### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00460
- CV

In the Matter of X. J.

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. JV37242, THE HONORABLE RHONDA HURLEY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

X .J. appeal s his delin quent

- child adjudication an d disposition after the juvenile court found he had engaged in delin quent conduct, specifically aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. See Tex. Pen. Code § 22.02. After the disposition hearing, the court or d ered X. J. committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) for a determinate per io d of ten
years. See Tex. Fam. Code § § 51.03, 54.0 4. X.J. asserts that the juvenile court erred in sustai ning the State ’ s objection s to the admission of two exhi bits, one du r ing th e adjudication hearing and one during the dispos ition hearing. We will aff irm the juven ile court ’ s order of adju dication and disposition.

BACKGROUND

The juveni le court heard evidence that , on October 20, 2018, X.J., a 15

- year - old boy who was a t tendi ng a house party , shot Demarcus Coley, an adult who came to the house party to check on his s on, A .C. At trial, X. J. ’ s counsel argued as a defensive theory t hat Coley provoked the altercation an d that X.J. acted in self defense , justifying his u se o f f orce.2 K.L., a ninth grader, testified that on the evening of the incident s he attende d a birthday party for a friend named D. K.L. stated th at the party was at a house in Pflugervil le and that it was a “ full house. ” K.L. testified th at at some p oint du ring the party she and a g roup of people went outside and she saw X .J. and Coley in the street facing each other talking. K.L. testified that Coley was bigger than X.J. K.L. could not hear what they were saying and s he did
not see Coley make any m ovem ent s with his ar ms or his body toward X.J. K .L. stated that she did not see anything that made her t hink Coley was angr y. K.L. then saw X .J. ba ck up and pull out a gun from his waist and pull the trigger. K.L. testified tha t she saw the gun fire two tim es af ter w hich Coley fell to t he ground. K.L. then ran inside to call her parents.

K.H., a fifteen

- year - old, t e stified that h e and some friends including Coley ’ s son, A. C., attended the birthday party . When K.H. arrived , people were inside dancing and hav ing a good time. K.H. testified that at some poin t he saw two girls fighting and D. ’ s bro ther kicked
everyone out of the house. K.H. and his friend s decided they wanted to leave the party and called the mother of one o f the friends. While they we re w a i ting ou t side for the ir ride home, K.H. saw Coley and X.J. facing each other and tal king in the street. K.H. testified that Coley appeared angry and th at X.J. appeared surpr ised. K.H. stated that he heard X.J. yell “ Get out my face, you old man

. ” K

. H. th en saw X.J. pull out a gun and heard gunshots. K.H. t estified that he could not remember whether Coley had stepped toward X.J. or had raised his arms

. K. H. saw Col ey lying on the g round and then ran to his friend ’ s mother ’ s car .

A.C., Coley ’ s fif

teen

- y ear - old son, testified th at he an d his friends w ent to D. ’ s party. D uring the party , A.C. w ent into the ba ck yard and saw X.J. and two other boys outside.
A.C. then went back inside the house. A. C. t est ified that after going in the house, pe ople we re f ighting and push ing and he saw someone h o ld up a gun. A.C. stated that he then c alled his3

father because he was trying to avoid people with whom he did not want to associate and because he had seen someone hold up a gun. A. C. t hen wen t to the f ront y ard with anothe r friend

. A .C. testified that after the rest of the people at the party had been kicked out of the house, he saw his fat her, Coley, arrive. A. C. sta ted that he saw his father talk to a boy named D.C. and t ell him to

“ stay a way from my ki ds

. ” A .C. testified that Coley was not aggressive and was speaking in a normal conversational tone. A.C. stated that D.C. looked nervous. Then, A. C. saw X.J. c o me out into the street and st and behind Coley. A.C. testified that X.J. and Co ley had not exch ang e d words w hen s uddenly X.J. shou ted “ I ’ m fixing to u p this bit c h

. ” A.C. testif ied that after X.J. shou ted, Co ley looked around and was facing X.J. when X.J. pulled a gun from hi s pants and shot Co ley. A. C. s tated t hat his father had hi s hands in the p ock e t of his sweatshirt and d id not raise his ha nds or take any st eps toward X.J. After the shots, A.C. saw Coley fall to the gro und

.

