1 ... See Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 042- CR
J OS E P H F L E NT ON T OR R E Y AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 1 OF TARRA NTCO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I nt r oduc t i on A p p e l l a n t J o s e p h F l e n to n T o rre ya p p e a l sh i sc on vi cti o n fo r c a p i ta l m u rd e r. In f o u rp o in t s , T o r r e ya s s e rt st h a tt h ee v id e n c es u p p o rt in g h isc o n v ic t io n is l ega l l y a nd f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci ent , t hatt he t r i alcourtw r ongl y de ni ed hi s m ot i on2 ... A n d e r s o n p le d g u ilt yt o a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e ryf o re v e n t sre la t e d t o t h is

case. The t r i al courtconcl uded t hatshe w as an accom pl i ce t o T or r ey’ s char ges asa m att erofl aw ; ne i t herpa rt y ha s cha l l eng ed herst at usas a n a cc om pl i ceon app ea l . Ande r son w asan ac com pl i cebe ca us e s he w ass us ce pt i bl e t o be i ng char ged ( and w as i n f actconvi ct ed f or ) aggr avat ed r obb ery, w hi ch as expl ai ned bel ow , i s a l esser - i ncl uded of f ense ofm ur deru nderthe i ndi ct m enti n t hi s case. Se eMe d

i n av. S tate , 7 S .W .3 d 6 3 3 , 6 4 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 0 2 (2 0 0 0 ); se e al so Te x. Pe na l Cod eAnn . § 7. 02 ( Ver no n 2003) (a s s e s s i n g c r im in a l re s p o n s ib ilit yf o ra n o t h e rp e r s o n ’s a c t io n sin c e rt a in c i rc u m s ta n c e s ).

3 ... A nder son i ndi cat ed t hatshe un d er st ood “hi ta l i ck” t o m ean t hat T o rr e yw a n ted to ro b so m e o n e . T o rr e yh a d tal k e d o n p rev i o u s o c c a sion s w i th 2 f ora m i st ri a l , a n d th att he t r i al courter r ed by r ef usi ng t o i ncl ude a r equest ed j u ryi n s tru c ti o n . W e a ffir m . B a c k g rou n d F a c ts Becau se Tor r ey’ s f i r stt w o poi nt s di st i ngu i sh t he ef f ectofacco m p l i ce tes ti m o n y fr o m th e e ffec t o f th e tr i a l ’s rem a i n i n g tes ti m o n y , w ew i l l se g reg a te th e i n fo rm a ti o n g a th e re d fro m s u c h a c c o m p l i c et e s ti m o n yi n o u r b ri e f s u m m a ry oft he f ac t s r el at ed t o Tor r ey’ s con vi ct i on. Evi den cepres ent ed f r om Fa ’ naeA nde rso n’ s ac com pl i cet est i m ony 2 Fa’ na e And e r s on w a sTo r r e y’ sg i r l f r i e nd a tt het i m eo fTo r r e y’ sc r i m es. In J a n u a ry2 0 0 7 , A n d e rs o n a n d T o rre yl iv e d w i th A n d e rs o n ’ss i s te r, L a ’T o ra Es t er s, atan ap art m enton Te r m i nalRoad. O ne ni ght t hat m onth, To r r ey w oke A nder son, and he t ol d hert hatt hey
w e reg o i n g t o “ h i t a l i c k .” 3 A ft er m ak i ng a cou pl e of st ops i n a ca r , A nde r so nA n d e rs o n a b o u t “ h i ttin g a l i c k .” 3

a n d T o rr e y(w h o w a s c a rry i n g a b l a c k. 4 5 ca l i b e r gu n ) w e n t t o V i n e tta S tr e e t. T h e yp u l l e d i n fr o n t of a kn o w n d rug h o u se o n tha t str e e t, an d the n T o rr e yl e ft t he ca ran d k noc ke d on t he hous e’ s f r ontdoor . Som eon e o pen ed t he door , an d Tor r ey w enti ns i de. Af t erTor r ey had be en i ns i de “am i nut e orl es s, ” A nde r so n hear d t hr e e g un s ho t s . To r r e y r a n ou to ft heh ou s ec a r ryi ng a b l ueb a c k pa c k. A nder son asked To r r ey w hathad happ ened; To r r ey r espond ed, “Them ni ggas dea d. ” A nde r so n and Tor r ey dr ovet o T r i ni t y Boul eva r d, and aft erTor r ey t ook
a m aga z i ne cl i p outofhi s gun, het hr ew t he gun i n a gutt er . W hen A nde r so n and T or r ey ar r i ved back at Est er s’ s hou se, A nder son open ed t he bl ue backpack,
w hi ch contai ned dr ugs, scal es, and m oney. A nder son and T or r ey t hen bu r ned th e b a c k p a c ki n the b a c ko f Es ters’s a p a rt m e n t. The ne xtm or ni ng, Tor r ey gav e t he gun m agazi ne cl i p t o Ander so n i n a p la s t ic g r o c e ryb a g , a n d h e t o ld h e rt o d is p o s eo fit . A n d e r s o n g a v et h ep la s t ic bag t o Es t er s, and Es t er s t hr ew i t i nt o a st or m dr ai n. That sa m e d ay, A nde r so n and To r r ey t al ked abou tw hath ad occur r ed t he pr evi ous ni ght; To r r ey sai d t hat “h e a sk ed t he dude s w hatt heyha ve, an d t hen oneoft hem s atdow n on t he
cou ch and w asl ook i ng t hr ough t he bag , an d [ Tor r ey] s hothi m . [ Tor r ey] s hot th e fi rs t g u y , a n d th e n h e s h o t th es e c o n d g u y .”4 ... Es t er s unde r st ood “h i tt i ng an ea syl i ck ” t o m ea n s t ea l i ng s om et hi ng. 5 ... E s t e r s t e s t if ie d t h a tT o r r e yu s e d t h e“ b a b y ”m o n ik e rt o d e s c r ib e h is gun . S he al so st at ed t hatshe had pr evi ousl y hear d To r r ey st at e t hathe ow ned a . 45 cal i bergun. 4 Evi den cepres ent ed f r om nona cc om pl i cet est i m ony Es t ers’ s t est i m ony W h i l e A n d e rso n an d T o rr e yw e re s tay i n g w i th E ste rs, T o rr e yb rou g h t a g u n to E ste rs’s a p a rt m e n t, a n d h eto o ki t w i th h i m w h e n h el e ft th eap a rt m e n t. A nder son and T or r ey l eftt he apart m entone ni g h t ar oun d m i dni ght; t hey
r et ur ned t he next m or ni ng ar ound si x o’ cl ockw i t h dr ugs , m one y, a sc al e, an d a bl ue bac kpa ck . W hen T or r ey ar r i ved atEst er s’ s apa rt m entt hatm or ni ng, he t ol d Est er s t hathe had j ust“hi thi m sel fan easy l i ck”; 4he and A n d e rso n t hen t ooki t em s outoft he bac kpa ckan d c ount ed m one y. W hi l e A nder son w as dr i vi ng Est er s and To r r ey t o getdonu t s t h a tsam e
m or ni ng, Tor r ey t ooka pl as t i c bag outofhi s poc ke tan d t ol d Ander so n t o t hr ow i t i n a s e w e r. A n d e rs o n th e n a s k e d E s te rsto th ro w th eb a g i n th es e w e r; Est er s not i ced a gun m agazi ne cl i p i n t he bag, and t hen she com pl i ed w i th A n d e rs o n ’sre q u e s t. A fte r re tu rn i n g to E s te rs ’sa p a rtm e n t, T o rre yto l d E s te rs th a t h e h a d to “ u s e h i sb a b y .” 5 A f ew days l at er , Est er s saw a new s st or y on t el evi si on abo utN i chol as D avi s’ s dea t h. W hi l e Est er s w asspea ki ng w i t h T or r ey abo utt he new s st ory,6 ... E s t e r ss t a t e d a tt r ia l,

