec tion and trial.

Purkett v. Elem

, 514 U.S. 765, 769 (1995) (“The prosec utor’s proff ere d explanation in this 3 9

case –that he struck juror number 22 beca use he had long, unkempt hair, a mustache, and a bear d–is

r a c e n e u tr a l a

n d s a ti s f ies the prosec ution’s step two burden of articula ting a nondiscriminatory rea s o n

for the strike.”) ; W

atkins

, 245 S.W .3d at 447 (“A t the second step of this proce ss, the proponent of

the strike nee d only

tender an explanation that is rac e neutral on its fac e. The ultimate plausibilit y

of that rac e-ne utral explanation is to be considere d as part of the third step of the analy sis, in which

the trial court deter

mines whether the opponent of the strike (usually the defe ndant) has satisfied his

burden of persua sion to establish by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the strike was indeed the

product of the proponent’s pur poseful discrimination.”)

.H a r r i s P a g e 2 2

n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f

o r e a c h o f h i s s t r i k e s o f A f r i c a n

- A m e r i c a n v e n i r e p e r s o n s

. A l t h o u g h

a p p e l l a n t q u e s t i o n e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f s o m e o f t h o s e e x p l a n a t i o n s ( f o r e x a m p l e

, h e a r g u e d t h a t

M s

. B r e w e r w a s c o r r e c t i n t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y w a s u n f a i r l y a p p l i e d i n T e x a s )

, h e

f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r s ’ e x p l a n a t i o n s w e r e n o t r a c e

- n e u t r a l o r w e r e p r e t e x t u a l

.

A p r o s e c u t o r ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t h e e x e r c i s e d a s t r i k e b a s e d o n a v e n i r e p e r s o n ’ s

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

- n e u t r a l

. S i m i l a r l y

, a p r o s e c u t o r ’ s 4 0

e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t a j u r o r w o u l d h o l d t h e S t a t e t o a b u r d e n o f p r o o f h i g h e r t h a n b e y o n d a

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t i s r a c e

- n e u t r a l

. A n d a p r o s e c u t o r ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r ’ s 4 1

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c a s e m i g h t c a u s e f r i c t i o n w i t h i n h e r o w n f

a m i l y i s a f

a c i a l l y r a c e

- n e u t r a l 4 2

e x p l a n a t i o n

, e v e n i f i t i s a “ s i l l y o r s u p e r s t i t i o u s ” o n e

. T h e i s s u e a t s t a g e t w o o f a B a t s o n

c h a l l e n g e i s n o t t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e e x p l a n a t i o n

, b u t i t s g e n u i n e n e s s

. A r a c e

- n e u t r a l 4 3

e x p l a n a t i o n n e e d n o t b e p e r s u a s i v e o r e v e n p l a u s i b l e t o s a t i s f y s t a g e t w o o f B a t

s o n

.

3

. A p

p e l l a n t d i d n o t c a r r

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

.

I t i s t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r o l e

, a t s t a g e t h r e e

, t o a s s e s s t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y o r p e r s u a s i v e n e s s o f

S ee Ma t h i s v. State

, 67 S.W .3d 918, 924-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (prose cutor’s 4 0

explanation that he struck a juror beca use she felt that the death penalty was imposed too fre quently

was a rac e-ne utral explanation).

See W atkins , 245 S.W .3d at 450-51. 4 1

The prose cutor see med to imply that the juror mig ht also cause friction on the jury

. 4 2

See Elem, 514 U.S. at 768-69 (a second- stage ra ce -n eutral explanation need not be “a 4 3

rea son that makes sense,” but simply a re as on that does not deny equal protec tion; a rac e-ne utral

explanation that is “silly or superstitious” satisfies the second stag e of Batson

, though a trial judge

“ may c hoose to disbelieve a silly or super stiti ous rea son” at the third stag e).H a r r i s P a g e 2 3

t h e e x p l a n a t i o n

. T h u s

, “ [ i ] n t h e t y p i c a l p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e i n q u i r y

, t h e d e c i s i v e q u e s t i o n 4 4

w i l l b e w h e t h e r c o u n s e l ’ s r a c e

- n e u t r a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s h o u l d b e

b e l i e v e d

. ” B e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e o n t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n i s o f t e n 4 5

v a g u e o r a m b i g u o u s

, “ t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e o f t e n w i l l b e t h e d e m e a n o r o f t h e a t t o r n e y w h o

e x e r c i s e s t h e c h a l l e n g e

. ” T h u s

, “ e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s s t a t e o f m i n d b a s e d o n [ h i s ] 4 6

d e m e a n o r a n d c r e d i b i l i t y l i e s ‘p e c u l i a r l y w i t h i n a t r i a l j u d g e ’ s p r o v i n c e

. ’” T h e S u p r e m e 4 7

C o u r t h a s i n s t r u c t e d u s t o a c c o r d “ g r e a t d e f e r e n c e ” t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s f i n d i n g s i n t h i s

c o n t e x t

, a n d a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o p e r s u a d e u s t h a t t h e f o u r j u d g e s s u p e r v i s i n g t h e B a t s o n 4 8

c h a l l e n g e s i n t h i s c a s e e r r e d i n t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y a s s e s s m e n t

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e s f o u n d t h a t 4 9

a p p e l l a n t h a d f

a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r s p u r p o s e f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t a n y o f

Id. at 768 (“I t is not until the third step that the persua siveness of the justification become s 4 4

rele vant—the step in which the trial court deter mines whether the opponent of the strike has car ried

his burden of pr oving pur poseful discrimination.”)

Hernande z v. New Y

ork , 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991). 4 5

Id. 4 6

Id. (quoting W

ainwright v. W itt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 (1985)). 4 7

Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 n.21. 4 8

See Herron v. State

, 86 S.W .3d 621, 630-31 (Te x

. Crim. App. 2002) (“B eca use t he trial 4 9

court’s decision often turns larg ely on an evalua tion of cre dibilit y

, we g ive the court’s decision g rea t

defe renc e and will not disturb it unless it is clea rly err oneous”; defe rring to trial judge ’s finding that

prosec utor’s explanation that he struck potential juror the D.A.’s investiga tor said “ha[d] a chip on

her shoulder ” and had a reputa tion a t w ork for being close-minded; beca use the e x planation was a

rac e-ne utral one that the defe ndant failed to rebut, the trial jud ge did not clea rly err in deny ing

Batson challeng e); see also Grant v. State

, 325 S.W .3d 655, 658-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (re cord

supported trial judge ’s finding of no prete x t when prospec tive juror listed his spouse’s employ er as

the Wal-Mart return cente r wher e prosec utors believed that the defen d an t ’s g irlfriend had been

employ ed).H a r r i s P a g e 2 4

t h e f o u r j u r o r s o n t h e b a s i s o f r a c e

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n i s n o t c l e a r l y

e r r o n e o u s

. W e t h e r e f o r e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p o i n t s o f e r r o r o n e t h r o u g h f o u r

. 5 0

B

. D e n i a l o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e

I n p o i n t s o f e r r o r f

i v e t h r o u g h t e n

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e v i o l a t e d h i s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s b y d e n y i n g h i m c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e a g a i n s t s i x p o t e n t i a l

j u r o r s

– L y n d a W a t e r s

, A l l e n G o o c h

, V i r g i n i a D a y

, M a t t h e w S m i t h

, D a v i d C a l v e r y

, a n d a n

a l t e r n a t e

, K i m b e r l y T h o m a s

. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e p u r p o r t e d e r r o r s r e q u i r e d h i m t o 5 1

u s e p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s a g a i n s t e a c h o f t h e j u r o r s a n d f

o r c e d h i m t o a c c e p t a n o b j e c t i o n a b l e

j u r o r w h o m h e w o u l d h a v e s t r u c k h a d h e n o t u s e d u p a l l o f h i s p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s a n d t h e

t w o a d d i t i o n a l s t r i k e s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e g r a n t e d h i m

. H o w e v e r

, D a v i d C a l v e r y

, t h e j u r o r

w h o a p p e l l a n t c l a i m e d w a s o b j e c t i o n a b l e a n d w h o m h e w o u l d h a v e s t r u c k i f h e h a d a n

a d d i t i o n a l s t r i k e

, w a s r e m o v e d f r o m t h e j u r y b e f

o r e t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s b e g a n

, a n d a n a l t e r n a t e

t o o k h i s p l a c e

. T h e r e f

o r e

, a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t h e w a s h a r m e d b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s

d e n i a l o f t h e s e f

i v e c h a l l e n g e s a s n o o b

j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s

. 5 2

Herron , 86 S.W .3d at 630. 5 0

Be cause the trial judg e g rante d appellant an extra pere mptory challeng e for

the alter nate 5 1

jurors and appel l an t u s ed that additional pere mptory challeng e to remove Ms. Thomas as an

alterna te, his claim is moot, and he has not shown har m.

