No. PD-_________-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS JUSTIN SANDERS, Appellant-Petitioner,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee-Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Discretionary Review From the Sixth District Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, In Cause No. 06-14-00079-CR, Affirming Mr. Sanders’ Conviction In Cause No. 13F1051-102 in the 102 Judicial District Court nd Of Bowie County, Texas

__________________________________________________________________
CLIFTON L. “SCRAPPY” HOLMES State Bar No. 09907000
ORAL ARGUMENT GENA A. BUNN REQUESTED State Bar No. 00790323 HOLMES & MOORE, P.L.L.C. P.O. Drawer 3267 Longview, Texas 75606 Phone No. (903)758-2200 Facsimile No. (903)758-7864
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT PD-1171-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/15/2015 11:13:22 AM Accepted 10/15/2015 3:29:27 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKIDE NTI TY OF J UDGE, PARTIE S, AND COUNSEL

The pa rti es to th e su it are as fol lo ws: Tria l J ud ge The H on or ab le Bo bby Lo ck ha rt 10 2 Ju di ci al Dis tri ct Co ur t n d Bo wie C ou nt y , Texa s Co ur t o f App eal s Pa ne l The H on or ab le Jo sh R. Morr is s , III, Ch ie f Ju st ic e The H on or ab le Ba il ey C. Mos el ey , Ju st ic e The H on or ab le Ja ck

Cart er, J us tic e , Ret ire d, Si tt in g b y Ass ig nm en t Si xt h C ou rt o f App eal s Di st ric t o f Tex as Tex ark an a, Tex as Defen da nt /Ap pe ll an t/ Pet it io ne r Ju st in Sa nder s Co un se l fo r Defen da nt /Ap pe ll an t/ Pet it io ne r Rick Shumak er – t ria l co un se l Wi ll ia m Wi ll ia m s Bo wie C ou nt y

Pu bl ic Defen de r’s Offi ce Cra ig Henr y – d ire ct ap pe al co un se l
Gen a B unn – d is cret io na ry rev ie w cou ns el
St at e o f Tex as Sa m an tha J. Og le sb y – t ria l an d a pp eal co un se l Kel le y Cri sp – t ria l co un se l Ass is ta nt Cri m in al Dis tri ct Att or ne y s Bo wie C ou nt y

Dis tri ct Att or ne y ’s Offic e

iTABLE OF CONTENT S PAGE NO.

Tab le of C on te nt s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii -ii i
In de x o f Aut ho rit ie s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
St at em en t Re ga rd in g Ora l Arg um en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
St at em en t o f th e Cas e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
St at em en t o f Pro ced ur al His to ry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Que st io ns Pres en te d fo r Rev ie w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. Did th e co ur t o f ap pe al s er r by con cl ud in g t ha t Sa nd ers fai le d to pre se rv e err or

reg ard in g t he tri al co ur t’s d en ia l o f two m ot io ns for

m is tri al be cau se San de rs di d n ot fir st see k a n in st ru ct io n t o d is reg ard , in ap pa ren t co nt rav en ti on of t hi s Co ur t’s o pi ni on in Y

ou ng v. St at e , 13 7 S .W .3d 65 , 70 (Tex

. Cri m . App . 20 04 )?
II . Did th e co ur t o f ap pe al s er r by ho ld in g t ha t Sa nd ers ’ pu rp or te d co ns en t t o t he sea rch of h is cel lu la r te le ph on e was su ffi ci en tl y at te nu at ed fro m

th e ta in t o f it s i ll eg al sei zu re b y po li ce t o co ns ti tu te vo lu nt ary an d k no win g c on se nt su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify th e warra nt le ss sei zu re?
II I

. Did th e co ur t o f ap pe al s er r by con cl ud in g t ha t t he ev id en ce was leg al ly suf

fic ie nt to su pp or t t he jury’ s v erd ic t o f gu il ty of fel on y m ur de r whe re t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt a co nc lu si on th at San de rs kn ew th at Offic er Sp rag ue was at te m pt in g t o a rres t o r de ta in hi m , in ap pa ren t co nt rav en ti on of th e o pi ni on s o f ot he r co ur ts of a pp eal s, Red wi ne v. St at e , 30 5 S.W .3d 36 0, 3 62 (Tex . App . – Ho us to n [1 4 Dis t.] 20 10 , pet

. th ref’d) , and Gri eg o v . St at e , 34 5 S .W .3d 74 2, 7 52 (Tex . App . – Am ari ll o 2 01 1) , and of t hi s C ou rt, Ja cks on v. St at e , 71 8 S.W .2d 72 4, 7 25 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 )?
iiArg um en t. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6- 20

I. The c ou rt o f ap pea ls erre d by co ncl udi ng tha t Sa nder s fa il ed to pres erv e err or reg ar di ng the tr ia l co urt’ s de ni al of t w o moti on s fo r m is tri al beca us e Sa nder s di d no t fi rs t se ek an ins truc tio n to di sr eg ar d.
II . The c ou rt o f ap pea ls erre d by ho ld in g th at Sa nder s’ purp or ted c on se nt to the s ea rch o f hi s ce ll ul ar tel epho ne w as suf fic ie ntl y a tten ua ted fr om the ta in t of its il le ga l se iz ure b y p ol ic e to co ns tit ute v ol unta ry an d k no w in g co ns ent to sea rch.
II I. The c ou rt o f ap pea ls erre d by co ncl udi ng tha t the e vi denc e w as leg al ly suf

fic ie nt to sup po rt the jury ’s ve rdi ct o f gu il ty w here ther e w as ins uffi ci ent e vi denc e to sup po rt a co ncl us io n tha t Sa nder s k new tha t Off ic er Sp ra gu e w as at tempting to a rres t or deta in him.
Prayer for Rel ie f.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Cert ifi cat e o f Serv ic e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Cert ifi cat e o f Co m

pl ia nc e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 App en di x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ii iINDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

A. CASES PAGE NO.
Bri ck v. St at e, 73 8 S .W . 2d 67 6, 6 78 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 87 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Dela y v. St at e, 44 3 S .W . 3d 90 9, 9 12 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Grie go v. St at e, 34 5 S .W . 3d 74 2, 7 52 (Tex . App . - Am ari ll o 2 01 1)

. . 4,1 5,1 7,1 8,1 9
Ja ck so n v . Sta te , 71 8 S .W . 2d 72 4, 7 25 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 ).

. . . . . . 4, 1 5,1 6,2 0
Jo hn so n v . Sta te , 87 1 S .W . 2d 74 4, 7 50 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 94 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mi ran da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 (19 66 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Red win e v . Sta te , 30 5 S .W . 3d 36 0, 3 62 (Tex . App . - Hou st on [14 Dis t.] 20 10 , th pe t. re f’d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 1 5,1 6,1 8,1 9
Ri le y v. Ca li fo rn ia , 13 4 S . Ct. 2 47 3 (2 01 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
St at e v . Gran vi ll e, 42 3 S .W . 3d 39 9, 4 17 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 9
St at e v . Idu art e, 26 8 S .W . 3d at 5 44 , 55 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 08 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 11
W eh ren be rg v. St at e, 16 S.W . 3d 45 8, 4 69 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 13 ).

. . . . . . . . . . 11
W on g S un v. Un it ed Sta te s, 3 71 U.S. 47 1 (1 96 3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
You ng v. St at e, 13 7 S .W . 3d 65 , 70 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 04 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 4,6 ,7,8 ,9
Ru le s: Tex as Co de of C rim. Pro c., Arti cl e 3 8.2 3.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Tex as Pen al Co de Ann . § 3 8.0 4 (West 20 13 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Tex as Ru le s o f App el la te Pro ced ur e. Ru le 66 .3 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,1 5 Tex as Ru le s o f App el la te Pro ced ur e, Ru le 66 .3 (b ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Tex as Ru le s o f App el la te Pro ced ur e, Ru le 66 .3 (c ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,1 5 ivSTATE MENT REG ARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Pet it io ne r req ue st s or al arg um en t an d su bm it s th at or a l a r g u ment wou ld be
pa rti cu la rly he lp fu l whe re, as he re, th e ca s e i n v o lv es qu es ti on s of ex cep ti on al
im po rta nc e. The ho ld in gs of t h e c o u r t be lo w co nt rav en e op in io ns of th is Co ur t as well as op in io ns of ot he r co ur ts of ap pe al s, th us jus ti f yi n g di sc ret io na ry rev ie w by
th is Co ur t un de r Ru le 66 .3 of th e Tex as Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e. Oral arg um en t

wou ld th eref

or e ai d th e Co ur t in se cu rin g an d m ai nt ai ni ng un ifo rm it y of Tex as co ur t de ci si on s on th es e im

po rta nt an d far- reac hi ng is su es
. Fu rth er, or al arg um en t wou ld be he lp fu l t o t he Co ur t d ue to th e fac tu al an d l eg al co m pl ex it y of t he cas e.

1STATE MENT OF TH E CASE

Pet it io ne r Ju st in San de rs was ch arg ed wit h fel on y m ur de r ba se d on th e St at e’s

accu sa ti on th at he st ru ck Tex ark an a Po li ce Offi cer W il li am s Ja so n Sp rag ue wit h hi s

ve hi cl e, ki ll in g hi m , in th e co ur se of ei th er as sa ul ti ng Sp rag ue or ev ad in g arre st or de te nt io n by Sp rag ue
. 1 CR 29

. Des pi te in cred ib le an d in co ns is te nt ey ewit ne ss 1

te st im on y id en ti fy in g San de rs ’ ve hi cl e as th e on e – am on g nu m ero us ve hi cl es pr es en t

– th at act ua ll y co ll id ed wit h Sp rag ue , an ab se nc e of an y si gn ifi can t ph y si cal ev id en ce li nk in g San de rs or hi s veh ic le to th e co ll is io n, an d a pa uc it y of ev id en ce su pp or ti ng

a co nc lu si on th at San de rs ei th er in te nt io na ll y as sa ul te d Sp rag ue or kn ew th at Sp rag ue

was at te m

pt in g to arre st hi m , a ju r y fo un d San de rs gu il ty of fel on y m ur de r an d

se nt en ced hi m to 30 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t in th e Co rrec ti on al In st it ut io ns Div is io n of
th e Tex as Depa rtment o f Cri m in al Ju st ic e an d a fin e o f $5 ,00 0.0 0. 1 CR 1 43 -4 5.

“ CR” refe rs to th e Cl erk ’s Rec or d of do cu m en ts fil ed wit h th e di st ric t cler k 1 du rin g th e co ur se of tri al pr oc eed in gs , pr eced ed by vo lu m e nu m be r an d fo ll owe d by ci ta ti on to pa ge nu m

be rs
. “ RR” refe rs to th e Rep or te r’s Rec or d of t r a n sc rib ed tri al pr oc eed in gs , pr eced ed by vo lu m e nu m be r an d fo ll owe d by ci ta ti on to pa ge nu m be rs
. 2STATE MENT OF PROCEDURAL HI STO RY

On Aug us t 12 , 20 15 , th e Si xt h Dis tri ct Co ur t of App eal s is su ed it s op in io n an d

en te red jud gm en t affi rm in g th e jud gm en t of th e tri al

. Se e App en di x. No m ot io n fo r reh eari ng was fil ed

. Thi s pe ti ti on is ti m el y fil ed aft er on e du ly gr an te d ex te ns io n of
ti m e.

3QUEST IO NS PRESENTE D FOR REVIEW

I. Did th e co ur t of app eal s err by co nc lu di ng th at San de rs fai le d to pr es erv e erro r reg ard in g th e tri al co ur t’s de ni al of two m ot io ns fo r m is tri al be cau se San de r s di d no t fir st se ek an in st ru ct io n to di sr eg ard , in ap p a ren t co nt rav en ti on of th is Co ur t’s op in io n in Y ou ng v. St at e , 13 7 S .W .3d 65 , 70 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 04 )?
II . Did t h e c ou rt of ap pe al s err by ho ld in g th at San de rs ’ pu rp or te d co ns en t to th e s e a r c h of hi s cel lu la r te le ph on e was su ffi ci en tl y at te nu at ed fro m th e ta in t of it s il le ga l se iz ur e by po l i ce to co ns ti tu te vo lu nt ary an d kn owi ng co ns en t su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy th e warra nt le ss sei zu re?
II I. Did th e co ur t of ap pe al s err by co nc lu di ng th at th e ev id en ce was le ga ll y su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t of gui lt y of fel on y m ur de r wh e r e th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t a co nc lu si on th at San de rs kn ew th at Offi cer Sp rag ue was at te m pt in g to arre st or de ta in hi m , in ap pa ren t co nt rav en ti on of t h e op in io ns of ot he r co ur ts of ap pe al s, Red wi ne v. St at e , 3 0 5 S.W .3d 36 0, 36 2 (Tex

. App

. – Hou st on [1 4 D i s t.] 20 10 , pe t. t h ref’d) , an d Gri eg o v. St at e , 34 5 S.W .3d 7 4 2 , 7 5 2 (Tex

. App

. – Am ari ll o 2 01 1) , and of t hi s Cou rt, Ja cks on v. St at e , 71 8 S .W .2d 72 4, 7 25 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 86 )?