Z.C., Coley ’ s nephew , testified that he attended th e party with K.H. and A.C. After the party e n ded, Z .C. was in the f ron t yard waiting for a ride home. Z .C. saw Coley walk toward the house. Z.C. desc ribed Coley ’ s demeanor as calm. Z. C. was standing near his friends ’ mother ’ s car when he he ard shots fired. Z.C. turned and saw Coley fall to the g round.

Coley testifie d t ha t on October 20, 2018, he was at home watching a basketba ll game when his son, A.C., called and told him that he was at a party and some ki ds he was not
suppo sed to be around were wavi ng guns. Coley then left his house to go t o t he party

. Coley
test ifi ed that his purpose in going to the party was to get his son and ne phew an d the ir friends away from a party wh ere p eople had guns. C oley testified that when he arrived at the part y , he

saw kids scattered a round the yard ou t si de th e house and in the str eet

. C oley parked his car and

s tarted walking up the street to ward the house. After getting out of the car, Coley encountered

a 17

- year - old boy, D.C. Because D.C. appeared to be afraid , Co ley told him “ I ’ m not here for4

you f o r th at , s o, you know, get ou t o f my face. ” Another b oy, L., was standing near D.C. Coley
state d that L. appeared to be afraid and walked off when he saw Cole y. Coley told him to “ stay away from my kids. ” After speaki ng to D.C. and L. , Coley continued wal k ing toward th e house.
C oley te stified that he had his ha nds in his s weat shirt p ock e t and that he made no gestures toward D.C. or any one else. Coley took five or ten steps and then heard someone behind him
say , “ I ’ m go ing to set t his mother fucker of f. ” Coley stated tha t he the n tu rne d around and saw gunf ire and was shot three times.

S ergeant John Y urcina with the Pflugerville Police Department investigated the incident. Yurcina obtained a warrant for X.J. on Oc tober 21, 2018, and , after s eeing X.J. leave his residence in a v ehic le that afternoon , initiated a traffic stop and detained X.J. Yurcina obtained a search warrant for X.J. ’ s cellphone , and data on the phone revealed int e rnet searches for guns and bullet s made on the day of the incident as well as multi ple searches for ta xis on the night of the incident and search es for “ shooting last night in Pflugerville, Texas ” and for “ Marco Coley. ”

The only witness called by counsel for X.J. at the adju dication hearing was Sergeant Yurcina. Durin g his direct examination of Yurcina, co unsel for X.J. offered into evidence

a document t itled “ Mu gshot Profile ” as follows:
Q: Now, Sergeant Y urcina, Respondent ’ s Exhibit 12, that ’ s actually a booking photo for [X.J

. ]?
A: I wasn ’ t there wh en it was taken, but it ’ s consistent with a bo o king ph oto. Q : All ri g ht. Now when we say it ’ s a booking photo, it ’ s actually entitled

“ mugs hot profile ” ; is that correct?
A: Correct. Q : And this was actually done on Oc tober the 20 th?5

S TATE: Y our Honor, the State would object to him getti n g the information

co ntained that was in th is document into evidenc e without actu ally e ntering the document.
THE COURT: Sustained. Q: Now, you ’ ve had an opportunity to r eview Respond ent ’ s Exhibit 12?
A: Yes. Q: Now , do you r e cognize that as the mugshot pro file for [X.J .]?
A: I do. Q: And have you had an op portu nity to look at it for

— there is two sides?
A: Yes. Q: Front and back? And that is the mugshot photo that was do ne for [X.J

. ] when he was taken into custody?
A: I believe this was taken when he was booked in by Officer Grotto here at Gar d ner - Betts. Q: And that would h ave been on October 21st, 2018?
A: Yes, Oc tober 21st, 2018.
COUNSEL FOR X. J.: At this time, Your Honor, we would offer Res po nde nt ’ s Exh ibit 12 into evidence.
STATE: Your Honor, the Sta te wo uld still object. W e don ’ t belie ve th at the

document has been proper ly a ut henticated. It ’ s not a certified copy and

— THE COURT: Sustain ed.