See Saldano v . State , 232 S.W .3d 77, 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). As we e x plained, 5 2

Har m from the err oneous denial of a defe nse challeng e for cause occur s: (1) when a

defe ndant uses a pere mptory challeng e to remove a venire member whom the trial

court should have excused for cause at the defe ndant’s reque st, (2) the defe ndant uses

all of his statutorily allotted pere mptory challeng es, and (3) the defe ndant

unsucce ssfully reque sts an additional pere mptory challeng e wh i ch he claims he

would use to rem o v e another venire member whom the defe ndant identifies asH a r r i s P a g e 2 5

F u r t h e r m o r e

, a p p e l l a n t w a s g r a n t e d t w o a d d i t i o n a l p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s

, s o h e

w o u l d h a v e t o s h o w t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g a t l e a s t t h r e e o f h i s c h a l l e n g e s f o r

c a u s e b e f

o r e h e c o u l d e s t a b l i s h h a r m

, e v e n i f t h e “ o b j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r

, ” M r

. C a l v e r y

, h a d

a c t u a l l y s e r v e d o n t h e j u r y d u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s

. 5 3

F i n a l l y

, a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g a n y o f t h e

c h a l l e n g e s f

o r c a u s e

. W e r e v i e w t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g w i t h “ c o n s i d e r a b l e d e f e r e n c e ”

b e c a u s e h e i s “ J o h n n y

- o n

- t h e

- S p o t ” a n d i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e t h e v e n i r e m a n ’ s

d e m e a n o r

, a t t i t u d e

, a n d t o n e o f v o i c e

. W e g r a n t t h e t r i a l j u d g e p a r t i c u l a r d e f e r e n c e w h e n 5 4

t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ’ s a n s w e r s a r e “ v a c i l l a t i n g

, u n c l e a r o r c o n t r a d i c t o r y

. ” 5 5

A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t h i s c h a l l e n g e t o L y n d a W a t e r s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n g r a n t e d

b e c a u s e ( 1 ) s h e f

a i l e d t o “ u n d e r [ s t a n d ] t h e i s s u e s ” ; ( 2 ) s h e d i d n o t h a v e s u f f i c i e n t “ g r a v i t y ”

a n d r e s p e c t f

o r a d e a t h p e n a l t y c a s e ; a n d ( 3 ) s h e w a s d i s r e s p e c t f u l t o w a r d c o u n s e l

. T h e S t a t e

c o u n t e r s t h a t

, o n c e t h e l a w w a s e x p l a i n e d t o h e r

, M s

. W a t e r s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e S t a t e w a s

r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e i n t e n t t o k i l l a n d t h a t s h e w o u l d h o l d t h e S t a t e t o t h a t b u r d e n

. C o n c e r n i n g

“objec tionable” and who actua lly sits on the jury

. When these conditions are met, this

Court has stated that the trial court’s err oneous denial of a defe nse cha lleng e for

cause harms the defe ndant by wrong fully depriving h i m of at least one of his

statutory pere mptory challeng es that he could ha ve used to re move the juror w hom

the def endant identifie s as “objec tionable.”

Id. (citations omitted).

Id. 5 3

Id. 5 4

Threadgill v. Stat e

, 146 S.W .3d 6 5 4

, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Feldman v. State

, 71 5 5

S.W .3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).H a r r i s P a g e 2 6

h e r l a c k o f “ g r a v i t y

, ” t h e t r i a l j u d g e n o t e d t h a t h e d i d h e a r h e r g i g g l i n g a t o n e p o i n t

, “ b u t I

– I

d i d n ’ t t h i n k i t w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e

. . . . I t h i n k s h e w a s t r y i n g t o b e r e s p o n s i v e

. ” S h e h a d a l i t t l e

d i f f i c u l t y u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o m e o f t h e c o n c e p t s

, b u t “ s h e k e p t r e i t e r a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t s h e c o u l d

b e f a i r

, t h a t s h e c o u l d l i s t e n t o t h e e v i d e n c e

, . . . a n d t h a t s h e w o u l d m a k e h e r d e c i s i o n s b a s e d

o n t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e l a w

. ” H e d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t s h e w a s d i s r e s p e c t f u l o f e i t h e r t h e

p r o c e s s o r d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e w a s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e M s

. W a l t e r ’ s

r e s p o n s e s

, h e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e l a w

, a s w e l l a s h e r a t t i t u d e a n d d e m e a n o r

. W e o v e r r u l e 5 6

a p p e l l a n t ’ s f

i f t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

A p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e d A l l e n G o o c h

, c l a i m i n g t h a t h e d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e f i r s t

s p e c i a l i s s u e a n d b e c a u s e h e w a s a r g u m e n t a t i v e

, d i s r e s p e c t f u l

, a n d o p e n l y h o s t i l e t o d e f e n s e

c o u n s e l

. T h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r d i s c u s s e d t h e f i r s t s p e c i a l i s s u e w i t h M r

.

G o o c h e x t e n s i v e l y a n d t h a t h e r e p e a t e d l y s a i d t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e i s s u e

a n d c o u l d f

o l l o w t h e l a w c o n c e r n i n g t h a t s p e c i a l i s s u e

. H e w o u l d n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y a n s w e r

t h a t i s s u e

, a n d h e w a s “ n o t l e a n i n g t o w a r d a n y t h i n g

. ” T h e t r i a l j u d g e a l s o n o t e d t h a t M r

.

G o o c h “ w a s f

r u s t r a t e d [ w i t h d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l ] a t t i m e s

, b u t

. . . [ h ] e u n d e r s t o o d t o k e e p a n

o p e n m i n d

, h e a r a l l t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h e n m a k e h i s d e c i s i o n b a s e d u p o n a l l t h e e v i d e n c e

p r e s e n t e d t o h i m [

. ] ” A g a i n

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e w a s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e M r

. G o o c h ’ s

r e s p o n s e s a n d h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e l a w

, a s w e l l a s h i s a t t i t u d e a n d d e m e a n o r

. W e 5 7

Feldman , 71 S.W .3d at 744. 5 6

Id. 5 7H a r r i s P a g e 2 7

o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s i x t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

A p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e d V i r g i n i a D a y

, a r g u i n g t h a t s h e w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y a n s w e r

s p e c i a l i s s u e n u m b e r t w o

– t h e m i t i g a t i o n s p e c i a l i s s u e

– “ n o

. ” O n a p p e a l

, a p p e l l a n t a l s o

c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e i m p r o p e r l y r e h a b i l i t a t e d h e r

. W h e n q u e s t i o n e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r

,

M s

. D a y r e p e a t e d l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t s h e m u s t k e e p a n o p e n m i n d

, l i s t e n

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

, a n d c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n a n s w e r i n g s p e c i a l i s s u e n u m b e r t w o

. S h e

s a i d t h e s a m e i n a n s w e r t o q u e r i e s b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

. A f

t e r a l e n g t h y

, c o n v o l u t e d

h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n p o s e d b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l

, h e e n d e d w i t h

– t h e n w h e n y o u g e t t o S p e c i a l I s s u e N u m b e r 2

, w h i l e y o u m i g h t c a n l o o k a t

s o m e o f t h e s e t h i n g s

, t h a t y o u r c o n c e r n f o r t h e p e o p l e i n h i s s o c i e t y i s g o i n g

t o b e s u c h t h a t y o u c o u l d n o t a n s w e r t h a t i s s u e i n a w a y t h a t h e w o u l d g e t t h e

l i f e p e n a l t y a n d b e p u t i n h i s s o c i e t y w h e r e h e ’ s g o i n g t o b e a d a n g e r

.

I s t h a t w h a t I ’ m h e a r i n g y o u s a y ?

M s

. D a y : T h a t ’ s w h a t y o u ’ r e h e a r i n g m e s a y

.

I m m e d i a t e l y a f

t e r t h a t a n s w e r

, a p p e l l a n t p a s s e d M s

. D a y a n d c h a l l e n g e d h e r f o r c a u s e

.

G i v e n t h e a m b i g u o u s q u e s t i o n a n d a n s w e r

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e q u e s t i o n e d M s

. D a y h i m s e l f t o

m a k e s u r e t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e l a w c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e c o n d s p e c i a l i s s u e a n d t h e n a s k e d

h e r

, p o i n t

- b l a n k

, i f s h e c o u l d f o l l o w t h a t l a w a s s h e h a d r e p e a t e d l y t o l d t h e p r o s e c u t o r

. O n c e

a g a i n

, s h e t o l d t h e t r i a l j u d g e t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e l a w a n d c o u l d f o l l o w i t

. D e f

e n s e

c o u n s e l t h e n d e c l i n e d t o a s k a n y a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s

. M s

. D a y w a s p e r h a p s s i m p l y c o n f u s e d

b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s q u e s t i o n ; a t w o r s t

, s h e w a s a v a c i l l a t i n g j u r o r

. W h e n t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s

t h a t a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r v a c i l l a t e d o r e q u i v o c a t e d o n h e r a b i l i t y t o f o l l o w t h e l a w

, w e m u s tH a r r i s P a g e 2 8

d e f e r t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n

. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e v e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

. 5 8

I n h i s e i g h t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g h i s

c h a l l e n g e f

o r c a u s e a g a i n s t M a t t h e w S m i t h b e c a u s e M r

. S m i t h s t a t e d t h a t h e w o u l d n o t

c o n s i d e r a p p e l l a n t ’ s e v i d e n c e o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i n h i s f a m i l y a s b e i n g m i t i g a t i n g

. H e w a s

n o t r e q u i r e d t o

. A v e n i r e m a n i s n o t c h a l l e n g e a b l e f o r c a u s e o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t h e w o u l d n o t

c o n s i d e r a s p e c i f

i c t y p e o f e v i d e n c e t o b e m i t i g a t i n g

. M r

. S m i t h u n d e r s t o o d t h a t e a c h j u r o r 5 9

d e c i d e s w h a t i s m i t i g a t i n g

, a n d h e e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e c o u l d c o n s i d e r a w i d e v a r i e t y o f

m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e

, i n c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e o f i n t o x i c a t i o n

. B u t h e d i d n o t p l a c e a l o t o f w e i g h t

o n s o m e e v i d e n c e

, s u c h a s w h e t h e r t h e p e r s o n w a s a b u s e d a s a c h i l d o r h i s p a r e n t s w e r e n o t

t h e r e f o r h i m

. M r

. S m i t h s a i d

, “ W e l l

, I ’ m s o r r y

, t h a t ’ s t e r r i b l e

, b u t [ t h e p e r s o n ] m a d e t h e

c h o i c e t o c o m m i t t h i s c r i m e

. ” M r

. S m i t h s a i d t h a t h e w o u l d c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e

.