4The co ur t of ap pe al s se t fo rth th e fo ll owi ng br ie f b a c k g r o un d fact s in it s

m em or an du m

op in io n: Near m id ni gh t in th e su m m er of 20 13 , a 9- 1- 1 o p e r a t o r r ecei ve d a te le ph on e cal l rep o r t i n g a la rg e di st ur ba nc e at Grad y T. W al la ce Park (th e Park ) in Tex ark an a, Tex as
. The en su in g arri va l of Tex ark an a Po li ce Offi cer W il li am Ja so n Spra gu e at th e Park wit h t he li gh ts on hi s p at ro l car ab la ze pr om

pt ed a st am

pe de of au to m ob il es at te m pt in g to le av e th e Park

. One of th e fle ei ng cars st ru ck Sp rag ue , who la te r di ed fro m th e in juri es he su st ai ne d. Ju st in San de rs was accu se d of hav in g dr iv en th e car t ha t s tru ck Sp rag ue
. . . . * * * A Te xa rk an a ci ty ord in an ce p ro hi bi ts pe op le fro m us in g t he Park aft er 10 :0 0 p.m
. Nev ert he le ss , rep or ts to th e 9- 1- 1 em erg en cy li ne were m ad e ne ar m id ni gh t Ju ne 14 , 20 13 , of a la rg e di st ur ba nc e at th e Park

. Po li ce were di sp at ch ed , an d O f fic er Sp rag ue (wh o was dr es se d in hi s po li cem an ’s un ifo rm an d was dr iv in g a pr om in en tl y m ark ed pa tro l car) was th e fir st of

fic er to arri v e , f

i n di ng ab ou t 10 0 pe op le in th e Park

. Onl y m in ut es aft er Sp rag ue ’s arri va l, an ot he r cal l to t h e 9 -1 -1 em erg en cy op erat or was pl aced

. Thi s cal l was fro m an un id en ti fie d p e r s o n who was at th e Park , an d th at pe rs on rep or te d th at a po li c e of fic er had be en st ru ck by a ve hi cl e. The cal le r di d no t see th e ve hi cl e st ri k e th e of

fic er, bu t th ou gh t th e ve hi cl e was a br own , fo ur -d oo r, Ch ev ro le t Sp or t Ut il it y

Vehi cl e (SUV). Offi cer Ch ris Ph el ps , th e ne xt of fic er to arri ve at th e Park , te st ifi ed th at he sa w nu m ero us ve hi cl es dr iv in g ou t of an d away fro m th e Park

. He al so saw Sp rag ue lying un co ns ci ou s o n th e gr ou nd wit h bl oo d c om in g ou t of hi s ears an d pi eces fro m hi s un ifo rm sc at te red aro un d hi m
. Bec au se he be li ev ed Sp rag ue to be st ru gg li ng to br eat h, he cu t Sp rag ue ’s sh irt , ve st , an d du ty be lt of f. Ph el ps an d ot h e r o f

f i cers in te rv ie wed se ve ral pe op le st il l at th e sc en e, an d th ey go t sev eral di ffer en t ve rs io ns of th e ev en t, bu t no ne of th e in te rv ie wees ad m it te d to ha vi ng se en who se ve hi cl e ha d st ru ck Sp rag ue
. Sp rag ue was ta ke n to Ch ris tu s St

. Mi ch ael Hos pi ta l wh ere h e la te r di ed fro m hi s i nju rie s. App en di x a t 2 -3 (fo ot no te d o m it te d)

.

5ARGUMENT

I. The cou rt of appea ls erre d by co ncl udi ng tha t Sa nder s fa il ed to pres erv e erro r reg ar di ng the tri al co urt’ s deni al of tw o m ot io ns fo r m is tri al beca us e Sa nder s di d no t fi rs t se ek an ins truc tio n to dis reg ar d. The co ur t be lo w erre d by co nc lu di ng th at San de rs fai le d to pr es erv e erro r
reg ard in g th e tri al co ur t’s de ni al of two de fen se m ot io ns fo r m is tri al be cau se San de rs di d no t fir st se ek an in st ru ct io n to di sr eg ard

. Se e App en di x at 11 -1 4, 30 -3 3. Thi s ho ld in g co nt rav en es th is Co ur t’s op in io n in Y ou ng v. St at e , 13 7 S.W .3d 65 , 70 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 04 ). The refo re, pu rs ua nt to R u l e 6 6

. 3 ( c) of th e Tex as Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e, th is Co ur t sh ou ld gr an t San de rs ’ pe ti ti on fo r d i s c r e ti on ary

rev ie w. The f irs t de fen se m ot io n fo r m is tri al oc cu rred whe n de fen se co un se l no ti ced
th at m em be rs of th e pr os ecu ti on te am w e re weari ng “ fal le n of fic er” wris tb an ds . 1 1
RR 21 ; 18 RR Rec or d Exh ib it No. 9( 2)

. San de rs ob jecte d to th e wris tb an ds , arg ui ng th at th e pr os ecu to rs ’ co nd uc t vi ol at ed San de rs ’ rig ht to a fai r tri al an d hi s rig ht to be
tri ed by a fai r an d im

pa rti al jury. The tri al co ur t in st ru ct ed th e pr os ecu to rs to rem ov e th e wris tb an ds

. San de rs th en m ov ed for a m is tri al , whi ch th e tri al co ur t den ie d. 11
RR 2 1- 24

. The sec on d d efen se m ot io n fo r m is tri al was b as ed on im pr op er p ro se cu to ria l
qu es ti on in g. At a pr et ria l he ari ng , th e St at e ha d ann ou nc ed th at so m e of th e St at e’s wit ne ss es were be in g th reat en ed an d th at on e ha d be en as sa ul te d. 7 RR1 11 -1 12

. The

6St at e th en wen t on to cl ari fy , “ W e ha ve rece iv ed no in fo rm at io n th at th es e th reat s or

as sa ul ts were d on e at th e req ue st of M r. San de rs or h is fri en ds an d fa m il y .”
At tri al , th e St at e qu eri ed on e of it s wit ne ss , “ Hav e y ou , in fact , al so be en th reat en ed be cau se pe op le k n e w yo u were –” San de rs im m ed ia te ly ob

jecte d. The
tri al co ur t su st ai ne d th e ob jecti on an d rem ov ed th e jury fro m th e co ur tro om in or de r
to co nd uc t a br ie f he ari ng ou ts id e it s pr es en ce. 11 RR1 57

. San de rs req ue st ed a

m is tri al , arg ui ng th at be cau se th e St at e ha d co nc ed ed it ha d no ev id en ce of San de rs ’
in vo lv em en t with th e al le ge d t hr eat s, its pr op os ed qu es ti on was “ so ou tra ge ou s and

so in fla m m at or y ” th at it s ta in t ren de red it im po ss ib le fo r t he jury to ren de r a fai r

ve rd ic t. 11 RR1 58

. The tri al co ur t su st ai ne d San de rs ’ ob jecti on to th e qu es ti on , bu t de ni ed hi s m ot io n fo r m is tri al . 11 RR1 61

. On San de rs ’ ap pe al of th e tri al co ur t’s de ni al s of th es e m ot io ns fo r m is tri al , th e

co ur t of ap pe al s, in bo th in st an ces , de cl in ed to co ns id er th e m eri ts of San de rs ’ cl ai m s ba se d on it s co nc lu si on th at San de rs ha d fai le d to pr es erv e th e erro rs fo r rev ie w. Se e App en di x at 14 , 33

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co ur t b el ow he ld th at , be cau se San de rs ha d
fai le d to req ue st an in st ru ct io n to di sr eg ard be fo re se ek in g a m is tri al , he ha d fo rfei te d
hi s rig ht to ch al le ng e th e tri al co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io ns fo r m is tri al

. Id

. Howev er, th es e ho ld in gs are in co ns is te nt wit h th e ho ld in g of th is Co ur t in Y ou ng v. St at e , 13 7
S. W. 3 d a t 70

. In Y

ou ng , th is Co ur t he ld th at a de fen da nt m ay pr es erv e erro r fo r
ap pe al by m ov in g fo r a m is tri al wit ho ut fir st m ak in g an ob jecti on an d req ue st in g an
7in st ru ct io n t o d is reg ard

. Id

. at 67 . The Co ur t ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t

th e tra di ti on al an d pr efer red pr oc ed ur e fo r a pa rty to vo ic e it s co m pl ai nt ha s be en to se ek th e m i n se qu en ce – th at is , (1 ) to ob ject whe n it is po ss ib le , (2 ) to req ue st an in st ru ct io n to di sr eg ard if th e pr ejud ic ia l ev en t ha s oc cu rred , an d (3 ) t o m ov e fo r a m is tri al if a pa rty th in ks an in st ru ct io n to di s r e g a r d w as no t su ffi ci en t. Howev er, th is se qu en ce is no t es se nt ia l to pr es erv e co m pl ai nt s fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. The es se nt ia l req ui rem en t i s a t im el y , sp eci fic req ue st th at th e tr ia l co ur t re fu se s. * * * Acco rd in gl y , whe n a pa rty’ s fir st act io n is to m ov e fo r m is tri al

. . . , th e sc op e of ap pe ll at e rev ie w is li m it e d to th e qu es ti on whe th er th e tri al co ur t erre d in no t ta ki ng th e m os t s e r i o u s act io n of en di ng th e tri al , in ot he r wor ds , a n ev en t th at co ul d ha ve be en pr ev en te d by t im el y ob ject or cu red by in st ru ct io n to th e jury wil l no t l ead an ap pe ll at e co ur t to rev ers e a jud gm en t on an ap pe al by th e pa rty who di d no t req ue st th es e le ss er rem ed ie s in th e tri al co ur t

. Lim it ed as th is sc op e of ap pe ll at e rev ie w m ay

be , su ch an ap pe ll at e rev ie w is av ai la bl e to su ch a pa rty.
1 3 7 S

. W. 3d at 69 (fo ot no te s om it te d)

. Here, San de rs ob jecte d in bo th in st an ces
. Howev er, th e tri al co ur t’s su st ai ni ng of t ho se ob jecti on s di d no t cu re th e pr ejud ic e

res ul ti ng fro m th e im

pr op er con du ct . Furt he r, in st ru ct io ns to di sr eg ard wou ld ha ve be en ut te rly us el es s in pr ev en ti ng pr ejud ic e. In th e fir st in st an ce, an in st ru ct io n to th e jury to di sr eg ard th e pr os ecu to rs ’ “ fal le n of fic er” wris tb an ds wou ld on ly ha ve se rv ed
to br in g a d d it io na l at te nt io n to an d fu rth er id en ti fy th e im pr op er co nd uc t an d m ay

ev en ha ve br ou gh t th e co nd uc t to th e at te nt io n of an y juro rs who ha d no t y et ob se rv ed
th e wris tb an ds or be en aware of th ei r m ean in g. In th e se co nd in st an ce, th e S t a t e’s
qu es ti on im

pl y in g th at San de rs ha d th reat en ed a St at e’s wit ne ss – pa rti cu la rly in li gh t of th e St at e’s pr io r co nc es si on th at th ere was no ev id en ce San de rs or hi s fam il y were
8li nk ed in an y way to su ch th reat s – was so in f l a mm a t o ry an d pr ejud ic ia l th at no in st ru ct io n c ou ld ha ve cu red th e err or
. In li gh t o f Y

ou ng , th is Co ur t s ho ul d g ran t re vi ew, rev ers e th e h ol di ng s of th e

co ur t bel ow th at San de rs fai le d to pr es erv e erro r, an d rem an d to th e co ur t bel ow for

co ns id erat io n o f th e cl ai m s o n t he ir m eri ts

.

II . The co urt of ap pea ls erre d by ho ld in g tha t Sa nder s’ purp or ted co ns ent to the se ar ch of hi s cel lu la r tel epho ne w a s su ffi ci entl y at tenu at ed fro m the ta in t of its il le ga l se iz ure by po li ce to co ns tit ute vo l u n t a r y an d k no w in g co ns ent to sea rch. The co ur t of ap pe al s al so erre d by ho ld in g th at San de rs ’ pu rp or te d co ns en t to th e se arch of hi s cel lu la r te le ph on e was su ffi c i en tl y at te nu at ed fro m th e ta in t of it s il le ga l se iz ur e by po li ce to co ns ti tu te vo lu nt ary an d kn owi ng co ns en t to se arch

. Se e App en di x at 26 -3 0. Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld gr a n t S a n d ers ’ pe ti ti on fo r di sc ret io na ry

rev ie w to ad dr es s th e im po rta nt qu es ti on of la w pr es en te d in th is i s s u e
. S e e Tex

. Ru le s Ap p. Pr oc ., Rul e 6 6.3 (b ).
“A c e ll ph on e is un li ke ot he r co nt ai ne rs as it can rece iv e, st or e, an d tr a n s mi t

an al m os t un li m it ed am ou nt of pr iv at e in fo rm at io n. Th e p o te nt ia l fo r in va si on of
pr iv acy, id en ti ty th eft , or , at a m in im um , pu bl ic em

ba rras sm en t is en or m ou s.” St at e

v. Gra nv il le , 42 3 S.W .3d 39 9, 41 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 14 ). Bo th th is Co ur t an d th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t ha ve rece nt ly reco gn iz ed th at a pe rs on ha s a reas on ab le

9ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in a cel l ph on e – ev en whe n th at ph on e is in th e po ss es si on of

th e jail pro pe rty roo m
. Id

. ; Ril ey v. Ca li fo rn ia , 13 4 S . Ct. 2 47 3 (2 01 4)

. San de rs fil ed a m ot io n to su pp res s al l ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m th e se arch of hi s cel l ph on e. 1 CR 99 -1 00

. At th e co nc lu si on of a pr et ria l h e a r in g, th e tri al co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n to su pp res s. 7 RR 63 -8 8, 10 6- 11 1. At tri al , San de rs ren ewed hi s ob jecti on th at th e ev id e n c e w as il le ga ll y ob ta in ed , a nd th e ob jecti on was ov erru le d by the tri al co ur t. 1 1 R R 2 13 -1 4; 12 RR 2 3- 24

. The tri al co ur t b as ed it s d en ia l o f San de rs ’ su pp res si on m ot io n o n i ts fin di ng th at San de rs co ns en te d to th e se iz ur e of th e cel l ph on e by vo lu nt ari ly tu rn in g th e cel l
p h o n e ov er to po li ce du rin g in te rro ga ti on
. The co ur t be lo w c or rect ly h el d th at t h i s fin di ng was no t su pp or te d by th e reco rd in li gh t of th e fact th at San de rs su rren de red
hi s cel l ph on e on ly aft er po li ce en te red th e in te rro ga ti on ro om an d d e m an de d
San de rs ’ cel l ph on e. App en di x at 23 -2 4 ; se e al so 7 RR 64 -6 5, 71

. Thu s, San de rs

m erel y a c qu ie sc ed to la w en fo rcem en t’s co m m an d to ha nd ov er hi s cel l ph on e. Acco rd in gl y , th e St at e fai le d it s bu rd en to pr ov e San de rs co ns en te d to th e se iz ur e of
hi s cel l ph on e. The co ur t be lo w al so co rrec tl y reject ed th e St at e’s al te rn at e rel ia nc e

on th e se iz ur e-i nc id en t-t o- la wfu l-a rres t ex cep ti on , th e in ev it ab le di sc ov ery do ct rin e,

an d t he ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex cep ti on . App en di x a t 2 4- 26

