### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-00-00243-CR

44444444444

4444 Edward Bell

, Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT

NO. B-98-0433-S, HONORABLE DICK ALCALA, JUDGE PRESIDING

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 Appe llantEdward Bell

appeal s his convi

ct i on f or capi tal m urder. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.03(a) (3 ) (Wes t 1994). After the j ury f ound appella

nt guil ty, the trial

court assess ed pu nis hme nt at life imp r iso nme nt , t he S t at e h av ing wa ive d t he de at h p en alt y. Points of Error Appe llantadvan

ces three poin

ts of error. Fi

rst, appellant chal

le nges the l

egal suf fi ci ency of the ev i de nc e to supp ort hi s c onv i cti on f orcapi tal m urder. Second, appell

ant urges that t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in o ve rrulin g h is ob j ec ti on to an ap plicat ion p ar agr aph o f the jury char ge r elat ing to pa rti esi n th i s c ap i tal m urder c as e f

orrem une rati on. A pp el l an t con ten dsth at h e c oul d n ot b e g ui l ty2

as a party whe

n the pri ma ry actor, Luis R

am irez , w as no t guilt y of t his agg ra vat ed e lement (r emuner at ion) o f t he o ffen se ch ar ge d. T hir d, ap pe llant co nt en ds t ha t un de rRu le 403 of the Texas Rul es of Evi den ce , the tr

i al cou rt e rre d i n ad m i tti n g i n to evi dence a han dwritten note of Lui s Ram irez fou nd i n a ppe l l an t’s wal l et b ec au se

i ts p rob ati ve va l uewa s ou

twe i ghed by the da ng er of unf air pr ejudice and t he nee dless p re sent at ion o f cumulat ive evidenc e. We will affi rm t he co nvictio n. Indictm ent The i nd i ctm en t i n p erti ne nt p art cha

rge d that a

ppe l l an t on or about April 8, 1998 “d id then an d there i nte nti ona l l y ca us e the d ea

th of an individual, namely, Nemec io Na ndin, by sho ot ing t he said N emecio Nand in with a d ead ly weapo n, to wit: a fi rearm, for remuneration and the pro mise of re m une rati on f rom L ui s Ra m i rez.” Backgr

ound The fact s o f the cas e ar e impor t ant in viewo f ap pe llant ’s cla im t ha t t he ev ide nc e is leg ally insufficient t o s ust ain the cap ital mur der co nvictio n, a nd to pl ac e th e oth er poi n ts o f er r o rin proper perspective.

On Ap r il 16 , 19 98 , t he de co mpo sing bo dy o f t we nt y-n ine yea r - o ld N eme cio Na nd in
was fou nd

bu r ied in a sha llo w g r av e n ea rt he ho me of Richard an d Lana R iordon on a f

if ty-acre tract between Or ient and Ten

ny son i n f ar northeas

t Tom Gr een Coun ty. The m edi cal exam in er determi ned that the cause of dea

th was two shotgun bla sts to the head, at le ast one of which wa s c au se d b y a twen ty-g auge shotgun.1 The nam e was al so spell

ed “K arla” in the record. 3 Na nd in wa s a f i re f i gh ter f or th e S an A n ge l o F i reDe pa rtm en t. H i s of f -d uty busi ness was r ep air ing wa sh ing mac hin es an d d rye r s. Nandi n was l ast heard f

rom around noon on Apri l 8, 1998, wh en he ca lled his g irlfr ien d, Ca r la 1 Bewick, to tell h er he was headed to a busi ness cal l t o repai r a washe r and a dry

er, and that he would ca

ll her whe n he got back i

nto San Angelo that
even in g. Bewi ck , wh o tes ti f i ed tha t he r re l ati ons hi p w i th N an di n wasan on -a ga in, o ff- agai

n one, related that when

Nandi n di d not call as promi sed

an d di d n ot re sp on d to h

er ca l l s to his cell pho ne or p ag er , s h e b ec am

e c on cerned . L ate

r i n th e day , w h en sh e w en t to th e W

al -M ar t sto reon Nor th Brya nt Street in

San A ngel o, she saw Nan

din ’s pi ck-up truck wit h a

washer an

d dryer parked n

ear t he re ar of th e s to re. The truck was unlocked. Nandi n was n ot to be f ound in the store. Wh

en Bewick returned to the store later in the even in g, the truck was still there. Sh e was una ble to co ntact Na nd in th e n ex t m orn i n g a t th e f i rede pa rtm en t. H e h ad n ot re por te d for wo rk. Hi s co-worke rs organize d a search. A s noted, his body was f

ound on April 16, 1998. Dawn Ra m i rez Hol qui n h ad rem arr i ed af ter th e of f en se bu t pri or to th e ti

me of th e t rial. S he testi f

i ed th at she m

arried L ui s Ra m i rez i n 19 85. They

had two children

and l iv ed i n Las Vegas, Nevada, b efore m ovin g to San An gel o in 1992. Sh

e rela ted that Luis was an angry , jealous, and dom i ne eri ng man wh o ha d to b e i n c ontr ol of every thin g; that their m

arriage wa s v er

y tur b ul en t, very v i ol en t an d “ n ot h appy ”; an d th at s h e g ot a div orce in Nove mber 1 995 . D awn t est ifi ed t hat she4

did not date for a long peri od afterthe di vor cebe ca us e of Luis’s jea lou sy. He t old her t hat “it dr ove hi m craz y to thi nk th at y ou are wi th other men .” Daw n re late d t hat she first met N emecio Nand in in June 1995 when he repai red her dry er. She encoun tered h i m agai n i n O ctober 1 997 w

hen h e ca me to the Town

and Coun

try store, wh ereshe was employed , t o p ur chas e ho t cho co late . H e ca lled her at wo rk t hat evening to thank her f orthe hot chocolate. Luis was i n the s to re at the tim

e. She and Na

ndi n be gan dati

ng. Dawn deci ded to move to Austi n to get away f

rom Lui s. On Saturday, Decem ber 20, 1997, Na nd in c ame by her Sa n A ngel o home at 7:3 0 a.m. to t el l h