M e r e l y b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t c o n s i d e r v i o l e n c e i n t h e h o m e

, p o v e r t y

, o r a b a n d o n m e n t t o b e

m i t i g a t i n g d i d n o t m a k e h i m s u b j e c t t o a c h a l l e n g e f

o r c a u s e

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e

h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e c h a l l e n g e

, a n d w e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s e i g h t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

I n h i s n i n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s

c h a l l e n g e f

o r c a u s e o f D a v i d C a l v e r y

. B u t M r

. C a l v e r y w a s r e m o v e d f r o m t h e j u r y b e f

o r e

d e l i b e r a t i o n s b e g a n

. W e h a v e e x p l a i n e d t h a t w h e n a n o b j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r i s s e a t e d o n t h e

Gardner v. State , 306 S.W .3d 274, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 5 8

Joubert v . State , 235 S.W .3d 729, 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 5 9H a r r i s P a g e 2 9

j u r y b u t d o e s n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s

, a d e f e n d a n t h a s n o t b e e n h a r m e d

. W e 6 0

o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s n i n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

. W e r e j e c t a p p e l l a n t ’ s t e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r b a s e d o n

t h e r e a s o n s s e t o u t i n n o t e 5 1

. B e c a u s e ( 1 ) n o o b j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r d e l i b e r a t e d i n a p p e l l a n t ’ s 6 1

c a s e

, ( 2 ) n o n e o f h i s c l a i m s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e h a d m e r i t

, a n d ( 3 ) n o

e r r o n e o u s r u l i n g c a u s e d h a r m

, w e a l s o r e j e c t a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n t e n t i o n

, i n h i s e l e v e n t h a n d

t w e l f t h p o i n t s o f e r r o r

, t h a t h e w a s d e p r i v e d o f a l a w f u l l y c o n s t i t u t e d j u r y b e c a u s e o f t h e

w r o n g f u l d e n i a l o f h i s c h a l l e n g e s f o r c a u s e

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t n o n e o f h i s j u r y s e l e c t i o n

6 2

c l a i m s h a v e m e r i t

.

T r i a l I s s u e s

I n h i s t h i r t e e n t h p o i n t

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n

f o r m i s t r i a l w h e n o n e j u r o r ( D a v i d C a l v e r y ) r e a d a n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e a b o u t t h e t r i a l a n d t o l d

o t h e r j u r o r s t h a t h e h a d d o n e s o

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n

i n d e n y i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s m i s t r i a l m o t i o n

.

T h e g u i l t s t a g e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s t r i a l b e g a n o n M a y 8 t h

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e h a d r e p e a t e d l y

See, e.g., Cooks v. State

, 844 S.W .2d 697, 722 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (whe n objectionable 6 0

alterna te juror was not among those who ac t u al ly delibera ted, defe ndant was not harme d by trial

judge ’s fa ilure to g rant c halleng e for cause ).

See note 51, supra. 6 1

I n these two points of err or, appellant claims that “the j u ry as const ituted was biased or 6 2

prejudice d which deprive d appellant of a fair trial.” He arg ues that, beca use the trial judge overr

uled

his challeng es for cause

, the jury was, ipso facto

, prejudice d ag ainst him. Be cause we conclude that

t h e trial judge did not err in overr uling these challeng es, we nece ssarily conclude that t h e t ri al

judge ’s ac tion did not t here by deny appellant of

a lawf ully constituted jury

.H a r r i s P a g e 3 0

i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r o r s n o t t o r e a d o r l i s t e n t o a n y m e d i a c o v e r a g e o f t h i s c a s e

. A t t h e e n d o f

t h e s e c o n d d a y o f t r i a l

, o n e j u r o r

, S h a w n S t a r k

, r e p o r t e d t o t h e j u d g e t h a t a d i f f e r e n t j u r o r h a d

m e n t i o n e d r e a d i n g a n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e a b o u t t h e c a s e

. F i r s t t h i n g t h e n e x t m o r n i n g

, t h e t r i a l

j u d g e q u e s t i o n e d t h e j u r o r s a n d d i s c o v e r e d t h a t D a v i d C a l v e r y h a d t o l d b o t h M r

. S t a r k a n d

a n o t h e r j u r o r t h a t h e h a d r e a d a D a l l a s M o r n i n g N e w s a r t i c l e a b o u t t h e t r i a l

. N e x t

, t h e t r i a l

j u d g e

, p r o s e c u t o r

, a n d d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y q u e s t i o n e d M r

. C a l v e r y

, w h o a d m i t t e d t h a t h e h a d

r e a d a r t i c l e s o n b o t h M a y 9 t h a n d 1 0 t h

. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l a s k e d t h a t M r

. C a l v e r y b e

d i s m i s s e d a n d r e p l a c e d w i t h t h e f i r s t a l t e r n a t e

. E v e r y o n e a g r e e d a n d t h a t w a s d o n e

.

T h e n t h e t r i a l j u d g e q u e s t i o n e d e a c h o f t h e o t h e r j u r o r s i n d i v i d u a l l y

. E a c h s t a t e d t h a t

h e h a d n o t r e a d a n y a r t i c l e s o r h e a r d a n y n e w s a b o u t t h e t r i a l

, a l t h o u g h s o m e h a d h e a r d M r

.

C a l v e r y s a y t h a t h e h a d r e a d a n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e

. B o t h t h e S t a t e a n d d e f e n s e h a d a n

o p p o r t u n i t y t o q u e s t i o n t h e j u r o r s

, a l l o f w h o m t e s t i f i e d t h a t n o t h i n g t h e y h a d h e a r d ( o r t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f b e i n g q u e s t i o n e d ) w o u l d a f f e c t t h e i r a b i l i t y t o b e f

a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l i n t h e

c a s e

. A l l i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d c o n s i d e r o n l y t h e e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d i n

c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c a s e

. N o n e t h e l e s s

, a t t h e e n d o f a l l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n i n g

, a p p e l l a n t

a s k e d f o r a m i s t r i a l

, c l a i m i n g t h a t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l j u r y h a d b e e n

v i o l a t e d

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

.

6 3

W e r e v i e w t h e j u d g e ’ s r u l i n g o n a m o t i o n f o r m i s t r i a l u n d e r a n a b u s e

- o f

- d i s c r e t i o n

Appellant’s objec tion was as follows: “We would ask for a mistrial in the case based on 6 3

th Fifth Amendme nt, due proc ess; Six th Amendment right t o a fair and impartial jury ; Four teenth

Amendment, due c ourse of law, under

the Texas Constit ution.”H a r r i s P a g e 3 1

s t a n d a r d

. A m i s t r i a l i s r e q u i r e d o n l y i n e x t r e m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r a n a r r o w c l a s s o f h i g h l y 6 4

p r e j u d i c i a l a n d i n c u r a b l e e r r o r s

. T h e s e a r e e r r o r s t h a t a r e s o o b v i o u s a n d e g r e g i o u s t h a t a 6 5

r e v i e w i n g c o u r t w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e r s e a n y c o n v i c t i o n o n a p p e a l

. C l a i m s a s s e r t i n g 6 6

p r e j u d i c e f r o m m i d

- t r i a l p u b l i c i t y a r e c o n s i d e r e d b y a s s e s s i n g t w o f a c t o r s :

! F i r s t

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e l o o k s a t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e n e w s m a t e r i a l t o d e t e r m i n e i f i t

i s i n h e r e n t l y p r e

j u d i c i a l a n d t h e n e v a l u a t e s s u c h m a t t e r s a s t h e t i m i n g o f t h e

c o v e r a g e a n d i t s p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o n l e g a l d e f

e n s e s ;

! S e c o n d

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e m u s t d e t e r m i n e t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e p u b l i c i t y h a s

, i n

f a c t

, r e a c h e d t h e j u r o r s

. 6 7

A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t h e w a s p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e M r

. C a l v e r y t o l d t h e o t h e r j u r o r s

a b o u t t h e c o n t e n t o f

t h e n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s t h a t h e h a d r e a d

. B u t a l l o f t h e j u r o r s t e s t i f

i e d 6 8

u n d e r o a t h t h a t M r

. C a l v e r y d i d n o t t e l l t h e m a b o u t t h e c o n t e n t o f t h o s e t w o a r t i c l e s

. T h e

t r i a l j u d g e w a s e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e v e t h e m

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e t w o a r t i c l e s a t i s s u e a r e i n t h e

Hawkins v. State , 135 S.W .3d 72, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 6 4

Id. 6 5

Id. 6 6

Ladner v. State

, 868 S.W .2d 417, 423 (Tex. Ap p

. – T y ler 1993, pet. ref ’d) (noting that 6 7

“[o] ur Court of Criminal Appea ls has not formulated a doctrine to deal with mid-trial publicity ” and

adopting the fede ral two-prong ed approa ch) (citing United States v. Manzella

, 782 F.2d 533, 541-44

(5th Cir. 1986)). See generally, Andre a G. Nade l, Juror’s Reading of Newspaper Acc ount of Trial

in State Criminal Case Durin g It s P r o gress as Ground For Mistrial, New Trial

, or Rev ersal

, 46

A.L .R. 4th 11 (1986 & Supp. 2014).

