See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1 9.03 (a)(8) ( V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 1 Al t hough O v er t on p r esent s t hi r t y num ber ed i ssues f or revi ew, she has g r ouped sev er al i ssues 2 t oget her , and we ha v e r egr ouped and r eor gani z ed h erbr i ef ed i ssues. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0073 5-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
HA NN A H RU TH OVE RT ON, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z A j ur y found appel lan t, Hann ah Ruth Ov erton, g uil ty of capi tal murder , and the tr ial court sent enced her

to li fe impr is onment w it hout parole

. By ten is sues , Ov erton 1 2D i na Zapat a, a l i censed v ocat i onal nur se ( " LVN " ) at U C C , st at ed o n cr oss- exam i nat i on t hat at t he 3 c e n te r, th e y "h a n d l e b ro k e n b o n e s , a s th m a , vo m i ti n g , d i a rr h e a , fe v e r, ra s h , c o u g h , [ a n d ] c o l d ." 2 cont ends: ( 1) there i s e rror i n th e i n d ictment; ( 2) there i s j ur y ch arg e er ro r; ( 3- 4) the evidence is legally and factu ally insuf f icient to susta in the conviction; (5) the Sta te w ithhe ld mater ial ex culpato ry

i nformati on; ( 6) there i s n ew ly di sc ov ered ev ide nce; ( 7) the Stat e present ed "extra- re cord ev ide nce" to t he j ur y ; (8-9)there was prosec utor ial mis condu ct; and (10) the trial court abuse d its discretion by allowi ng testim ony f rom the Sta te's expert
w it ness es. W e w il l address Ov erton' s suffici ency i ss ues firs t and then address her
rem ai ni ng p oi nt s i n nu me r i c al o rde r . W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Overton w as in the proce ss of ado pting a child, A.B ., w ho was placed in Overton's home on June 16, 2006. A.B . bec ame i ll on O cto ber 2, 2006. Ov erton a nd her hus band, Lar ry Ov erton, took A.B. , a four- y ear-o ld chi ld, to Urg ent Care Cen ter ("U CC "). A.B . was 3 then transpo rt ed to Spohn Sout h H ospi tal ( "Spohn") , and ev entual ly w as transfer re d by ambula nce to D ri sc oll C hil dren's Hos pit al ("D ri sc oll "), w here he die d on Oct ober 3, 2006. T he Nue ces Coun ty me dical e xam i ne r , R ay F er na nd ez , M .D ., d ete rmine d tha t A.B. 's death w as a homi ci de. Ov erton was ar re ste d and ind icted for ca pit a l m u rd e r. The ind ictment all eg ed th at:

Hann ah Rut h Overton, de fend ant [,] on or a b o u t Octob er 2, 20 06, in Nuece s Co unt y , T exas, d id the n an d the re inten tiona lly or know ingly

cause the d eath of an i ndi v idu al y oung er than si x y ears o f age , namel y

[A. B.] by caus in g [A

. B .] to ingest a sub stan ce or subst ance s conta ining acute toxi c lev els of sodi um or

by i nje cti ng [A. B.] w it h a s ubst ance or su bst ances cont ain ing ac ute t ox icl ev els of sodi um or by i ntroduci ng an a cut e tox icl ev el of sodi um i nto [A.B. 's ] bod y by manne r a nd means unk now n to the G ra nd Jur y and/ or by ca usi ng [A. B.' s] head t o s tr ik e an o bje ct unkn ow n to the Grand Jur

y or bystr ik ing [A.B.' s] head w it h an unkno w n object to the Grand Ju ry and/or

i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly , by

omi ss ion , fail ing to prov ide or to3

seek adeq uate and/or

ti mely medical ca re or

treatment to [A.B. ] and the defendant had a s tatut or y or l eg al duty to act or

the defendant had as sumed care, c ust ody

or control of [A.B. ]; or

by manner and means unkno w n to the G ra n d Ju ry; And t he Grand J ur

y furth er present s on the is sue of punis hment t hat the d efendan t used or ex hib it ed a deadl y

w eapon, to w it : s odi um; or the defendant' s h and or t h e d e fendant's hands ; or an o bje ct unkno w n to the G ra n d Ju ry. A t ria l on th e mer it s was condu cte d. The Stat e present ed th e tes ti mony of numerous w it ness es in it s c ase- in- chi ef. The St ate a ls o i ntrodu c e d , a mo ng othe r ev ide nce, Stat e's Ex hib it40, a v ide o re cordin g of O v erton' s i nter v iew w it h D etecti v e H ess . Ov erton present ed s ev eral w it ness es and testi fied on her ow n behalf. After both si des re ste d, t he t ri a l c o u rtre a d t h e fo ll o win g c h a rg e t o t h e ju ry:

Now i f y ou f in d f ro m the ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubtthat HANNAH RU T H OVERT ON, defend ant , on or abo ut th e 2n d da y of Octob er, 200 6, in Nuece s Count y , Te x as, did t hen a nd the re in ten tiona lly or know ingly cause the de ath of

an individual y oun gert h a n s ix y ears of

age, nam ely [A.B .], by

ca usi ng [A. B.] to i ng est a s ubst ance or su bst ances co ntai nin g acut e tox icl ev e ls o f

s o diu m, and/or

i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

ca use the de a t h o f [A

. B

. ] b y o mi s s i o n , fa i l i n g t o p ro v i d e o r t o s e e k me d i c a l c a re or treatment for [A .B.] and the d efendant had a s tatut or y or l eg al duty

to actor the defend anthad assum ed ca re, custo dy or contro l of [A.B. ]; the n y ou wi ll find th e defendant, H AN NA H RU TH OVER TON, gui lty of Capi tal M urder

as charg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. Aft e r t h e j u r y fou n d he r

g u i l ty , O v e rt o n re q u e s t e d t h a tt h e v e n i re m e mb e rs s p e c i fy "w hic h i ss ue th e v erdict was re ndered on, w hether it w as the f irst is sue of forced ing est ion or w hether i t was the i ss ue of omis si on." The tr ial co urt first ask ed eac h member if his or her verdict was "guilty," and e ach m em ber an sw ered , "Yes." T he trial cou rt then asked if the v erdict "w as on the ing est ion or the omis si on or both. " Each juror res p o n d ed, "Omis si on." Overton w as sen ten ced to life impr is o nm entw ithou t possib ility of parole. This4

appeal ens ued. II. T H E E V I DE NCE Sharon H amil , A. B.' s fost er mother , tes ti fied that she had been a foster mother for thi rty -o ne y ears a nd has fostered approx imat ely three hund re d c hil dren. Aft e r A.B. w as remo v ed f rom h is biological moth er's hom e du e to neglect and abu se, Ham il fo stered him for abo ut eighte en m ont hs. Hami l t e s t i fi e d t h a t A

. B

. ' s b e h a v i o r w a s n o r ma l , a n d t h a t h e w a s o b e d i e n t, ev en w hen he did not w ant t o do someth ing

. Acc ordin g to Hami l, A.B . c ri ed w hen he w as upset ; h o we ve r, if

h e wa s n o tin j u r e d , h e w o u ld o n ly c ry " fo r a fe w m in u t e s . " A. B

. d id n o th a ve lon g tant ru ms and di d nothur l hims elf ont o the g ro und, ev en w hen pl ay ing

. Fur ther more, A.B. w as "potty

train ed." A.B. woul d eatunti l he was full, and w hen he did not w ant more food, he w oul d s top eati ng , ev en w hen H amil put too muc h food on h is pla te. Al thoug h A.B. l ov ed to eat, he did no t ma ke him self

sick by eat ing too mu ch food , and if Hamil gav e A.B . food thathe did not l ik e, he woul d noteat it

. A.B. 's fav or it e foods were pi z z a and french fri es. A.B. did not li ke spi cy foods or oni ons. W hen ask ed by the S tate w hether A.B . preferred a hot d og w it h or w ithou t chili, Hamil respon ded thathe preferred a ho t dog w ithou t chili. Hami l sta t e d t h a t s h e k e p t s a l t a n d p e p p e r o n h e r t a b l e , a n d s h e n e v e r s a w A.B

. atte mp t to ingest salt. Ham il somet ime s took A. B. to th e be ach, and A.B. did n ot drink salt
w ater or put sand or

othe r "weird thi ng s" in his m outh. Al so, w hen Hami l took A.B. to the g ro cer y st ore, he nev er

put "w eird thi ng s" i n hi s mout h. Hami l had obser v ed some of her foster ch il dren hi de food i n the ir rooms b ecaus e the y

w ere afrai d of g oin g hung ry , butA.B

. did not do th at. H amil tes ti fied th at A .B. did not attemptto eat o ut of the trash.T he r ecor d do es no t r ev eal the pr eci se m eani ng o ft he a cr ony m " PR I D E" ; howev er , Bi l l eaux 4 descr i bed t he p r ogr am as r equi r ed t r ai ni ng f oral l par ent s who wantt o ad opt a f ost erchi l d. At t he t rai ni ng, th e p a r e n ts a r e p r o v id e d in f o r m a tio n in c lu d in g , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , t h e a g e n c y's d is c ip lin e p o lic y.