er goo dby

e. Whi le Nandi n was there, Luis began teleph onin g, tell in g Dawn to get rid of whom ever was there. She l ea

rned tha t Lui s w ascal l i

ng f rom a grocery store t wo blocks awa y. A fter Lui s had cal

le d seven or ei gh t ti mes , Na nd i n took t he pho ne and to ld L

uis to le ave Dawn

al one and that her

l i f e was none of Luis’ s b usi ne ss. L ater, Da

wn he ard
a noise and o pene d t he fro nt door to fi nd he r chi ldren there. She saw Luis driv in g away . It was Lui s’s weeke

nd wi th the chi ldren and h e had onl y pi cked them

up the ni ght bef ore. Dawn reveal ed that she saw Nan

din agai n on Decem

ber 26, 1997, when

she br ou ght the ch i l dre n to S an A ng el o f ort he ir v isit at io n w it h t he ir father; that on t he l

ast week-end i

n March 1998 Na nd in c ame t o Au st in to see her; that the f

oll owing week-end i

n earl y A pril 1998, her chi

ldren returnedfrom

their v is itation wi

th their f ather; that her daughter reported t hat her f ather (Luis) had be co me upsetwhen

to ld the c hi ldren li ked Nand in; and t hat Luis had st at ed he wo uld t ake car e o f the pr o ble m. Da wn r ela t ed t ha t Lu is ha d o nc e t o ld h er t ha t “if he fou nd o ut t hat I w as w ith ano t her man, he would ki l l hi m and then c ome

af ter m e.”5 Fr om around Thanksgi

vi ng Day of 1997 until the e arly

part o f A pril 1998, app ellant Be ll, his girlfriend, Lisa Mc Do well, a nd a y oung chi ld l iv ed with the R

iordons on thei

r propert y n

ear th e T en n y son Roa d w h er e N an di n ’s b ody wa s l ate r f oun d. D ue to the objections of the Riordons’ l an dl ord , a pp el l an t, Mc Do we ll, a nd t he ch ild mo ve d in wit h T imo t hy an d N ico le H o o gs t r a in t he ir house in San Ange lo. Ho og st ra and a ppe llanthad be en co-worke

rs on s evera

l dif f ere nt c ons tructi on sites. Nei ther app ellant no r Mc Do well had jo bs at the time they move d. Short ly

after the m

ove when Hoo gstra w as work in

g on his truck, appellant told him that a man nam

ed “Lui s” wasgoi

ng to h i re him (a pp el l an t) to kil l a f i rem an f or $1,000 .00. La

ter, appe l l an

t told Hoogs trath at h

e “ h ad don e i t”
and to watch for it o n t he new s. Whe n Ho og st ra learne d t hat Nand in, a fireman, was missing, he questioned

app ellant a bou t t he ma

tt er. Appella

nt to ld Hoosgstra that “t he y” ( ap pe llant Be ll and Lu is Ram irez) had l ured Nandi

n to a location on Tenn

ys on Roadto servi

ce a wa sh er an d d ryer ; t ha t “t he y” pu t a gun t o N andin’s he ad a nd plac ed ha ndcu ffs on N andin; and t hat “the y” blew Na ndin’s br ains out wit h a sho t gun a nd

buri ed Nandi

n’s body behind a c hicken ho use . Ap pellant explained t hat t he gr ou nd wa s “ r ea l ha r d, ” N an di n w as a b ig man , an d t he y ha d a di ffic ul t t ime i n bu rying t he bo dy. Hoogst ra recall

ed that appell

ant “gi ggle d” wh

en re l ati n g th at “ th ey ” b l ew th e f i re man ’s b rai n s ou t. While ap pe llant did not specifi call y say who fi red t he shots, he l

ater t old Hoogstra t hat Lui s Ram irez had pul l ed th e tr i gg er . A pp el l an t e x pl ai n ed th at h e and Luis had do ne t his to Nand in becau se t he f i rem an wassee i ng L ui s’ s wi f e, or Lui s wa s se ei ng th e f i rem an ’swi f e, “ one w ay

or the othe

r.” Appe llantals o t o ld H o o gs t r a t ha t aft er t he bu r ial, he put on gloves and d ro ve Nandin’s pic k-up tru ck

b ack to S an

A n ge l o an d p ar ke d i t at th e r ea r of th e ol d W al -M ar t sto reon Nor th Br yan t. Appe llant left t he wa sher and d ryer in the t ru ck, but t hre w aw ay Nand in’s cell pho ne and6

page r. Later , appella

nt gave Hoogstra a pair of ha ndcu ffs which he sa id had be en us ed o n Nand in. Af ter appe l l an

t l ef t f or Tyl er, Hoogstra

gave the ha ndc uf f s to the pol

i ce. Th ese ha ndc uf f s we re shown to be the sam

e brand of han dcuff s purchase d by

Lui s Ram

irez i n 1991 i n Las Vegas, Nevada , where Ram

irez worked bri

efl y as a securi

ty guard. On Apr il 14 o r 1 5, 199 8, Ho og st ra went with L ee Westerman to do construction

work
on a la k e h ous e i n Brown wood . H oogstra

told W ester man of h i s c on v er sa ti on wi th appe l l an t. Westerm an had Hoogstra c al

l Cri me Stoppers

f rom Br o wn wo o d. E it he rt ha t da y o ran o t he rin Ap r il when Westerm an b rought Ho ogstra home, Westerm an m et appell ant. Appel

la nt to ld W esterman that the police had been at H oo gst ra’s ho me t hat da y, a nd h e d id no t kno w w het her it wa s be ca us e o f a fight wit h hi s gi

rl f ri en d, or whether i

t wa s f or th e “ othe

r thi ng ” that w oul

d “ ge t hi m ei the r l i f e or death i n pr i son.” Lis a Mc Dow el

l , a pp el l an t’s gi rlf rien d, r el ate d th at ea rly on the morni

ng of A pril 8, 1998, she a nd ap pellant had g one t o t he Ri ordo ns’ home on Tenny son Road to pic

