See T ex. Penal C ode Ann. § 19. 02( b) (Ver non 2003)
. Except as pr ov i ded by§ 19. 02( d) , t he o ff ense 1 o fm u r d e ris p u n is h a b le a s a f e lo n y o ft h e f ir s t d e g r e e . T h e r a n g e o fp u n is h m e n t f o ra f ir s t d e g r e e f e lo n y is i m pr i sonm ent f orl i f e orf oranyt er m of not m or e t han 99 y ear s orl ess t han 5 y ear s and bya f i ne n ot t o exce ed $10, 000. § 12. 32( a) and ( b)
. Forconve ni ence, f ut ur e pr ov i si ons o ft he T exas Pena l C ode wi l l si m pl ybe ci t ed a s “§

_ _ _ _ ” o r “S e c ti o n __ _ _ .” NO. 07-08 -013 2-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A F EBR UA RY

23, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ LAW YAR T . EW INGS, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO . 543 59- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Lawy ar T
. Ew ings, p led guilty to mu rder. Duri ng the pu nishm entpha se

1 of t rial, he attempted to mi ti g ate h is puni shmentby as ser ti ng thathe a cte d under theSee T ex. Penal C ode Ann. § 19. 02 (d) (V ernon 20 03)
. I f , att he p uni shm ent pha se of a t r i al , t he 2 d e fe n d a n t p ro v e s b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e th a t t h e d e a th w a s c a u s e d u n d e r th e i m m e d i a te i nf l uence ofsudd en p assi on a r i si ng f r om an adequ at e cau se, t hen t he o ff ense i s pun i s ha bl e as a f el onyof t he se cond degr ee. T he r ange of puni shm ent f or a second degr ee f el ony i s i m pr i sonm ent f or any t er m ofnot m o re th a n 2 0 y e a rs o r l e s s th a n 2 y e a rs a n d b ya fi n e n o t t o e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0
. § 1 2 .3 3 (a ) a n d (b ). 2 influ ence of sudde n p a ssion ar is ing from an adeq uate caus e. The j ur y di d notfind 2 Appel lan t c a u s e d t h e d e a t h u n d e r t h e i n fl u e n c e o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n a n d t h e y s e n t e n ced him to conf inem entfor t hirty -f iv e y ears. I n a single issue , App ellantco nte nds the trial court erred by adm itting phot ographs of the crime scene and the victim’s injuries thatwere ir re levant, infla mmator

y , repeti ti ous, and more preju dic ial than probati v e. W e aff ir m.

Back ground App ellantand Jessica T erma in w ere involv ed in an ongoing relationsh ip for a n u m b e r o f

ye a rs d u ri n g wh ic h h e s u p p li e d h e r wi t h m o n e y a n d / o r d ru gs in re t u rn fo r s e x. Al thoug h Appe ll ant was aw are tha t she als o traded s ex w it h oth er

men for money

and/or drugs, he w as no t bot here d so long a s sh e did no t show affection tow ard oth er me n in his presenc e. Nev erthel ess , t hei r re lat ion shi p was troubl ed byher addi cti on and prost it uti on w hic h were a c onst ant s ource of dis cord betw een t hem. On September 15, 2006, Appel lan t and Fel ic ia Ma hone, his cous in, w ent to the W is hin g W ell Bar at approx imat ely 1:00 p.m. At the bar , they met Ter main and Ap pel lan t purch ased crack cocaine at her request. Before leaving the bar, App ellantand Te rmain arg ued abo ut w here s he was g oin g to sta y . Appel lan t w anted her to g o w it h him and s he w anted to remain at the bar. Later , at dusk, Termai n accompani ed Mahone and A ppel lan t3