Coun sel for X. J. later m ade a n offer of proof an d questioned Yurcina about the mugshot profile as follows:
Q: N ow, according to Respondent ’ s Exhibit 12, the mugshot photo, it indi cates that [X.J.] was actually five feet; is that r ight ?6

A: Correct. Q: All ri ght. And 98 po unds?
A: Correct.
After hearing the evidence and listening to argument from both sides, th e juv enile court announced its fin ding that th e State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that X.J. had assaulted Coley by shooting him

. The juvenile court the n adjudic ated X.J. delinquent

. The court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law in whic h it found that the testimony of all of the
State ’ s witnesses was credible, that Coley did not have a weapon at the time of the shooting , and th at Cole y did not assault or provoke X.J

.

Before the disposition hearing, counsel for X.J. filed a d ocument tit led

“ Respondent ’ s Social History and Proposed Dispositional Plan. ” The four

- page document summarize s information c ontained in other par t s of the court ’ s file, i ncludin g X.J. ’ s Adjudic ation and Referral History, his Edu cation His tory while in det ention, an d his most recent psychological assessment and recommenda tions. The report recite s details about X.J. ’ s personal h istory , family life, and his goals f

or the fut ure. The report conclu des with a brief discussion of X.J. ’ s treatment needs and rec ommends tha t X.J. be plac ed on probation at the Intermediate Sanctions Center (ISC). The document bears the electro nic signature of Terrence T. All en, MSSA, PhD, and was

a lso si gned by X.J. ’ s trial cou nsel. The S t ate filed a written objection to the document at the commencement of the disposition hearing. The State objected t o the d ocument on the grounds that it was untimely filed ; that it was prepared by X.J. ’ s attorney r ather t han by a probation officer, professional court employee, or p rofessional consultant ; an d that the appr opriate format7

to presen t the evidence in the document was through testimony at the dispositi on hearing subject
to cross

- exami nation.

At the dis position hearing, the court heard testimony from several witnesses. Daryl Reed, the Juvenile Co urt Officer supervisi ng X.J., t estified that he had been working with X.J. since March 2018 wh en X.J. was referred on a criminal mischief charge . Ree d stated t hat at the time of the disposition hearing, X.J. had five pending referrals, two of whi ch were f or f elon y assault of a public servant that occurred while X.J. was detained at Gardner

- Betts. Ree d testified tha t X.J. had been in safety

- based sec lusion a t Ga rdner

- Betts because he assaulted staff an d peers. Reed co nducted a P ositive Ac h ievem ent Cha nge Tool assess men t, which indicated t hat X.J. ha d a high ri sk to re

- offend. Reed testified that X.J. had participated in the Sou thwest Key
program a nd that he was un successful in that program. Reed recommended that X.J. be placed
at the ISC Lev el 5 for appr oximately on e year to parti cipate in aggression replacement therapy, social skills training, a nger management , and moral reason ing therapy. Reed stat ed that he did
not recommen d pla cement at TJJD because X.J. had never parti cipated in any community
prog ra ms, has been on probati on, and that placement at ISC would give him a chance t o participate in programs locally and permit his fam ily to particip ate in his trea tment.

Kim Buck , a T JJD employee who works with juveniles sent to t he department

on determinat e s entences, testified that if X.J. was ordered to go to TJJD on a d eterminate sentence he would be required to stay there for a t least two years less the numbe r of days he
h ad alrea dy been de tained. Buc k t estified about TJJD intake procedures, available programs, and release pro cedures.