k up some cl

ot hes they had left behind whe n t hey moved . Aft er t he Rio rd ons went to work , sh e g ot into an ar gument wi th appella nt. She l eft hi

m b ehi nd an d to ok her in

fan t son and drove to her aunt’s house i n San A ng el o. That afternoon, Lui s Ram irez dropped appel

la nt off at the aunt’ s h ou se. Appe llant and Mc Do we ll

then dr o ve to the Mil

es High School to pick up the R iordon chi

ldren from school as Mc Do we ll

had prom i sed
. On t he wa y, McD ow ell obse rve d ap pellant t hro w a lat ex glo ve or gloves out of th e c ar wi n dow . Som

eti me l ate r, M cD owe ll

re tur n ed to thi s p ar

ti cul ar stretch of h i gh wa y wi th police off ic ers. A latex gl ove was f ound as wel

l a s the keys to Nandin ’s pi ck-up truck.7 On Apr il 16 , 1 99 8, ap pe llant and Mc Do we ll left San An gel o for Ty l er. He su pp o se dly ha d a con stru cti on j ob in the a re a. Appe llanth ad $2 00 wh i ch h e tol d M cD owe l l

h ad b een gi v en to him by Luis Ra m i rez. A ppel l an t was a rrested i n a tra i l er par

k ne ar W hi tehous e, south

of Ty l er. Appel la nt and M cDo well bot h signed co nsent for ms giving the officer s pe rmission t o s ear ch t he Merc ury Cougar autom obi l e i n w hi ch they had trav eled. In

the sear ch, t he officers fou nd appellant’s walle t near the f

ront seat. In i

t were two busi

ness cards of Luis Ram

irez, an d a h andw rit t en no te co nt aining

directions to t wo residen

ces in Aust in and de scr ipt ions o f thr ee mo t or vehicles. Acco rd ing to Dawn Ram

irez Holquin, Ramirez’s ex-wife, the not e was in Luis Ram irez’s handw rit ing and t he resi dences a

nd ve hicl es descri

bed b el onged to her and her unc le
. In the trunk of the searched

automobil

e, a pair of

Bugl e Boy j eans we

re found. Af

ter testing, it was determ

in ed t hat t he DN A fro m the blo od st ains on t he jeans mat ched t he DN A of t he deceased, Ne mec io Nandi n. Gi nger Herri

ng, Lui s Ram

irez’ s gi rlf rien d, testifi ed that Rami

rez owned
a pa ir o f Bu gle Bo y jea ns. Mc Do we ll t est ifi ed t hat when s he and app ellant wereth row i n g th i n gsi n to
a trash dumps

ter be f ore l eav i ng S an An gel o, she f ound th e j eans i n the trun k of the c ar, tha

t they were no t ap pe llan t ’s , bu t he wo ul d n o t let he rt hr o w t he m aw ay.

A search of

the Ri ordo n house un

covered three shotgu n s—two t wenty-gauge sho t guns and one si

xteen-gaugeshotgun. Lana R iordan testi fi

ed that the two t went y-ga uge sho t guns were in working order, but not t he si xteen-gauge sh

ot gun. She rel

ated t hat app ellant an d M cD o we ll had arr i ve d a t he r hous e e arl

y on the morni

ng of A pril 8, 199 8, and w hen she re t ur ned t hat evening
one of t he t we nt y-g au ge sho t gu ns h ad be en mo ve d fr o m it s r eg ula rpla ce an d le ft in a no t he rr o o m.8 Af ter hi s a rre st, a ppe l l an t wrote a l ette r to McDow el

l f rom th e T om Gr een Cou n ty jail. McDowell

kept the le

tt er two months

bef ore reveali

ng i t t o a fri end. The l

etter was in

tro duced i n to evi den ce de scri bi ng, inter al

ia , ho w Na ndin was killed by Ra mire z in appe l l an

t’s pre senc e, h

ow t he body was buri

ed, how he w as g iven

money b y Ram irez which h

ad been ta ken ou t o f Nandin ’s
wal l et, an d h o w h e d r o ve Na nd in’s t ruc k t o t he Wa l-M ar t st o r e. Ap pe llant r elie d u po n so me of t he self-se rving st at ement s in t he letter intro duced by the Stat e to suppor t his def ense of duress. Ap pe llan t o ffe r ed no de fe ns ive t es t imo ny. Jury Char ge—Parties In su bm i tti ng the ca se to t he j ur y , the tr

i al cou rt inter al

ia , i nstructed the j ury ab st r ac t ly on the l aw of pa rti es . In pa rag raph 4 , an appl i ca ti on par agr aph, t he t rial co ur t char ged t he j ury on capi tal m urder in accordance wi

th the alle gations of

the i ndi ct ment. The n sep ar at ing t he paragraph wi th an “O R,” the tri al

courtapplie d the la

w of parties to the capi

tal m urder. In paragraph 5, t he t rial co ur t likewise su bmitt ed t he lesse r includ ed o ffense o f murde r in t he sa me fashion. The trial court also charged the jury on the af fi rmative def

ense of duress. Legal Suff

iciency In his first po intof e rr or , a ppe llant co nt ends t hat t he evide nce is leg ally i nsufficient to support t he capi

tal m urder conviction be cause (1) the evi dence i s l eg al l y i n suf f i ci en t to show that “he was t he triggerm an,” an d ( 2) insufficient t o s how his guilt a s a p ar t y “becau se t her e wa s no evi dence that the pri nc i pal , Luis Ra

m i rez, c omm

i tted the m urder f or rem une rati on.”By his expresse d contention, appel

la nt chal le nges onl y the le gal suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence.9 The Standard of Review T he st an da r d fo rr ev iew ing t he leg al s uffic ien cy o f ev ide nc e is whet her , view ing t he evi dence in the li ght most favorable to the jury’s ver dict , a ny rat ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd beyond a reas onab l e doubt al l

the e sse ntial elem en ts of th e of f en se cha rged. Jackson v. Virg

inia , 443 U.S. 307 , 31 9 (1 979 ); Skiller n v. State , 890 S.W.2d 849, 879 (Tex. App.—Austi n 1994, pet. ref