to hi s a p a rt m e n t whe re sh e sm o ke d cra ckwh ile A p p e lla n t a n d Mah o n e co n ti n u e d dri n kin g. Ap p e lla n ta n d T e rm a in al so co n ti n u e d to argu e ab o u t whe re sh e wo u ld be st a ying. T e rm a in wa n t e d a ri d e a c ro s s t o wn . B e fo re d e p a rt in g, A p p e ll a n tp la c e d h is l o a d e d , twe lve g aug e s hotg un i n the bac ks eat o f his tr uck
. Later thate ven ing , Ap pel lan t and M ahone retur ned t o the W is hin g W ell
. As he drov e up, Appel lan t obs er v ed Ter main kis si ng Bi ll y R ay . He became upsetbec ause he had boug ht crack for her and she w as w it h anot her man. W hen he approache d to speak w i th h er , s he t ol d hi m t o g et away an d l ea v e he r al on e. Ap pe l l an t w al k ed away for a ti me but retur ned and sa id: ” Bi tch , y ou mess w it h too many men, y ou’ re tr

y ing to g et s omebody killed.” Appe llant and Mah one t hen le f t the W ishing W ell a nd drove to a not her ba r w here th e y con ti n u e d dri n kin g. Early in the m orning of

Sept em ber 16 , App e ll a n t returne d to th e W ishing W ell looking for Te rmain . He p u ll e d h is truck into a pa rking area adjace nt to a site w here homele s s p e o p l e c a mp e d o u ta c ro s s t h e s t re e tfro m t h e W i s h i n g W e l l a n d o b serv ed Termai n s itti ng on a mattress ac ro ss from Lar ry F ra z ier , a h o m e le ss man. H e “ [di dn’ t] know i f they were maki ng out, ” but “ [he] thoug ht t hey mig ht be maki ng out
. . . becau se of the way they were l ay ing tog ether

. . . [i ]t w as sus pic iou s t o [hi m].” H e al so obser v ed Term a i n wa s n o twe a r i n g t h e s a me s h i rts h e wa s w e a r i n g w h e n s h e l e fth i s a p artment ear li er thatni g ht.M ahone t est i f i ed t hat , i m m edi at el ypr i ort o t he shoot i ng, A ppel l ant sai d, “ D i dn’ t I sayy ou wer e go i ng 3 to r e s p e c t m e ? ” F r a z ie rte s tif ie d th a t A p p e lla n t s a id , “ B itc h , I to ld yo u ifyo u f u c k e d m e o v e ro n e m o r e tim e I w o u l d b l o w y o u r h e a d o ff .” 4 Appel lan t g ot ou t of his tr uck and re tr ieved the loaded shotg un f ro m the back se at. He w alked ov er to w here T erma in w as sitting a nd m ade an an gr y utte rance . Term ain said

3 not hing. He then lev eled the sho tgun at he r fa ce, lea ned in, and pulled the trigg er. During the pun ishm entpha se of trial, Appe llant te stif ied as follows: DE FEN SE C OU NS EL: W hy di d you do that [sh oot Ter main] ? APPEL LAN T: I d o n ’tkn ow . Ma n, I j ustfli pped. I don’ t k now w hat happened. DE FEN SE C OU NS EL: W hat made you fli p? APP ELL ANT : I g uess it w as Billy Ray . Ev ery bod y

else, you know w hatI’m tal ki ng about ? Thi s . . . Too muc h press ure outthere. DE FEN SE CO UN SEL: If y ou did n’t g o there to ki ll her , w hat w as itabout seei ng her

w it hout her

sh ir t on w it h [F ra z ier

] t hat c hang ed al l that? APPEL LAN T: Oh, I re all y don’ t k now . I was just ti re d
. You know , bei ng m isu se d a n d a bused
. It jus t hi t me a ll at once, you k now . Any way i n the world tha t I’d kill tha t gi rl. App ellantplaced his shotgun back in the truck and Mahon e drove him ho me . Less than an hour after the shooti ng , Appell ant cal led the pol ic e f ro m a payphone. H e tol d the dis patc h e r th at he thou g ht he had “j ustki ll ed s omeone” and that he bel iev ed he w as dreaming
. Shor

tl y thereafter , he w as take n into cus tody , c onfessed to s hooti ng Termai n, and s ig ned a w ri tten sta tement.5