Appellant also claims that the t rial j udg e’s questioning o f t he jurors and removal of Mr. 6 8

Calvery had a “chilling ” eff ect on the jury such that he was denied a fair trial and an impartial jury

. Appellant’s Br ief at 87. Appellant did not object on this basis at trial–indeed he had reque sted that

Mr. Calvery

be re moved from the jur

y –so he has not pre serve d this claim for appe al.H a r r i s P a g e 3 2

r e c o r d a n d t h e y r e f

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

t w o d a y s o f t r i a l

. B e c a u s e t h e y m e r e l y r e p e a t e d w h a t t h e j u r y h a d a l r e a d y h e a r d

, a p p e l l a n t

h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e y w e r e p r e j u d i c i a l

. W e o v e r r u l e h i s t h i r t e e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

6 9

I n h i s f o u r t e e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g

h i s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e r e s p o n s e t o a n o t e t h e j u r y s e n t o u t d u r i n g d e l i b e r a t i o n s

. T h i s n o t e a s k e d

f o r a s p e c i f

i c p o r t i o n o f Y a h a i r a ’ s t e s t i m o n y t o b e r e r e a d : “ W h e t h e r o r n o t A l f r e d o p u s h e d

M r

. H a r r i s i n t o t h e t u b o r w h e t h e r t h e y f e l l i n t o t h e t u b

. ” T h e t r i a l j u d g e i d e n t i f i e d t h e

r e s p o n s i v e p o r t i o n s o f Y a h a i r a ’ s t e s t i m o n y

, b u t a p p e l l a n t w a n t e d t o i n c l u d e a p o r t i o n o f t h e

t e s t i m o n y i n w h i c h d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s q u e s t i o n a s s u m e d t h a t A l f r e d o p u s h e d M r

. H a r r i s i n t o

t h e t u b

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d e c l i n e d t o i n c l u d e t h a t p o r t i o n o f Y a h a i r a ’ s c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

b e c a u s e c o u n s e l ’ s q u e s t i o n w a s f o c u s e d o n w h e t h e r A l f

r e d o w a s w e a r i n g a w h i t e T

- s h i r t

w h e n h e w a s s h o t

, n o t o n w h e t h e r A l f r e d o p u s h e d a p p e l l a n t o r t h e y b o t h f e l l

. 7 0

See Andre a G. Nade l, supra note 67, § 2 (althoug h ultimate decision of whe ther to g rant 6 9

mistrial whe n jurors have rea d newspa per acc ounts r ests in sound discretion of trial judge

, cer tain

g ener al rules a

pply such as “ the principle tha t a juror’ s rea ding of

a newspa per acc ount of the trial

in which he i s s i t t i n g is not a g round for a new trial, mistrial, or reve rsal if the article contains

nothing prejudicia l to the defe ndant’s case

. This rule has been applied to case s whe re t h e article

mere ly set forth an acc urate and unbiased acc ount of t h e occur renc es which took place in the

courtroom and in the prese nce of, or within the hear ing of, the jury

, it be ing rea soned that what the

jurors alre ady know first hand cannot aff ect their decisions when later broug ht to their attention by

something the y

rea d.”) ( section re fer ence s omitt ed).

The trial judge rea d the portion of the testimony that appellant wanted to include and added 7 0

his comments:

Q: At the time y our fathe r g ot out of the closet with Mr. Har ris and went into the bat h room

, what wa s he we aring ?

A: I t was a w hite T-shirt.

Q: A white T-shirt?H a r r i s P a g e 3 3

W h e n t h e j u r y s e n d s o u t a n o t e a s k i n g f o r c e r t a i n t e s t i m o n y o n a d i s p u t e d p o i n t

, t h e

t r i a l j u d g e m u s t i n t e r p r e t t h a t n o t e

, d e c i d e w h a t t e s t i m o n y i s m o s t r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e i n q u i r y

,

a n d t h e n l i m i t t h e r e

- r e a d i n g t o t h a t s p e c i f i c t e s t i m o n y

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s g r e a t d i s c r e t i o n

7 1

i n d e c i d i n g w h a t t e s t i m o n y i s r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e j u r y ’ s d i s p u t e

, a n d w e w i l l n o t d i s t u r b h i s

r u l i n g u n l e s s ( 1 ) h e h a s c l e a r l y a b u s e d t h a t d i s c r e t i o n

, a n d ( 2 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o w s h a r m

. 7 2

A f t e r r e v i e w i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s r e q u e s t

, t h e t e s t i m o n y a t i s s u e

, a n d t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s

e x p l a n a t i o n

, w e a g r e e t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t a p p e l l a n t p o i n t e d t o w a s n o t

d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e j u r y ’ s r e q u e s t

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n

o m i t t i n g i t

, b u t

, e v e n i f h e h a d a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n o m i t t i n g i t

, a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o

A: Yes.

Q: That wa s a re g ular white T- shirt, short sleeve?

A: Yes.

Q: That we ’re all familiar with, I g uess?

A: Yes.

[J udg e speaking ] And so the witness is thinking–in my judgme nt, she is talking about a white

T-shirt. And [defense counsel] throws in:

Q: And at the time he pushed Mr. Har ris in the bathtub and fell on top of him, wa s he wea ring

the same w hite T-shirt?

A: Yes.

[J udg e speaking ] So, a g ain I don’t think that is r esponsive to [the jury ’s question] at all. And

I note y our objec tion and it is overruled.

See Brown v. State

, 870 S.W .2d 53, 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Iness v. State

, 606 S.W .2d 7 1

306, 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Brown, 870 S.W .2d at 55. 7 2H a r r i s P a g e 3 4

s h o w h a r m

. W e o v e r r u l e h i s p o i n t o f e r r o r f o u r t e e n

. 7 3

I n h i s p o i n t o f e r r o r s i x t e e n

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s

r e q u e s t e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t c o m p a r e d t h e “ r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ” s t a n d a r d t o t h o s e o f “ c l e a r

a n d c o n v i n c i n g ” a n d “ p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e

. ” T h i s s a m e c l a i m w a s r a i s e d a n d 7 4

r e j e c t e d i n Ma

y s v

. S t a t e

, w h i c h a p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t c i t e o r d i s t i n g u i s h

. A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t

7 5

p e r s u a d e d u s t h a t o u r r e a s o n i n g i n Ma y s w a s i n c o r r e c t

. W e o v e r r u l e t h i s p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

I n h i s p o i n t s o f e r r o r s e v e n t e e n a n d e i g h t e e n

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d

i n a d m i t t i n g c e r t a i n c r i m e s c e n e a n d a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s o v e r h i s R u l e 4 0 3 o b j e c t i o n

. W e

d i s a g r e e

. A t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d m i t p h o t o g r a p h s o v e r a R u l e 4 0 3 o b j e c t i o n i s

r e v i e w e d u n d e r a n “ a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n ” s t a n d a r d

. U n d e r R u l e 4 0 3

, a l l r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e 7 6

i s a d m i s s i b l e u n l e s s “ i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d b y t h e d a n g e r o f u n f a i r

p r e j u d i c e

, c o n f

u s i o n o f t h e i s s u e s

, o r m i s l e a d i n g t h e j u r y

, o r b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f u n d u e

The testimony

that was re ad to the jury

included Ya

haira ’s direc t and cr oss-examination 7 3

statements that her fathe r pushed appellant into the tub and t h at they had both fallen into it. The

content that ap p ellant wanted befor e the jury –that Alfre do pushed appellant into the tub–was

contained i n t h e t es t i m ony that was rea d to the jury

, so appellant can show no harm in the trial

judge ’s re fusal to re ad diffe rent testimony that addre sses the same point.

Concerning the burde n of proof , the trial judg e instructed the jury as follows: 7 4

The prosec ution ha s the burden of proving the Def

endant g uilty and it must

do so by proving eac h and ever y element of the offe nse char g ed bey ond a rea sonable

doubt. And if it fails to do so, y ou must acquit the Def endant.