. Bu t de sp it e it s co nc lu si on th at th e in it ia l se iz ur e of San de rs ’ cel l ph on e by th e
po li ce di d no t fal l wit hi n an y reco gn iz ed e x c e pt io n to th e warra nt req ui rem en t, th e
10co ur t be lo w co nc lu ded tha t, af te r the w ar

ran tl es s se iz ur e, San de rs co ns en te d to ha vi ng hi s ph on e se arch ed an d th at su ch co ns en t was su ffi ci en tl y at te nu at ed fro m th e ta in t of th e pr io r il le ga l se iz ur e to al lo w th e ad m is si on of th e ev id en ce. App en di x at 26 -2 7.
Thi s was erro r. The “ fru it of th e po is on ou s tre e” do ct rin e se rv es to ex cl ud e as ev id en ce di rect

an d i nd ire ct pro du ct s o f Fo ur th Am en dm en t v io la ti on s. W on g S un v. Uni te d S ta te s , 37 1 U.S. 47 1 (1 96 3) ; St at e v. Id ua rt e , 26 8 S.W .3d 54 4, 55 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 08 ).
Howev er, evi de nc e is no t cl as si fie d as a fru it th at m us t be excl ud ed m erel y be cau se it wou ld no t ha ve be en di sc ov ered bu t fo r th e vi ol at io n. W on g Su n , 37 1 U

. S. at 48 7- 88 ; Id

ua rt e , 26 8 S .W .3d at 5 50 . Rat he r, th e m or e ap t q ue st io n in su ch a cas e is “wh e t he r, gr an ti ng es ta bl is hm en t of th e pr im ary il le ga li ty, th e ev id en ce to whi ch
in st an t ob jecti on is m ad e ha s be en co m e at by ex pl oi ta ti on of th at il le ga li ty or in st ead by m ean s su ffi ci en tl y di st in gu is ha bl e to be pu rg ed of th e pr im ary ta in t.” W on g Su n , 37 1 U.S. at 48 8. Thu s, if th e ev id en ce se iz ed is su ffi ci en tl y at te nu at ed fro m th e vi ol at io n of th e la w, th e ev id en ce is no t co ns id ered to be ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of th e la w fo r pu rp os e of Art i c l e 3 8

. 2 3 of th e Tex as Co de of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e. Jo hn so n v. St at e , 87 1
S.W .2d 74 4, 75 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 94 ). Evi d e n c e w i l l no t be ex cl ud ed un de r Arti cl e 38 .23 if th e ta in t fro m th e il le ga li ty ha s di ss ip at ed by th e ti m e th e ev id en ce is
acq ui red

. W

eh re nb er g v. St at e , 41 6 S.W .3d 4 5 8 , 4 6 9 ( Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 13 ). The

11bu rd en is on th e St at e to pr ov e by cl ear an d c o n v i n ci ng ev id en ce th at th e ta in t

in he ren t in th e il le ga l se arch or se iz ur e ha d di ss ip at ed by th e ti m e th e c o n s e n t was gi ve n. Bri ck v. S ta te , 73 8 S .W .2d 67 6, 6 78 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p. 19 87 ). In th at res pe ct ,

an ap pe ll at e co ur t co ns id ers th e fo ll owi ng fact or s: (1 ) th e te m po ral pr oxi m ity be tw een th e un la wfu l se iz ur e an d th e gi ve n c o n se nt ; (2 ) whe th er th e warra nt le ss se iz ur e br ou gh t ab ou t po li ce ob se rv at io n of th e pa rti cu la r ob ject fo r whi ch co ns e n t was

so ug ht ; (3 ) whe th er th e se iz ur e res ul te d fro m fla gr an t po li ce m is co nd uc t; (4 ) whe th er th e co ns en t was vo lu nt eere d or req ue st ed ; (5 ) whe th er th e de fen da nt was m ad e fu ll y

aware of t he rig ht to refu se co ns en t; an d (6 ) whe th er th e po li ce pu rp os e u nd erl y in g th e il le ga li ty w as to ob ta in co ns en t. Bri ck , 73 8 S .W . 2d at 6 80 -8 1. The co ur t of ap pe al s’ an al y si s of th e Bri ck fact or s in th e in st an t cas e is fla wed

. Se e App en di x at 27 -3 0. Th e co ur t n ot ed th at , a lm os t an ho ur aft er th e in te rro ga ti on

was co nc lu de d (an d San de rs was st il l be in g de ta in ed ), D e t e c t i v e Bi ll y Gid de ns

en te red th e in te rro ga ti on ro om an d de m an de d th at San de rs ’ tu rn ov er hi s cel l ph on e. Id

. at 26

. Abo ut te n m in ut es la te r, Gid de ns cam e ba ck in to th e i nt erro ga ti on ro om

an d sa id , “ W ha t’s y ou r pa ss wor d.” 7 RR 65 , 66

. Gid de ns th en to ld San de rs th at he

was ge tt in g a warran t an d t ha t h e was no t go in g to go th ro ug h San de rs ’ ph on e un ti l he ob ta in ed th e warra nt

. 7 RR 65

. Alm os t im m ed ia te ly aft er m ak in g th at st at em en t, Gid de ns as ke d San de rs if he m in de d if th ey lo ok ed th ro ug h hi s ph on e. San de rs

res po nd ed , “ No.” 7 RR 71

. Acco rd in g to th e co ur t be lo w, Gid de ns se iz ed th e ph on e
12ab ou t th irt y m in ut es be fo re he as ke d San de rs fo r hi s co ns en t to se arch it

. App en di x

at 28

. The co ur t ch arac te riz es th is pa ss ag e of ti m e as no t “ so on aft er” an d co nc lu de s th at it weig ht s “ sl ig ht ly” in fav or of ad m is si on
. Id

. Bu t in li gh t of th e ci rcu m st an ces th at ex is te d – the fact th at San de rs ha d bee n su bjec te d to po li ce int erro ga ti on fo r an

ex te nd ed pe rio d of ti m e, th at San de rs rem ai ne d in de te nt io n in th e in te rro ga ti on ro om du rin g th e en ti re pe rio d of ti m e, an d th at Gid de ns ’ in it ia l il le ga l se iz ur e of th e ph on e

was fo ll owe d in sh or t or de r by ad di ti on al co m m un ic at io ns wit h San de rs cu lm in at in g in hi s req ue st fo r co ns en t – th e te m po ral pr ox im it y weig hs in fav or of su pp res si on
. Fu rth er, aft er se iz in g t h e c e ll ph on e an d ob ta in in g th e pa ss co de , Gid de ns

“ wen t th ro ug h” th e ph on e’s te xt m es sa ge s. App en di x at 28

. Tho ug h he was no t ab le
to de te ct an y pe rti ne nt in fo rm at io n, he di d ta k e ad va nt ag e of th e op po rtu ni ty

oc cas io ne d by th e il le ga l sei zu re to ob se rv e San de rs ’ cel l ph on e an d m ak e at le as t a

cu rs or y at te m

pt to se arch it s co nt en ts

. So co nt rary t o th e lo wer co ur t’s co nc lu si on , th is fact or als o wei gh s i n fa vo r of su pp res si on
. Reg ard in g th e th ird an d sixth fa ct ors, th e co ur t of ap pe al s ap pa ren tl y co nc lu de d
th at Gid de ns se iz ed th e ph on e ba se d on hi s m is ta k e n b e l ie f th at th e se iz ur e was

ne ces sa ry to pr ev en t th e im m in en t de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce by San de rs
. Th u s,

acco rd in g to th e lo wer co ur t, th e se iz ur e di d no t co ns ti tu te fla gr an t polic e m is co nd uc t. Ap p e n d i x at 28 -2 9. Bu t as th e co ur t de te rm in ed in reject in g th e St at e’s ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces arg um en t, jus t sl ig ht ly le ss th an an ho ur ha d pa ss ed be twee n th e ti m e
13San de rs ap pe ared to be “ bu sy” o n h i s c e l l ph on e an d th e ti m e Gid de ns en te red th e

in te rro ga ti on ro om an d de m an de d San de rs ’ ph on e. Id

. at 25 -2 6. The se fact s be li e th e St at e’s arg um en t an d th e lo wer co ur t’s own co nc lu si on reg ard in g th es e fact or s. The

ev id en ce su pp or ts a co nc lu si on th at Gid de ns ’ co nd uc t was ve ry li ke ly cal cu la te d to

cau se fear , su rp ris e, or co nf us io n, an d t ha t Gi dd en s ill eg al ly seiz ed San de rs ’ ph on e in or de r to ga in co ns en t to se arch it

. The se fact or s al so weig h in fav or of su pp res si on
. The co ur t o f ap pe al s ag reed th at San de rs di d n ot vo lu nt eer h is co ns en t t o t he

se arch

. Rat he r, Dete ct iv e Gid de ns req ue st ed hi s co ns en t. Thi s fact or weig hs in fav or of su pp res si on
. Ap p e n d i x a t 2 9. Fi na ll y , th ere is no ev id en ce th at Gid de ns m ad e San de rs aware th at he co ul d refu se co ns en t. The lo wer co ur t no te d th at San de rs ha d be en ad vi se d of hi s Mir an da rig ht s, in cl ud in g hi s rig ht to te rm in at e th e in te rv ie w at 2

an y ti m e. The co ur t reas on ed th at San de rs co ul d ha ve in fe r r e d f r o m t he Mir an da

warn in gs th at he co ul d al so refu se co ns en t to se arch

. Id

. Bu t th e op po si te co ul d jus t

a s w el l ha ve be en tru e. Hav in g be en ad vi se d sp eci fic al ly reg ard in g hi s r i g h t t o
te rm in at e th e in te rv ie w, San de rs co ul d ha ve as su m ed th at th e ab se nc e of su ch ex pl ic it ad vi ce r e g ard in g th e se arch m ean t th at he di d no t ha ve a rig ht to refu se co ns en t.
Des pi te th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ ch arac te riz at io n of th is as a “ ne ut ral fact or ,” th e fact or weig hs in fav or of s up pr es si on
. Co nt rary t o t h e l o w e r co ur t’s ho ld in g, a m ajor it y of th e Bri ck fact or s fav or
Mir an da v. Ari

zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 (19 66 ). 2
14s u p p r e s s i o n. The St at e fai le d to m eet it s bu rd en to pr ov e by cl ear an d co nv in ci n g

ev id en ce th at th e ta in t of th e il le ga l se iz ur e ha d di ss ip at ed whe n San de rs pu rp or te dl y

co ns en te d to th e se arch . There fo re, San de rs ’ pu rp or te d c on se nt was n ot a su ffi ci en t in te rv en in g ci rcu m st an ce to di ss ip at e th e ta in t of th e pr im ary il le ga li ty. The co ur t of
ap pe al s erre d in ho ld in g ot he rwis e. Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld th eref or e gr an t rev ie w an d

rev ers e th at ho ld in g.

II I. The c o urt of ap pea ls erre d by co ncl udi ng tha t the ev id ence w as le ga ll y su ffi ci ent to su ppo rt the jury ’s ve rdi ct of gu il t y w h e re ther e w as i n s u f f i c ie nt ev id ence to su ppo rt a co ncl us io n tha t Sa nder s k new tha t Offi cer S pra gu e w as att empting to a rres t or deta in him.
Fi na ll y , th e co ur t be lo w erre d by co nc lu di ng th a t t he ev id en ce was le ga ll y

su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t of gu il ty of fel on y m ur de r whe re th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t a co nc lu si on th at San de rs kn ew th at Offi cer Sp rag ue

was at te m pt in g to arre st or de ta in hi m
. Thi s ho ld in g co nf li ct s wit h op in io ns of ot he r

co ur ts of ap pe al s, Red

wi ne v. St at e , 30 5 S.W .3d 36 0, 36 2 (Tex

. App

. – Hou st on [1 4 th
Dis t.] 20 10 , pe t. ref’d) , an d G r i eg o v. St at e , 34 5 S.W .3d 74 2, 75 2 (Tex

. App

. – Am ari ll o 20 11 ), an d of th is Co ur t, Ja cks on v. St at e , 71 8 S.W .2d 72 4, 72 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 86 ). The refo re, pu rs ua nt to Ru le 66 .3(a ), (c) of th e Tex as Ru le s of App el la te
Pro ced ur e, th is Co ur t s ho ul d g ran t Sa nd ers ’ pe ti ti on for di sc ret io na ry rev ie w.