Pr ior to commenc ing the puni shment p h ase of tri al, the tr ial co urt c onducted a hear ing to deter mine whe ther to ex cl ude c ertai n phot og ra phs of the c ri me sc ene and Termai n’si nju ri es that the S tate int ended t o present t o t h e j u ry . Appel lan t’ s c ounse l cont ended t hat c ertai n phot og ra phs w ere repeti ti ous, inflammator y , and more preju dic ial than probati v e. The tr ial cour t noted that the photog ra phs cont ain ed g ore and e xcluded a n u m b e r o f

t h e m . T h e ju ry s u b s e qu e n t ly a s s e s s e d p u n is h m e n t a tco n f in e m e n tfo r t h irtyfiv e y ears. Discus sion App ellantasserts tha t the p hot ographs unfairly p rejudice d the ju ry

a nd resu lted in a s entenc e tha t fell w it hin the puni shmentrang e appli cabl e to a c onv icti on for firs t deg re e felony murder rather than se cond deg re e felony murder
. In s uppor

t, h e co ntends the photog ra phs w ere ir re lev ant becau se, due to his g uil ty ple a, any is sues of c ause and manner of death w ere undi sput ed and the e v ide nce w as cumula ti ve b e caus e the Sta te of fered testim onia l ev iden ce relate d to th e crime scen e an d T erma in’s in ju ries. He also c on te nd s t he p ho to g rap hs were mo re prej ud i c i al th an p rob at i v e be c au s e of t he i r g r ue s om e nature and re peti ti v e present ment. I. St and ard o f Rev iew The admis si bil ity

o f a photog ra ph i s w it hin the sound di sc re ti on of the tr ial j udg e. Par edes v. Sta te , 129 S.W .3d 530, 539 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. W e w il l not d is tur b a t ri al6

court’s ruling adm itting or ex cluding evi den ce so long a s t he trial co urt’s decision falls w ithin the “z o n e o f

rea sona ble disa greem ent .” See Jones v. State, 944 S. W .2d 6 42, 6 51 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. II. Rel ev ance A tr ial co urt hasw ide disc re ti on in dec idi ng the admis si bil ity of ev ide nce present ed at t he puni shmentphas e of tr ial
. Hen der son v. State , 29 S.W .3d 6 1 6 , 626 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1 Dist.] 2000 , pet. ref’d). The Te x as Code of Cri min al Proced ure st prov ide s t hat, w hether puni shmenti s a ss ess ed b y the t ri al jud g e or the jur y , t he c irc u m s t a n c e s o f

t h e o f fe n s e fo r wh ic h t h e d e fe n d a n tis t ri e d m a yb e c o n s i d e re d
. T e x. Cod e C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 37.07, § 3(a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)
. Fur ther , t he St ate’ s r ig ht to i ntroduce ev ide nce dur ing the puni shmentphase of tri al isnot re str icted b y the entr y of a pl ea by

the defendant or an admiss ion of facts soug ht t o be prov ed by the Stat e. York v. State , 566 S.W .2d 9 36, 9 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1978)
. Here, t he phot og ra phs of the c ri me sc ene and v icti m w ere p ro b a ti v e of the ci rc umstan ces rela ted t o the s hooti ng and the n ature of the fatal wound A ppel lan t i nflicted on Ter main. Assu ch, they were rele v ant, or