[ Tor r ey] ha d j usts ai d t hat[ he and A nde r so n] ha d w entt o t he hous e, and hew enti n t her e a nd a sk ed [ oneoft he vi ct i m s] t o s erve h im a [n ] X p ill. . . . H e d id n ’t s a y w h ic h o n eh ea s k e d t o s e rv eh im t he X pi l l , b ut h e g otan X pi l l . . . [ and ] hes hothi m i n t he hea d. Th en he shott he ot herboy t oo. A nd on e oft he m w as supposed t o gots hott w i cean d one oft hem w ass uppos ed t o ha d gots hot once. 7 ... T e sti m o n yi n d i c a ted tha t W i l so n a n d D a v i s so l d d rug s a t th eV i n e tta S t r eetaddr ess.

8 ... Th e of f i cer s’ concl usi on w as l at erconf i r m ed by a depu t y m edi cal e x a m i n e r, w h o e x p l a i n e d th a t D a v i sa n d W i l s o n d i e d fro m g u n s h o ts . 5 he r eveal ed t o hert hat A nder son had dr i ven hi m t o t he hou se on V i net t a Str eet and t hathe had ki l l ed D avi s and Br i an W i l so n. 6Es t er s t ol d t he pol i ceab out Tor r ey’ s st at em entan d a boutherd i sp os al oft he pl as t i c b ag and t he gun
m a g a z i n e c l i p , a n d s h e g a v e th ep o l i c ec o n s e n t to s e a rc h h e r a p a rtm e n t, w h e re sh e s ai d t hatt heyco ul d f i nd a bur ned bl ue bac kpa ckt hatTor r ey had us ed. O t hernona cc om pl i cet est i m ony O n t he m or ni ng of January 17 , 20 07 , aft ert he vi ct i m s’ 7f r i end s f ound t he
v i c ti m s’ b o d i e s, F o rtW o rt h p o l i c eo ffi c e rs rec e i v e d a c a l l , w e n t t o the V i n e tta St r ee tad dr es s, s pok e w i t h t he vi ct i m s’ f r i end s and ot heri ndi vi dua l s, an d
con cl ude d t hatt he vi ct i m s w er e d ea d. 8T h eo ffi c e rs o b tai n e d a s e a rch w a rr a n t. A ft eren t er i ng t he t w o- bed r oom house , t he of f i ce r s t ooks t i l l pi ct ur esan d vi deo oft he sc ene , ex am i ned t he v i ct i m s’ bodi esan d t he cou che s t hatt he9 ... N o n e o f th e fi n g e rp ri n ts th a t th eo ffice rsc o l l e c te d m a tc h e d T o rre y ’s

f i nger pr i nt s.

10 ... Es t er s con f i r m ed w hi l e t es t i f yi ng t hatt he cl i p of f i ce r s f ound w ast he s a m e c l i p th a t s h e th re w i n th es e w e r.

11 ... E ste rs a l so g a v e o ffi c e rs c o n se n t t o se a rch the ap a rt m e n t. 6 v ic t im s w e r e s lu m p e d o v e r o n , a n d c o lle c t e d t h r e e .4 5 c a lib e r f ir e d s h e ll casi ngs, l at entf i nger pr i nt s, 9an d ot herva r i ou s i t em s ( i ncl udi ng a gun and
a m m u n i ti o n th a t o ffice rsd e te rm i n e d to b eu n re l a te d to th ec ri m e ). O n the ea rl ym o rning o f Ja n u a ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , E ste rs sp o k ew i th F o rtW o rt h Pol i ce D epa rt m entD et ec t i ve A nge l a J ay abo utw hatTor r ey had t ol d Es t er s and Est er s’ s ot herknow l edge r el at ed t o t he m ur der s. Est er s even tu a l l y l ed D et ec t i ve Jayt o w her e E st er s had di sc ar ded t he gun c l i p; of f i ce r s f ou nd a
w hi t e p l as t i c b ag cont ai ni ng a . 45 ca l i berpi st ol m aga z i ne cl i p a tt hatl oca t i on. 10 D e te c ti v e J a yp re p a re d a rre s t w a rra n tsf o r T o rre ya n d A n d e rs o n , a n d o ffice rs ar r est ed T or r ey and A nder son t hatm or ni ng atEste rs’s Term i nal Ro ad
a p a rt m e n t. O n J a n u a ry2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , o ffice rse x e c u t e d a s e a rc h w a rra n t o n E s te rs ’s
a p a rt m e n t. 11 W hi l e execut i ng t he w ar r ant , of f i cer s f oun d ( am ong ot heri t em s) To r r ey’ s i denti f i cat i on car d and a bu r ned bl ue backpack. Lat ert hatm onth, a cri m i nal i stw ho w or ks f ort he FortW ort h Po l i ce D epa rt m ent exa m i ned t he t hr ee sp ent sh el l ca si ngst hatt he of f i ce r s had f ound12 ... F o r i n sta n c e , th e S tate fi l e d a n o ti c etha t i t w a s n o t se e k i n g the d e a th