S hawn Wilson, a psychologist with the T ravis County J uvenile Pro bation Department, testi f

ied that he supervised a psychologi cal assessment o f X.J. in May 2019.8

Wilson testified that his diagnostic impression s of X.J. wer e at tention deficit hyperactivity disorder, interm it tent explosive disorder, conduct diso rder, tr auma an d stress or related d isorder,

ca nnabis d isorder, and an x iolytic use di sorder. Wilson testified about X.J. ’ s past threat s of violence and about X.J. ’ s sp eci al education nee ds. Wilson a ssessed X.J. ’ s IQ as in the low average to border line range. Wilson recommend ed that X.J. be placed in a secure s etting such a s ISC . Wilson testifi ed that X.J. ’ s his tory of offenses and his behavior in detention indicated that he ne ed ed to be in a stable and secure setting where he could receive therapy an d address his trauma expo sure. Wilson also recommended that X.J. receive f amily therapy. Dani el Lovelace, who had worked as a juvenil e det ention officer at Gar dner

Bett s, tes tified about an incident in March 2019 when X.J. had blocked the window to his room

. Lovelace an d other s intervened and began removing items fr om X.J. ’ s room that he could us e to block the window. Lovelace t estified that X.J. became upset that they were re moving ite ms from his room and started coming tow ard Lovelace. Lovelace put his arm out a nd to ld X.J. not to come any closer . When X.J. c ontinu ed to grab Lovelace and the others, a supervisor instructed them to restrain X.J. Lov elace testified th at wh ile they were attempting to restrain X.J. , he bit
Lo velace ’ s arm. Matthew B lac k, who also served as a juvenile dete ntion officer, testified that in Apri l 2019, he intervened when another juvenile began to assault X.J. Black testified tha t while he w as attempt ing to separate the two juveniles, X.J. attempted to bypass Black to get to the juvenile who had ass aulted him . Black restrained X.J. and the t wo e nded up sitting on th e ground. Bla ck stated t hat he asked X.J. if he wanted to get up and go to h is room. X.J. said he d id, and Black released him as they walked to X.J. ’ s room. When they go t to the room, X.J. began trying to return to the other juvenil e and resisted B lack ’ s attempt to close the door. Black9

testified th at X.J. then hit him in the f ace with a closed fist , after which X.J. calmed dow n and Black was able to close the door.

J asmine J e nkins, a psychology inte rn at the Travis County Juveni l e Probation Department , testified that she hand led X.J. ’ s psychologic al evaluation under Wilson ’ s supervision. Jenkins agreed with Wilson ’ s recommendation of X.J. ’ s place ment in a secure fac ility and therapy and se rvice s . Jenk i ns d escribed X.J. as displaying s ymptoms of A DH D suc h as interrupting other s in group s ettings

. Jen kins tes tified that X.J. was coop erative an d polite to her a nd t hat she has nev er seen h i m be di srespectfu l.

Terrence Allen , a resea rch sc ienti st at the T exas Juvenile Crime Prevention Center
at Prairie View A & M University, testifi ed that he was familiar with I SC programs such a s the
Sou thwest Key Program a nd wi th TJJD. Allen testified that he met X.J. on ce and met X.J. ’ s family on ce . A llen stated that he had read all the documents rela ted to the case and that based on wh at he has read and observed he recommend ed that X.J. part icipate in a program that targe ts family functioning, education, and behav ior. All en tes tified that he belie ved X.J. ’ s actions i n shooting Coley were the com bine d respo nsibility of X.J., X. J. ’ s family, and t he school system. Allen testified tha t based on what he had read, X.J. ha s not been held account able for things he did that le d up to the shooting such as s ubstance abuse and o the r impulsive behavior and , con sequently, X.J. was not able to know the differ ence between right and wrong. Allen stated that fam ily therapy would help X.J. l ear n to be accountable. For this reason, Allen

re commended that X.J. be pla ce d in a pro g ram nea r his family so they could consistently interact wit h him and participate in fa mily therapy. Allen stated th at , from what he h ad read, it appear ed tha t X.J. did not value academic achievement an d that it would be helpful for him to und erstand that educati on is the quicke s t, easiest, and most s ensible path to social mobility. For th is reason,10