hel pful, t o the j ur

y i n tai lor ing an appropr iat e sent ence for App ell ant. See Wil li am s v . St ate , 176 S.W .3d 4 76, 4 81 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2004, no pet.)
. This is par ti cul ar ly so becau se Appel lan t as ser ted t hat h e c aused st Termai n’sdeat h u nder the immedi ate i nfluenc e of sudd en pas si on ar is ing from an§ 19
. 02 st at es, i n pe r t i nentpar t , as f ol l ows: 4 ( a) I n t hi s sect i on: ( 1) “ Adequat e cau se” m eans cause t hat woul d com m onl ypr oduce a d egr ee o fang er , r age, r e s e n tm e n t, o rt e r r o rin a p e r s o n o fo r d in a r y te m p e r , s u ff ic ie n t t o r e n d e rth e m in d in c a p a b le ofcool r ef l ect i on. ( 2) “ Sudden passi on” m eans passi on d i r ect l ycause d byand ar i si ng o ut of pr ov ocat i on b yt he i ndi v i dual ki l l ed o rano t heract i ng wi t h t he p er son ki l l ed whi ch pa ssi on a r i ses at t he t i m e of t he o ff ense and i s notsol el yt he r esul t of f or m erpr ov ocat i on. * * * ( d) At t he p uni shm ent st age oft he t r i al , t he d ef endan t m ayr ai se t he i ssue as t o whet herhe c a u s e d th e d e a th u n d e r t h e i m m e d i a te i n flu e n c e o f s u d d e n p a s s i o n a ris i n g fro m a n a d e q u a te cause. I ft he d ef endan t pr ov es t he i ssue i n t he a ff i r m at i v e bya pr epond er ance oft he e v i d e n c e , t h e o ff e n s e i s a fe l o n yo f th e s e c o n d d e g re e . 7 adeq uate ca u se . T hat t he j ur y al so heard tes ti mony

reg ardin g the inj ur iesdepi cte d by 4 the p hotog ra phs did not nece ss ar il y reduce the re levance of the v is ual depi cti on. See Shuff ield v . St ate, 189 S. W .3d 7 82, 7 87 (T e x.Cri m .App. 2006) , cer t. denied , 549 U .S. 105 6, 12 7 S.Ct. 6 64, 166 L.Ed .2d 521 (2007 ). Accordin gly , w e f ind the trial court correctly det ermin ed th at th e ph oto graph s w ere relevant “to en able t he jury to intelligently exercise the ir discretion w hich th e law v ests in the m to assess [Ap pellan t’s] pen alty.” York , 566 S.W .2d at 938. W e mustnext det er mine w hether the photog ra phs w ere more preju dic ial than probati v e. III . Un fa ir Prej ud ice Relevant evidence may be ex clude d if “its prob ative v alue is su b stan tially outwei ghed bythe dang er of unfair preju dic e, c onfusio n of the is sues , or mis lea din g theAppel l ant di d no t obj ect t o t hi s f or m ofpubl i cat i on t o t he j ur y . Accor di ngl y , anygr ounds f orobj ect i on 5 w e re w a i v e d
. See T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a ). 8 ju ry, o r b y co n s id e ra t io n s o f u n d u e d e la y, o r n e e d le s s p re s e n t a t io n o f cu m u la t ive ev ide nce. ” See Tex . R . Ev id. 403. W e c onsi der the follo w ing four factors w hen rev iew ing a tri al cour

t’ s ev ide nti ar

y rul ing under Rul e 403: (1) the probati v e v alu e of the ev ide nce; ( 2) the p otent ial to impress the jur y in some i rrati onal , y et i ndel ibl e way ; ( 3) the ti me needed to de v elo p the ev ide nce; and (4 ) the proponent ’s need for the ev ide nce. Er

azo v . St ate , 144 S. W .3d 4 87, 4 89 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. W e a lso c o n sider the number

of p h o t o gr a p h s, the siz e, w het her the y are in color or black and w hite, w het her the y are g ru esom e , w hether

any bodi es are c lot hed or nak ed, a nd w hether

the body

has been alt e red si nce the c ri me i n s ome way thatmig ht en hance the g ru esomenes s o f the photog ra ph to t h e a p p e lla nt’ s d etr iment
. See Nar vai z v. Sta te , 840 S.W .2d 4 15, 4 29 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 199 2). I n sum , “[i]f there a re elem ent s of