penal t y f orTo r r ey’ s cr i m es. Tor r ey f i l ed a docum enti n w h i c h he desi gnated t he j ury t o a ss es s hi s puni sh m entupon hi s con vi ct i on. 7 w i t h a co m par i so n m i cr os cop e, an d hede t er m i ned t hatt heyw er e f i r ed f r om t he
sam e gun. H e coul d not f or m a n o p i n i on, how ever , on w het hert he t hr ee c a s in g sh a d p a s s e d t h r o u g h t h em a g a z in ec lip t h a th a d b e e n f o u n d in t h ep la s t ic bag . Th e pr ocedu r alhi st ory ofTo r r ey’ s case I n Apr i l 2007, a Ta r r a nt Cou nt y gr a nd j ury i nd i c t e d To r r e y w i t h capi t al
m ur der , al l egi ng t hatheki l l ed W i l so n a nd Davi s i n t he sa m e t r ans ac t i on a nd th a t h e k i l l e d th e m i n th e c o u rs eo f c o m m i ttin g ro b b e ry . See Tex. Pen alCode A nn. § 1 9. 03 ( a) ( 2) , ( a) ( 7) ( A ) (V e rno n Su pp. 20 08 ) . A ft ert he part i es f i l ed
var i ous pr et r i al docum ent s, 12T o rre y ’stri a l b e g a n w i th th ev o i r d i reo f th e j u ry panel ; To r r ey t hen pl ed not gui l t y t o t he i ndi ct m ent ’ s al l egat i ons. A ft ert he part i es pr esent ed t hei rcases, t hey s ub m i tt ed cl osi ng ar gum ent s, a n d t h e ju ryc o n v ic t e d T o r r e y o f c a p it a l m u r d e r . T h et r ia l c o u rts e n t e n c e d h im t o lif e in p r is o n , a n d t h e n h e t im e lyf ile d h isn o t ic eo ft h isa p p e a l.8 Th e Legaland Fact ualSu ff i ci ency of t he Evi dence and t he Suff i ci enc y oft he N ona cc om pl i ceTes t i m ony I n hi s f i r sttw o poi nt s, T or r ey chal l enges t he l egal and f act ual suf f i ci ency o f t h e ev i d e n c e t o “s u p p o rtthe j u ry’s d e term i n a ti o n tha t he ( a s o p p o se d to
ano t herpe r so n) m ur der ed”D avi s and W i l so n. He con t end s t hatt her e i s no f or ensi c ev i d e n c e s u ch as f i nger pr i nt s orD N A t hatl i nks hi m t o t he cr i m es. H e al so assert s t hat t her e i s no evi dence t endi ng t o conn ecthi m t o t he cr i m es apa rtf r om A nde r so n’ s ac com pl i cet es t i m ony. Legaland f act ualsuff i ci ency S t andar ds ofrevi ew I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l s uf f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet o s upporta con vi ct i on,
w e v ie w a ll o ft h e e v id e n c e in t h elig h tm o s tf a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t io n in
or dert o de t er m i ne w het heran y r at i ona l t r i eroff ac tco ul d ha ve f ound t he
e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n tso f th e c ri m eb e y o n d a re a s o n a b l ed o u b t. Jacks on v. V ir ginia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h et r ie ro ff a c tist h es o le j u d g e o f th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th ee v i d e n c e . See Tex . C ode C r i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 4(V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); Brownv. S tate , 270 S . W . 3d 564, 568 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 20 08 ) . T hus, w hen per f or m i ng a l egal suff i ci ency r evi ew , w e m ay notr e - e v a l u a t e 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 n d s u b s t i t ut e o ur9

j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r. D e wb erry v. S ta te , 4 S. W . 3d 735, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 3 1 (2 0 0 0 ). In s t e a d , w e “ d e t e r m in e w h e t h e rt h en e c e s s a ryin f e r e n c e sa r ere a s o n a b le based upo n t he com bi ned and cum ul at i ve f or ce of al l t he evi dence w hen vi ew ed i n th e li ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” Ho op er v. S tate , 2 1 4S . W . 3 d 9, 16 –1 7 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 07 ) . W e m ustpr esum e t hatt he f act f i nderr esol ved any co nf l i c t i ng i nf e r e nc e si n f a vo ro ft hep r os e c ut i on a nd d e f e rt o t hat
re s o l u ti o n . Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 235 S. W . 3d
a t 7 7 8 . W h e n rev i e w i n g the fac tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h ee v id e n c eto s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. Nea l v. S ta te, 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cert. denied, 129 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); Wa tso nv. S tate , 204 S. W . 3d 404, 414 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 200 6) . W e t hen as k w het hert he evi den ces upport i ng t he con vi ct i on, al t hough le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is n e v e rt h e le s ss o w e a kt h a tt h ef a c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is
c le a r lyw r o n g a n d m a n if e s t lyu n ju s to rw h e t h e r c o n f lic t in g e v id e n c es o g r e a t ly
o u tw e i g h sth e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th ec o n v i c ti o n th a t th efa c tfin d e r’s d e te rm i n a ti o n i sm a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. L an c o nv. S tate , 253 S. W . 3d 699 , 704 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W atson , 20 4 S . W . 3d at41 4– 15 , 41 7. To r ever se unde rt he se con d gr ound, w e m us tdet er m i ne, w i t h som e o bj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he10

r ec or d, t hatt he gr ea tw ei ghtan d pr epo nde r anc e o fal l t he evi den ce , al t hough l e g a l l ys u fficie n t, c o n tra d i c tsth ev e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s f a c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not
e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v el e v e l o f re a so n a b l ed o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W ec a n n o tc o n c lu d et h a ta c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly
w r o n g o rm a n if e s t lyu n ju s ts im p lyb e c a u s ew ew o u ld h a v ed e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ryo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h eju ry ’s re s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin th e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m ayn ot s i m pl y s ubs t i t ut e o urj udgm entf ort he fa c tfin d e r’s . Jo hn so nv. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ca in
v. S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). A n a ly s is H er e, t he e v i d e n ce i s l egal l y suf f i ci entt o est abl i sh To r r ey’ s i denti t y as D avi s’ s and W i l so n’ s m ur der er . Ev i den ceast o t he i den t i t y oft he per pet r at or ofan of f ense can be pr ov e d b yd i rectorci r cum st ant i al evi dence. Ear l s v. S tate , 7 0 7 S .W .2 d 8 2 , 8 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ); Co u chm anv. S tate , 3 S .W .3 d 1 5 5 , 1 6 2 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 9 , p e t. ref’ d ). S u c h i d e n ti ty
m a yb e e s ta b l i s h e d b ya n e x traj u d i c i a l c o n fe s s i o n a l o n e . Se eE m ery v. S tate , 8 8 1 S .W .2 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ), cert. denied, 51 3 U. S. 1192 (1 9 9 5 ); Gri