I t is not r equire d that the prosec ution pr ove g uilt bey ond all possible doubt;

it is required that the pr osecution’s proof excludes all rea sonable doubt conce rning

the Def endant’ s g uilt.

318 S.W .3d 368, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 7 5

Salazar v. State , 38 S.W .3d 141, 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 7 6H a r r i s P a g e 3 5

d e l a y

, o r n e e d l e s s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c u m u l a t i v e e v i d e n c e

. ” I n c o n d u c t i n g a R u l e 4 0 3 a n a l y s i s 7 7

c o n c e r n i n g c r i m e

- s c e n e o r a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s

,

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

, i n c l u d i n g t h e r e l a t i v e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h i t s

p r o p o n e n t m i g h t b e d i s a d v a n t a g e d w i t h o u t i t

, a n d b a l a n c e t h o s e f a c t o r s a g a i n s t

t h e t e n d e n c y

, i f a n y

, t h a t t h e p h o t o g r a p h s h a v e t o e n c o u r a g e r e s o l u t i o n o f

m a t e r i a l i s s u e s o n a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e e m o t i o n a l b a s i s

. 7 8

I f t h e e l e m e n t s o f a p h o t o g r a p h a r e g e n u i n e l y h e l p f u l t o t h e j u r y i n m a k i n g i t s d e c i s i o n

, t h e

p h o t o g r a p h i s i n a d m i s s i b l e o n l y i f t h e e m o t i o n a l a n d p r e j u d i c i a l a s p e c t s s u b s t a n t i a l l y

o u t w e i g h t h o s e h e l p f

u l a s p e c t s

. 7 9

A p p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e c r i m e s c e n e p h o t o g r a p h s w e r e “ e x t r e m e l y b l o o d y ” a n d

i n c l u d e d c l o s e

- u p s o f t h e b o d i e s o f b o t h A l f r e d o a n d C a r l o s

, a s w e l l a s t h a t o f R o b e r t o

R a m o s

, t h e v i c t i m i n t h e e x t r a n e o u s c a p i t a l m u r d e r

. T h e a u t o p s y p h o t o s w e r e a l s o “ b l o o d y ”

a n d s h o w e d A l f

r e d o ’ s “ n u d e u p p e r t o r s o ” a n d c l o s e

- u p s o f t h e b u l l e t w o u n d s

.

T h e c r i m e

- s c e n e p h o t o g r a p h s w e r e n o t e x c e s s i v e i n n u m b e r a n d a i d e d i n t h e 8 0

T E X

. R. E V I D . 403. 7 7

Ladd v. Stat e

, 3 S.W .3d 547, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The factors that a trial judge 7 8

should consider include the number of exhibi ts offe red, their g ruesomene ss, the ir detail, their siz e,

whether they are color or black and white, whether they are close-up, whether the body depicted is

clothed or naked, the av ailability of other means of proof, and other circ umstances unique to the

individual case

. See Prible v. State

, 175 S.W .3d 724, 734 (Tex. C ri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 05). “I t is also

rele vant for the trial court to consider whether the body as photogr aphed has been altere d since the

crime in some way (e.g

., by autopsy ) that might enhanc e its g ruesomene ss to the d ef en d an t’s

detriment.” Narvaiz v. State , 840 S.W .2d 415, 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Erazo v. State , 144 S.W .3d 487, 491-92 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004). 7 9

I n point of err or sevente en, appellant complains o f the admission of eig ht crime- scene 8 0

photogr aphs, while in point of er ror e ighte en he c omplains of fourtee n autopsy photogr aphs.H a r r i s P a g e 3 6

d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c a s e a t b o t h t h e g u i l t s t a g e a n d t h e p u n i s h m e n t s t a g e

. T h e y a s s i s t e d t h e

p o l i c e o f f i c e r s ’ t e s t i m o n y a n d t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n o f w h a t t h e y s a w a n d d i d w h e n t h e y a r r i v e d

a t t h e t w o d i f

f e r e n t c r i m e s c e n e s

. A l t h o u g h t h e p h o t o g r a p h s m i g h t s h o w b l o o d y b o d i e s

, t h e y

a r e n o m o r e g r u e s o m e t h a n t h e a c t s t h a t a p p e l l a n t c o m m i t t e d

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e 8 1

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

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

- s c e n e p h o t o g r a p h s w a s n o t

s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d b y t h e i r p r e j u d i c i a l e f

f e c t

. 8 2

C o n c e r n i n g t h e a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s

, w e h a v e h e l d t h a t s u c h p h o t o g r a p h s a r e

g e n e r a l l y a d m i s s i b l e u n l e s s t h e y d e p i c t m u t i l a t i o n o f t h e v i c t i m c a u s e d b y t h e a u t o p s y i t s e l f

. 8 3

T h e m a i n c o n c e r n i s t h a t t h e j u r y m i g h t a t t r i b u t e c e r t a i n i n j u r i e s c a u s e d b y t h e a u t o p s y t o t h e

d e f e n d a n t

, u n f

a i r l y p r e j u d i c i n g h i s c a s e

. I f t h e a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s s i m p l y d e p i c t t h e 8 4

i n j u r i e s c a u s e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n d u c t

, a n y g r u e s o m e n e s s c a n n o t b e c a l l e d “ u n f a i r l y ”

See Gallo v. State

, 239 S.W .3d 757, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (photog raphs of dece ased 8 1

child victim showed only those injuries that she su ff er ed wh i l e in defe ndant’s car e and “we re no

more g ruesome tha

n would be expected in this sort of cr ime”).

See Shuffield v. State

, 189 S.W .3d 782, 787-88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial judge did not 8 2

abuse his discretion is admitting crime- scene photogr aphs beca use they wer e probative of the crime

scene and the injuries rec eived by the victim, they wer e nece ssary in developing the State’s case

, and

they wer e not over ly

g ruesome)

.

R ojas v. State, 986 S.W .2d 241, 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Santellan v. State, 9 3 9 8 3

S.W .2d 155, 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

See Rojas, 986 S.W .2d at 249 (autopsy photogr aphs wer e admissible beca use the g unshot 8 4

wounds and trauma to the pelvic are a that are depicted in the photogr aphs wer e a result of appellant’ s

actions, not the perf

ormanc e of the autopsy

); Santellan, 939 S.W .2d at 173 (a chang e cause d as part

of the autopsy proce ss which is of minor signific ance does not preve nt the admission of t he

photogr aph whe n its dist urbing nature is due primarily to the injuries cause d by

appellant)

.H a r r i s P a g e 3 7

p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e d e f

e n d a n t

. T h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g t h e

8 5

a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s

. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s p o i n t s o f e r r o r s e v e n t e e n a n d e i g h t e e n

.

P u n i s h m e n t S t a g e C l a i m s

I n h i s n i n e t e e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d b y a l l o w i n g

A l f r e d o G a l l a r d o ’ s f

a m i l y m e m b e r s t o ( 1 ) r e m a i n i n t h e c o u r t r o o m d u r i n g a p o r t i o n o f t h e

p u n i s h m e n t s t a g e

, a n d ( 2 ) t e s t i f y i n t h e S t a t e ’ s r e b u t t a l c a s e

. H e r e l i e s o n R u l e 6 1 4 o f t h e

T e x a s R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e

, b u t d o e s n o t d i s c u s s A r t i c l e 3 6

. 0 3 o f t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l

P r o c e d u r e

, w h i c h t r u m p s R u l e 6 1 4 a n d p e r m i t s a v i c t i m ’ s c l o s e f a m i l y m e m b e r s t o r e m a i n

i n t h e c o u r t r o o m

, e v e n i f t h e y w i l l b e t e s t i f y i n g

, u n l e s s t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s m a d e a n o f

f e r o f

p r o o f t o j u s t i f

y t h e i r e x c l u s i o n

. B e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t a p p l i e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t u t e 8 6

t o t h e f a c t s

, h e h a s f

o r f e i t e d a n y c l a i m o f e r r o r u n d e r R u l e 6 1 4

, a n d w e o v e r r u l e t h i s p o i n t

. 8 7

Santellan

, 939 S.W .2d at 172 (autopsy photogr aphs “only depict the damag e perpe trated 8 5

by appellant.” ).

Article 36.03( a) a

nd (b) r ead a s follows: 8 6

(a) Notwithstanding Rule 614, Te x as Rules of Evidenc e, a c ourt at the re quest of a

party may order the exclusion of a witness who for the purposes of

the prosec ution

is a victim, close re lative of a dece ased vic tim, or gua

rdian of a victim only

if the

witness is to testify

and the c ourt deter

mines that the testimony

of the witness

would be mater ially

aff ecte d if the witness hea

rs other te stimony

at the trial.

On the objec tion of the opposing pa rty , the cour

t may require the par

ty reque sting (b)

exclusion of a witness under Subsec tion (a) to make an off er of proof to justify

the

exclusion.