’d). The stan dard of revi ew i s the

sam e i n b oth di rect an d ci rcum stan tia l evi den ce c ase s. King v. Sta te , 895 S.W.2d 701, 703 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 5); Green v. State , 84 0 S
. W. 2d 39 4, 40 1 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 2) . T he St at e may pro ve its cas e by cir cu mst an t ial e vid en ce if it pr ov es al l of th e e l em en ts of the charged o ff

ense bey ond a reaso n ab l e d oub t. Easley v . State , 9 86 S .W. 2d 2 64, 271 (T ex. App.—San

Anto nio 1 998 , no pet .) (c iting Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319). T he suf fi ci ency of the evi dence is determi ned from the cum ula tive e ff ect of all the evi dence; each f

act in isolation need not est abl

ish t he gui l t of the accuse d. A lexander v. State , 74 0 S
. W. 2d 74 9, 75 8 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 87 )
. I t is impor t ant to remem

ber th at a l lth e ev i den ce

th e j ur y wa s p er m i tted , pr ope rl y or i m pr ope rl y , to consider must be t ake n into acc ou nt in determi ni ng the l egal suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence. Garcia v. State , 919 S.W.2d

370, 378 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 94) ; Johnso n v. State , 8 71 S .W. 2d 1 83, 186 (T ex. Crim. App. 199 3); Rodrigue z v. State , 939 S.W .2d 211 , 218 (Tex. A pp.—A usti n 19 97, n o pet.). The j ury i s the ex cl usi ve j udge of the f acts pro v ed, t he we ight t o be given t he t es t imo ny, and the

credi bi l i ty of the wi tnes ses . SeeTex . Co de Cr im . Pro c. Ann. art. 3 8.04 ( West 1979) ; Alvaradov. State , 91 2 S. W.2d 199 , 20 7 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 95) ; Adelman v. State , 828 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. Crim . App. 1992). The jury is free to acc ept or re

ject any or all of t he evi dence pres en ted b y ei ther p arty . Saxton v. State , 804 S.W .2d 910 , 914 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1991 ).10

The j ur y mai n tai n s th e p owe r to draw r

eas onab l e i

nf eren ces f rom b asi c f acts to ul tim ate f acts. Welch
v. State , 993 S.W.2d 690, 693 (Tex. App.—San An to nio 1999 , no pet .) ; Hernan dez v. Sta te , 939 S.W.2d 692 , 6 93 ( Te x. Ap p. —F ort Worth 199 7, p et. ref

’d ). M oreov

er, the rec onc i l i ati

on of
ev i den ti ar y con f l i cts is so lely within the provi

nc e of the j ury . Heise lbetz v

. State , 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Cri

m . App. 1995 ). Under the Jackson stan

dard, th e rev i ewi ng c ourt is n

ot to position itsel f as a

th i rte en th j uror i n as se ss i n g th e ev i den ce . Rath

er , i t i s to posi tion i tself as a f i na l due process

saf egua rd insuring
o nly the ra tion al i ty of the f act f i nde r. Moreno v. State , 755 S.W.2d866, 86 7 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1988 ). It is not t he revi

ewi ng court’s duty

to d i sreg ard, re al

i gn, or w eigh th

e ev i den ce. Id . The jury’s verdict m us t sta nd un l es s i t i s f oun d to b e i rra ti ona l orun su pp o r t ed by mo r e t ha n a “mer e mo dic um” of evi dence, wi th such evidenc e being view ed in t he Jackson l i ght. Id . T he lega l sufficiency of t he evi dence i s a q ues tion of l aw. McCoy

v. State , 932 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref ’d). Law of Par ties “A pe r so n is c r iminally

responsibl

e as a party to an off

ense i f the of fen se i s comm

itted by his ow n co nduc t , by t he co nduc t of a not her for which he is cri m i na l l y resp onsi bl e, or by both.” Te x. Pen. Code Ann. § 7.01 (a) (West 199 4); Goff v. State , 931 S.W.2d 537, 544 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996)
. T hu s, un de rt he law o f pa r t ies , t he St at e is able to e nlarge a defendant’s cri m i n al re sp on si b i l i ty to acts i n w hi ch he may not be the pri mary actor. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 7. 01( b) (Wes t 1 994 ); Rome
v. State , 568 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Tex. Crim . App. 1997)(op. on reh ’g); Rosillo v. Sta te , 953 S.W.2d11

808, 81 2 ( Te x . A

pp .—C orp usCh

ri sti 19 97 , pe t. re f ’d ). Th e l aw of pa rties ma y b e applie d even thoughno su

ch al l egati on i s con tai ne d i n the i ndi ctmen t. Jackson v. St

at e , 898 S.W.2d 896, 898 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 95) ; Montoya v. St ate , 810 S. W.2 d 16 0, 165 (T ex. Crim. App. 198 9); Pitts v. State , 569 S.W.2d 898, 900 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 78) ; How ard v. Stat

e , 966 S.W.2d 821, 824 (T ex. App.—A usti n 19 98, pet. ref

’d). Se cti on 7.0 2 of th e T ex as Pen al Cod e prov i de s i n perti n en t pa rt: (a) a person i s cri

mi nal ly res po ns i bl e f or an of f en se com m i tted b y the con duc t of an o t he rif * * * (3) act ingwi

th i nte nt to prom

ote or as si st t he co mmi

ssio n of t he o ffense, he so lic it s en

cou rag es , di rects, a i ds , or a ttem ptsto ai d the other p ers on

t o comm it the off ense. Tex . Pen . Code A

nn . § 7.02( a)(3) (W

est 199 4). The tes t f orde term i ni ng when an i ns tructi on s hou l d b e subm

i tted to th e j ury on t he la wof par t ies wa s set for t h in McCuin v. St ate , 505 S.W.2d827 , 8 30 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 974 ), and quot ed in Go ff , 931 S.W .2d at 54 4-45. It need not be r est at ed he re . Whe n t he evide nce is su ffi cient to sup po rt bot h t he pr imary act or and p ar t y theo ries o f li ability, as in t he insta nt cas e, t he tria l court does not er r in submit t ing an inst ru ct ion o n t he la wof p arti es. Ransom v. St ate , 920 S.W.2d 288, 302 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1994 ); Webb v