Bi l l eaux st at ed t hat accor di ng t o he rnot es, O v er t on cl ai m ed t o ha v e " LVN " t r ai ni ng. 5 5 Hami l thoug ht i t was a "wonder ful i dea" for Overt o n to adopt A.B. bec ause they atte nde d the s a m e ch urch an d she "w ould g et to w atch [A.B. ] grow up. " A.B. w as v ery ex ci ted t hat t he Ov ertons w anted to ad opt h im; acc ord in g t o H a m il, A.B. l ov ed th e Ov ertons , and thei r chi ldren. A.B. w as three y ears a nd el ev en month s o ld w hen he beg an the t ra nsi ti on to the Ov ertons ' home. After a c oupl e of ov er nig ht v is it s, A.B. mov ed to the Ov ertons ' home. W hen A. B. l eft Hami l' s home, she sent him his toys. After the transi ti on, Hami l cal led Ov erton t o see how A.B. w as doi ng , and ac cordin g to Hami l, Ov erton s aid that ev er ythi ng w as g oin g "fair ly w ell ," butthatA.B . was arg uin g w it h her othe r chi ldren. Ov erton t old Ha m il thatA.B . had broken some o f her other ch il dren's toys, so as pun ishm ent , she bro ke his Spid erma n toy and th rew it in th e t ra s h

. A c cording to Ham il, Spi der man w as A.B. 's fav or it e. Ana B il lea ux

tes ti fied th a t Ove rt o n a n d h er hus band wanted to ad opt a chi ld. Bi ll eaux , an adopti on s uper v is or , wo rk ed atSpaul din g for C hil dren, a n ag ency that facil it ates the adoption of chi ldren i n the foster ca re syste m. I n ac cordance w it h the a ge n cy' s p ro c e d u re s , t h e O ve rt o n s c o m p le t e d a n a p p li c a t io n fo r ad o p t io n , a h o m e st u d y, and "PR ID E train ing ." Bi ll eaux st ated that dur ing the home s tudy , Ov erton t old her that 4
s he h ad a n urs i ng d eg ree a nd h ad wor k ed w i th c hi l dren w i th d i s ab i l i ti es . At the t i me 5 Bi l l e a u x c o n d u ct e d t h e h o me s t u d y , A

. B

. h a d n o t" d i s p l a y e d i n a p p ro p r i a t e b e h a v i ors." Non ethel ess , Bi ll eaux

sp oke to O v erton a bout the a g ency 's a n d the sta te' s d is ci pli neT h e tria l c o u r t a d m itte d i n to e v id e n c e S ta te 's E x h ib it 1 5 5 , a c o p y o fS p a u ld in g fo rC h il d r e n 's 6 di sci pl i ne p ol i cy , si gned byO v er t on, and St at e' s Exhi bi t 156, a copyof t he Chi l d Pr ot ect i v e Ser v i ces po l i cy on di sci pl i ne, al so si gned byO v er t on. 6 policies, and Ov erton signed a docu me nt i ndica ting tha t she unde rstood tho se p o licies. 6 Spa ulding's policy state s: The pr imar

y p u rp o se of dis ci pli ne woul d be to en courag e appropr iat e behav ior , notto puni sh the c hil d. Chi ldren must be treated w it h respect and dignity . Disci pline m ust suit the p articular ne eds a nd circum stan ces of each child; an d it mu st take into ac coun t the child's age, developm ent al lev el, spec ificbehav ior , prev iou s re act ion to dis ci pli ne, and hi sto ry , i ncl udi ng any history of p hysical or em otion al abu se. No child ma y be de priv ed o f

basic nece ssities or subject ed to cruel, harsh, unu sual, o r unne cessary pun ishm ent . Only

adu lt ca regiv ers m ay discipline t he child. Children mu st not b e threatened w it h the l oss of placementas a means of cont ro ll ing behav ior