a pho tograph thatare genuine ly h e lpf ul to t he j ur

y i n maki ng i ts deci si on, t he photog ra ph i s i nadmis si ble onl y i f the em otion al and prejud icial aspe cts subst ant ially outw eigh the he lpf ul aspe cts.” E r a zo , 144 S.W .3d a t 491- 92. Appel lan t obj ect s t o thi rty -four co l o r p h o t o g ra phs admitted a s S tate’ s E x hib it s 4 3- 48, 50, 52-67 , 69, 71, 73 -74, 78-83, 85 and 87. T he phot ographs were adm itted into evidence i n conju nction w ith the testim ony of Jimm y Rife nbe rg , the Ama rill o Police Dep artm entc r i me scene inv estigator w ho d ocum ent ed th e crim e scen e an d T erma in’s injuries and were br iefly publ is hed t o the ju ryby proje cti on ont o a s creen. The ph otog ra phs prov ide d a 5Because t he m i t i gat i on d ef ense of“ sudden passi on” r equi r es t hat t he p assi on b e cau sed, orar i se, 6 bypr ov ocat i on b yt he i ndi v i dual ki l l ed, § 19. 02 ( a)(2) , T er m ai n’ s act i v i t i es i m m edi at el ypr i ort o t he sh oot i ng wer e r el ev ant
. Fori nst ance, Appel l ant t est i f i ed t hat , when he a r r i v ed at the p ark i ng l ot acr oss f r om t he W i shi ng W el l , he obser v ed T er m ai n l ay i ng o n a m at t r ess wi t h Fr az i erund ersuspi ci ous ci r cum st ances. M a h o n e te s ti fie d T e rm a i n w a s s i tti n g o n th e g ro u n d w ith F ra zi e r. F ra zi e r te s ti fie d th a t h e w a s ta l k i n g w i th T er m ai n whi l e be i ng se at ed on a st ool t wo fee t away . R i f enber g’ s bl ood spat t erana l y si s usi ng p hot ogr aphs c orrob o ra te d F razi er’ s t es t i m on y . F or i ns t an c e, E x hi bi t s 57 an d 5 8 s ho w a vo i d i n t he bl oo d s pa t t ers sur r oundi ng T er m ai n i ndi cat i ng Fr az i erwas sea t ed o n a near by st ool wi t h hi s l egs cr ossed, wi t h onl yone f oot on t he gr ound. Phot ogr aphs of T er m ai n’ s body , Exhi bi t s 71, 74 and 83, showed t hat she was f ul l ycl ot hed, h e ld a c ig a r e tt e lig h te r in h e r h a n d , w ith a p a c k o fc ig a r e tt e s , a n d a f a s t f o o d d r in k c u p w ith a s tr a w c lo s e b y. 9 lo gi c a l p ro gre s s io n le a d in g t h e j u ry t h ro u gh t h e c ri m e sc e n e , a s s is t e d t h e ju ry t o vis u a li ze the c ri me sc ene, showed th e extent of the wounds su ffered by Termai n, i denti fied th e loc ati on of tes ti fyi ng w it ness es, and depi cte d Ter main’ s a cti v it iesi mmediat ely p r i o r to bei ng shotby Appel lan t. Thes e and other phot ographs are unq uest ion abl y g ru esome. They 6 depi ct the l ocat ion and si z e of the s h o tgu n wound t o Ter main’ s h ead, her ex posed crani um, her brain on the pav ement, and brain matter , blo od, and ti ss ue mater ial sc attered throug hout the c ri me sc ene. Und er the firs t prong of the E

r a zotes t, w e find the p hotog ra phs had probati v e v alu e becau se they w ere ac curate d epi cti ons of both t he c ri me sc ene and Termai n’sbody that woul d as si st a j ur

y to v is ual iz e the cr ime sc ene as w ell as the e xtent of Termain ’s i nju ri es caus ed by Appel lan t’ s cr imi nal act. Par edes, 1 2 9 S. W .3 d at54 0 (quo ti n g Sonni er v. Sta te , 913 S.W .2d 511, 519 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1995) ). See al so Legate v. State, 52 S. W .3d 7 97, 8 0 7 (T e x. A p p . – S a n A n t o n i o 2 0 0 1 , p e t
. re f’d ). T h e p h o t o gra p h s we re a ls o p ro b a t ive becau se they

co rroborated the t est imony of tr ial w it ness es; see Ledbetter v. Sta te, 208 S.W .3d 723, 734 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2006 , n o pe t.) ; Mo re no D enosov. Sta te , 15610