. State , 760 S.W .2d 263 , 267, 27 5 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1988 ); Rosillo , 953 S. W.2 d at 814 . E vidence is sufficient t o c onvict unde r t he l aw o f pa r t ies if t he de fen da nt is ph ysic ally pr ese nt at t he co mmi

ssio n of t he o ffense and encourages i ts comm is si on by words or ot her ag re em en t. Ransom , 92 0 S. W.2d at 302 ; Rosillo , 953 S.W.2d a t 814. Cl earl y , there wasmore12

evi dence here than encouragem

ent by ap pe llant Be ll so as t o co nst it ut e h im a p ar t y, if in fac t Lu is Ram i rez w as the pri

mary actor. The tr i al cou rt sub m i tted th e th eor y to t he j ury

tha t ap pe l l an t wa s th e p ri mary ac tor in kil l i ng Nandi n f or rem une rati on as al l eged i n the i ndi ctmen t. In the al

terna tiv e, the tria l court subm itted the theo ry

of p art ie s i f the j ury f

ound that Luis R

am irez was the pri

ma ry actor and that appella nt for remun

eration ai ded Ram irez i n the ki ll in g. The j u ry returned a general verdict—“We, the jury fi nd the defendan

t ED WARD BELL , gui

l ty of CA PITA L MU RDER as cha rged i n the i ndi ctmen t.” Appel l an t argues , however, t hat t he evidenc e is insufficient t o s how t hat he wa s t he pri mary actor as al

l eged
. Appel

la nt to ld Hoogstra that he had been hi red to kil l a fi reman for $1,000. He late r t old Ho og st ra t hat “he (a ppe llant) had d one it” an d to watch

t he new s. S t ill

late r, app ellant tol d Ho og st ra t ha t “they

” had l ured Nandi

n to t he l ocation of the ki

ll in g, “they ” had h andcuf fed Nand in, and “the y” had blo wn Na ndin’s br ains o ut wit h a sho t gun. Na nd i n d i ed f rom two shot gun blasts, one of whi

ch was a tw enty-gaug e shot gun. T he medical exam iner, because o f the body’s
co ndit ion, could n

ot determi

ne wh at type of sh

ot gun i nf li cted the other wound. Two twenty-gauge sho t guns i n w orki ng c ondi tion were f ound a t the l ocati on of the m urder. The m

edi cal exam in er was un ab le t o d et er mine if

t he sa me sh otgu

n wa s u se d to inflict bo t h w o un ds
. T he de ad ly blas t s c o uld have been fire d fro m sepa ra t e sho t guns , o ne by app ellant and one b

y R am irez, or could h

ave b een fi redby the s ame sho t gun. The j ury as the tri er of

f act coul d ha ve f ound th at appe l l an

t was a pri mary actor. In f

act, t he j ury coul

d have found f

rom the evide nce t h at a

pp el l an t an d R am i re z w er e b oth pri mary actors. I t wa s o nly

lat er t ha t ap pe llant t o ld H o o gs t r a t ha t Ra mire z p ulle d t he t r igg er . T his13

fact wa s r eit er at ed in app ella nt ’s jaillet t er t o Mc Do we ll. T he jur y wa s no t r eq uir ed t o ac ce pt t his evi dence t ha t Ra mire z w as t he lo ne gu nma n. Giv en all t he cir cu mst an ce s, we r eje ct ap pe llant ’s cla im that t he evide nce w as insufficient for a r at ional jur y to find beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt t hat app ellant
wasa pri mary actor i n th i s ca pi tal m urder. Appe llantal so urges that if the evi dence wa s s uf f i ci en t to sh ow th at h e w as a p ar ty to t he o ffense fo r r emune ration, the evid enc e is ins uffic ient t o sho w t hat he w as gu ilty o f capital
m urder. Ap pe llant ar gu es t ha t t his is so beca use t he indict ment’ s allega t ion o f an agg ra vat ing element making mur der a ca pit al offense was re muner at ion o r t he pr omise o f remune ra t ion.

Appe llantcontends that the prim ary ac to r was Ram

irez a nd that t he court ’s ch

arge did not require the j ury to fi nd that Ram

irez m urdered N andin f

or rem unera ti on or the prom i se of
re muner at ion, and t hat wit hou t t hat re quir ement and a finding by the jur y, t he offen se wa s n ot a ca pi ta lo f f ense . Th er ef ore , a pp el l an t as se rtsth at i f h e is g ui l ty as a p ar ty to th e of f ense , i t i s n ot a capi taloff ense of whi ch h e i s guilty

and that the convi

ction i mposed canno t st and. Appe llant overlooks th e l

aw of pa rties an d th e f ac t th at s ec ti on

19 .03 (a)(3 ) p rov

i de s th at a pers on wh o com m i ts murder an d “ co mmit s t he mur de rfo rr emu ne r at io n o rt he pr o mi se of r emuner at ion or employs another to commit

the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration ” i s guilty of capi tal
m urder. Te x. Pen . Code A

nn . § 19. 03( a) (3 ) ( West 199 4) . ( Empha sis add ed. ) We d o no t unde rst and app ellant t o c hallenge t he remun eration i ssue. In thi s regard, appell ant ci tes no authoritiesand there is no argumen

t except t ha t inhe r en t in his asse rt ion. This br iefing fails t o c omp ly with Rule 3 8. 1( h) of the Texas