15As th e co ur t be lo w reco gn iz ed , th e ey ewit ne ss te st im on y id en ti fy in g San de rs ’

ve hi cl e as th e on e th at st ru ck Sp rag ue was “ qu es ti on ab le ,” an d th e ph y si cal ev id en ce li nk in g San de rs ’ ve hi cl e to th e co ll is io n was “ m in im al .” App en di x at 40

. Bu t ev en

as su m in g, in li gh t of th e de fere nc e du e “ th e jury’ s in st it ut io na l pr ero ga ti ve to res ol ve

a l l c o n t es te d is su es of fact an d cred ib il it y ,” th at a rat io na l jury co ul d co nc lu d e 3
be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at it was San de rs ’ ve hi cl e th at st ru ck Sp rag u e , t he

ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nc lu si on th at San de rs st ru ck Sp rag ue whi le in
th e co ur se of co m

m it ti ng th e fel on y of

fen se of ev ad in g arre st or de t e n t i on wit h

ve hi cl e. Sp eci fic al ly, th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fro m w h i ch a jury co ul d

4

re a s on ab ly in fer, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th at San de rs kn ew Sp rag ue was
at te m pt in g t o a rres t h im

. Fo r a de fen da nt to be fo un d gu il ty of ev ad in g arre st or de te nt io n, “ it is es se nt ia l
th at a de fen da nt kn ow th e pe ace of fic er is at te m

pt in g to arre st hi m .” Ja cks on v. St at e , 71 8 S.W .2d at 72 5. Se e Tex

. Pen al Co de Ann

. § 38 .04 ( We s t 2 0 1 3 ) (s et ti ng fo rth

e l e ment s of ev ad in g arre st or de te nt io n)

. Se e al so Red wi ne , 30 5 S.W .3d at 3 6 2 (n ot in g th at a pe rs on co m m it s th e of

fen se of e v a d i n g a r res t of de te nt io n on ly i f th e
App en di x at 40 (q uo t i n g D e l a y v. St at e , 44 3 S.W .3d 90 9, 91 2 (Tex

. Cri m
. 3 App . 20 14 )). The co ur t of ap pe al s di d no t add res s whe th er th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to 4 su pp or t a po ss ib le co nv ic ti on ba se d on ag gr av at ed as sa ul t of a pu bl ic se rv an t, ha vi ng fo un d th e ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to su pp or t San de r s’ co nv ic ti on ba se d up on fel on y ev ad in g a rres t. Ap pe nd ix at 4 1, n .16

. 16pe rs on “ kn ows a po li ce of fic er is at te m

pt in g to arre st hi m bu t ne ve rth el es s refu se s to
y ie ld to a po li ce s ho w of a ut ho rit y ”); Gri eg o , 34 5 S .W .3d at 75 2 (ho ld in g evi de nc e

was in su ffi ci en t to en ab le jury to co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at ap pe ll an t kn ew, p r io r to ex it in g hi s ve hi cl e, th at of fic ers were at te m

pt in g to arre st or de ta in
hi m ). The ci rcu m st an ces an d h ol di ng s o f th es e cas es are i ns tru ct iv e. In Gri eg o , two of

fic ers were en ro ut e to a ho us e wit h th ei r li g h t s a n d s ire ns
act iv at ed in res po ns e to a rep or t of il le ga l act iv it y whe n th e of fic ers m et th e de fen da nt
tra ve li ng th e op po si ti on di rect io n in a ve hi cl e m at ch in g th e su sp ect ’s car. 34 5 S.W .3d
at 74 5. The of

fic ers an d app el la nt m et at a be nd in th e ro ad , an d t he off ic ers tu rn ed

aro u n d a f t e r th e be nd

. Id

. The of

fic ers were no t su re whe th er ap pe ll an t sa w th em
tu rn aro un d. Id

. at 74 7. Afte r th e of fic ers tu rn ed aro un d, ap pe ll an t’s ve hi cl e was

so m e di st an ce ah ead of th em , an d ap pe ll an t ha d tu rn ed on to an ot he r ro ad

. Id

. By th e ti m e th e of

fic ers cau gh t up wit h th e de fen da nt , he was si gn al i n g a n o th er tu rn
. Id

. The of fic ers h a d fo ll owe d th e de fen da nt on ly o ne -h al f to on e bl oc k, ap pr ox im at el y 17 se co nd s, by th e ti m e th e de fen da nt pu ll ed in to a res id en ti al dr iv eway. Id

. at 74 7- 5
48

. As th e of

fic ers pu ll ed up to th e res id en ce, the de fen da nt go t ou t of th e car, wit h a b eer i n h an d, an d wal ke d t owa rd th e res id en ce, at whi ch ti m e th e o ffi cers ord ered
The Gri eg o co ur t al so no te d th at , th ou gh th ere was ev id en ce th at po li ce ha d 5 act iv at ed th ei r li gh ts an d si ren s an d th at th e ap pe ll an t ha d se en th em , th e of fic ers were tra ve li ng in th e op po si te di rect io n fro m ap pe ll an t whe n ap pe ll an t wou l d ha ve be en ab le to ta ke no ti ce of th e li gh ts an d si ren s; th us , h e co ul d no t ha ve kn own fro m th e en co un te r th at th e o ffi cers were at te m pt in g t o a rres t o r de ta in hi m
. 17hi m to st op
. Id

. at 74 7. W he n th e de fen da nt di d no t com pl y , an of fic er use d a ta se r

on hi m
. Id

. The Gri eg o co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e ev id en ce was no t s uf fic ie nt to sh ow th e de fen da nt kn ew, be fo re ge tt in g ou t of hi s car, th at th e o f f i c e r s w ere at te m

pt in g to

arre st or de ta in hi m be cau se th e de fen da nt m et th e of fic ers tra ve li ng in th e op po si te di rect io n wit h th ei r li gh ts an d si ren s act iv at ed an d th e vi de o of th e pu rs ui t sh owe d
th at , of th e 17 se co nd s th at of fic ers fo ll owe d th e de fen da nt , th e of fic ers wou ld ha ve be en vi si bl e in th e de fen da nt ’s rear vi ew m irr or fo r on ly ei gh t se co nd s. Id

. at 75 2- 53

. Howev er, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at ap pe ll an t kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own th at of fic ers

were tryin g to de ta in or arre st hi m aft er th e of fic ers or de red hi m to st op
. Id

. at 75 5. Thu s, th e ev id en ce was no t su ffi ci en t to sh ow th e d e f e n d a n t co m

m it te d th e fel on y of fen se of ev ad in g a rres t o r de te nt io n u si ng a ve hi cl e, bu t was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th at th e de fen da nt co m m it te d th e m is de m ean or of fen se of ev a di ng

arre st or d et en ti on
. Id

. at 75 4- 55

. Si m il arl y , in Red

wi ne , th e de fen da n t w a s d r i vi ng on a ru ral ro ad whe n he

en co un te red a pa tro l ca r dr iv in g in th e op po si te di rect io n. 30 5 S .W .3d at 3 61 . The of fic ers in th e pa tro l car de ci de d to tu rn aro un d an d pu rs ue th e de fen da nt fo r dr iv in g
to o ne ar th e cen te r of th e ro ad

. Bu t th e of fic ers ne ve r act iv at ed th ei r em erg en cy li gh ts

an d si ren
. Id

. Th e of

fic ers fo ll owe d th e de fen da nt ’s ve hi cl e on to a di rt dr iv eway whe re th ey fo un d th e ve hi cl e un oc cu pi ed

. Id

. at 36 2. The y ex it ed th e pa tro l car an d

18sh ou te d, “ Sh eri ff.” Id

. The de fen da nt ev en tu al ly ret ur ne d on fo ot to hi s ve hi cl e whe re

he was arre st ed

. Id

. The de fen da nt was co nv ic te d of ev ad in g arre st us in g a ve hi cl e,

an d th e co ur t co nc lu de d th e ev id en c e w a s l e ga ll y in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e

co nv ic ti on be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce th at ap pe ll an t ev ad ed arre st whi le he was in hi s ve hi cl e. Id

. at 36 2, 36 8. The co ur t al so no te d th at Red win e’s st at em en t th at he

was tryin g to av oi d co nt act wit h th e po li ce was no t ev id en ce th at he was tryin g to

ev ad e arr es t. Lik ewis e, in th e in st an t cas e, th ere is no ev i de nc e th at San de rs kn ew th at Sp rag ue was tryin g to arre st hi m
. The re were nu m ero us ve hi cl es pr es en t at th e Park whe n Sp rag ue arri ve d. In de ed , nu m ero us ve hi cl es were at te m pt in g to le av e th e Park
at th e sa m e ti m e. The au di o reco rd in g fro m Sp rag ue ’s pa tro l car rev eal s th at Sp rag ue
y el le d, “ Hey , st op .” Bu t as th e lo wer co ur t de te rm in ed , “[i ]t i s im po ss ib le to de te rm in e fro m th e reco rd in g th e id en ti ty of th e pe rs on to who m Sp rag ue ’s co m m en t

was di rect ed .” App en di x at 36

. The fact th at Sp rag u e ’s l i gh ts an d si ren s were

a c t i v a t e d , ev en if San de rs sa w th e li gh ts an d he ard th e si ren s, do es no t pr ov e th at San de rs kn ew Sp rag ue was tryin g to arre st hi m . Gri eg o , 34 5 S.W .3d at 74 7- 48

. And

ev en if th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at San de rs was tryin g to av oi d con ta ct wit h Sp rag ue ,

as ap pa ren tl y m an y of th os e pr es en t at th e Park th at ni gh t ap pe ared to be , su ch wou ld

no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce tha t he was tryin g to ev ad e arre st

. Red wi ne , 30 5 S.W .3d at 36 2. “ The gr av am en of th e of fen se is th e e v a s i o n o f a n arre st , no t th e ev as io n of a

19po li ce o ffi cer.” Ja cks on v. St at e , 71 8 S .W .2d at 7 26 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Eve n vi ewin g th e fact s of th is cas e in th e l i g h t mo st fav or ab le to th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t, th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fro m whi ch a ju ry co ul d reas on ab ly in fer, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th at San de rs kn ew Sp rag ue was at te m pt in g to arre st hi m ,

an es se nt ia l el em en t of th e un de rlyin g of fen se ev ad in g arre st or de te nt io n. The refo re, th is Co ur t sh ou ld gr an t pe ti ti on fo r di sc ret io na ry rev ie w, rev ers e th e jud gm en t of th e

co ur t o f ap pe al s, an d re nd er jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

20PRAYER FOR RELIE F

Fo r al l of t he ab ov e an d fo reg oi ng reas on s, Pet it io ne r San de rs res pe ct fu ll y
req ue st s th at th e Co ur t gr an t di sc ret io na ry rev ie w, cond uc t or al arg um en t, an d rev ers e th e jud gm en t of th e co ur t of ap pe al s, an d gr an t an y ot he r rel ie f, whe th er at la w or in
eq ui ty, to whi ch Pet it io ne r ha s s ho wn h im se lf ju st ly ent it le d.
Res pe ct fu ll y

su bm it te d,

/s / Gen a Bu nn

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CLIFTON L. “ SCRAP PY” HOLMES St at e Bar No. 0 99 07 00 0 DAVID E. MOORE St at e Bar No. 1 43 25 10 0 GREGORY A. W ALDRON St at e Bar No. 0 07 88 59 8 GENA A. BUNN St at e Bar No. 0 07 90 32 3 JASON PAR RISH St at e Bar No. 2 40 41 65 3 HOL MES & MOO RE, P.L.L.C. P.O. Drawer 3 26 7 Lon gv ie w, Texas 75 60 6 Ph on e No. (9 03 )7 58 -2 20 0 Facs im il e No. (9 03 )7 58 -7 86 4 Em ai l: gb un n@ ho lm es m oo re.co m ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLAN T

21CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

I he reb y cert ify th at a tru e an d co rrec t co py of th e fo reg oi ng do cu m en t ha s be en d e l iv ered by Uni te d St at es Mai l to Je rry D. Ro ch el le , Cri m in al Dis tri ct Att or n e y, Bo wie Co un ty, Tex as , 60 1 Mai n St re e t , Te x a rk an a, Tex as 75 50 1 an d to Lis a C.
McM in n, St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y , P.O. Bo x 13 04 6, Aus ti n, Tex as 78 71 1- 30 46 ,

on th is th e 1 5 da y

of Oc to be r, 20 15

. th
/s / Gen a Bu nn

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gen a Bu nn Co un se l fo r App el la nt -Pet it io ne r

CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE
Pu rs ua nt to Ru le 9.4 (i) (3 ) of t h e Te x as Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e, an d rel y in g up on th e wor d co un t of W or dP erfe c t O f f i c e , th e co m

pu te r pr og ram us ed to
pr ep are t hi s d oc um en t, I ce rti fy th at th is do cu m en t co nt ai ns 4,1 89 word s. /s / Gen a Bu nn

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Gen a Bu nn Co un se l fo r App el la nt -Pet it io ne r

22

### In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00079

- CR

JUSTIN SANDERS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 13F1051

- 102

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Carter , * JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

_______________________________________ *Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Near midnight in the summer of 2013, a 9

- 1

- 1 operator received a telephone call reporting a large disturbance at Grady T. Wallace Park (the Park) in Texarkana, Texas. The ensuing arrival of Texarkana Police Office r William Jason Sprague at the P ark with the lights on his patrol car ablaze prompted a stampede of auto mobiles attempting to leave the P ark. One of the fleeing cars struck Sprague, who later died from the injuries he sustained. Ju stin Sanders was accused of having driven the car that struck Sprague and was convicted of felony murder, receiving a sentence

o f thirty years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000.00. On appeal, Sanders contends that the trial court erred (1) by denying hi s motion to quash the indictment , (2) by submitting a jury charge that was fundamentally defective , (3) in admitting
extraneous

- offense evidence , (4) overruling his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone , (5) in denying his motion for mis trial when the S tate engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in raising before the jury a claim that threats had been directed at witnesses , and (6) in denying his motion for mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct in the wearing by prosecuting attorneys of “fal len officer” wristbands during a part of the trial. Finally, Sanders maintains that the evidence against him is not sufficient to support the verdict. 1
I. Brief Background Facts A Texarkana city ordinance prohibits people from using the Park after 10 :00 p.m. Nevertheless, reports to the 9

- 1

- 1 emergency line were made near midnight June 14, 2013, of a

1 In his brief, Sanders also argued that the trial court erred by revoking his bond in the jury’s presence after he had been convicted of the offense but before the penalty phase had begun. However, Sanders specifically announced during oral argument that h e abandoned this point of error.3

large disturbance at the P ark. Police were dispatched , and Officer Sprague (who was dressed in his policeman’s uniform and was driving a prominently marked patrol car) was the first officer to arrive, f inding about 100 people in the P ark. Only minutes after Spragues’ arrival, another call to the 9

- 1

- 1 emergency operator was placed. This call was from an unid entified person who was at the P ark , and that per son reported that a police officer had been struck by a vehicle. The caller did
not see the vehicle strike the officer , but though t the vehicle was a brown , four

- door , Chevrolet Sport Utility Vehicle ( SUV )

. 2 Officer Chris Phelps , the next officer to arrive at the P ark , testified that he saw numerous vehicles driving out of and away from the P ark. He also saw Sprague lying unconscious on the ground with blood coming out of his ears and pieces from his uniform scattered around him. Because he believed Sprague to be struggling to breath, he cut Sprague’s s hirt, vest , and duty belt off

. Phelps and other officers interviewed several people still at the scene, and they got several different version s of the event, but none of the interv iewees admitted to having seen whose vehicle had struck Sprague. Sprague was taken to Christus St. Michael Hospital where he later died f rom his injuries. A. Did the T rial C ourt E rr by D enying Sanders’ M otion to Q uash the I ndictment? The indictment all eged that Sanders caused Sprague ’ s death by striking him with a motor vehicle while committing or attempting to commit “ a felony offense, to

- wit: Evading Arrest or Detention. ” On March 17, about a week before the commencement of voir dire, the State made

2 We note that Chevrolets and GMCs are both manufactured by General Motors Corporation and that Chevrolet and GMC SUVs are very similar in appearance.4

an attempt to amend the indictment by adding the language “with a vehicle” after the word “detention,” but Sanders refused to agree to the amendment. 3 Rather, Sanders filed a motion to quash the indictment. During a hearing on his motion, Sanders argued that the indictment failed to provide notice of how the State intended to prove evading was a felony. The trial court denied Sanders ’ motion

. In his first point of error on appeal , Sanders contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to q uash the indictment because the indictment failed to allege an offense

— that is, that the indictment was insufficient to identify, with enough clarity and specificity, the p enal statute under which the State intend ed to prosecute

— thereby depriving the trial court of subject

- matter jurisdiction. A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to quash an indictment is reviewed
de novo . State v. Barbernell , 257 S.W.3d 248, 251

– 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Tollett v. State , 219 S.W.3d 593, 596 (Tex. App.