b b lev. S tate , 8 0 8 S .W .2 d 6 5 , 7 0

– 7 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ), cert.11

denied, 5 0 1 U .S . 1 2 3 2 (1 9 9 1 ); T i drowv. S tate , 9 16 S. W . 2d 623 , 630 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 6 , n o p e t.); se e a l so Capp s v. S tate , 244 S. W . 3d 520, 526 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2007, pet . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. on PDR) ( af f i r m i ng t he def endan t ’ s convi ct i o n form ur der i ng hi s w i f e because, i n part , “[ s] ever al
w om en t est i f i ed t hat [ he] had hi nt ed abou t or adm i tt ed t o ki l l i ng orhavi ng hi r ed
s o m e o n e e l s e to k i l l [h e r]” ). To r r ey’ s ext r aj udi ci al confes si on t o Est er s unequi vocal l y est abl i shed t hat h e a n d A n d e rs o n d ro v e to th e h o u s e o n V i n e tta S tre e t, w h e re h e k i lle d D a v is and W i l son. Thu s, t he evi de n c e enabl ed a r at i onal t r i eroff actt o conv i ct T o rr e y , a n d i t i s l e g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t. T h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g T o r r e y ’s c o n v ic t io n islik e w is ef a c t u a lly
su f f i ci ent . Tor r ey di d nots ubm i tany evi den cecont r adi ct i ng t he t es t i m ony f r om E s te rso r A n d e rs o n th a t h e c o m m i tte d th e m u rd e rs , a n d n o th i n g i n th ere c o rd
cou l d s ugge stt hatan yoneot hert han Tor r ey ki l l ed D avi s and W i l so n. Al so , t he phys i ca l ev i den cef ound by of f i ce r s, such as t he bur ned bl ue bac kpa ck , t he gun cl i p t hatw as f oun d i n t he pl ast i c bag, and t he . 45 cal i berbu l l e t cas i ngs, cor r obo r at ed port i ons ofEst er s’ s and A nder son’ s t est i m ony t hatrel at ed t o each oft hes e i t em s. Fort hes e r ea so ns , and al so i n cons i der at i on oft he r em ai ni ng f act s r eci t ed abov e , w e hol d t hatt he evi dence subm i tt ed att r i al w as notso
w ea k a s t o m ak e t he j ury’ s dec i si on t o c onvi ctTor r ey cl ea r l y w r ong o r12

m ani f es t l y un j us t ; t her ef or e, hi s con vi ct i on w asba se d on f ac t ual l y s uf f i ci ent evi dence. T h ea c c o m p lic e -w it n e s sru le A ppl i ca bl e l ega ls t and ards A convi ct i on “ canno t be had up on t he t est i m ony o fan accom pl i ce unl ess cor r obor at ed by o t herev i den cet end i ng t o c onne ctt he def end antw i t h t he of f ens e c om m i tt ed; an d t he cor r obor at i on i s notsuf f i ci enti fi tm er el y s how s t he
com m i ss i on oft he of f ens e. ” Tex. C odeCr i m . Pr oc. A nn. art . 38. 14 ( V er non 200 5) . To bean ac com pl i ce , t he per so n m us tbes us ce pt i bl e t o pr os ec ut i on f or t he of f ense w i t h w hi ch t he accused i s char ged ora l esser - i ncl ude d of f ense. See Medi

na , 7 S. W . 3d a t641. W hen ev al uat i ng t he su f f i ci enc y ofco r r obor at i on e vi den ceunde rt he
ac com pl i ce - w i t nes s r ul e, w e “ el i m i nat e t he ac com pl i cet es t i m ony f r om c o n s id e r a t io n a n d t h e n e x a m in et h ere m a in in g p o rt io n so ft h ere c o r d t o s e e if th e rei sa n ye v i d e n c e th a t te n d sto c o n n e c t th ea c c u s e d w i th th ec ri m e .” Ma lo n ev. S tate , 253 S . W . 3d 253, 257 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2008 ) ( quot i ng So lo m o nv. S tate , 4 9 S. W . 3d 356 , 3 61 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2 001 ) ) . To m ee tt he
r equ i r em ents oft he r ul e, t he cor r obor at i ng e vi den cene ed notpr ovet he d e fe n d a n t’sg u i l t b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l ed o u b t b yi ts e l f. Id. N o r i si t n e c e s s a ry f ort he cor r obor at i ng e vi den cet o di r ec t l y l i nk the accus ed t o t he com m i ss i on13

o f th e o ffe n s e . Ca th e yv. S tate , 992 S . W . 2d 46 0 , 4 62 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 8 U .S . 1 0 8 2 (2 0 0 0 ). Rat her , t he evi den cem us ts i m pl y l i nk t he ac cus ed i n s om e w ay t o t he
c o m m is s io n o ft h e c r im e a n d s h o w t h a t“ r a t io n a l ju r o r sc o u ld c o n c lu d et h a tt h is evi dence s uf f i ci ent l y t ended t o conn ect[ t he accused] t o t he of f ense. ” Mal one , 253 S. W . 3d at257 ( quot i ng Herna n dez v. S tate , 939 S . W . 2d 173, 179 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 19 97 ) ) . “I ndep enden tev i dence w hi ch gener al l y t ends t o pr ove t hat
an accom pl i ce w i t ness’ s ver si on ofev ent s i s t r ue, rat hert han t he ver si on gi ven b yth e d e fe n d a n t, i sc o n s i d e re d c o rro b o ra ti v e , e v e n i f i t c o n c e rn sa m e re

‘ det ai l , ’ asoppo se d t o a s ubs t ant i ve l i nk bet w ee n t he def endan tan d
com m i ssi on of t he of f ense. ” Bea th a rd v. S tate , 767 S . W . 2d 4 2 3 , 4 3 0 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ); se e a l so Mun oz v. S tate , 8 5 3 S . W . 2 d 5 5 8 , 5 5 9 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 19 93 ) ( noti ng t hat“[ a] ppar ent l y i nsi gni f i canti ncr i m i nat i ng ci r cum st ances
m a ys o m e ti m e sa ffo rd s a ti s fa c to rye v i d e n c eo f c o rro b o ra ti o n ” ). A n a ly s is Es t er s’ s t es t i m ony abo utTor r ey’ s ext r aj udi ci alco nf ess i on t o he roft he
m ur der s, al ong w i t h t he phy si cal evi dence descr i bed abo ve t hatst r engthened E s te rs ’ste s ti m o n y , p r o v i d e d e n o u g h e v i d e n c ei n d e p e n d e n t o f A n d e rs o n ’s te s ti m o n yt o s u p p o rt h i sc o n v i c ti o n . Se eJo ub ert v. S tate , 235 S . W . 3d 729, 731 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2007 ) ( hol di ng t hatt he “a ppe l l ant ’ s adm i ssi on t hathe14