Rul es of A

ppel la te Pro cedure.14 Wh en diffe r en t t he o r ies ar e s ub mit te d t o t he jur y in the disjunc t ive as in t he inst ant case, a ge ner al verd ict is s ufficient if t he evide nce s upp or t s o ne o f the theori es. Fuller v. State , 827 S. W.2d 919 , 93 1 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 92) ; Kitchen s v. State , 823 S.W.2d 256, 257-58 (T ex. Cr im. App. 199 1); see also Ladd v. State , 3 S. W.3d 547 , 55 7 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 99) ; Rabbani v. Stat e , 847 S. W.2 d 55 5, 558 -5 9 ( Te x. Cri m . App. 1995 ). We

conc l ude that a rati

onal j ury co uld have fou nd beyond a r ea so na ble doubt all the essen tial el em ents of the off

ense ch arged under ei

ther of the two theories sub

mi tt ed to t he j ury. The f

irst poin t o f error is

overruled. Jury Char ge Err

or Cl aimed In h i s s ec on d p oi

n t of er ror, appe l l an

t con te n ds that the “trial

court comm

itted reversi ble error by overrul

in g appella nt’s obj ection to the appli cation paragraph

of t he charge.”

In his br ief, app ellant d irect s us t o t he ap plicat ion o f the law o f par t ies t o t he fact s in the sec ond pa rt of paragraph 4 of the j ury ch

arge. Appel

la nt, in hi s trial obje ction, contended that the State wa s n ot en ti tl ed to a c ha rge on t he law o f par t ies, t hat app ellant w as e nt itled t o a “st ra ight up” char ge— “he ei ther did c api tal m urderor he did n

ot , under thi s i

ndictmen t.” Appell

ant’s argum

ent was thathe was charged with c api talmurder f

or remunerati on or pro mi

se of rem uneration an

d that Luis Ra mirez, t he pri mary ac torin any parties ch

arge, wa s n

ot sh own to ha ve com m i tted m urder f or rem unera ti on or pro mise of rem

uneration. The

refore, appella

nt contends thath e c oul

d n ot b e a pa rty to the offense
com m i tted by Ram i rez. T his is the same co nt ent ion t hat app ellant a dvanc ed in his cha llenge t o t he
su ffic ie ncy of the eviden

ce. Murder is def

in ed in section 19.02( b)(1). T ex. Pen. Co de A nn . § 19.02(b)(1) (West 1994). Murde r be co me s c ap it al mu r de r if it is c o mmit t ed un de rce r t ain circumstances, lim

ited and s et for t h in

section 19 .03. Id . § 19.03. Appell ant was cha

rged under2 A pp el l an t doe s c i te Hutch v. Sta te , 9 22 S .W. 2d 1 66, 170 -7 1 ( Te x. Cri m . A pp. 199 6), f

or t he nat ure

of err ors wh i ch res ul t i n “egreg i ousha

rm .” “ Egreg i ousha

rm ” a ppl i esto a re

vi ew of charge error whi ch

wasnot pres erv ed b

y tim el y obj ection. See Almanz

a v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g). Here, appel la nt tim el y obj ected to the court ’s ch arge. 3 Tex . R. Evi d. 404(

b). 15 se cti on 19.03(a)(3) which

provides that murder becom

es a capi taloffense if “the per so n co mmi t s t he murder f orre muner at ion o r p ro mise of r emuner at ion or employs another to comm it the murder for remuneration of promise of remuneration .” (Em phasi s ad ded.) As n

ot ed earlie

r, the law of parties
ma y be ap plied eve n wit ho ut an y p arti es a l l egati on i n the i ndi ctmen t. Pitts , 569 S.W.2d at 900. The re was evi dence that Ram

irez e mpl oyed appe l l an t to m urder N an di n f or rem unera ti on or p romise of remun eration, thus i

ndicatin g hi s guilt under the v

ery s am e subs ection of s ection 19.03 under wh ic h app ellant was cha

rged. In addi

tion, the evi

dence sh ows Rami rez was a pri

ma ry actor in

the murder of Na n di n al on g w i th h i s h i re d h el p—appe l l an

t. Appe llant cit es no aut hor ities s upp or t ing hi s co nte ntion 2 an d h is a r gu men t is o f lit t le p er su as io n. We find no er r o rin t he t r ial c o ur t ’s ac t io n in overruli ng the obj ection to the jury charge. The se cond poin t o f error is

overruled.
The N ote In the thi rd point of error, appell

ant contends that t he “

trial court erredin admitt ing i nto ev i den ce a n extran eous of f en se or b ad act, in

vi ola tion of R ul e 403 of the Rul

es of Evi den ce.” Des pi te the l anguag e, app el

l an t prese nts a n issue un der R ul e 403 , not Rul

e 404 (b). 3 Appel

la nt has ref ere nc e to the i

ntr oduc ti on of a h an dw ri tten note f oun d i n a ppe l l an t’s wal l et d uri ng the se arc h of the Mercury

Cougar auto mobi

le in east Texas wh

en appel la nt was arrested.4 Appell ant’s brief stat es: The no t e it se lf wa s u nd o ub t ed ly re lev an t ev ide nc e e st ab li s hi ng a l in k between Ra m i re z a n d a pp el l an t. 16 Be fo r e t he ju ry, Jac k Allen, Sp ec ial I nve st iga t o ro f t he T ex as De pa r t men t o f Pu blic S af et y, ide ntif ie d the note on a yel

low piece of paper

and two busi

nesscar ds o f Luis Ramire z as being fou nd in the wallet . Whe n t he Stat e sought to in tro duce the note in

to evi dence duri

ng the re-di

rect exam i na ti on of D awn Ram i rez H olq ui n, a he ari ng i n the ab sen

ce of the j ury was conducted. The trial
co ur t ove rr uled a ppe llant’s R ule 40 3 o bject ion and his subse que nt ly urge d Ru le 404 (b) objec t ion.