— T exarkana 2007, pet. ref ’ d). An instrument which is not an indictment under Article V, Section 12 of the Texas Constitution fails to vest th e trial court with jurisdiction; the issue of whether an instrument suffices as an indictment under the Texas Consti tution is a jurisdictional one that may be first raised on appeal. See Duron v. State , 956 S.W.2d 547, 551 n.3, 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (Womack, J., concurring); Cook v. State , 902 S.W.2d 471, 479

– 80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “ [T]o comprise an indictmen t within the definition provided by the constitution, an instrument must charge: (1) a person; (2) with the commission of

3 Evading arrest or detention is a class A misdemeanor unless it is commi tted during the commission of certain other acts. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 38.04(b) (West Supp. 2014). One of the acts that elevates the crime from a class A misdemeanor to the level of a felony of the third degree is the use of a vehicle while the actor i s in flight during the commission of the evading arrest or detention. T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN
. § 38.04(b)(2)(A).5

an offense. ” Cook , 902 S.W.2d at 47 7

. “ [A] written instrument is an indictment or information under the Constitution if it accuses someone of a crime with enough clarity and specificity to identify the penal statute under which the State intends to prosecute, even if the indictment is otherwise defective. ” Duron , 956 S.W.2d at 550

– 51. Here, the indictment specifically alleges that Sanders: did then and there intentionally or knowingly commit or attempt to commit a felony offense, to

- wit: Aggravated Assault of a Public Servant , and while in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt of said offense did then and there commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, namely, striking Officer William Jason Sprague with a motor vehicle , which caused the death of Officer William Jason Sprague. Paragraph Two : and it is further presented in and to said Court that the said Justin Miles Sanders heretofore on or about June 14, 2013 , did then and there, intentionally commit or attempt to commit a felony offense, to

- wit: Evading Arrest or Detention , and while in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt of said offense did then and there commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, namely, striking Officer William Jason Sprague with a motor vehicle , which caused the death of Officer William Jason Sprague. As mentioned previously, evading arrest or detention under Section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code is a c lass A misdemeanor unless the circumstances of the offense meet certain requirements under Section 38.04(b). Sanders co ntends that as he is ostensibly charged with felony murder under Section 19.02(b)(3) , 4 paragraph two of the indictment is fundamentally flawed and fails to state an offense because it fails to allege facts sufficient to identify which subsection of 38.04(b ) upon which the State relies to elevate the predicate offense to a felony.

4 Section 19.02(b)(3) of the Texas Penal Code defines this offense, in pertinent part, as occurring when the actor “[C] ommits or attempts to comm it a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt .

. . he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 19.02(b )(3) (West 2011).6

Interestingly, Sanders chooses to excise a portion of a sentence from the indictment (“intentionally commit or attempt to commit a felony offense, to

- wit: Evading Arrest or
Deten tion ” ) without looking at the rest of the indictment. Following that, one can see where he gleans the belief that the indictment fails to show that the evading arrest portion is a felony. However, the balance of the indictment includes the charge that Sa nders was guilty of “ striking Officer William Jason Sprague with a motor vehicle, which caused the death of Officer William Jason Sprague. ” If Sprague was struck with a motor vehicle, surely Sanders would not believe that the State had alleged that Sander s had hefted an automobile in the air and struck Sprague with it. Following Sanders ’ reasoning would require the reader to render the entire indictment nonsensical. Conversely, read in its entire ty, the indictment clearly makes sense and clearly describe s the offense with which Sanders was charged.
T he State , however, is not required to allege the constituent elements of the underlying felony in an indictment for felony murder under Section 19.02(b)(3) of the Texas Penal Code , even if the accused files a motion to quash. See Barnes v. State , 876 S.W.2d 316, 323 (Tex. Crim. App.
1 994); Hammett v. State , 578 S.W.2d 699, 707

– 08 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). “ Under the

. . . Penal Code, an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime ne ed not allege the elements of the latter offense ,” Hammett , 578 S.W.2d at 708, and the failure to allege an element of an offense no longer renders the indictment fundamentally defective. See Studer v.
State , 799 S.W.2d 263, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). We find that the indictment alleged an offense sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction and, therefore, the trial court properly overruled Sanders motion to quash.7

There was a time in Texas jurisprudence that it was required that “ an indict ment should be so certain and definite in charging the offense that it leaves nothing to be supplied by intendment or inference.” Northern v. State , 203 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 1947). This requirement was carried to the extreme and then abandoned. V aughn v. State , 607 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)

. When one looks at the entire indictment (and not the sole phrase emphasized by Sanders) , it is plain to see that it was alleged that Sanders used “a vehicle while the actor [wa s ] in flight” durin g the commission of the act of evading arrest or detention. T EX
. P EN AL C ODE ANN
. § 38.04 (b) (2)(A)

. We overrule this point of error.
II. Did the J ury C harge A llow the J ury to C onvict Sanders for an U nindicted O ffense? In his second point of error, Sande rs contends that the jury charge was fundamentally defective because it omitted the factual allegations necessary to elevate evading arrest or detention to a felony and that, therefore , the charge authorized the jury to convict him for an offense not alleg ed in the indictment. The pertinent portion of the charge reads: If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about June 14, 2013, the defendant did then and there intentionally commit or attempt to commit a felony offense, to

- wit: Evading Arrest or Detention, and while in the course of or in furtherance of the commission or attempt of said offense did then and there commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, namely, striking Officer William Jason Sprague with a motor vehicle, wh ich caused the death of Officer William Jason Sprague you will find the defendant guilty of Felony Murder as charged in the indictment.8

Sanders lodged no objection to this part of the jury charge. Therefore, if the jury charge was made in error, reversal is not required unless the error was so egregious and created such harm that Sanders was denied a fair trial. See A lmanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez v. State , 758 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In looking at this complaint, we must f irst determine whether the jury charge was erroneous. Hutch
v. State , 922 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 996) , overruled on other grounds by Gelinas v.
State , 398 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2013)

. If there was error in it, we must then determine whether the error in the charge resulted in egregious harm to Sanders

. Hutch , 922 S.W.2d at 170

– 71. Although we do not find the jury charge as submitted to be a paragon for all to follow, we als o determine that its submission was not error. The indictment alleges that Sanders, in the course of felony evading arrest or detention, struck Sprague with a motor vehicle. Although the instruction could be read in such a way that Sanders somehow struck Sprague with a motor vehicle but not while he was driving it, logic says that would be impossible. As mentioned above, the only realistic way Sanders could have struck the officer with a vehicle is for Sanders to have been driving the vehicle. That, cou pled with his action of doing so while evading arrest or detention, is the offense with which Sanders has been charged. Even if the charge was defective, any such error is harmless because the record fails to establish that Sanders suffered egregious harm as a result. In examining the record for egregious harm, we consider the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, the final arguments of the parties, and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole. Olivas9

v. Stat e , 202 S.W.3d 137, 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “ Jury charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory. ” Stuhler v. State , 218 S.W.3d 706, 719 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A. The E ntire J ury Charge The abstract portion of the jury charge correctly set forth the charged and available offenses and their elements. The charge also included t he statutory definitions of “public servant,” “felony,” “seriou s bodily injury,” and “deadly weapon.” It explained the offenses of felony murder, assault, aggravated assault, criminally negligent homicide, and evading arrest or detention. The charge also succinctly stated the applicable circumstances under which eva ding arrest or detention morphs from a misdemeanor to a felony offense: The offense of Evading Arrest or Detention is a felony if the actor uses a vehicle while in flight or another person suffers serious bodily injury as a direct result of an attempt by t he officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight. Thus, i f there were error in the jury charge, that error lay only in the omission of a single phrase, “in a motor vehicle , ” immediately after “Evading Arrest or Detention” in the application paragraph. The abstract portion of the jury instruction correctly and completely set forth the charged offense, the statutory elements, and the relevant definitions.
B. The S tate of the E vidence The evidence established that Sprague responded to a 9

- 1

- 1 call regarding an after

- hours disturbance at a public park in Texarkana. Sprague parked his patrol car next to a curb and got out of the car as the cars at the P ark were trying to leav e. Sanders was at the P ark that night, driving a silver GMC Acadia. The audio recording reveals that Sprague yelled “Stop” (supposedly at the10

driver of the vehicle that struck him). Witness testimony said that while leaving the P ark, the silver Acadia j umped a curb and struck Sprague, with one witness testifying that it ran over Sprague. The medical evidence established that Sprague died of his injuries, those fatal injuries being consistent with being struck or run over by a vehicle. C. The P arties’ A rguments The State argued, as stated in the indictment, that Sanders struck the officer with his SUV, either in an attempt to commit aggravated assault on a public servant, or while Sanders was trying to evade arrest or detention. Sanders neither testi fied nor called any witness o n his behalf. Rather, his defense consisted of illuminating and concentrating on the many inconsistencies in the State’s witnesses’ testimony, attacking the credibility of the State’s witnesses , questioning the witnesses’
moti ves for testify ing , and referring to deficiencies in the investigation. Sanders also argued in closing that the State changed its theory of the case and had attempted to mislead the jury by mischaracterizing and or exaggerating the evidence. Sanders argu ed that there was no evidence of his motive to evade the police that night and that there was “no credible evidence” indicating either that Sprague was trying to detain Sanders or that Sanders either knew or should have known that Sprague was trying to det ain or arrest him. In support of his argument, Sanders cites Trejo v. State , 313 S.W.3d 870, 873 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010 , pet. ref’d ), where the defendant was charged with aggravated sexual assault. In that case, Trejo argued that the tria l court erred in its submission of a charge of aggravated assault as a lesser

- included offense of aggravated sexual assault. Id. at 871. Because aggravated assault was not a lesser

- included offense of aggravated sexual assault, the court of11

appeals held not only that the trial court erred in su bmitting the charge to the jury, but also found that Trejo suffered egregious harm because the jury was allowed to convict the defendant based on an uncharged offense. Id. at 872, 874. Trejo is not o n point. Here , the language of the indictment faithfully tracks the language of the charge’s application paragraph, and further, Sanders is not arguing that the trial court erroneously submitted a lesser

- included offense to the jury. The facts of this case are disting uishable from those of Trejo

. Ev en if, arguendo, there was an error in the jury charge, the record does not reflect that Sanders suffered egregious harm as a result. Accordingly, we overrule this point of error.
III. Did the State V iolate Sanders’ R ight to a F air T rial by W earing “ F allen O fficer” W ristbands D uring T rial? In his third point of error, Sanders contends that the State violated his right to a fair trial by wearing “fallen officer” wrist bands. The wristbands were blac k and blue and said, “Jason Sprague
E.O.W. 6

- 15

- 13

. ” 5 On the fourth day of the trial, Sanders’ counsel noticed that both of the attorneys for the State were wearing the black and blue “fallen officer” wrist bands described above . At the bench, Sanders ar gued that the wristbands were “highly improper and prejudicial.” After the jury was excused, the following colloquy occurred:

[THE STATE, KELLEY CRISP]: Judge, prior to trial, Mrs. Sprague gave Samantha and I these tiny little bands that have been on ou r arms since Sunday. It’s Thursday. Nobody has seen anything, and I’ve been sitting right there, and Sam has been sitting right there by him. Obviously, nobody has seen it. [THE STATE, SAMANTHA OGLESBY]: Your Honor, for the record, they are black and dark blue. They have black writing. There is no way that any

5 E.O.W. means “End of Watch,” and “6

- 15

- 13” was the date of Sprague’s death.12

of those jurors can read what is on our bands. It is just a plastic band on our arm, no more, no less.
THE COURT: [Defense Counsel] , let me hear from you. [ Defense Counsel ]: Your Hono r, that’d be [defense counsel] wearing shirts that said innocent or anything. This is highly improper. They’re wearing propaganda pieces that are the same as the fallen officer marking. I’m not worried about the words. It’s the blue and b l ack that’s ev erywhere. There’s stickers on cars with it. I mean, today was the first time I saw it, and I haven’t been looking. You know I’ve been quite busy over here, but if they’ve been wearing this the whole trial, that’s highly improper and prejudicial.
THE COURT: [Defense Counsel] , I’ve been sitting up here the whole time, and I’ll be quite honest with you, I’ve watched I know Samantha and Kelley both pull rubber bands off their wrist to put around photographs back and forth, and I’ll be quite honest wi th you, I hadn’t

-- I thought they were rubber bands. And you can’t tell what they are. You can’t see any of the writing. I mean, they’ve been right here two feet in front of me numerous times since Sunday and Monday. I didn’t notice them. I tell you what, ladies,

-- [THE STATE, KELLEY CRISP]: I took it off.
THE COURT:

-- out of an overabundance of caution, just take them off while we’re in the courtroom. If the officer has one on, he can slip his off and just put it in his pocket right there. S o, [Defense Counsel] , you weren’t accusing the witness of having one? [ Defense Counsel ]: No, the district attorney’s office. So that objection was sustained, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I understand. As the defense, you have to watch everything. But I’ m just telling you, I’ve been sitting here for four days now, and they look like rubber bands to me. I still think they look like rubber bands. You can’t tell anything that’s on them, but, again, out of an overabundance of caution, if that’s a motion, I’ ll grant it for you. If it’s just a request, you know

-- [ Defense Counsel ]: It is an objection and a motion, and then our follow

- up would be we would request a mistrial on that, as well, which if I can get a ruling on the mistrial.
THE COURT: Your o bjection?13 [ Defense Counsel ]: No. My understanding is you sustained the objection, but as far as to the mistrial?
THE COURT: It’s denied. [ 6 ] On appeal, Sanders has raised this point as a claim for denial of due process. Assuming , arguendo , tha t Sanders’ objection raised such a due process complaint, even constitutional due process claims must be preserved for appeal by timely objection or motion. T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33.1(a); Shipp v. State , 292 S.W.3d 251, 261 (Tex. App.