Al len recommended a program that put academi c achievement in context for X. J. Allen also testifie d that academi c achievement wou ld ameliorate X .J

. ’ s ADHD sympto ms an d allow him
to choose different p eople with whom to socialize

. Allen stated th at he b elieved X.J. would be

succ essful in a pro gr am that addressed his fa mily func tioning, educational needs, and mental healt h issues because X.J. has b een honest about his be havi or , which suggests to Allen that X.J. has “ exercised some degree of humilit y. ” All en recommended placement in an ISC progr am where his family could participate on a re gular basis. Allen testified th at TJJD did not have the special ized training t o pro vide X.J. with the recommended programs.

At the end o f Allen ’ s direct testimo ny, counsel for X.J. offered the four

- page docum ent titled “ Respondent ’ s S ocial History and Proposed Dispositional Plan ” to which th e State had previously o bject ed

. Al len descri bed the document as a d isposition plan for X.J. that included inf

ormation that Allen and X.J. ’ s counsel learned during the cou rse of Allen ’ s working with X.J. The S t ate renewed its objection , which the trial court sustained. X.J. ’ s co unsel
t endered the e xhibit to th e court in an offer of proof

.

On cross

- examination, Allen stated that he met with X.J. on ce for ninety minutes

a nd s eparate ly met with X.J. ’ s parents for about an hour. Allen stated that X. J. did not tell
him that he w as involved in any gang activity , but that X.J. did tell him that he had access
to numerous firearms

. X

. J. did not disclose how he had access to fir earms other than to say that his friends had “ a bunch of guns. ” X.J. told A llen about a pr evious shooting inc ident that had

occur red at Coley ’ s house. Allen testified that he was aware of social media posti n gs of photos and videos o ver the past two years depi cting X.J. displaying firea rms but state d that he had not seen the p hot os or videos

. Allen testif ied tha t X.J. reported tha t he used dru gs and alcohol, but Allen did not remember i f X.J. told him h ow he o btained drugs or alcohol. Allen agreed tha t h e11

wou ld be “ intere sted in knowing ” the extent to which there was drug use in X.J. ’ s home in order
to assess wh ether it would be in X.J. ’ s interest to participate in family ther apy.

Allen stated he prepared t o testify primarily by reviewing X.J. ’ s most re c ent psychological report and a May 2018 mental health assessment. Allen clarified that the four

page report coun sel for X.J. off ered into e vidence w as jointly prepared by Allen and X.J. ’ s counsel and th at he then reviewed it. Allen testified that he loo ked a t sch ool an d detention reports , but that he had not reviewed any offense reports or reports of incidents that had occurred wh ile X.J. was in detention.

Dani el Ho ard, the depu ty ch ief over clinical servi ces for the Travis County Juvenile Probation De partment, testif ied that he had reviewed X.J. ’ s psycholo gical evaluation and it s recommendations but had not e valuated X.J. person ally or loo ked at his other records. Hoard testified generally about t he progra ms available in an ISC program , the program ’ s g oals ,

an d the program ’ s ability to address X.J. ’ s needs.

At the conclu sion of the evidence, the juv enile co urt imposed a ten

- ye ar determinate sentence to begin at TJJD , with a possible tr ansfer to the T exas Department of Criminal Justice

- Instituti onal Di vision. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
X.J. ’ s two a ppellat e issues challenge the juvenile court ’ s ruling s on the ad mission of evidence. We review the court ’ s evidenti ary rulings under an abuse o f discretion standard.
In re B .P.S. , No. 03

- 07

- 00284

- CV, 2008 WL 3166310, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. o p.). The court abuses its discretion only when the decision lies “ outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. ” Id. In hi s fi rst issue, X.J. contends that the juvenile cour t sh ould12

have admitted t he mugshot profile . In his second issue, X.J. asserts th at the trial court should h ave admitted the d oc ument titled “ Respondent ’ s Social History and Proposed Dispositional Plan

. ”