Appe llantcom

pl ai ns tha t the i ntr oduc ti on of the note “perm

itted th e j ur y to s pe cul ate about an un

accompl is hed ex traneous offen

se, the m urder of Lui s Ram

irez’ s ex-wi

fe.” Appel

la nt reli es upon the note and a threat made by Ra mirez t o his e x-w ife, Da wn. Appel l an t conce des , however, that the note is rel

evan t evide nce. 4 He ar gu es t ha t in ligh t o f Ru le 403 t he note’s probative v al ue was out wei ghed

by the danger

o f un fair prejudi

ce and the n

eedl ess presen

tation of cum

ula tive e vi dence. The note in

question, whi

ch was in the ha ndwr iting o f Ramirez a cco rd ing t o D awn, gave hi ghway directions f

rom Brady

to Austi n an d further di

rections to two dif

feren t str eet addresses in Aust in and

a gen eral des cri pti on of three motor veh

i cles. Dawn testif

ie d that t he street addresses
wer e t hos e o f her ho me and he r u ncle’s ho me. T wo of t he veh ic le s descri

bed b el onged

to Dawn’s uncl e and the ot her was hers.

Dawn had e ar lier t est ifi

ed t hat Ramirez had t old her it d ro ve hi m c razy to thin k of her wi th ano t her man, a nd t hat if he fou nd her wi th another man

that he would ki

ll hi m “and com

e after her.”5 Rule 401 states:

“Relevant evidenc e” mea ns evide nce ha ving any te ndenc y to make t he exi stence of an y fac t t ha t is o f co nse qu en ce t o t he de t er min at io n of the acti on m

ore probable or less probab le

than i t would be wi

thout the evi

dence. 17 Rule 403 provides: Al thoughr ele va nt , ev ide nc e ma y be e xc lud ed if it s p r o ba t ive va lue is su b sta n ti ally out wei ghed

by the da ng er of unfair p re judice, co nfusion o f the issues , o r misleading t he jur y, o r by co nsider at ion o f undu e de lay, o r ne edles s pr ese nt at ion o f cumulat ive evi dence. Tex. R. Evid. 403 The f ac tors l i ste d i n R ule 4 03 a re th e on ly ones t o be balance d ag ainst pr oba t ive val ue. T he ab se nc e o f “su ch as ” o ra s imil ar i n tr od uct or y phra se indica t es t hat t he li stedfactors are not merel y e xam ple s. The f

irst three f

ac tor s—unf

ai r prejudi ce, con f us i on and m isl eading—are termed “dangers,” whereas delay and cumul

ativeness are re f erred to as “ cons i derati

ons.” The f ormer are weightier

because they threaten t he i n teg ri ty of th e f ac t-f i n di n g p roc es s, wh

erea s th e l atte r a recon cerned wi th ef fic ien cy. 2A Steven Goode, et al ., Texas Practice: Courtroom Handbook on Texas Evidence 283 (2 001 e d.). Rule 401 defi

nes “rel evant evidence.” Tex. R. E vid 401. 5 Ru le 4 02 pr o no un ce s a ll relev ant evi dence adm is si ble unl ess b arred by

certain c onstitutional

and s t at ut or y pro visions. Te x. R. Evid. 402. Rul

e 403 pl ace s discre

tion i n the tri al courtt o t emp er so mew ha t t he br ea dt h o f Ru le 402. Th e tr ial cou rt is aut hor ized t o w eigh t he pr oba t ive value o f releva nt evidenc e ag ainst t he
co unt er vailing

dan gers and c ons ider at ions set f

orth i n Ru l e 4 03 . R ul e 4 03 f av orsth e adm

i ss i b i l i ty of evi dence i n cl ose ca ses i

n kee pin g with the pres

umptions of adm

is si bi li ty of rel evan t evide nce.18

Moreno v . State , 22 S. W. 3d 48 2, 48 7 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 9) (q uo t ing Montgom ery , 810 S.W.2d at 389 ); Mozon v. Sta te , 991 S.W .2d 841 , 847 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1999 ). Th e s tan

da rd of rev i ew of
a t r ial c o ur t ’s de cis io n u nd er Ru le 4 03 is a n a bu se o f dis cretion. The t rial co ur t ’s r uling will be up he ld so long as i

t is wi thin “the zone of

reasonabl e di sagreem

ent.” Lane v. State , 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Cri

m . App. 1996 ); see also Moreno , 22 S. W.3d at 487 ; Poole v . State , 974 S.W.2d892, 897 (Tex. A

pp.—A usti n 19 98, pet. ref

’d). Unfair P rejudice We t ur n now t o a ppe llant’s c laim that t he pr oba t ive value o f the no t e w as su bst an t ially out wei ghed

by t he da ng er o f u nfa irpr eju di ce . Any evi dence pres en t ed by t he pr o se cu t io n w ill gene ra lly be pr ejudicial t o t he de fendant in a cri m i na l cas e. Wyatt v

. State , 25 S.W.3d 18, 26 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 200 0); Ford v . State , 26 S.W.3d 669, 675 (Tex. App.—Corpus Ch ri sti 2000, n o pet.). “In one sens e, alm

ost every pi

ece of ev ide nce i ntroduced at trial

can be said t o be pr ejudicial t o o ne si de or t he other.” Blakeney v. State , 911 S.W.2d 508, 51 6 (Tex . App.—A usti n 19 95, n o pet.). Co ns eq ue nt ly, o nly

evidence that is unfairly

prej udicial

i s ex cl uded
. Cabelle

ro v. State , 919 S.W.2d 919, 922(Te x. A

pp. —H ous ton

[14 th D ist. ] 19 96, pet . r ef’d); Blakeney , 911 S. W. 2d at 51 6. Un fair evi dence is that evi dence wh

ic h has an un

due tendency

to suggest a deci sion be m ade on an i

mproper ba si s, com

monl y an em otional one. Montgom ery , 81 0 S. W.2d at 389 ; Ford, 919 S.W.2d at 922. A pp el l an t con ten dsth at th e n ote in Ra mire z’ s ha nd wr it ing an d fo un d in appellant’s po sses sion, wh en