— T exarkana 2009, no pet.). Three steps are necessary to preserve error regarding either prosecutorial misconduct or other improper evidence or remarks placed before the jury: (1) a specific and timely objection, (2) a request for an instruction to disregard if the objection is sustained, and, (3) if the requested instruction is given, a motion for mistrial. See Fuller v. State , 827 S.W.2d 919, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see Penry
v. State , 903 S.W.2d 715, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) , abrogated on other grounds by Wall v.
State , 184 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) . To preserve error, counsel must obtain an adverse ruling at one of those steps required for preservation: the objection, the request that the jury be instructed to disregard, or the motion for mistria l. Fuller , 827 S.W.2d at 926. T he sequence of those steps is not so critical as is the fact that the movant persist ed in seeking all available relief from the trial court, until the trial court effectively denies relief to which the movant is entitled. Id .; see Coe v. State , 683 S.W.2d 431, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (counsel preserved error for not granting mistrial when overruled motion for mistrial was followed by request for instruction to disregard). Unless a complained

- of event is so highly inflam matory that an instruction to

6 Though the record does not specify, it appears that both of the prosecuting attorneys removed their wristbands.14

disregard could plainly not cure its prejudicial effect, the failure to seek the instruction waives the

error. McGinn v. State , 961 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (requesting an instruction to disregard required for p reservation unless error is incurable) ; s ee Kemp v. State , 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Sawyers v. State , 724 S.W.2d 24 , 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (en banc) , overruled on other grounds by Watson v. State , 762 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)

. Here, while his objection was apparently sustained and the wristbands were removed, Sanders failed to ask the court to instruct the jury to disregard the wristbands. An instruction to disregard is presumed to cure the harm from almost any improp er question, remark , or argument. See Wesbrook v. State , 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ; see Ladd v. State , 3 S.W.3d 547, 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

. It is presumed that the jury will follow a court ’ s instruction to disregard a comment. Wesbr ook , 29 S.W.3d at 116 . It is apparent from the record that the wristbands were rather inconspicuous in nature as State’s counsel had been wearing the wristbands for the previous three days of trial and voir dire before Sanders finally noticed them and obj ected. By its own admission, the trial court failed to notice them until Sanders pointed them out. 7 Based on the record, we find that an instruction to disregard the wristbands would have been sufficient to cure any harm or prejudice they caused. Accord ingly, Sanders’ failure to request an instruction caused a failure to preserve this issue for our review.

7 The State’s counsel wore the wristband during oral argument and attempted to demonstrate to this Court whether it was noticeable. It is axiomatic that in making our decision, we can only consider the evidence in the record before us. See Parker v. State , 545 S.W.2d 151, 155 n. 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 197 7) (appellate court may only consider record presented); Stevenson v. State , 456 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (appellate court will only consid er evidence in appellate record ) . Accordingly, we give no weight or consideration to the State’s imprope r attempt to present and interject new, demonstrative evidence regarding the wristbands.15

IV. Did the T rial C ourt E rr in A dmitting Extraneous
- O ffense E vidence? During its case

- in

- chief, the State introduced text messages, forensically recovered from Sanders’ cell phone, that indicated Sanders possessed and sold marihuana on the day in question (albeit ten to twelve hours before the events at issue). In his fourth point of error, S anders contends that the trial court erred in admitting the texts because they are evidence of extraneous offenses. The trial court admitted the following text messages 8 over Sanders’ objections: 6/13/13 1:03 p.m. From “Taylor”: lol pretty much bout to go run at Grady t now 6/13/13 1:04 p.m. From Sanders to Taylor: Imma come see you 6/13/13 1:35 p.m. From Sanders to Taylor: It start at 2 6/13/13 1:35 p.m. From Taylor to Sanders: Ok well I ’ m at the park now 6/13/13 1:52 p.m. From Sanders to Taylor: Lmao, I ’ ll have you a lil something! & I ’ ve never seen you buzzed 6/13/13 1:55 p.m. From Sanders to Taylor: You gone smoke? 6/13/13 1:58 p.m. From Sanders to Taylor: Oh okay, cause I sho wanna get you high as shit! 6/13/13 6:01 p.m. From Rollins to Sande rs: What time and where do you want me to meet you? Is a half 30$? 6/13/13 6:02 p.m. From Sanders to Rollins: That ’ s Reggie, I got some GOOD stuff in. I can get you 2G ’ s for 30 6/13/13 6:09 p.m. From Sanders to Rollins: Okay, I ’ m at work

. . . I get o ff at 9 6/13/13 6:12 p.m. From Rollins to Sanders: Dang I was wanting to burn one now but that ’ s cool just text me when you get off 6/13/13 6:22 p.m. From Sanders to Rollins: You can come up here to my job if you want 6/13/13 6:27 p.m. From Sanders to R ollins: I got it up here 6/13/13 6:27 p.m. From Rollins to Sanders: Where do you work at? 6/13/13 6:28 p.m. From Sanders to Rollins: At the liquor store by Arkansas side Tamollys 6/13/13 9:44 p.m. From Unknown to Sanders: Come to Grady t 6/13/13 9:46 p.m. From Sanders to Unknown: Ight

8 This exchange is repeated here verbatim without notation for correct English.16

The admission of extraneous

- offense evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Moses v. State , 105 S.W.3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). If the trial court properly admits the evidence in light of the factors enunciated in Montgomery v. State , 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), and the court’s decision to admit the evidence is within the zone of reasonable disagreement, the trial court’s decision will be upheld. Moses , 105 S.W.3d at 627. The question of evidentiary admissibility rests on the bedrock notion of relevancy. Evidence is “relevant” if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” T EX
. R. E VID . 401. “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by

. . . these rules.

. . . Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible.” T EX
. R. E VID
. 402. A. Rule 404(b) The relevancy issu e sometimes appears to run afoul o f Rule 404, which provides,
“E vidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” T EX
. R. E VID
. 404(b). Here, some of the text

me ssages that were introduced clearly constitute evidence of other crimes or bad acts. If they we re offered for the purpose of showing Sanders’ character or his actions in conformity with that character, they would be inadmissable. See i d . However, evidence of “other crimes, wrongs or acts” may be admissible if that evidence has relevance apart from its tendency “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” T EX
. R. E VID
. 404(b). “Rule 404(b) sets out an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of exceptions to the prohibition against17

admitting evidence of extraneous offenses including ‘proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.’” Dagg ett v. State , 187 S.W.3d 444, 451 n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( quo ting T EX
. R. E VID . 404(b)). Here, the State contends that the text messages were admissible to prove Sanders’ intentions and his motive to

“ evade detention (and certain arrest) and/or run o ver the officer to avoid the confrontation ” on the night in question. 9 Although the existence of a motive is not essential to a conviction, the presence or absence of a motive for a crime is a factor related to the question of a defendant’s guilt or innoc ence; therefore, proof of any existing motive for the offense is generally admissible. Knox v. State , 934
S.W. 2d 678, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) . Rule 404(b) permits admission of evidence of extraneous offenses to show the existence of a motive to assaul t an officer and evade arrest or detention. Powell v. State , 189 S.W.3d 285, 287

– 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (evidence of defendant ’s parole admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive to evade detention and admission did not violate Rule 403); DeLeon v. St ate , 937 S.W.2d 129, 135

– 36 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1996, pet. ref ’ d) (appellant ’ s prior theft of automobile admissible as it created inference that his motive for beating police officer at subsequent traffic stop was to escape); Peterson v. State , 836 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1992, pet. ref ’ d) (evidenc e that defendant possessed marih uana, a pistol, and ammunition admissible to show motive for assaulting officer and attempting to flee ).

9 In its brief, the State argued that the text messages were properly admitted to prov e “identity, intent, motive and Appellant’s state of mind at the time of the offense.” However, at trial, the State argued only intent and motive.18

Here, although the text messages were exchanged some six to ten hou rs earlier in the day that Sprague was killed, the text messages indicated that Sanders was selling marihuana, that he would get people high, that he had the marihuana with him at work, that he got off work at 9 :00 p.m., and that as of 9:46 p.m. , he intended to go to the Park. Sprague arrived at the P ark at about 12:30 a.m. and was struck and killed shortly thereafter. Having, selling , or distributing marihuana at the P ark when Sprague arrived provided Sanders with a logical motivation to assau lt the officer and/or evade arrest or detention. See i d. ; see Knox , 934 S.W.2d at 682

– 83. It is not outside the zone of reasonable disagreement to find that the evidence was admissible for the legitimate purposes stated by the trial court. The court pro perly provided an instruction to the jury limiting the jury’s consideration of the evidence to legitimate grounds. Therefore, we find that the trial court was within its discretion to overrule Sanders’ Rule 404(b) obj ection regarding the extraneous

- offens e evidence.
B. Rule 403 At trial, Sanders argued that even if the text messages were admissible under Rule 404, they were inadmissible under Rule 403 because their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. T EX
. R. E VID
. 403 , 404

. After a hearing and lengthy arguments, the trial court found the evidence admissible under Rules 40 3 and 40 4 . On appeal, Sanders contends that the trial court erred in finding that their admission into evidence did not violate Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. If the trial court determines the evidence is relevant beyond character conformity, further objection based on Rule 403 imposes a duty on the court to balance the probative value of the19

evidence against the danger of unfair prej udice and to admit the evidence unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 387. Our analysis is guided by the following factors , known as the Montgomery factors: (1) how compellingly the extraneous

- offense evidence serves to make a fact of consequence more or less probab le; (2) the potential the other

- offense evidence has to impress the jury “ in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way ” ; (3) the time the proponent ne eded to use in developing the evidence ( during which , the jury will be distracted from consideration of the indicted offense ) ; and (4) the force of the proponent ’ s need for this evidence to prove a fact of consequence ( that is, does the proponent have othe r probative evidence available to him to help establish this fact, and is this fact related to an issue in dispute ?)

. Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 389

– 90; see Wheeler v. State , 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Hartsfield v. State , 305 S.W.3d 859, 8 73 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2010, pet. ref’d)

. We review a trial court’s Rule 403 determination for abuse of discretion. 10 Montgomery , 810 S.W.2d at 391. In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its Rule 403 determination, the a ppellate court must not only determine that the trial court did in fact conduct the required balancing test and did not simply rule arbitrarily or capriciously, but must also measure the trial court ’ s ruling against the relevant criteria by which a Rule 40 3 decision is to be made. Id . at 392. Where this review leads to the conclusion that the danger of unfair prejudice

10 As noted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, “ Rule 403 ’ s use of the word ‘ may ’ reflects the draftsman ’ s intent that the trial judge be given very substantial discretion in ‘ balancing ’ the probative value on the one hand and the unfair prejudice on the other, and that he should not be reversed simply because an appellate court believes that it would have decided the matter differently. ” Powell , 189 S.W.3d at 288

– 89.20

substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence, the court should find that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the ev idence. Id

. The first factor weighs in favor of admission of the text messages. The text messages implied that Sanders was a drug dealer and that he had m arihuana with him while at the P ark. Therefore, the evidence is relevant to Sanders’ motive to evade detention or arre st when Sprague arrived at the P ark. Sanders contends that the text messages did not make it any more probable that his motive to evade detention was “superior” to that of others at the P ark ; however , he fails to cite authority in s upport of such a standard and we are aware of none. The second factor weighs in favor of admission of the text messages. There was other evidence before the jury that indicated Sanders was involved in drugs. In Sanders’ statement to
Detective Matt Cash att, he admitted to smoking marihuana on the day in question. Police Officer Troy Daniels testified that in his opinion, Sanders was high on marihuana the night Sprague was
kil led, and he also testified that it could be smelled “ in the air once you got ou t there.” A crime
scene technician and Detective Brad Thacker both smelled marihuana when they examined Sanders’ vehicle the day after the murder. Further, although the trial court admitted the texts into evidence, at Sanders’ urging, the court gave a co ntemporaneous instruction to the jury: You are instructed that if there is any testimony before you in the case regarding the defendant’s having committed offenses other than the offenses alleged against him in the indictment in this case, you cannot consider said testimony for any purposes unl ess you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such other offenses, if any, were committed, and, even then, you can only consider the same in determining the motive or intent of the defendant, if any, in connection with the offense, if any, alleged against him in the indictment of this case and for no other purposes.21

Therefore, we find that there was only a small likelihood that the text messages would improperly impress the jury in an irrational way. After voir dire on Mo nday, the State’s case

- in

- chief lasted from Tuesday through Friday and involved about two dozen witnesses. Sanders rested without calling a single witness. Sanders contends that this third factor weighs against admission because the fifth day of the tria l “consisted exclusively of the State presenting testimony from two witnesses [Jeff Shaffer and Clay McClure] centering on the extraneous offense evidence” and because the State left them as the last witnesses before a weekend. The State argues that the t ime consumed by the primary witness, Shaffer, was “almost entirely attributed to [Sanders’] trial counsel.” Shaffer and McClure testified for about seventy pages of the reporter’s record ; however, McClure’s testimony was very short and much of
the time in volved in Shaffer’s testimony was attributable to the arguments of counsel and times during which the witness was taken on voir dire. This factor is neutral. The remaining factor (the prop onent’s need for the extraneous