The court sustained the State ’ s o bjection that the mug shot pro file X.J. sought to admit into eviden ce was not prope r ly auth enticated. See Tex. R. E vid . 901 ( to satisfy requireme nt of authenticating or identif ying item of evidence, proponent must produce evid ence sufficient to support fin ding that item is wha t proponent claims it is ). O n appeal, X.J. assert s that ther e is no requirement that a bookin g she et or mugshot profile “ ha s to be a certi fied copy before it is admitted into evidence. ” A certified copy of a mugshot profile would b e self

- authentica t i ng a nd

w ould re quire no extrinsic evidenc e of authenticity to be admitted. Id. R. 902. X.J. corr ectly
stat es that a mugshot pr ofile or booking sheet need not be a certified co p y to be admissible . I f it is n o t a certif

ied copy, h owever, it must be authen ticated by some other means . See id. R. 901. Only relevant evidence is admissible, id. R. 402, and evidenc e not properly authe nticated is irrelevant , T

ienda v. State , 358 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012 ) (evidence not prope rly authenticated is irrel evant, and authentication is “ condition precedent ” to admissibili ty)

. X. J. ’ s brief fails to identify how t he mugshot profile w as proper ly authenticated . Instead, X.J. argues that , because a mugshot profile d oes not have to be a certified copy to be admis si ble, “ the State ’ s objection did not have merit and the tria l court should not have susta ined it. ”

X.J. as serts t hat the two

- page mugshot profile was relev ant because information contained i n the profile es tablishes X.J. ’ s heig ht and weight on t he day a fter the shooting

. C ouns el for X.J. argued that this eviden ce was r eleva nt to X.J. ’ s self

- defense theory b ecause it showed tha t X .J. was small relative to Coley. X.J. offered t he mugshot profile through Se rg e ant Yurcina wh o sta t e d that the photog raph of X .J. in the mugshot profile was “ consistent with

a booking photo

. ” Yurc ina testified that he was not prese nt whe n the picture in t he mu g shot13

profile was taken or when another officer at the ju venile detention center recorded X.J

. ’ s personal infor mation , in cluding his he ight and weight

. Becau se Yu rcina d id not create the mugshot pro file , even if he could ident ify the phot o as one of X.J., who was pre sent in the court

room, h is testimon y alone could not est ablis h that the mugshot pro fi le offered into evid enc e was the docum ent created by the officer that booked X.J. into the juvenile detention center on October 2 1, 2018. See Demison v. Stat e , No. 11

- 15

- 00126

- CR , 2017 WL 3573254, at *8 (T ex. App.

— Eastland Aug . 17, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for p ublica tion) (trial co urt abused its d iscre tion by admitting into evidence booking photo with information s tatin g defendant ’ s h eigh t and wei ght th at w as offered through wi t ness who di d n ot create it). The tria l court did not abuse its discretion in determi ning that X.J. failed to suffi cient ly demonst rate the offered document ’ s authenticity.

Even if the court had abused its discretion in refusing to admit the mugs hot profile, any such error was harmless. W hen a juv enile adjudicated del inquent receives a d eterminate sentence , we apply the criminal

- harm analysis set for th in Tex as Rule of Appellate Procedure 44 .2. See In r e J.H. , 150 S.W.3d 477, 485 (Tex. App.

— Aust in 2004, pet. denied )

. The erroneous ex clusion of evid ence is non

- cons titutional error and any harm is assessed under rul e 44.2 (b). See Coble v. State , 330 S. W.3d 253, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). W e must disregard non

- cons titutional error unless it “ aff ect[s] subst antial rights. ” See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b ). A substa ntia l right is affected when the error had a “ sub stantial and injurious effect or influence in det ermining the [factfinder ’ s] verdict

. ” Coble , 330 S.W.3d at 280. In making this determinat ion, we r eview th e record as a whol e , including any tes t imony or physic al evidence admitt ed for the factfinder ’ s con sideration, the natu re of the evidence supporting the verdict, and14

the chara cter of the alleged error and how it might be considered in conn ection with other evidence in the case. Motilla v. Sta te , 78 S.W.3d 35 2, 355 (Te x. Crim. App. 2002).