p a rt i c i p a ted i n the cri m e , a l th o u g h h ed e n i e d b e i n g a s h o o ter, [w a s] en o u g h to te n d to c o n n e c t h i m to th e o ffe n s e ” ), cert. denied, 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 4 4 6 (2 0 0 8 ); Medi na , 7 S. W . 3d at642 ( hol di ng t hatext r aj udi ci all ett er s f r om t he app el l ant th a t i n d i c a te d h i sg u i l t w e res u fficie n t to te n d to c o n n e c t h i m to m u r d e r ); T h o mp so nv. S tate , 54 S. W . 3d 88, 94 ( Tex. A pp.— T yl er2001 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( exp l ai ni ng t hata “d ef end ant ’ s con f es si on m ay be su f f i ci entt o c or r obor at e t he t es t i m ony ofan ac com pl i ce , s o l ong as pr oof of t he con f es si on doe s notde pen d
u p o n th e te s ti m o n yo f th e a c c o m p l i c e ” ). T o rre ya s s e rtsth a t b e c a u s eo f th efa m i l i a l re l a ti o n s h i p b e tw e e n E s t e rs and A nder son, t he t est i m ony of Est er s shoul d not be deem ed suf f i c i e n t t o c o rr o b o rate the sto ry to l d b yA n d e rso n . H o w e v e r, h ecit e s n o au th o ri ty suppo rt i ng hi s ass ert i on t hata f am i l i al rel at i onshi p ofa n onacco m pl i ce w i t ness to a n a c c o m p lic e w i tn e s sa ffe c tsth ew e i g h t o f th en o n a c c o m p l i c ew i tn e s s ’s t es t i m ony, norha ve w e f ound anys uch au t hor i t y. T hu s, Es t er s’ s t es t i m ony
w a ss u fficie n tl yc o rro b o ra ti v e ; i t te n d e d to c o n n e c t T o rre y to th e m u rd e rs . See Te x. Cod e Cr i m . Pr oc . Ann . a rt . 38. 14. Foral l oft hese r easons, w e over r ul e To r r ey’ s f i r stt w o poi nt s.

Th e D eni alofTo r rey’ s M ot i on f ora M i st r i al In h ist h ir d p o in t , T o r r e yc o n t e n d st h a tt h et r ia l c o u rte r r e d b yd e n y in g h is
m ot i on f ora m i st r i al ; he assert s t hata j ur o r’ s con ver sat i on w i t h a co- w or ker15

den i ed hi m duepr oce ss . Fol l ow i ng a l unc h br ea k o n t he f i r stda y oft es t i m ony dur i ng Tor r ey’ s t r i al , t he f ol l ow i ng exc han ge occ ur r ed bet w ee n t he t r i alj udge and a j ur ori n t he j udg e’ s cham ber s: T H E C O U R T : Y o u ’r eM s. A l e x a n d e r, ri g h t? JU R O RA LEX A N D ER : Y es. TH E CO U RT: I got a m es sa ge t ha t yo u t hi nk you m i ght know one oft he w i t nesses f ort he S t at e? JU R O RA LEX A N D ER : Y es. T H E C O U R T : D o y o u k n o w w h o -- JU R O RA LEX A N D ER : N ott he w i t ness. TH E CO U RT: W ho? JUROR AL EXAN DER: I t hi nk s he ’ s go i ng t o be i n t he audi ence. S h e j u st a rrive d . S h e j u st sa i d sh eg o t off w o rk, an d I u se d to w o rkw i th h e r. TH E CO U RT: You t al ke d t o he ri n t he hal l w ay? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: Yeah. T H E C O U R T : Y o u k n o w y o u a re n o t su p p o se d to tal kto any body ? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: O h. T H E C O U R T : R e m e m b e r? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: I j us tas ke d he rhow w ass he doi ng.16

TH E C O U R T: Th at ’s fi n e . A n d I di dn’ t m ake t hatcl ear pr oba bl y be ca us e I t ol d yo u nott o t al k a boutt he ca se , butt he peop l e w ho are her e ar oun d t he court r oom ar e her e f ort hi s case, a n d s o y o u c a n ’tt a l kt o t h e m a ta ll, b u tt h a t ’s o k a y . W e ’ll t a lk abou tt hatl at er . So w hat ’ s hernam e? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: Tye Sm i t h. T H E C O U R T : T y eS m i th . A n d h o w d o y o u k n o w h e r? JU R O RA LEX A N D ER : I used t o w or k w i t h heratC ash A m er i ca. T H E C O U R T : A n d t e ll m e - - t e ll m e w h a t y ’a ll s a id out t her e. J UROR AL E XANDER : She

- - I as ke d h e r h a d s h e s e e n m yba by yetbe ca us e I j us tha d a ba by. TH E C O U R T: C ong r at ul at i ons. JU R O RA LEX A N D ER : Th ank you. A nd I show ed her t he pi ct ur es, and I sai d, “D o you have j u ry d u ty t oday?” A nd she w as l i ke,
“ N o .”S h e s a i d , “I’m h e reo n tri a l fo r -- I’m h e ref o r a tri a l fo r m y cou si n. ” I sai d, “ O h, do y ou k now w hatf l ooryou ’ r e g oi ng t o be on?” Sh e sai d, “Fi ve. ” I sai d, “O kay, w e ar e pr obab l y i n t he sam e ro o m .” T H E C O U R T : W h e red i d y o u ru n i n to h e r? J U R O RA L E X A N D E R : W ew a si n th es n a c kb a r. T H E C O U R T : D o w n o n th efi rs t fl o o r? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: Yeah. TH E C O U RT: Ther e i s no w ayyo u w ou l d hav e kno w n. S o , a n yp rob l e m s w i th tha t? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: N o.17

T H E C O U R T : D o y o u thinktha t y o u ’r e g o i n g to n e e d to v o t e in f a v o ro ft h e S t a t eb e c a u s ey o u k n o w o n e o ft h e irf a m ily m em ber s? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: N o. TH E C O U RT: I s kno w i ng t hi s per so n, T ye S m i t h, go i ng t o c aus e y ou t o j udget he evi den ceyou he ardi f f er ent l y? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: N o. T H E C O U R T : Is it g o in g t o c a u s e y o u t o b e b ia s e d a ta ll? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: N o. TH E C O U R T: C an you m ake a deci si on i n t hi s case based j us ton t he f ac t s and t he l aw an d noton a ny r el at i ons hi p? JU R O RA LEX A N D ER : Y es. TH E CO U RT: So i f you dec i ded t o f i nd t he def end ant not gui l t y, i s t hatgoi ng t o c aus e y ou a p r ob l em si nceyou kn ow a f a mi l yme mb e ro ft h e v i c t i m? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: N o. TH E C O U R T: Y ou sur e? JU R O R A LE X A N D ER : U h -h u h . I d o n ’t ev en see h e r. I h a v e n ’t s e e n h e r s i n c e I q u i t th a t j o b b a c ki n M a rc h o f l a s t y e a r. THE CO URT: S o, i t ’ s nott he ki nd of r el at i onsh i p t hat w oul d cause you anypr obl em s? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: N o. T H E C O U R T : D o y ’a l l l i v en e a r e a c h o th e r?18

JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: I don’ tkn ow w her e s he st ay. T H E C O U R T : W e l l , a l l ri g h t. A n y th i n g e l se y o u w a n t t o t el l m e? JUR O R A LEXA N D ER: N o. The tr i al j udgei nf or m ed t he part i esab outt hi s con ver sa t i on, an d t hen t he f ol l ow i ng c ol l oquyt ookpl ac e b et w ee n t he t r i alj udge , the St at e’ s att or ney s (M s . G u ya n d M s . J o h n s o n ), a n d T o rre y ’sc o u n s e l (M r. C u m m i n g s ): M R. C U M M I N G S: I don’ t kno w w ho T ye S m i t h i s no r w ho Tye i s r el at ed t o. M S . G U Y : A nd I ’ m not f am i l i ar w i t h Ty e S m i t h. That n a m e d o e s n ’trin g a b e ll. M R . C U M M IN G S : Y o u ’r en o tv e ryh e lp f u l. M S. G U Y: I ’ m s or ry, I w asj us ts i tt i ng he r e l i st eni ng. M S . J O H N S O N : B e ts yS m i th , I w o n d e r. M S. G U Y: M ayb e. Bet sy i s t he m ot her of oneoft he vi ct i m s. T H E C O U R T : I m e a n , I d o n ’tt h in ki t m a tte rs . I s a i d , I don ’ tt hi nk i tm att er s. Y ou kno w , t he r ecor d i s t hatshe r e p o rt ed i tas so on as sh e w as su ppos ed t o. She di d t hat . She kno w s not to t a lkt o p e o p l e a b o u t th ec a s e . W h e n s h eh e a rd th e yw e re c o m i n g to th e fi fth fl o o r, sh eq u i t ta l k i n g . A sfa r a sI c a n te l l , th e re isn o ju r o r m is c o n d u c t . S h e h a s s t a t e d f o r t h e r e c o r d t h a t itw o u ld m ake absol ut el y no di f f er ence t o her at al l and, you kno w , I ’ m j ust t el l i ng y ou- al lbe ca us e I ’ m s uppos ed t o t el l you . MR . C U MMI N G S : Yo u m a d e i n q u i r y i n c h a m b e r s on t he r ec or d?19

TH E C O U R T: O h, yes. M R. CU M M I N G S: O ka y. TH E C O U RT: A nd i t ’ s t her e, and you ca n hav e i t . A nd I t hi nk I reci t ed i trel at i vel y cl ose t o w hatact ual l y w as sai d, because i t h a s n ’t b e e n th a t l o n g . T o m o rro w I w o n ’t re m e m b e r, b u t . . .

. . . . M R . C U M M I N G S : Y o u r H o n o r, I t h in kin th ei n tere st o f m y cl i ent , I am goi ng t o go ahe ad and m ovef ora m i st r i alba se d upo n w hatyou j us ts ai d. TH E CO U RT: That ’ s den i ed. M R . C U M M IN G S : T h a n ky o u , Y o u r H o n o r. A ppl i ca bl e l ega ls t and ards W e r evi ew a t r i al court ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on f ora m i st r i al usi ng an abuse ofdi scr et i on st andar d, v i ew i ng t he r ecor d i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he t r i al
c o u rt ’s ru lin g a n d u p h o ld in g t h a tru lin g if it w a s w it h in t h ez o n eo fre a s o n a b le d i s a g re e m e n t. S e eWeb bv. S tate , 232 S . W . 3d 109, 112 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 7 ); S tewa rt

v. S tate , 221 S. W . 3d 306, 310 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 2007,
n o p e t.); se ealso Gam b o av. S tate , No. AP- 75, 635, 2009 W L9285 52, a t*7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . A p r. 8 , 2 0 0 9 ) (ap p l y i n g the ab u se o f disc reti o n sta n d a rd to t he deni al ofa m ot i on f ora m i st r i al based on al l eged j ur y m i scondu ct ) . At r i al
cou rta bu ses i t s di sc r et i on i n de nyi ng a m ot i on f ora m i st r i alonl y w hen no20

re a s o n a b l e v i e w o f th e re c o rd c o u l d s u p p o rt th ec o u rt ’s ru l i n g . Webb , 232 S. W . 3d a t112. W h e n re v i e w i n g a tri a l c o u rt’sd e c i s i o n re g a rd i n g p o te n ti a l j u ry
m i sc onduc t , an ap pel l at e c ourts houl d def er t o t he t r i alco urt ’ s r es ol ut i on oft he h i stor i ca l f ac t s an d i t s de t erm i na t i on s co nc erni ng credi bi l i t y a nd de m ea no r. Se eQ ui nnv. S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 3 9 5 , 4 0 1 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). T h u s , if t he t r i al court bel i eves a j ur or ’ s st at em ent s t hat despi t e havi ng an al l eged i m pr opercom m uni cat i on w i t h a thi r d part y, the j ur orcan st i l l r enderan i m part i al
v e rdict, an ap p e l l a te c o u rts h o u l d g e n e ral l yd e fer to th etr i a l co u rt ’s d e c i sion to d e n ya m i s tri a l . Se eRo b i n so nv. S tate , 851 S . W . 2d 216, 230 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 1 ), cert. denied, 5 1 2 U .S . 1 2 4 6 (1 9 9 4 ); se e al soGam boa , 2 0 0 9 WL 9 2 8 5 5 2 , a t* 7 (h o ld in g t h a tb e c a u s ea ju r o rt e s t if ie d t h a th ec o u ld re m a in i m part i alde sp i t e o ver hea r i ng a conve r sa t i on aboutt he ca sehew ass ervi ng on , th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n i n d e n y in g a m is t ri a l ); Q ui nn , 958 S. W . 2d at402 ( hol di ng t hat des pi t e a j ur or ’ s st at em entt o a co w or ke rdur i ng t he m i ddl e ofa t r i al tha t a def endan ton t r i al f orsexual assaul tshoul d “pl ay d ro p th e s o a p ,”th e a p p e l l a te c o u rt s h o u l d h a v ed e fe rre d to th etri a l c o u rt’s deni al of a m ot i on f or new t r i al because t he t r i al court w as “f r ee to b e l i e v e” te s ti m o n yth a t th e j u ro r“ w a sn o t i n a n yw a yi n fl u e n c e d ” ). A l s o , a j u ro r’s “ta n g e n ti a l ac q u a i n tan c e ” w i th so m e o n eco n n e c ted to a tr i a l d o e s n o t j u sti fy21