S.W .3d 166 , 178 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 200 5, pet. ref ’d), and the ir probative v alue is not d imi nis hed s impl y

bec ause they

co rroborate o ther

unc ontes ted tes ti mony . See Cha m ber

lai n v . St ate , 998 S.W .2d 230 , 237 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 0) (reject ing the prem ise tha t v isual evidence a c c o m p anying oral testim ony is cum ulative of the te stimo ny)
. Al thoug h di sag re eabl e to lo o k a t, theydepi ct nothi ng more tha n the real ity of the b ru tal cri m e committe d. Sonni er , 913 S.W .2d a t 519 ; Shav er s v . St ate , 8 8 1 S
. W
. 2 d 67, 77 ( Te x . A p p . – D a l l a s 1 9 9 4 , n o p e t
. )
. A c c o rd i n g l y , t h i s fi rs t fa ct o r w e i g h s i n fav or of admis si bil ity . In de term ining the second fa ctor, we look at the pho tograph s’ pote ntial to impress th e j u ry i n s ome i rrati onal , yet i ndel ibl e way . S e eE r a zo , 1 4 4 S
. W
. 3 d a t4 9 1 - 9 2
. “ I f a photog ra ph i s c ompetent , mate ri al and rele v ant t o the i ss ue on tr ial , i t i s n ot rendered ina dmis si ble merely

bec ause iti s gru e so m e o r mig ht t end t o arouse the p ass ion s o f the jury , unle ss it is of

fered solelyto inf lam e the mind s of the jury .”

Id. ( quoti

ng Ma rt in v. State , 475 S. W .2d 2 65, 267 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1972) ). Appel lan t does not clai m thatthe pictures are i nacc urate o r improper ly enhanc ed. Hav ing co nsi dered th e phot og ra phs in re lat ion to the e nti re record, we c annot conc lud e the imag es appeal ed onl y to the j uror ’s emoti onal side an d tha t the jury ’s decision was based on em otion rather tha n the relev antev iden ce in tr o d u ced at t ri al. See E r a zo , 144 S.W .3d a t 491 -9 2; Mo re no , 156 S.W .3d a t 178 -7 9. T h is fa ct o r a ls o we ig h s in fa vo r o f a d m is s ib il it y.11

The thi rd factor , t he ti me needed to dev elo p the ev ide nce, als o w eig hs in fav or of admis si bil ity . Con si der ing the len g th of the tr ial , t he St ate t ook li ttl e ti me before the jur y to lay the foundatio n for the p hotog ra phs and i ntroduce them int o ev ide nce. See Horton v. State , 986 S.W .2d 2 97, 3 03 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1999, no pet .)
. Finally , in ana lyz ing the fourth facto r, the Sta te’s ne ed for t h e e vid ence , w e ask, “Does the propo nen t have othe r av ailable ev iden ce to establish the factof conse quence the pho tograph is relevant to show?” E r a zo , 144 S.W .3d at 495 . And, if so, we the n ask, “H ow st ro ng i s t hat other

ev ide nce, and is the fact of conseq uence rel ated to an is sue that is in dispu te? ” Id. at 495- 96. The st re ng th of the othe r av ail abl e ev ide nce to c or ro borate tes ti mony

rela ted t o Ter main’ s a cti v it iespr ior to the s hooti ng was not a s s trong w it hout the pho tograph s. Giv en th at Ap pellan t’s primary issue du ring the pun ishm ent hea ring w as his mitigation defense of “sudd en passion ,” this w as a fact of conse quence . Th at said , notall of the ph oto graph s related to this issue. How ever, we f ind the fourth facto r also w eighs in fa vo r o f a d m is s ib il it y. In s um, we c oncl ude t he phot og ra phs are not“ so hor ri fyi ng or appal li ng thata j uror of normal se nsi ti v ity

woul d nec ess ar il y

enc ounter

di ff ic ulty rati onal ly

decid in g t h e c ri ti cal issues of

this case after v iew ing them .” Ful le r v . Sta te , 829 S.W .2d 1 91, 2 06 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer t. denied , 508 U.S. 941 , 113 S .Ct. 241 8, 124 L .Ed .2d 640 (1993 ), over ruled on o ther gr ounds, Cast