Under Ar t i cl e 36.03, appellant was require d to show, with an offe r of proof in the trial 8 7

court, that the testimony of Maria an d Yaha ira Gallar do would be materia lly aff ecte d by the

testimony of other witnesses. Their testimony on rebuttal simply established the impact the offe nse

had upon their family

. There is no sug g estion and no proof that this testimony was, or would likely

be, impacte d by

hear ing othe r witnesses dur ing the punishment phase.H a r r i s P a g e 3 8

I n h i s t w e n t i e t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g

h i s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e S t a t e ’ s g a n g e x p e r t t e s t i f y i n g a b o u t w h a t t h e t a t t o o “ H U S T L A ” m e a n s

b e c a u s e t h e w i t n e s s w a s n o t q u a l i f i e d t o g i v e s u c h a n o p i n i o n

. I n h i s t w e n t y

- s e c o n d p o i n t

,

a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g h i s o b j e c t i o n t o D e t e c t i v e N e l s o n ’ s

t e s t i m o n y t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e “ F i s h t r a p B l o o d s ” g a n g

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t

t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g D e t

. N e l s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y

.

A f t e r t h e g u i l t s t a g e

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e c o n d u c t e d a N e n n o h e a r i n g o u t s i d e t h e j u r y ’ s 8 8

p r e s e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f D e t e c t i v e N e l s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y

. A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n

o f t h a t h e a r i n g

, h e r u l e d t h a t h e w a s g o i n g t o a l l o w t h e t e s t i m o n y

.

I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f

i e l d o f e x p e r t i s e i s a l e g i t i m a t e o n e

, t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r f

a l l s

w i t h i n t h a t f

i e l d

, a n d t h e e x p e r t ’ s t e s t i m o n y p r o p e r l y r e l i e s u p o n a n d / o r u t i l i z e s

t h e p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e f i e l d

.

T h e t r i a l j u d g e r e l i e d o n H o r t o n v

. S t a t e

, w h i c h h e s a i d w a s “ o n a l l f o u r s

. ” H o r t o n u p h e l d 8 9

t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t e s t i m o n y b y a g a n g e x p e r t d u r i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t s t a g e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s

t a t t o o s s h o w e d t h a t h e w a s a m e m b e r o f t h e “ F i v e D e u c e H o o v e r C r i p s ” a n d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e

o f t h a t g a n g w a s t o e n g a g e i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t w o u l d m a k e m o n e y f o r i t s m e m b e r s

. 9 0

A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g D e t

.

Nenno v. State , 970 S.W .2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 8 8

No. 14-10-00253- CR, 2011 WL 742654 (Tex. App.–Houston [14t h Dist.] Marc h 3, 2011, 8 9

pet. dism’d) (not desig nated f or publication).

Id. at *3. Although neither trial nor appellate judge s should rely on unpublished decisions 9 0

as l ega l authority

, they may find the reasoning in such cases i nstructive. See Carri llo v. Stat e

, 9 8

S.W .3d 789, 794 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, pet. re f’d)

.H a r r i s P a g e 3 9

N e l s o n q u a l i f

i e d t o t e s t i f

y t o t h e m e a n i n g o f “ H U S T L A

. ” D e t

. N e l s o n s a i d t h a t h e h a d 9 1

e i g h t e e n y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e a n d t r a i n i n g r e l a t e d t o g a n g s

, i n c l u d i n g f i f t e e n y e a r s o n t h e D a l l a s

g a n g u n i t a n d t h r e e y e a r s i n a f e d e r a l u n i t

. H e w a s w i s e i n t h e w a y s o f t h e s t r e e t

. H i s f a c t u a l

t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g g a n g m e m b e r s h i p a n d g a n g t a t t o o s s h o w e d h i s g e n e r a l f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h

t h i s a r e a o f e x p e r t i s e a n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s q u e s t i o n s w e r e w i t h i n t h a t a r e a o f e x p e r t i s e

.

A p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t e x p l a i n w h y h e t h i n k s D e t

. N e l s o n ’ s e x p e r i e n c e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w

h i m t o t e s t i f

y t o t h e m e a n i n g o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s t a t t o o s

, s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e “ H U S T L A ” t a t t o o

. N o r

d o e s h e e x p l a i n w h y t h e t r i a l j u d g e i m p r o p e r l y f o l l o w e d t h e l o g i c i n H

o r t o n

, a c a s e t h a t t h e

9 2

j u d g e f o u n d o n “ a l l f

o u r s

. ” W e a g r e e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n

a d m i t t i n g D e t

. N e l s o n ’ s t a t t o o t e s t i m o n y

.

I n h i s t w e n t y

- s e c o n d p o i n t

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t D e t

. N e l s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t

a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e “ F i s h t r a p B l o o d s ” w a s i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e ( 1 ) h e f a i l e d t o s h o w

a “ p r o p e r n e x u s o r c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e D e f e n d a n t

, ” a n d ( 2 ) t h i s t e s t i m o n y v i o l a t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s

F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s o f a s s o c i a t i o n

. F o r t h i s l a t t e r a r g u m e n t

, a p p e l l a n t r e l i e s o n t w o

Detec tive Nelson testified that appellant’ s t attoo meant “hustling” and that “[h] ustling 9 1

means about g etting his money ” by selling narcotics. “Most g ang members, they ’re not selling

cookies. The y ’re either se lling nar cotics or they ’re jacking and robbing people.”

Horton

, 2011 WL 742654 at *3; see also Burleson v. State, No. 02-09-178- CR, 2010 WL 9 2

1730822, *5 (Tex. App.–For t Worth April 29, 2010, no pet.) (not desig nated for publication) (police

office r with 17 y ear s experience in g ang unit was qualified t o testify about defe ndant’s g ang

membership, the activities of that g ang

, and defe ndant’s tattoos and how they signifie d membership

in the g ang ); Hernande

z v. State

, No. 03-04-356- CR, 2006 WL 191918, *3-5 (Tex. App–Austin J an.

26, 2006, pet. ref

’d) (not desig nated for publication) (upho l d i n g trial judge ’s decision that police

serg eant a nd deputy sheriff wer e qualifie d as g ang experts).H a r r i s P a g e 4 0

f e d e r a l c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h a d m i s s i o n o f g a n g e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e g u i l t

, n o t t o a s s e s s t h e p r o p e r

p u n i s h m e n t

. T h o s e c a s e s a r e i n a p p o s i t e

.

9 3

W e h a v e f

r e q u e n t l y u p h e l d t h e a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s g a n g

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

t r i a l a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e f u t u r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s q u e s t i o n

. T o p r o v e t h e r e l e v a n c e o f a 9 4

d e f e n d a n t ’ s m e m b e r s h i p i n a n o r g a n i z a t i o n o r g r o u p

, t h e s t a t e m u s t s h o w : ( 1 ) p r o o f o f t h e

g r o u p ’ s v i o l e n t a n d i l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s

, a n d ( 2 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s m e m b e r s h i p

. 9 5

A t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y h e a r i n g

, D e t

. N e l s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y s h o w e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s a

m e m b e r o f t h e “ F i s h T r a p B l o o d ” g a n g b a s e d o n h i s n u m e r o u s g a n g

- r e l a t e d t a t t o o s

, a

d r a w i n g u s i n g s y m b o l s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h a t g a n g

, h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f r e d i t e m s ( t h a t g a n g ’ s

See United States v. Polasek

, 162 F.3d 878, 884-87 (5th Cir. 1998) (re versing defe ndant’s 9 3

conv i ct i o n for fra

ud by chang ing odometers when g overnme nt offe red evidenc e that sever al of

defe ndant’s former business associate s had been convicted of odometer fra ud; there was no evidenc e

that defe ndant knew of their actions or had any thing to d o with them; reve rsible err or when

g overnme nt soug ht to prove “guilt by association”) ; United States v. Irvin

, 87 F.3d 860, 865-66 (7th

Cir. 1996) (trial judge abused his discretion in permitting “hig hly char g ed g ang aff iliation” evidenc e,

involving s a

tanic imag ery

, to prove g uilt when defe ndant was mere passeng er in car containing drug s

and no evide nce show ed that g ang was involved in drug distribution).

See, e.g., Davis v. State

, 329 S.W .3d 798, 805-06 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (upholding the 9 4

admission of evidenc e of defe ndant’s membership in the Sa t an i c re l i g ion at punishment phase of

capital murder trial a s th a

t e v id e nce was rele vant to the “future dang erousne ss” specia l issue); Batiste

v. State

, No. AP-76600, 2013 WL 2424134, *5 (Tex. Crim. App. J une 5, 2013) (not desig nated for

publication) (upholding testimony of g ang membership and defe ndant ’s g ang -re lated tattoos as

rele vant to future dang erousne ss question); Vasquez v. State

, 67 S.W .3d 229, 239-40 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2002) (evide nce of defe ndant’s membership in the Mexi can Mafia admissible to show motive

for g ang -re lated murder and evidenc e of his tattoo showed g ang membership); Mason v. State

, 905

S.W .2d 570, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 9 5 ) (uphol ding admission of g ang evidenc e at punishment

stag e of c apital murder

trial).