r ever sal ofa def endan t ’ s con vi ct i on w hen t he j ur oraf f i r m s t hathe orshe can b e fa i r a n d re n d e ra fa i r v e rd i c t. Se eA n derso nv. S tate , 633 S. W . 2d 851, 85 3– 54 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. [ Panel O p. ] 19 82 ) ( hol di ng t hat t he t r i al court ’ s deni al
o f a c h a l l e n g e to th e j u ro r’sq u a l i fi c a ti o n sfo r c a u s ew a sn o t re v e rs i b l ee rro r). A n a ly s is A s T o rr e yco n c e d e s i n h i s b rie f, the rel a ti o n sh i p b e tw e e n M s. S m i th to Tor r ey’ s ca se , i fany, i s unc l ea r . None ofj ur orA l exa nde r , Tor r ey’ s cou ns el , nor t he S t at e’ s att or neys knew ofM s. Sm i t h’ s con nect i on t o T or r ey ort he vi ct i m s. M s. Sm i t h w as not ca l l ed as a w i t nes s t o ei t her es t abl i sh he rco nne ct i on t o t he
case ort o t esti fy a s a f actw i t ness t o T or r ey’ s cr i m e. A l exander, aft er di sc ove r i ng t hatM s. Sm i t h w as pr es entf ora t r i alon t he sa m e f l ooroft he
court hou se as t he case A l exander w as servi ng on , m er el y i ndi cat ed t o t he t r i al j u d g e , “I th i n k[M s . S m i th ] is g o i n g t o b ein t h ea u d i e n c e ” ; n o th i n g i n th ere c o rd i n d i c a te sth a t M s . S m i th a c tu a l l yo b s e rv e d th ep ro c e e d i n g s . N e x t, reg a rdles s o f an yrel a ti o n sh i p tha t M s. S m i th m a yh a v eh a d to ei t herTo r r ey ort he vi ct i m s, A l exander af f i r m ed t o t he t r i al court t hatherf or m er c o -w o r k e rre la t io n s h ip w it h M s . S m it h w o u ld n o tin f lu e n c eh e rv e r d ic t , w o u ld not cause hert o be bi ased, and w o u l d not cause hert o j udg e evi dence di f f er ent l y. The t r i al courtr eci t ed A l exander’ s af f i r m at i on i n t hi s r egar d w hen i t de c i d e d tha t t h e re h a d b e e n n o m i sc o n d u c t.13 ... A l exander i n d i c a t ed t hatshe had not seen M s. Sm i t h si nce “M ar ch

ofl a s ty e a r ” ; To r r e y’ st r i a l o c c ur r e d i n Fe br ua ry 2008.

14 ... W e n ote that To r r eyha s no tci t ed an y a utho r i t y h ol di ng t ha tt he re w as r ever si bl e j ur orm i scondu ctunderf act s anal ogo us t o t hose i n t hi s case. 22 A l so , th e rec o rd e sta b l i sh e s th a t A l e x a n d e r’ s re l a ti o n sh i p to M s. S m i th
w a s ta n g e n ti a l . A l e x a n d e r s tate d th a t s h eh a d n o t ha d co n tac t w i th M s. S m i th i n al m osta year ’ s t i m e. 13A l e x a n d e r a l s o i n d i c a te d t h a t s h ed i d n o t k n o w w h e re M s. Sm i t h l i ved and t hatherr el at i onshi p w i t h M s. Sm i t h w as nott he ki nd t hat
w oul d cause herany pr obl em s. F in a lly , w h e n A le x a n d e rre c e iv e d t h ef ir s tin d ic a t io n t h a tM s . S m it h c o u ld hav e b e e n c o n n e c t e d w i t h T o r r e y ’ sc a s e , s h et e r m i n a t e d t h ec o n v e r s a t i o n. Th e conver sat i on n e v e r d evel oped t o concer n t he f act s ofTo r r ey’ s case, Tor r ey’ s gui l to ri nnoc enc e, s ym pat het i c s t at em ent s r ega r di ng t he vi ct i m s, or ot herr el at ed m atters. 14 Se eKel lyv. S tate , 792 S . W . 2d 579, 587 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1990) ( dec i di ng t hatt he t r i alco urtco r r ec t l y ov er r ul ed t he def end ant ’ s m ot i on f ora m i st r i albe ca us e aj ur or ’ s co m m ent s “d i d not const i t ut e conver sat i ons abou t[ t he def endan t ’ s] speci f i c case, ” and t her e w as th e re fo re“ n o i n j u ry ” ), a ff’d, 8 2 4S .W .2 d 5 6 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). Fort hes e r ea so ns , ap pl yi ng t he st and ar dss etf ort h a bove , w e c onc l ude t hatt he t r i alcourtdi d notabus e i t s di sc r et i on by denyi ng Tor r ey’ s m ot i on f or15 ... D ur i ng t he part i es’ di scussi on of t he j ur y char ge w i t h t he t r i al j udg e,

Tor r ey’ s cou ns elr equ est ed t he i ncl us i on ofan ap pl i ca t i on pa r agr aph f or a g g rav a ted rob b e ry; the tr i a l co u rtd e n i e d this r e q u e st. 23 a m is t r ia l b a s e d o n A le x a n d e r ’s a l l e g e d m is c o n d u c t . T h e r e f o r e , w eo v e r r u le T o rr e y ’s thir d p o i n t. The Ex cl us i on ofa Le ss er - i ncl ude d O ff ens e f r om t he Jury Char ge I n hi s f ourt h poi nt , Tor r ey con t end s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by r ef us i ng t o i ncl ude hi s r equest ed j ur y i nst r uct i on r egar di ng t he l esser - i n c l uded of f ense ofag gr ava t ed r obbe ry. 15W e use a t w o -step a nal ysi s t o det er m i ne w het her T o rre y w a s e n ti tl e d to a l e s s e r-i n c l u d e d o ffe n s ei n s tru c ti o n . Ha l l v. S tate , 225 S . W . 3 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 8 ( T ex . C r i m . A pp . 2 0 0 7 ); Ro uss ea uv. S tate , 855 S. W . 2d 6 6 6 , 6 7 2