il lo v. State , 913 S.W .2d 5 29 ( 1995) ; Con tr er as v. State , 73 S. W .3d 3 14, 3 21 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2001, pet. re f’d)
. The photog ra phs depi cte d no12

more than w hat Appel lan t cause d and w hat v er bal testi mony proper ly des cr ibe d. Saldano v. State , 232 S.W .3d 7 7, 10 1- 02 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. The tr ial co u rt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n admi tti ng the photog ra phs. Se e A llr idg e v . St ate, 850 S. W .2d 4 71, 4 94 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991 ) (e n banc )) ; Dewber ry v. Sta te , 979 S.W .2d 8 71, 8 76 (Te x .Ap p.– Bea um ont199 8, pe t. ref ’d). IV. Har m A nal ysis Fur ther , ev en as sumi ng the tria l co u rter re d i n the admi ss ion of some o f the pho tograph s, any alleged error would still be su bject to a harm less error analysis. T ex. R
. App. P. 4 4.2( b)
. Bjor gaar d v . St ate, 220 S.W .3d 5 55 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2 0 0 7 , pet. dis m’d)
. In a cas e w here an er ro r of no ncons ti tuti onal propor ti ons has occ ur re d dur ing the puni shmentphas e of the tr ial , such er ro r is harmle ss unless the cour t can det er mine that the e rror affect ed th e s ubst anti al ri g hts of the appel lan t. A s ubst anti al ri g ht i s a ffect ed w hen the error had a substa ntial an d injurious e f fect or inf luen ce in det ermin ing the jury ’s v erdict. R u s s e l

l v. State, 113 S.W .3d 5 30, 5 49 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 03, p et. re f’d) (ci ti n g Ki ng v . St ate, 953 S.W .2d 266 , 271 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 7)). Here, the jury’ s v erdict w as th e r ejecti on of Appel lan t’ s s udden p ass ion arg ument an d the ul ti mate pun is hment ass ess ed for the c ri me commi tted. A rati onal j ur

y co uld hav e c o n clu ded t hat A ppel lan t’ s a ttac k o n Ter main w as not condu cte d under

the immedi ate i nfluenc e of sudde n passi on ar is ing from ade q uate caus e. One w ho p rov okes o r instig ate s a c o n f ro n t ation cann ot claim sudd en p assion to excuseI n i ns t an c es w he re t he de fen da nt ha d a co ol i ng off pe ri od of fi ft ee n m i nu t es or an ho ur, co urt s ha ve 7 n o t o v e rtu rn e d th e ju ry’ s n e g a ti v e fi n d i n g o n s u d d e n p a s s io n . S e e W h ite v . S ta te , 699 S. W
. 2d 6 07, 617 (T e x .A p p .– D a l l a s 1 9 8 5 , p e t. re f’d ) (te n o r fifte e n m i n u te s ); G a s to n v . S ta te , 930 S. W
. 2d 2 22, 226 (T ex . A pp . –A us t i n 1 99 6, no pe t
. ) ( on e h ou r)
. 13 h is a cti ons. See Naasz v. Sta te , 9 7 4 S
. W
. 2 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 3 , 4 2 5 - 2 6 ( Te x . A p p . – D a l l a s 1 9 98, pet. re f’d) ; W

est br ook v. State , 846 S.W .2d 155 , 159 (Te x .Ap p.– Fort W orth 1993 , no p et.); Vi llegas v. State , 791 S.W .2d 226 , 239 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 1990 , pet . ref’d). Mo re ov er , t he pass ion canno t sol ely be the re sul t of former prov ocat ion , § 19.02( a) (2 ), or a cul minat ion of ev ents of w hic h the appel lan t is g enerall y aware. Naasz , 974 S.W .2d a t 425. Inde ed, b y prov ing the absen ce of contemporaneous prov ocat ion , t he St ate n eg ates the foundat ion upon w hic h s udden p ass ion mustst and. See Gar za v . St ate , 878 S.W .2d 213, 217 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1994, pet. ref’d)
. The ev ide nce is clear