- offense evidence) weighs slightly in favor of admission. The text messages were admitted for the purpose of showing motive and intent. While motive is relevant, it is not a required element for the charged offense. Based on the foregoing, we find that the factors weigh in favor of ad mitting the text messages for the purpose of showing the motive of the accused. Therefore, we overrule this point of error.
V. Did the T rial C ourt E rr by O verruling Sanders’ M otion to S uppress? At trial, Sanders moved to suppress the evidence obtained f rom his cell phone, arguing that the telephone and the information within it were improperly seized without a valid warrant. After22

a hearing, the trial court overruled Sanders’ motion. Sanders renewed his objection at trial and was granted a running obje ction. We review a trial court ’ s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to the trial court ’ s determination of historical facts that turn on credibility and demeanor while reviewing de novo oth er application

- of

- law

- to

- fact issues. See Johnson v. State , 68 S.W.3d 644, 652

– 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Carmouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Appellate courts should also afford nearly total deference to trial court rulings on application

- of

- law

- to

- fact questions, also known as mixed questions of law and fact, if the resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an evaluation of credibility an d demeanor. Guzman v. State , 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Appellate courts may review mixed questions of law and fact not falling within this category on a de novo basis

. Id

. We must affirm the decision if it is correct on any theory of la w that finds support in the record. Osbourn v. State , 92 S.W.3d 531, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The Fourth Amendment provides individuals “ [t]he right

. . . to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and se izures[.] ” U.S. C ONST
. amend.
IV. Here, we note that the evidence taken from the cell phone was obtained only after a search warrant had been obtained, after which an expert retrieved various text and email messages. There is no evidence that the expe rt used the cell phone ’ s pass code in retrieving the data from the phone. There was only paltry information obtained from Sanders’ cell phone after it was seized and before
a search warrant was obtained. That information was limited to the make and ident ification23

number of the cell phone itself; that information was used by the police to describe the telephone when they obtained a search warrant to glean the information contained within it. Antecedent to that search, however, the police obtained Sanders ’ cell phone , and it was only because the police had possession of it that they were able to describe the object of the s earch in the affidavit supporting the request for a search warrant. Accordingly, in order to examine whether the content of the cell phone was properly permitted as evidence, we must first determine if Sander ’ s cell phone was seized or whether it was voluntarily turned over to the police. If it was seized, we must determi ne if the initial seizure of Sanders’ cell phone was proper. It is undisputed that the police did not obtain possession of the telephone through a validly issued search warrant. When an item has been seized or a search has been conducted without a warran t, such a seizure or search would be per se unreasonable unless the State proved that the search or seizure fell within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973) ; see Amores v. State , 816
S.W .2d 407, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Voluntary consent to a seizure or a search is a well

- established and “ long approved ” exception to the warrant requirement, and the State contends that Sanders turned over the cell phone to Texarkana Police Detective Billy Giddens voluntarily. See Florida v. Jimeno , 500 U.S. 248, 250 (1991) ; State v. Weaver , 349 S.W.3d 521, 525

– 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Here, after conducting a suppression hearing, the trial court found that Sanders “voluntarily gave his cellula r ph one to Detective Giddens. ” However, the record does not support that finding. During the suppression hearing, Giddens was asked by Sanders, “ [ S ] o you didn’t ask him for it: You told him24

to give it to you, correct?” Giddens responded, “Told him to give me the cell phone.” Later, Giddens clarified that he considered the direction for Sanders to hand over the cell phone an order. Sanders complied with the officer’s order. 11 Second, the State contends that the phone was seized incident to a lawful arres t. See Riley v. California , 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2486 (2014) (search incident to lawful arrest is reasonable intrusion upon Fourth Amendment rights). The record and audio/video recorded interview establish that Giddens took possession of Sanders’ cell phone more than half an hour before an arrest was effected. Giddens admitted that at the time Sanders handed over his cell phone, Sanders had not yet been arrested, but had been merely “det ained.” Cashatt testified that at the time Giddens seized the phone, “probable cause had not been established,

. . . and [they] had not gotten a warrant to seize the phone.” T herefore, the seizure of the cell phone did not occur incident to a lawful arre st because the arrest did not attend the seizure. The State maintains that the lawfulness of the seizure of Sanders’ cell phone is not a pertinent question, on the basis that “ [ A ] ny and all property on [Sanders’] person would have been lawfully seized” at the time of his arrest. T he rationale here is what is known as the “inevitable

11 Sanders also argue s that in handing over his cell phone, he was merely acquiescing to authority, which is not sufficient to show consent. For that proposition, Sanders relies on the United States Supreme Court ’ s decision in Bumper v. North Carolina , 391 U.S. 543, 548

– 49 (1 968), where the defendant ’ s mother told the police to “ go ahead ” and search her house when one of four officers who appeared at her front door announced that he had a search warrant to search the house (even though he did not have a warrant). The Supreme Court held that a search cannot be justified as lawful on the basis of consent when that consent has “ been given only after the official conducting the search has asserted that he possesses a warrant. ” Id . at 548. In so holding, the Supreme Court stated: “ When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search. The situation is instinct with coercion

— albeit colorably lawful coercion. Where there is coer cion there cannot be consent. ” Id . at 550. This case is clearly distinguishable from Bumper and its progeny because, in Bumper , one of the four present officers asserted that they had legal authority to conduct the search and seizure, whereas , here, Gidd ens made no such claim of lawful authority.25

discovery” rule. This argument fails because Article 38.23(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure specifically bars the introduction of “evidence obtained by an officer o r other person in violation of” the State or Federal Constitution or the laws of either in a trial of any criminal case.
T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art . 38.23 (a) (West 2005) . The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has specifically determined that the “‘inev itable discovery’ doctrine is inapplicable in Texas based on that doctrine ’ s inconsistency with the plain language of the statutory exclusionary rule .” Wehrenberg v. State , 416 S.W.3d 458, 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing State v. Daugherty , 931 S.W.2d 268, 269

– 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ; Garcia v. State , 829 S.W.2d 796, 798

– 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) )

. Third, the State argues that Sanders’ phone was seized to prevent the destruction of
evidence. The need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence h as long been recognized as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search. Kentucky v. King , 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011)

. This argument falls within the purview of what is usually called the “exigent circumstances”
doctrine. However, “ the mere possibility that evidence may be destroyed does not rise to a finding of exigent circumstances. ” Turrubiate v. State , 399 S.W.3d 147, 153 n.4 ( citing United States v. Menchaca

– Castruita , 587 F.3d 283, 295

– 96 (5th Cir. 2009 ) )

. In determining whether exige nt circumstances exist, the court considers whether there is proof that the officer reasonably believed removal or destruction of evidence was imminent. Id

. Here, after Cashatt had left the interview room, Giddens said that he observed Sanders being “bu sy” on his cell phone. Giddens testified that he deduced that Sanders “ might have been destroying evidence .” The recording reveals that Giddens then entered the room and told Sanders ,26

“I need

. . . your phone[]” 12 and that Sanders responded by handing ove r his cell phone. Giddens explained , “ [W] hen we have people in the interview rooms, and they ’ re sitting there texting stuff, and there ’ s a chance they could clear stuff off their phones, we ’ re going to take their phone from them. ” About half an hour into his interview (before Sanders turned the cell phone over to Giddens), Sanders received two calls and two text messages on his cell phone. Sanders neither viewed the messages nor answered the calls at that time. According to the time of day listed on the recorded interview, Cashatt left the interview room where Sanders was sitting at about 9:05 and it i s clear from the recording that Sanders was indeed “busy” on his cell phone from about that time until about 9:08, when he put his phone down on the table. However, Giddens did not enter the room and obtain the cell phone until 10:04, almost an hour later. There is no evidence that Sanders was using his cell phone, let alone deleting information therefrom, in the intervening time. This contradicts the Sta te’s position that there is sufficient proof that Giddens reasonably believed that the seizure of the cell phone was prompted by a belief that removal or destruction of evidence was imminent

. (However, the error in Giddens’ reasoning here did not prevent Giddens from truly believing that he had the right to seize the cell phone , an impression which would possibly have been strengthened by Sanders ’ subsequent delivery of the phone ’ s pass code

. ) We must conclude that the initial seizure of the cell phone b y the police did not fall within a recognized exception to the need for a warrant. However, after the warrantless seizure, Sanders consented to having his phone searched. Sanders contends that the illegal seizure of his phone

12 The audio/ video recording reveals that Giddens actually said , “ I need both your phones ,” apparently then erroneously believing that Sanders had two cell p hones on his person.27

taints his subsequent consen t to search the phone and renders the evidence found through the search fruit of the poisonous tree. The primary purpose of determining whether consent is tainted is to ensure that evidence that is the fruit of an unreasonable search or seizure by police is not admissible in court. Wong Sun v. U nited S tates , 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963)

. 13 However, consent may be sufficiently attenuated from the taint of a prior illegal search or seizure to allow the admission of the evidence. See Brick v. State , 738 S.W.2d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Before it can be determined whether evidence derived from a warrantless ( but consensual ) search following an illegal search or seizure, is admissible, the State must first prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conse nt was voluntarily rendered and that the taint otherwise inherent in the illegality had dissipated. See id. at 680

– 81 (taint of illegal arrest must be attenuated from voluntary consent before evidence discovered pursuant to consent is admissible). The Br ick factors by which attenuation of the taint is measured are: (1) t he proximity of the consent to the illegality; (2) w hether the seizure was brought about by police observation of the particular object for which they sought consent to search; (3) w hethe r the illegal seizure was the result of flagrant police misconduct; (4) w hether the consent was volunteered rather than requested by the detaining officers; (5) w hether the defendant was made fully aware of the fact she could decline to consent and thus prevent an immediate search; and (6) w hether the police purpose underlying the illegality was to obtain the consent.

13 When evidence results from illega l actions of police, the issue is “ whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint. ” Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 488.28

Here, Giddens seized the phone about thirty minutes before he asked Sanders for his consent to search it. Consent given “soon after” the rise of the illegality weighs in favor of suppression. State v. Bagby , 119 S.W.3d 446, 453 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2003 , no pet. ). When the time between the illegality and the consent is only a few minutes, this weighs in favor of suppression. See Stone v. State , 279 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2006 , no pet. ); Beaver v.
State , 106 S.W.3d 243, 250 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003 , pet. ref’d ). However, in this

ca se, about thirty minutes intervened between the time that Giddens obtained the cell phone from Sanders and the request he made for its pass code. The expiration of this time weighs slightly in favor of admission. The seizure of Sanders’ cell phone alone did nothing to allow the police to examine its contents. Even after being supplied with the pass code, Giddens testified that even though he “went through” the phone’s text messages, he failed to find anything pertinent. Therefore, even though the police had possession of the cell phone, it did not provide any real fruit. The second factor weighs in favor of admission. Here, Giddens testified that he believed that Sanders might be destroying evidence, and while we previously concluded that based on that belief, the seizure of the phone was not reasonable , it indicates that Giddens believed, albeit mistakenly, that he was justified in seizing the phone. See Self v. State , 709 S.W.2d 662, 667

– 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (conduct not in accord with state law does not necessarily rise to level of flagrant conduct); see Stone , 279 S.W.3d
at 693

– 94. Even though Giddens’ seizure of the phone was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it was not shown to have been calculated by him to cause fear, surprise, or conf usion, or to have29

been done to see if “something might turn up.” Brown v. Illinois , 422 U.S. 590, 605 (1975); see Bagby , 119 S.W.3d at 453 ( citing Renfro v. State , 958 S.W.2d 880, 886 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 1997, pet. ref ’ d)) . Therefore, the police misconduct in this case was not flagrant , and the third factor weighs in favor of admission. The fourth factor regards whether the consent was volunteered or whether the consent came after a request from law enforcement. It is undisputed that Sanders o nly gave consent after that consent was requested by Giddens. This factor weighs in favor of suppression of the evidence. Sanders was told of his Miranda 14 rights, both orally and in writing. Accordingly, he was made fully aware that he could terminate the interview at any time. Even though the Miranda warnings involve the right to terminate an interview, it would seem that they also would imply that Sanders did not need to subjugate himself to each demand by the police, including the right to refuse t o consent. This appears to be a neutral factor. The sixth factor considers the rationale or purpose of the police in performing the warrantless action. As discussed above, Giddens testified that he believed he was obtaining possession of the cell phon e for the purpose of preventing the destruction of evidence, and the record does not indicate that his actions were calculated to obtain consent from Sanders. This factor weighs in favor of admission. Having examined the Brick factors and viewing the rec ord in the light most favorable to the trial court ’ s ruling, we find that Sanders ’ consent was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal seizure to permit the admission of the evidence from his cell phone. See Bagby , 119 S.W.3d at

14 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).30

454. Even though the tri al court denied the motion to suppress on other grounds, we must affirm the trial court ’ s ruling if it is correct on any theory of law supported by the record. See Osbourn , 92 S.W.3d at 538. Having found Sanders’ consent to the search was sufficiently at tenuated from the illegal seizure, we overrule this point of error

. VI. Did the T rial C ourt E rr in D enying Sanders’ M otion for M istrial? In his sixth point of error, Sanders contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial because the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by implying that Sanders had threatened a witness. At a pretrial hearing, the State made the statement that “some of the State’s witnesses are being threatened” and went on to add that one of the witnesses had been assaulted. It did put a boundary on its assertion of witness tampering by saying that although “there are people saying they are d oing it on [Sanders’] behalf,” the State had “received no information that these threats or assaults were done at the request of Mr. Sanders or his friends and family.” During the trial, the State called Earnest Terrell Young, who testified that when Spra gue arrived at the P ark on the night of his death, he (Young) saw a silver SUV that looked like Sanders’ vehicle jump a curb while attempting to exit the P ark. Young state d that although he did not see the silver SUV strike Sprague, when the SUV jumped th e curb, he “saw a flashlight go up in the air.” He stated that the police officer was the only one Young saw who had a flashlight and that the silver SUV continued on its way out of the P ark after t he flashlight soared. On cross

- examination, Sanders atta cked Young’s credibility and his motivation for testifying, indicating that Young had a very limited31

view of the impact site, that several different lights (headlights, overhead lights, flashing lights) were in his face, that his testimony of when and why he left the P ark did not match the recording of the 9