– 7 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 5 10 U . S. 9 19 ( 199 3) . Fi r st , t he l essero ffen se m u stcom e w i t hi n art i cl e 37 . 09 oft he code of cr i m i nal p ro c e d u re . T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 7 .0 9 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); Moore v. S tate, 96 9 S . W . 2d 4, 8 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 98 ) . “A n of f ense i s a l esser i ncl ude d of f ens e i f. . . i t i s es t abl i sh ed by pr oofoft he sa m e o rl es s t han al l t he f ac t s r equ i r ed t o e st abl i sh t he com m i ss i on oft he of f ens e c har ged . ” Tex. Code C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 7 .0 9 (1 ); s e eals o Ha ll, 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 6 . T h i si n q u i ry i sa q u e s ti o n o f l a w . Ha ll, 225 S . W . 3d at535. I tdoe s no td ep end on t he evi den cet o bepr oduc ed att r i albuti s perf or m ed by com par i ng t he el em ent s of16 ... C oun t s t w o and t hr ee essent i al l y al l eged t hatTo r r ey com m i tt ed

c a p it a l m u r d e rb e c a u s e h e in t e n t io n a llyc a u s e d W ils o n ’s a n d D a v is ’s d e a t h w h ile c o m m i ttin g ro b b e ry . See T e x . P e n a l C o d eA n n . § 1 9 .0 3 (a )(2 ). 24 t he of f ens e as t hey ar e al l ege d i n t he i ndi ct m ent or i nf or m at i on w i t h the
e l e m e n tso f th e p o te n ti a l l e s s e r-i n c l u d e d o ffe n s e . Id. a t525, 535– 36. Se c o n d , s o m e e v i d e n c e m u s t e x i s t i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t w o u l d p e r m i tt he j ury t o r a t i on a l l y f i nd t ha t i f To r r e y i s gu i l t y, he i s gu i l t y on l y oft he l esser o ffe n s e . Ha ll, 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 6 ; Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 1 63 S. W . 3d 734, 741 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Rousseau , 855 S. W . 2d a t672– 73. Th ee vi dence
m u s t b e e v a l u a te d in t h e c o n te x t o f th ee n ti rere c o rd . Mo o re , 96 9 S . W . 2d at 8. Ther e m us tbes om e e vi den cef r om w hi ch a r at i ona l j ury c oul d a cqu i tt he T o rre yo f th e g re a te r o ffe n s e (c a p i ta l m u rd e r) w h i l e c o n v i c ti n g h i m o f th el e s s e ri n c l u d e d o ffe n s e (a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry ). Se ei d. Th e court m ay no t co n sider
w het hert he evi dence i s cr edi bl e, cont r overt ed, ori n confl i c t w i t h ot her
e v i d e n c e . See i

d. Anyt hi ng m or e t han a sc i nt i l l a o fev i den cem ay be su f f i ci ent to e n ti tl e T o rre yto a l e s s e r c h a rg e . Se eHa ll, 225 S. W . 3d a t536. A s t he S t at e conced es, aggr avat ed r obb ery, undert he l egal t heor y al l eged i n c ount s t w o a nd t hr eeofTor r ey’ s i ndi ct m ent , i s a l es se r - i ncl ude d of f ens e o f
c a pi t a l m ur de r un de ra rt i c l e 37. 09. 16 Se eBradfo rd v. S tate , 178 S. W . 3d 875, 8 7 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ); Ma rti n ez v. S tate , 131 S. W . 3d17 ... See T e x . P e n a l C o d eA n n . § 2 9 .0 2 . (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).
18 ... N ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatei t herD avi s orW i l son w er e over si xt y- f i ve yea r s ol d ort hatt heyw er e di sa bl ed. W e w i l l l i m i touran al ys i s t o t he f i r stt w o w aysofco m m i tt i ng a ggr ava t ed robbery a s des cr i bed by se ct i on 2 9 .0 3 (a ). 25 22, 39 ( Tex. A pp. — San Ant oni o 2003, no pet . ) ( exp l ai ni ng t hatbe ca us e “ t he p ro o f n e c e s s a ryfo r c a p i ta l m u rd e r c o m m i tte d i n th ec o u rs eo f a ro b b e ry c o n ta i n sth e e l e m e n tsn e c e s s a ryfo r a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry , a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry
m ay be a l esseri ncl uded of f ense ofcapi t al m ur der ”) . Thu s, To r r ey has sat i sf i ed t he f i r stpr ong oft he t estdescr i bed abo ve. H o w e v e r , h e c a n n o ts a t is f yt h es e c o n d p r o n g , b e c a u s en o ju ryc o u ld
r at i onal l y f i nd t hat , u nderthe evi dence pr esent ed, h e w as gui l t y ofaggr avat ed
ro b b e ryb u t n o t g u i l tyo f c a p i ta l m u rd e r. Se eHa ll, 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 6 ; Sal i nas , 163 S . W . 3d at7 41. A per so n c om m i t s agg r ava t ed r obbe ry w hen t he per so n c o m m i tsro b b e ry 17and t he per son al so ( 1) causes s er i ous bod i l y i nj ur y to
a n o th e r; ( 2 ) u se s o r ex h i b i ts a d e a d l yw e a p o n ; o r ( 3 ) c a u se s b o d i l yi n j u ry to
a n o t h e r p e r s o n o r t h r e a t e n s o r p la c e s a n o t h e r p e r s o n in f e a r o fim m in e n tb o d ily i nj ury or dea t h, i f t he ot her per so n i s 65 y ea r s of age or ol de ror di sab l ed. T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 9 .0 3 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 18H e r e , n o ju ryc o u ld
r at i onal l y d e term i ne f r om t he evi dence descr i bed abo ve t hatTo r r ey caused
se r i ousbodi l y i nj ury t o Davi s and W i l so n ort hatheuse d a de adl y w ea pon26

aga i ns tt hem , butt hathe di d noti nt ent i ona l l y k i l l t hem . Tor r ey di d notpr es ent anyt heo ry a tt r i alr ega r di ng a n a l t er nat e c aus e o f D avi s’ s and W i l so n’ s dea t h;
r at her , dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum ent s, h i s cou ns elt heo r i z ed t hatA nde r so n’ s and Est er s’ s t est i m ony w as unt r ut hf ul , and coun selal so em phasi zed t hatt her e w as no DN A orot herphy si ca l ev i den cedi r ec t l y l i nki ng hi m t o t he sce ne o ft he
m u rd e rs . Ift h e j u ryh a d b e l i e v e d T o rre y ’sc o u n s e l , a n d i f i t h a d c o m p l e te ly di scounted A nder son’ s and Est er s’ s test i m ony, i tw oul d have con cl uded t hat Tor r ey w asnotatt he cr i m e sc ene , and i tcoul d nothave conv i ct ed Tor r ey of
a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry . T h u s , h ew a sn o t e n ti tle d t o a n a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry i ns t r uc ti o n . Se eHa ll, 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 6 ; Sal i nas , 163 S. W . 3d a t741. W e the refo re o v e rr u l e h i s fo u rt h p o i n t.27 C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f T o rre y ’sp o i n ts , w ea ffir m th etri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , W A LKER, an d M EI ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J un e 4, 2009