W e hav e re vie wed the record as a whol e and conclude that the exclusion of the mugshot pro fi le di d not have a substantial effect o r influence on the juv e nile court adjudication.
E vidence pr esented at t rial showed that Co ley did not hing to threaten or in tim id ate X.J. prior to the shooting and that Coley had his ha nds in his poc ke ts and was not fac ing X.J. until h e turned when X.J. shouted and fir ed his g un . Coley testified that he was unar med and facing a way from X.J. when he heard X.J. shout, turne d, and was immedia te ly shot. A l though on e witness testified that X.J. and Coley were facing each other, that witness also testified that she heard no yelling

a nd did not s e e Col ey make any movem ent toward X.J

. before she saw him back up and fire his
gun a t Coley. Another witness tes tified th at Coley ’ s demeanor seem ed “ angry ” but that he did
not ge sture or move to ward X.J. There was also testimony that Coley wa s a big man and that he

w as bi gge r than X.J.

An a ctor i s justified in using deadly force if, a mon g other things, the actor reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the ac tor against another ’ s use or attempted use of u nlawful d eadly force. See Mora les v. State , 357 S. W.3d 1, 4 (T ex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Tex. Penal Co de § 9.32(a)(2)(A)). The juvenile court implicit ly rejected X.J. ’ s self

- defense theory when it adjudica ted him d eli nquent. See Saxton v. State , 804 S.W.2d 910 , 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (jury ’ s verdict of g ui l ty is implicit fi nding reject ing defen da nt ’ s self

defense theory). A rational trier of fact could have found that X.J . did not rea sonably bel ieve
t hat shooting Coley was immediately necessary to protect him from any use o r a ttempted use

o f dea dly force

. See Gr anger v. St ate , 3 S.W.3d 36, 39 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999) (noting th at reasonableness o f defendant ’ s belie f th at deadly force was necessary is or dinarily question of15

fact ). In light of the evidence in the record demonstrating that X.J. was a 15

- year - old boy and tha t Co ley was a big man , w e concl ude that any abuse of discretion in the exclusion of evidence of X.J. ’ s exact h eight and weight did not ha ve a substantial an d injurious effect or in fluence on the juvenile court ’ s rejection of X.J. ’ s sel f

- def ense theory. The record also re flects th at X.J . had appeared before the juvenile court on sever al occas ions before and during trial, which provided th e court an opportunity to observe his s ize re lative to Coley ’ s . N o harm result ed from the

co u rt ’ s r efu s al to admit th e mug shot profile

. We overrule X. J. ’ s first issue.

In his second issue, X.J. asser ts that the trial court erred in sustain in g the St ate ’ s objection to the document titled “ Respondent ’ s Social His tory and Proposed Disposition al Pl an . ”
X.J. ma intains that the documen t is admissible as a “ written report of a professional consult ant ” under Texas Family Code section 54.04(b). See T ex. Fam. Code § 54.04( b) ( at disposition hearing cour t may consider wr i tten reports from proba ti on office rs, profes sional court

e m plo yees, or professional consu lta nts in addition to testimony of witnesses). Section 54.04(b) is discretionary; it permits t he court to consider written repor ts but does n ot require it to do so

. Furthermore, the purported aut hor o f the written r eport, Dr. Allen, testified extens ively at tri al about his recommendation that X.J. be placed in a se cure program suc h as ISC rather t ha n at TJJD. X.J. does not identify anything in the r ep ort that was no t covered by Dr. A llen ’ s
test imony

. We c onclude that the juve nile court did not abuse its d is cretion in refusing to admit the proffered report into evidence and that , even i f it could be considered an abuse of discretion, it was not harmful because the re port would not hav e had a substant ia l e ffect or influence on the

co urt ’ s disposition determina tion. We overrule X.J. ’ s sec ond issue.16 CONCLUSI ON Having overruled X.J. ’ s two issues, we affirm the order of the juvenile court.

____________ __________________ ____________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana Affirmed Filed: December 3, 2020