- 1

- 1 call he had made to report Sprague having been injured, and that at the time of trial, he was on “ probation ” for burglary after having been arrested for burg larizing a church. On redirect examin ation, Young stated that he was testifying because he was under subpoena and that he understood he would be arrested when he arrived at the courthouse due to the outstanding warrant for his arrest. After this admission, the State began a question of Young : “[H]ave you, in fact, also been threatened because people knew you were

-- .” At that juncture, the State’s question was interrupted by Sanders’ objection. The trial court sustained Sanders’ objection and removed the jury from the courtroom. Then, wit h the jury outside the courtroom, the trial court conducted a short hearing regarding the propriety of the question. During the hearing, Sanders moved for a mistrial, arguing that because the State admittedly had no evidence of Sanders’ involvement with t he alleged threats, its proposed question was “so outrageous and so inflammatory” that its taint rendered it impossible for the jury to render a fair decision. The State responded that its question was meant to rebut Sanders’ attempts to impeach Young’s c redibility and Sanders’ attempt to question Young’s motives in testifying. Although the trial court sustained Sanders ’ objection to the line of questioning, it denied his motion f or mistrial. We review a trial court ’ s denial of a motion for mistrial un der an abuse of discretion standard. Trevino v. State , 991 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). “ ‘ Only in extreme circumstances, where the prejudice is incurable, will a mistrial be required. ” ’ Archie v. State , 221 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ( quoting Hawkins v. State , 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex.32

Crim. App. 2004 ) ). As stated above, in order to preserve error regarding prosecutorial misconduct or other improper evidence or remarks placed before the jury, three things are required: (1) a
spec ific and timely objection, (2) a request for an instruction to disregard if the objection is sustained, and, (3) if the instruction is given, a motion for mistrial. See Fuller , 827 S.W.2d at 926;

see Penry , 903 S.W.2d at 764. Although Sanders’ objectio n was sustained, he failed to request the intermediate remedy of providing an instruction for the jury to disregard the objectionable matter, moving directly to a request that the trial court grant a mistrial. By failing to request an instruction to disre gard, the trial court was deprived of the ability to take that intermediate step. See Penry v. State , 691 S.W.2d 636, 649

– 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Bryant v. State , 25 S.W.3d 924, 926 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2000, pet. ref’d). Mistrial is appropriate only whe n the objectionable event is so inflammatory or pervasive that a curative instruction is not likely to prevent the jury from being unfairly prejudiced against the defendant. See Bauder v. State , 921 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) , overruled on oth er grounds by Ex parte Lewis , 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

. Sanders cited Rogers v. State , 725 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.), for the proposition that a request for an instruction to disregard is not necessary in order to preserve error. In Rogers , the court of appeals held that error was preserved and a mistrial was required due to the State’s unobjected

- to (albeit pervasive) misconduct which “could serve no purpose other than to inflame and prejudice the minds of the jurors.” Id. at 358

– 61. In Rogers , while cross

- examining the defendant and defense witnesses, the State made numerous side

- bar comments regarding the witnesses and the evidence and suggested inflammatory facts that lacked33

any evidentiary support in the record. In contrast with the situation in Rogers , the State’s conduct here does not rise to the outrageous and pervasive levels seen in that case

. Id. Therefore , the facts of Rogers are distinguishable from those we observe here. Sanders also argues that the facts of this case are similar to those of Anderson v. State , 635 S.W.2d 72 2, 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (e n b anc). In Anderson , the State asked the compl aining witness if he was scared and nervous to be in the courtroom, and he responded affirmatively. Id. The State then asked, “I n fact, did your wife receive a threatening phone call?” Id. The defendant objected , and his motion for mistrial was granted

. Id. The appeal resulted from a subsequent guilty plea by Anderson. However, Anderson is inapplicable to this case because it did not examine the merits of the granted mistrial; rather, the only role that the objectionable line of questioning bore to t he case on appeal was that Anderson claimed that the State engineered the mistrial through improper questioning. Anderson, therefore, claimed that he had been subjected to double jeopardy. Id. The isolated act of asking an improper question will rarely require a mistrial because, in most cases, any resulting harm can be cured by an instruction to disregard

— an instruction which the jury is presumed to follow

. Ladd , 3 S.W.3d at 567; Sharper v. State , 22 S.W.3d 557, 558

– 59 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2000, no pet.). Here, the State’s improper question was not so very inflammatory or its effect so pervasive that an instruction for the jury to disregard it would fail to cure any resulting harm. Accordingly, we find that Sanders failed to preserve this issue for our review. See Fuller , 827 S.W.2d at 926 ; see Penry , 903 S.W.2d at 764.34

VII. Was T here S ufficient E vidence to S upport the V erdict? In his final point of error, Sanders contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. In evaluatin g legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational fact

- finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 10) ( citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); Brown v. State , 333 S.W.3d 606, 608 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, no pet.). We examine legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the j ury “to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Hooper
v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ( citing Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318

– 19). Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State , 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The hypothetically correct jury charge “sets out the law, is authorized by the indi ctment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Id

. Sanders was charged under Section 1 9.02(b)(3) of the Texas Penal Code , which states that a person commits the offense of murder if he

c ommits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate fligh t from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.35

T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 19.02(b)(3). The indictment alleged two alternative predicate felonies, aggravated assault of a public servant and evading arrest or detention while using a motor vehicle.
T he offense of aggravated assault of a public servant is defined as follows: (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in § 22.01 and the person: (1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person’s spouse; or (2) u ses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault. ( b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:

. . . . (2) regardless of whether the offense is committed under Subsection (a )(1) or (a)(2), the offense is committed:

. . . . (B) against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawful ly discharging an official duty.
T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.02(a), (b)(2)(B) (West 2011)

. 15 A person commits the offense of evading arrest or detention if “he intentionally flees from a per son he knows is a peace officer . . . attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.” T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 38.04(a) (West Supp. 2014) . Evading arrest or detention is a felony if the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight.
T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 38.04(b)(1)(B), (2)(A). Here, although the dashboard camera (dash

15 The actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant or a security officer if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person ’ s employment as a public servant or status as a security officer. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.02(c) (West 2011).36

cam) audio/ video recording from Sprague’s patrol car did not show Sprague being struck by a vehicle, it did show only a few cars passing in front of the pa trol car, one of them being a silver SUV which was apparently trying to exit the P ark through the exit near Sprague’s parked patrol
car. A “ BOLO ” (Be On the Look Out for) message was transmitted to all officers o f the Texarkana
P olice D epartment, alerting them to watch for the silver SUV. Although the video recording captured the image of several cars leaving the P ark, it does not show Sprague trying to detain any of them. The reason that it does not show Sprague’s attempts to detain auto mobile s is because he exited the range of the images recorded by the dash cam as he walked behind the patrol car into the parking lot. Although the video portion of the recording did not capture Sprague’s image, the audio portion continued to record the occurre nces around him because the audio was being transmitted from a microphone on Sprague’s person. That audio portion of the recording revealed that Sprague yelled, “Hey, stop , ” but neither the video nor the audio recording indicate the identity of the person Sprague was direct ing his command to or the kind of car driven by that person. It is impossible to determine from the recording the identity of the person to whom Sprague’s comment
was directed. John McGee testified that Sanders was present at the P ar k that night and that he was driving a silver SUV, but he did not believe Sanders ever got out of the vehicle. As Mc Gee was leaving, he saw the SUV attempting to exit the parking lot. Although McGee said that he observed the SUV jump the curb and then sa w the officer on the ground, he candidly admitted that he did not see the silver SUV strike Sprague. McGee testified that he stopped his vehicle and stayed with the injured Sprague while he and others called the 9

- 1

- 1 operator to report the injury. On cr oss -37

examination, McGee admitted that at the time the officer was struck, he (McGee) was in the process of backing his car up when he saw the SUV jump the curb. As discussed above, Sanders was interviewed at the Texarkana police station by Cashatt. Sand ers admitted that he was at the P ark that night and that he was the sole occupant and driver of a silver 2010 GMC Acadia (an SUV) that night. Although he saw Sprague arrive at the P ark before the commotion began and saw Sprague activate the overhead light s on his patrol car, he denied hitting anything with his SUV as he drove out of the P ark. Although Sanders initially maintai ned that he rolled through the P ark and did not stop, he later changed his story somewhat to indicate that he did stop there to see his cousin. After the interview, Cashatt obtained a warrant for Sanders’ arrest, charging him with responsibility for Sprague’s death. At trial, Cashatt admitted that at an earlier writ hearing, he testified that whomever hit Sprague had not done so int entionally and that he believed it to have been an accident. At the time of the previous hearing, it was his opinion that Sanders had not seen Sprague when Sprague was run down

. Kechelle Dansby testified that she was at the P ark at the time Sprague was run over by a car. Dansby testified that she saw Sprague get out of his patrol car and stand under the brightest part of the street light. She also saw a silver SUV back into a parking space before driving toward one of the P ark exits, then jump the cur b and bounce over that curb as Sprague was waiving his hands in a fruitless attempt to stop the SUV. Dansby testified that she then saw the silver SUV run over Sprague and saw his body go underneath it. Although she saw Sanders driving a silver SUV that night, she did not testify as to the identity of the vehicle’s driver at the time it struck the officer. When she spoke with the police on the night in question, she falsely identified herself by38

her sister’s name because she had outstanding warrants for her arrest at the time. She did not reveal to the police what she had seen that night until after she had been arrested on a n outstanding
warrant. Earnest Young was also present at the P ark at the time of the events in question. He saw Sanders standi ng next to a silver SUV , but never saw him get into it or drive it. At trial, he testified that the car that struck Sprague “looked sorta like [the] one” Sanders had been standing near. He testified that he did see the SUV jump the curb , and he saw the o fficer’s flashlight go up in the air, but he did not see which car actually struck Sprague. From what he saw, it did not appear to him that the SUV’s driver saw the officer before the vehicle struck him

. Troy Daniels was also at the P ark when Sprague wa s run over . He testified that he thought he saw Sanders sitting o n the driver ’s side of a silver SUV before the police officer arrived at the
P ark and believed Sanders was high on marihuana at that time because you could smell it in the area. He said tha t although he saw the silver SUV drive toward the exit from the P ark, the officer

wave d his flashlight at traffic, and then that SUV jump ed the curb, but he did not see it drive towards the officer. He testified that he then believed that the SUV was abou t to get pulled over and, if so, that circumstance would allow the other cars to escape. After he saw the SUV jump the curb, he observed it hesitate before leaving the area , and it was at that time that Daniels saw the officer and his flashlight on the gr ound. He indicated that there were many cars attempting to leave the P ark after Sprague arrived. Beca use he was trying to leave the P ark himself, he wasn’t “paying attention to details.”39

A silver GMC Acadia, owned by Sanders’ mother, was searched and su bjected to tests by the police. Officer Spencer Price testified that when he entered the vehicle, he smelled the faint odor of marih uana. After examining the SUV and removing its right front tire, Price placed a different tire on the vehicle so that the c ar could be released back to its owner. Tests revealed that although there were no scratches or dents on the car, the plastic brush guard of the vehicle had been pushed out about a quarter of an inch. Although a search was made by police investigators fo r them, none of Sprague’s DNA, fingerprints, fluids, or personal e ffects were found on the car. A search warrant was obtained for the electronic “black box” from the SUV, but it contained no data indicating that the vehicle ha d been in an accident.
T he medical examiner who autopsied Sprague opined that the cause of death was the injuries sustained by Sprague, those injuries being consistent with being struck by a vehicle

. He further testified that t he abrasions on Sprague’s body were consistent with being dragged over either asphalt or a rocky surface and that the cause of death was blunt force injuries. Crime Scene Investigator Price noted a reddish

- brown mark and tears on the officer’s duty
shirt that he believed were transf ers of dirt caused by a vehicle. There were small marks on the back of the officer’s shirt that appeared to be caused from the uniform catching on a rocky surface or asphalt. Sprague’s duty gear, including his badge, radio, radio clip, handcuffs , and his handgun were also damaged in a manner consistent with being dragged on a rough surface. Officer Marc Sullivan, a crime scene technician, stated that he examined the undercarriage of Sander’s mother’s SUV and that it appeared some dirt had been removed o n the passenger side of the car and the passenger side wheel well, though it could have been caused by something as40

simple as a tire rub. He also noticed that the bumper was pushed out about one quarter of an inch and retention clips were broken, but he i ndicated that there was no way to tell when the retention clips had been broken or what happened that caused them to break. Due to the presence of water spotting, Sullivan deduced that the car appeared to have been wiped down; while there were a few marks on the tires, those marks did not come from anything worn by Sprague. Shawna Yonts, another crime scene technician, testified that she saw a disturbance in the dust on the hood of the SUV and the presence of partial fingerprint impressions in the dust, b ut she acknowledged that there was no way of telling when the disturbance in the dust or the finger prints occurred. Given the state of chaos that apparently erupted when Sprague suddenly appeared on the scene at the P ark that night and the scarcity of w itnesses who would be sympathetic to the cause of law enforcement at that time and place and under the circumstances that were described, an absence of more credible eye witness evidence is somewhat understandable. Even though physical evidence was minima l, Sanders’ vehicle was largely undamaged, and key eyewitness testimony could be considered questionable, there is, nevertheless, sufficient evidence to support a rational jury’s determination that all of the elements of the offense had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. “ It is axiomatic that, in gauging the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a particular criminal conviction, reviewing courts are obliged to view all of the evidence in the l ight most favorable to the jury’ s ve rdict, in deferen ce to the jury’ s institutional prerogative to resolve all contested issues of fact and credibility. ” Delay v. State , 443 S.W.3d 909, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) . Following this rule, we find that there was legally sufficient evidence from which the jury
i n this case, acting reasonably, could have found Sanders guilty of striking Sprague (who died as41

a result of the injuries that were thus caused) with a vehicle in the course of evading arrest or detention in a vehicle. 16 Accordingly, we overrule this point of error. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: June 3, 2015 Date Decided: August 12 , 2015 Do Not Publish

16 The jury found Sanders guilty “as charged in the indictment” without specifying which of the two alternative predicate fe lonies under which they found him guilty. Because we find the evidence was sufficient to support Sanders’ conviction based upon felony evading arrest, we need not address whether the evidence was sufficient to support a possible conviction based upon aggr avated assault of a public servant.