Mason , 905 S.W .2d at 577. 9 5H a r r i s P a g e 4 1

“ c o l o r s ” )

, a n d h i s u s e o f a r e d g l o v e

. D e t

. N e l s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y a l s o d e s c r i b e d t h e a c t i v i t i e s

o f t h a t g a n g a n d i t s r e p u t a t i o n i n D a l l a s

. W e h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t a b u s e h i s

d i s c r e t i o n i n a d m i t t i n g D e t e c t i v e N e l s o n ’ s e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y o n g a n g e v i d e n c e a n d o n

a p p e l l a n t ’ s t a t t o o s

. W e o v e r r u l e p o i n t s o f e r r o r t w e n t y a n d t w e n t y

- t w o

.

I n p o i n t o f e r r o r t w e n t y

- o n e

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g

h i s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t e s t i m o n y a b o u t h i s p r i o r c r i m i n a l

- t r e s p a s s m i s d e m e a n o r

c o n v i c t i o n f

r o m G e o r g i a b e c a u s e h e h a d w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l i n t h a t c a s e

. 9 6

A t t r i a l

, a p p e l l a n t o b

j e c t e d t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f C h r i s t o p h e r A r n o

, t h e c o m p l a i n a n t i n

t h e G e o r g i a i n c i d e n t ; o n a p p e a l h e o b j e c t s o n l y t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e c e r t i f i e d c o p y o f t h e

m i s d e m e a n o r j u d g m e n t

, a l t h o u g h a t t r i a l h e e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t h a v e a n y

o b j e c t i o n t o t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e c e r t i f i e d j u d g m e n t

. A p p e l l a n t a l l a l o n g o b j e c t e d o n l y t o

t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e G e o r g i a i n c i d e n t

, n o t t h e c e r t i f i e d j u d g m e n t

. T h u s

, a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t

p r e s e r v e d a n y e r r o r b e c a u s e h i s o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l d o e s n o t m a t c h h i s c l a i m o n a p p e a l

.

A l t e r n a t i v e l y

, t h e t r i a l j u d g e d i d n o t e r r i n a d m i t t i n g t h e G e o r g i a j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n t

w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l ; h e w a s n o t d e p r i v e d o f c o u n s e l i n t h a t c a s e

. A m i s d e m e a n o r

c o n v i c t i o n i s n o t i n v a l i d o r i n a d m i s s i b l e s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o

Appellant’s f

ull objection was as f

ollows: 9 6

We just wanted to reur g e our objection to the witness that we anticipate the State is

calling next reg arding the Clay ton County

, Geor g ia offe nses, as the rec ord the State

has tender ed to us show our client waived his rig ht to counsel and was not

represente d by a lawy er in that offe nse, and we would object to inclusion of any

testimony reg arding that offe nse or those incidents u n d er the Six th and Eig hth

Amendments of the U nited States Consti tution.H a r r i s P a g e 4 2

c o u n s e l b e f

o r e e n t e r i n g a p l e a

. A t a n y r a t e

, e v e n i f t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g 9 7

t e s t i m o n y o f t h e G e o r g i a i n c i d e n t a n d t h e j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t a n y e r r o r

w a s h a r m l e s s

. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s t w e n t y

- f i r s t p o i n t o f e r r o r

. 9 8

I n h i s t w e n t y

- f

o u r t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n

d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o d i s q u a l i f y t h e D a l l a s D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e b e c a u s e t h a t o f

f i c e

h i r e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s f

o r m e r s e c o n d

- c h a i r c o u n s e l a s a n a s s i s t a n t b e f o r e t r i a l

. A d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y

,

n o t a t r i a l j u d g e

, d e t e r m i n e s w h e n a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t e x i s t s t h a t r e q u i r e s h i s r e c u s a l o r t h a t

o f h i s o f f i c e

. A p p e l l a n t s u g g e s t s t h a t w e s h o u l d c r e a t e a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e 9 9

b e c a u s e ( 1 ) t h i s i s a d e a t h c a s e ; ( 2 ) a p p e l l a n t ’ s f o r m e r c o u n s e l w a s h i r e d a f t e r d o i n g

e x t e n s i v e w o r k f

o r a p p e l l a n t ; ( 3 ) a p p e l l a t e a t t o r n e y s w h o w o u l d b e u n d e r h i s f o r m e r d e f

e n s e

c o u n s e l a s h e a d o f t h e a p p e l l a t e s e c t i o n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e d e a t h

- p e n a l t y c a s e ; ( 4 ) t h e

See Disheroon v. State, 687 S.W .2d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (to bar the admission 9 7

of a prior conviction beca use the defe ndant was without assistance of counsel, the burden is on the

defe ndant to prove that he was indige nt, without counsel, and did not voluntarily waive the rig ht to

counsel); Taylor v. State, 470 S.W .2d 663, 663-64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (no err or in penalty -stag e

admission of cer

tified copies of judgme nt that wer e sil en t as t o whether defe ndant had been

repr esente d by counsel whe re n o o bjection was made to admission of documents and “no claim

[was] advanc ed

. . . that at the time of such conviction the appellant was indige nt, w ithout counse l

and did not waive the rig ht of counsel, or that he wa s deprived of

counsel in any

manner ”).

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 44.2(b); see Orsag v. State

, 312 S.W .3d 10 5, 122 (Tex. App.–Houston 9 8

[14t h Dis t .] 2010, pet. ref ’d) (assuming admission of cer tified rese t forms from prior DWI

convictions was err or, it was harmless under Rule 44.2(b)) ; Johnson v. State

, No. 01-02-00861- CR,

2003 WL 21666109, *3 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (not d es i gn at ed for

publication) (e rror

in a dmitti ng judgme nt a

nd sentenc e of prior misdemeanor theft conviction into

evidenc e af

ter de fenda

nt admitted the prior convic tion was harmless)

.

See Coleman v. State

, 246 S.W .3d 76, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); State ex rel. Eidson v. 9 9

Edwards , 793 S.W .2d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).H a r r i s P a g e 4 3

s e l e c t i o n o f d e a t h a s o n e o f t h e p u n i s h m e n t o p t i o n s w a s m a d e b e f o r e t h e h i r i n g o f f

o r m e r

c o u n s e l

, a n d ( 5 ) t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f i m p r o p r i e t y i n t h e d u e p r o c e s s o f t h i s c a s e

. A p p e l l a n t

1 0 0

m a k e s n o f

u r t h e r a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g t h i s c l a i m ; h e d o e s n o t

, f o r e x a m p l e

, t a k e i s s u e w i t h

t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t s h o w s t h a t t h e D a l l a s D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y s ’ O f f i c e c r e a t e d a “ C h i n e s e w a l l ”

b e t w e e n a p p e l l a n t ’ s f

o r m e r c o u n s e l a n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r s w h o t r i e d t h i s c a s e

, n o r d o e s h e

s u g g e s t t h a t h i s f

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

D

. A

. ’ s o f

f i c e

. U n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, w e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d t h a t h i s c a s e s h o u l d b e

t r e a t e d d i f

f e r e n t l y t h a n o t h e r c a s e s u n d e r t h e l a w

. W e o v e r r u l e t h i s p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

I n h i s t w e n t y

- f

i f t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e j u d g e e r r e d

i n g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s m o t i o n t o r e c u s e t h e e l e c t e d j u d g e o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t b e c a u s e s h e h a d

g r a n t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e T e x a s d e a t h

- p e n a l t y

s t a t u t e

. B u t a p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t d i s c u s s R u l e 1 8 a o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e w h i c h

g o v e r n s t h e r e c u s a l o f

t r i a l j u d g e s

. T h a t r u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t “ [ a ] n o r d e r g r a n t i n g a m o t i o n t o

r e c u s e i s f

i n a l a n d c a n n o t b e r e v i e w e d b y a p p e a l

, m a n d a m u s

, o r o t h e r w i s e

. ” W e h a v e 1 0 1

a l r e a d y h e l d t h a t a m o t i o n t o r e c u s e t h a t i s g r a n t e d a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l i s n o n

- r e v i e w a b l e

,

a l t h o u g h t h e d e n i a l o f s u c h a m o t i o n t o r e c u s e i s r e v i e w a b l e o n a p p e a l

. T h u s

, a p p e l l a n t 1 0 2

h a s n o r i g h t o f

r e v i e w u n d e r t h e r e c u s a l r u l e s

. A p p e l l a n t a l s o c l a i m s t h a t t h e r e c u s a l o f t h e

Appellant’s B rief a

t 114. 1 0 0

T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 18a(j)(1) (B ). 1 0 1

T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 18a(j)( 1)(A) ; Ga a l v. S t a t e

, 332 S.W .3d 448, 456-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 0 2

2011).H a r r i s P a g e 4 4

e l e c t e d j u d g e v i o l a t e d h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s

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

w h e r e h e o b

j e c t e d o n t h i s b a s i s

, a n d w e c a n n o t f i n d a n y s u c h o b

j e c t i o n

. T h e r e f

o r e

, t h i s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m i s f o r f e i t e d

. W e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s t w e n t y

- f i f t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

. 1 0 3

I n h i s t w e n t y

- s i x t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n n o t

g r a n t i n g h i s r e q u e s t t o v i d e o t a p e t h e v o i r d i r e p r o c e e d i n g s

. A p p e l l a n t c i t e s n o s t a t u t e o r c a s e

l a w t h a t r e q u i r e s a n y s u c h a c t i o n

. H e a d m i t s t h a t

, i n M a s s e y v

. S t a t e

, w e h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l

1 0 4

j u d g e d o e s n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w v i d e o t a p i n g o f v o i r d i r e p r o c e e d i n g s

.