that Appell ant provoked the confron tati on w it h Ter main— he track ed her

dow n. W hen c onfronte d by Appel lan t, she did noth ing to prov oke or i nst ig ate Appel lan t’ s a cti ons—she did not ev en speak
. Mo re ov er , Appel lan t tes ti fied th at i t was the pr ior co nfrontat ion at the W is hin g W ell w hen he obser v ed Termai n ki ss ing Bi ll y R ay that made hi m “ flip, ” an ev ent from w hic h Appe ll ant h ad suffici ent ti me to re flect upon an d c ool dow n. There s impl y

was no cont emporaneous prov ocat ion
. Rat her , the i nst ant s hooti ng 7 w as the resul t of a c ulmi nati on of ev ents that had occ ur re d ov er ti me between Ap pel lan t and Te rmain . W hen he w as aske d w het her the sig hto f T e rm a in at the W ishing W ell caus ed hi m to “ flip, ” h e t e st if ie d , “O h, I real ly don’ t k now . I was jus t t ired .
. . [of] bei ng mis used and abuse d. It jus t hit me all at once, y ou k now .” H av ing prov oked the i nci dent14

that all eg edl y

i nflamed hi s p ass ion s, Appel lan t c annot cl aim hisco nductarose from ade quate ca use . See Naa sz , 974 S.W .2d a t 424 -2 5. Appel lan t poi nts to tr ial testi mony i ndi cat ing thatTermai n was unfaithful. Ap pel lan t w as confused afterwards and t he s hooti ng was out of c haract er

for h im. Know ing that one ’s sp ouse is unfaithf ul is n ot ade quate ca use for mu rder. See Br adsha w v. State, 244 S.W .3d 490, 503 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2007, pet. str ic ken) ; Naasz , 974 S.W .2d at 424- 4 2 5 ; Garz a v . St ate, 878 S. W .2d a t 219
. Nei ther does“ sudde n pas si on” i ncl ude feeli ng strang e, upset, or

co nfused. Clevel

and v . St ate , 177 S.W .3d 3 74, 3 91 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 Dis t.] 2005, pet. ref’d) , cer t. denied , 547 U. S. 1073, 126 S. Ct . 177 4, 16 4 L.E d.2d 523 st (2 006) ; Gas ton v. State , 930 S .W .2d 2 22, 226 (Tex.App .–A ustin 1 996 , no pe t.). Moreover, t h a tA p p e ll a n t ’s a ct io n s we re o u t o f c h a ra ct e r wi t h h is p a s tb e h a vio r p ro vid e s li tt le , if a n y, ev ide nce that he act ed w it h “s udden pass ion ” w hen he shotTermai n. Appel lan t’ s b ehav ior at th e time of

the con f ronta tion is notmea su re d a gainst himse lf . Rather, th e issue is w hether the caus e w oul d hav e produc ed th at de g re e of ang er , rag e, resent ment, or ter ro r

“ in a perso n of ord

inary temper so the p erson is incapa ble of cool re flect ion .” § 19.02( a) (1 ) (e mphasi s a dded)
. The tes t i s o bje cti v e, no t s ubj ect iv e. Ev en i f w e were to ass ume thatthe tr ial co urt er re d by admi tti ng phot og ra phs that shou ld ha ve b een ex clude d pu rsuan t to Rule 40 3, con sidering the fact th at th e jury re asona bly

reje cte d Appe ll ant’ s c lai m of sudden pass ion , and co nsi der ing the p uni shment ult imat ely

as ses sed (t hir

ty-fiv e y ears confinement ) in li g ht of the full rang e of puni shment15

(5 to 99 y e a rs o r life) , we c annot say thatthe admis si on of the photog ra phs in q uest ion affect ed th e s ubst anti al ri g hts of Appel lan t. Accordin g ly , any er ro r in the a dmis si on of thos e phot og ra phs woul d hav e been har mles s. Appel lan t’ s s ing le is sue is ov er ru led
. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Jus ti ce Do not p ubl is h.