taken wi th Ra m i rez’ s thre at to Dawn , c ould h ave caus ed the j ury to specul ate a sec ond co nsp ira cy w as afo o t . T hu s, t he int r o du ct io n o f t he no t e r es ult ed in unf ai r prej udice. The
n ote wa s n

ot si gned and no t da t ed
. I t wa s no t ad dr es se d t o an yo ne . Da wn mo ve d t o Au st in in6 See Brow n v. S tate , 6 S .W.3 d 57 1, 5 75 ( Tex. App. —Tyler 19 99, pet . r ef’d); Conner v. State , 891 S.W .2d 668 , 671 (Tex. A pp.—H ouston [1s

t Di st.] 1994 , no pet.).
7 A ppe l l an t ac kn owl edge s th at sub se que

nt to th e i ntr od uc tion of the note, the trial

court refuse d to adm it the testim

ony of Gin ger Herrin g, Rami rez’s gi rlf rien d to the eff

ect that she ove

rhe ard Ram irez and a ppe llant t alking abo ut go ing t o Au st in and killing Ramirez’ s ex- wife, he r u ncle and po ss ibly h er mo t he r . T his di sa llo we d e vid en ce wa s n ev er be fo r e t he ju ry. 19 Decem ber 199 7. S he

tes ti f i ed tha t Ra m i rez ha d v i si tation right s wi

th their ch

il dren and h

e had ret urned them to Aust in

one weekend. Dawn related t hat Nandin v isi ted her in Austin

the last
wee kend in

March 199 8 b ef ore h i s dea th on A pri l 8, 1 998 . The ti

me of the threa t ag ai ns t al l of Dawn’s boyf rien ds was n ot establ is hed, but i t was apparently

after the Ram

irez di vorce in 1995. Appe llanturges that we ap ply t he fo ur - pr o ng ed r ele va nc e c r it er ia s et fo r t h in Montgom ery , 810 S.W.2d at 389-91, for det ermi ni ng whether the probative v al ue of an e xtraneous off ense i s subs tantial ly out wei ghed b

y the danger of un

fai r prejudi ce. Appel

la nt overlooks the fac

t that t he intr od uct ion o f the not e, even t ake n t og et her wit h t he earli er threa t by Ra m i rez , doe s n

ot co nst it ut e a n e xt r an eo us o ffen se by ap pe llant Be ll 6 t o wh ich t he r ele va nc e c r it er ia w o ul d a pp ly. 7 The pr obat ive v

alue of the no te fo und in appell ant’s walle

t with Ram

irez’s b usin ess cards was n

ot substantial ly

out wei ghed b

y the danger of un

fai r prejudi ce. Cumulative Evidence Unl ike the “dan

ger” of unf

ai r prejudi ce, the “consi

deration” of the n

ee dless pre senta ti on of c umulat ive evidenc e fo und in Ru le 403 is co nc erned wi th the eff ic ie ncy of j udic ia

l proceedin gs ra t her t han t he threat of i naccura te deci sions. See Alvar

ado v. State , 912 S.W.2d 199, 212-13 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 8) . “Cu mulat iveness” alone i s n ot a b as i s f

or th e e xc l

us i on of evi dence under Ru le 4 03
. T he rule speaks to the “needl ess presen tation” of such

evi dence. In thi s regard, trial20

cou rtssh oul d b e s ensi ti v e to a pa rty ’s “ ri gh t” to make i

ts case in the m

ost persuasi

ve m ann er possib le
. Etheridge v. State , 90 3 S
. W. 2d 1, 20
- 21 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 4); see also gener ally 1 Steven Goode, et al ., Texas Practice : Texa s’ R ul es of Evi denc e: Civil and Criminal § 403.2(1993 ). Cumulat iveevi

dence su gg es t s t ha t o t he rev ide nc e o n t he sa me point has al ready b een recei ved. But t hi s al one i s not a basi s f or exclus ion. The

cum ula tive e ff ect of the evi

dence m ay hei ghten rather than reduce its p ro bat ive value. Fur t her , e vidence t hat may be cumulat ive as t o o ne poi nt m ay not ha ve that ch aracteri sti c as

to another m

aterial poi nt. Goode , § 403.2. In this “m urder for hi

re scenari o”, t he State b ore t he b ur den of proof b ey ond a
r ea so na ble do ubt and the l in k between appel

la nt and Ram

irez was of vi tal im por tance. T he stro ngest evi dence of a li nk came from Hoo gst ra and ap pellan t’s jail l et t er intr od uce d by t he St at e. Appe llant im peached and d iscre dit ed H oo gst ra by showi ng, inter al

ia , th at H oogs tra h

ad rec ei ve d h un dre dsof dol l ars fro m sever al law enfo rc ement age ncies ea rly on in t he invest igat ion. Ap pel la n t also used sta tem en ts in his jail lett er t o sup por t his defense of dures s. If it can be arg ued t hat ap pellan t’s pos se ss i on

of t he no t e wr itt en by

Ra mire z w as cu mula t ive ev ide nc e o f t he linkbe t we en t he t wo , it
was not inadmissible on t he ba si s of ne edl ess pres en tation of c um ul ati ve ba si s. Mor

eov er , the S tate urges t hat the not e was admissible to rebut the defense of duress.

We concl ude that the

tri al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts d i screti on in overruling appell

ant’s Rul e 403 obj ection. The thi rd point of error is overrul ed. The j udgme

nt is aff irm ed.21 John F . Onion, Jr., Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Pur yea r an d O ni on * Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 29, 2001 Do No t Publis

h

* Bef ore J o hn F
. On io n, Jr ., Pr esiding J udg e ( re t ired ), Co ur t of Cr imi nal Appe als, s itt ing by ass i gnm en t. SeeTex . Gov’ t Code A nn . § 74.00 3(b ) (We st 1998 ).