A p p e l l a n t f

a i l s t o p e r s u a d e u s t h a t w e s h o u l d “ f i n d a n e x c e p t i o n ” t o t h a t c a s e f o r h i m o r t h a t

w e s h o u l d j e t t i s o n Ma s s e y

. W e o v e r r u l e t h i s p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

I n h i s t w e n t y

- s e v e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n n o t

p e r m i t t i n g h i m t o i n f

o r m p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s t h a t t h e j u d g e w o u l d a s s e s s a l i f e s e n t e n c e i f t h e

j u r y i s u n a b l e t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t o n e i t h e r o f t h e s p e c i a l i s s u e s

. H e a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t h i s

“ r e q u e s t i s d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t t e l l i n g t h e j u r y ” a b o u t t h e

c o n s e q u e n c e o f

t h e i r f a i l u r e t o a g r e e

. H e a l s o r e q u e s t s t h a t w e r e c o n s i d e r o u r h o l d i n g i n 1 0 5

Fuller v. State

, 253 S.W .3d 220, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“[A]lm ost all err or—eve n 1 0 3

constitutional err or—may be forf eited if the appellant failed to object”) ; Anderson v. S t a t e

, 3 01

S

. W

. 3 d 2 76, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“I ndeed, our prior decisions make clear that numer o u s

constitutional rig hts, including those that implicate a defe ndant’s d u e p r o c e s s r ights, may be forf eited

for purposes of appellate revie w unless proper ly prese rved.” ); Briggs v. State, 789 S.W .2d 918, 924

(Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (holding err ors based on the constitutional rig hts to confr ontation a nd due

proce ss may

be wa ived by

failure to object at trial).

933 S.W .2d 141, 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 1 0 4

Appellant’s B rief a

t 117. 1 0 5H a r r i s P a g e 4 5

N o b l e s v

. S t a t e

, i n w h i c h w e r e j e c t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m

. W e d e c l i n e t o r e c o n s i d e r o u r p r i o r 1 0 6

h o l d i n g

, a n d w e o v e r r u l e a p p e l l a n t ’ s t w e n t y

- s e v e n t h p o i n t o f e r r o r

.

S t a r t i n g w i t h h i s p o i n t o f e r r o r t w e n t y

- e i g h t

, a p p e l l a n t l i s t s a s e r i e s o f c l a i m s t h a t h e

c a l l s “ C o n s t i t u t i o n a l I s s u e s A t t a c k i n g t h e T e x a s D e a t h P e n a l t y S t a t u t e a n d S c h e m e ” a n d

e x p l a i n s t h a t h e r a i s e s t h e m ( 1 ) i n t h e h o p e t h a t w e m i g h t r e c o n s i d e r o u r p r e c e d e n t o v e r r u l i n g

e a c h o f t h e s e i s s u e s a n d ( 2 ) t o p r e s e r v e t h e m f o r f u r t h e r r e v i e w i n f

e d e r a l c o u r t

.

I n p o i n t s t w e n t y

- n i n e t h r o u g h t h i r t y

- o n e

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e T e x a s s e n t e n c i n g

s c h e m e v i o l a t e s A p

p r e n d i v

. N

e w J e r s e y a n d R i n g v

. A r iz o n a b e c a u s e i t s m i t i g a t i o n 1 0 7 1 0 8

c h a r g e d o e s n o t a s s i g n t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f t o t h e S t a t e

. H e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h i s d e f e c t

v i o l a t e s A r t i c l e I

, s e c t i o n 1 0 o f t h e T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n

. W e h a v e r e p e a t e d l y r e j e c t e d t h i s

c l a i m a n d d o s o a g a i n t o d a y

. 1 0 9

I n p o i n t t h i r t y

- t w o

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e “ 1 0

- 1 2 ” r u l e c o n f u s e s t h e j u r y

, i n 1 1 0

v i o l a t i o n o f t h e E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t

. W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y r e j e c t e d t h i s a r g u m e n t

. 1 1 1

843 S.W .2d 503, 508-09 (Te x . Crim. App. 1992). 1 0 6

530 U.S. 466 (2000). 1 0 7

536 U.S. 584 (2002). 1 0 8

Saldano v. State

, 232 S.W .3d 77, 107-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Russeau v. State

, 171 1 0 9

S.W .3d 871, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Resendiz v. State

, 112 S.W .3d 541, 549-50 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003).

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 37.071 §§ 2(d) (2) & 2(f) (2). 1 1 0

Leza v. State

, 351 S.W .3d 344, 361-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Russeau

, 171 S.W .3d at 1 1 1

886.H a r r i s P a g e 4 6

I n p o i n t t h i r t y

- t h r e e

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t d e f i n e t h e t e r m s

“ p r o b a b i l i t y

, ” “ c o n t i n u i n g t h r e a t t o s o c i e t y

, ” a n d “ c r i m i n a l a c t s o f v i o l e n c e ” i n i t s j u r y c h a r g e

o n t h e t w o s t a t u t o r y s p e c i a l i s s u e s

, v i o l a t i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t e a c h

a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e n a r r o w t h e c l a s s o f p e r s o n s e l i g i b l e f o r t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y

. “ T h e r e

i s n o e r r o r i n o m i t t i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a w o r d u s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e w h e n t h e w o r d i s u s e d i n

i t s o r d i n a r y s e n s e a n d i s e a s i l y c o m p r e h e n d e d b y e v e r y o n e

. ” B e c a u s e t h e s e t e r m s a r e 1 1 2

c o m m o n a n d e a s i l y u n d e r s t o o d

, w e h a v e r e p e a t e d l y r e j e c t e d t h i s c l a i m

. 1 1 3

I n p o i n t t h i r t y

- f

o u r

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 1 f a i l s t o m a n d a t e t h a t t h e j u r y

c o n s i d e r s p e c i f

i c e v i d e n c e m i t i g a t i n g

. W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y r e j e c t e d t h i s a r g u m e n t

. 1 1 4

I n p o i n t s t w e n t y

- e i g h t a n d t h i r t y

- f i v e t h r o u g h t h i r t y

- s e v e n

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e

s p e c i a l i s s u e s i n A r t i c l e s 3 7

. 0 7 1 a n d 3 7

. 0 7 1 1 f a i l t o p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e t o j u r i e s

, t h u s a l l o w i n g

f o r u n l i m i t e d j u r o r d i s c r e t i o n i n i m p o s i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y

. H e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e

a r b i t r a r i n e s s o f t h e s e f a c t o r s p r e v e n t t h i s C o u r t f r o m c o n d u c t i n g m e a n i n g f u l a p p e l l a t e

r e v i e w

. T h i s C o u r t h a s r e j e c t e d c l a i m s t h a t t h e T e x a s d e a t h p e n a l t y s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e

a l l o w s f o r o p e n

- e n d e d

, u n s t r u c t u r e d d i s c r e t i o n

. 1 1 5

Resendiz

, 112 S.W .3d at 550 (citing Russell v. S t ate

, 665 S.W .2d 771, 780 (Tex. Crim. 1 1 2

App. 1983)).

Leza , 351 S.W .3d at 362; Russeau v. State, 291 S.W .3d 426, 434-35 (Te x . Crim. App. 1 1 3

2009).

Busby v. State , 253 S.W .3d 661, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

1 1 4

See, e.g., Sal dano v. Stat e

, 232 S.W .3d at 104-09; Turner v. Stat e

, 8 7 S .W.3d 111, 118 1 1 5

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Sells v. State ; 121 S.W .3d 748, 767-68 (Te x . Crim. App. 2003).H a r r i s P a g e 4 7

I n p o i n t t h i r t y

- e i g h t

, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n o v e r r u l i n g h i s m o t i o n

t o q u a s h t h e i n d i c t m e n t

, w h i c h h a d a l l e g e d n u m e r o u s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e f e c t s i n t h e T e x a s

d e a t h

- p e n a l t y l a w

. W e r e j e c t t h i s p o i n t o f e r r o r a s m u l t i f a r i o u s a n d i n a d e q u a t e l y b r i e f e d

. 1 1 6

I n p o i n t s t h i r t y

- n i n e a n d f o r t y

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s i n t h e T e x a s p e n a l t y p r o c e d u r e d e n i e d h i m d u e p r o c e s s o f t h e l a w

u n d e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d t h e T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n

. B e c a u s e w e o v e r r u l e e a c h o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s

p o i n t s o f e r r o r c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e a t h

- p e n a l t y s t a t u t e

, w e l i k e w i s e o v e r r u l e h i s a r g u m e n t s

r e g a r d i n g t h e i r c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t

.

H a v i n g f o u n d t h a t n o n e o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s f o r t y c l a i m s d e m o n s t r a t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r

, w e

a f f i r m t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s j u d g m e n t a n d s e n t e n c e

.

D e l i v e r e d : M a y 2 1

, 2 0 1 4

D o N o t P u b l i s h

Appellant alleg es ele ven sepa rate constitutional viol ations in a single point of err or. 1 1 6