. P h y si cal puni shmentmustnot be us ed. Chi ldren mus t notbe v er bal ly demeaned or

bel ittl ed. Accordin g to Bill eau x , she informe d Overton to fo llow the discipline outli n e d in t h e child ser v ic e pl an th at s tated : [A.B .] has not d is pla y ed ina ppropr iat e behav iors. He needs reminde rs and re d ire ct io n , b u tn o m o re t h a n a n y o t h e r c h il d re n in t h e h o m e . He is f ri e n d ly, pla yful, an d g ets alon g wel l w it h ev er y one. H e has a l ittl e more di ff ic ulty s ha r i ng w i th h i s s i bl i ng s b ec au s e th i s is a rel at i v el y n ew c on c ep t for

h i m. However , s har ing i s b ecomi ng eas ier ev er y day

. Mr . and M rs . O v erton si g ned t his agency

disc ipl ine poli cy

and ag re e tha t t hey

w il l not u se physi cal discipline sh ould [A.B. ] nee d beh avioral intervention

. T hey w ill use tim eou ts, l os s o f pr i v i l eg es , rem i nd ers , red i recti on , an d ta l k i ng t o hi m. Ov erton was als o required to foll ow the Stat e's di sc ipl ine pol icy , w hic h does not all ow physical discipline or the use of food as discipline. Billeaux testif ied th at un der Sp auld ing's pol icy , i t i s i nappropr iat e to w it hhol d food as pu n ish m e n t and that"[f]ood i s n ot us ed as puni shment , per iod ." B il le a u x f u rt h e r t e s t if ie d t h a tS p a u ld in g i s re qu ire d t o p ro vid e t h e p ro s p e ct ive adopti v e parents w it h al l of t he re cords that CP S has co ncer nin g the chi ld. Bi ll eaux st ated7

tha t in the d ocum ent s conce rning A. B., th ere w as no indicatio n tha t he ha d an y ill nesse s, alt h o u g h t h e d o c u me n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t" t h e re w a s a s p e e c h d e l a y . " A

. B

. h a d a medi cal ex am sho rt ly

before pla cementon Ma y 2 4 , 2 006. Bi ll eaux tes ti fied th at t he doctor ind ic ated that ev er

ythi ng w as "okay ." A.B. l iv ed i n Ov erton' s h ome ap p ro x imat ely two w eeks before off ic ial pl acement o c c u rre d o n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 6

. " O f f ic ia l p la c e m e n t " o c c u rs wh e n CP S , t h e a d o p t io n a ge n cy, and t he famil y

si g n "the adopt ion pl acementag re ement." The pl a c e me n t ag re ement s tated that "they

[t he Ov ertons ] w il l be respon si ble for t he c hil d's ca re and nur tur ing , i ncl udi ng me dical care, beginning June 16, 200 6." Billeau x testif ied th at Overton pla nne d to en roll A.B. i n "M edi cai d, j ustl ik e the ir othe r chi ldren." Dur ing the pre- pla cement per iod , O v erton "tal ked to a w or ker

i n H uman Ser

v ic es [w ho] tol d her that s he j ustneeded to br ing i n the paper w or k t hat C PS g av e her or the ag ency

g av e her , and that 's al l she needed to do to in c lu d e [A

. B

. ] in Me d ic a id ju s tli k e t h e o t h e r ki d s we re . " T h e re fo re , a c c o rd in g t o B il le a u x, Ov erton c oul d hav e enroll ed A. B. i n M edi cai d on June 16, 2006. Howev er , Bi ll eaux did not know w hether Ov erton a ctu all y

enroll ed A. B. i n M edi cai d. Bi ll eaux w as re q uired to v is itthe family w it hin two w eeks of pla cementand then once a mo nth for the followi ng six mo nth s or "u ntil consu mm ation [of the ad opt iv e proce ss] is co mplet ed." Bi ll eaux sta ted that the pur pose of a v is it is "to s ee w hether there are any prob lem s, anything that we should b e do ing, if the child is doing we ll , i f t he fam ily

is adj ust ing , i f the chi ld is adj ust ing , jus t to see if there i s a nythi ng thatneeds to be address ed or done.

. . ." Afte r "off ic ial pl acement " oc cur re d, B il lea ux co nduct ed a ser ies of announc ed home v is it s on June 28, Jul y 21, Aug ust17, and Se ptember 25, each las ti ng approx imat ely

one hour

. Dur ing the Aug ust17 v is it , O v erton t old Bi ll eaux that A. B. "h adD r. R ott a s t ated : " P i c a i s a d i s ord er w he re hu m an b ei ng s , c hi l dre n an d ad ul t s , ea t t hi ng s t ha t are 7 n o t n u tri ti o u s , s u c h a s s ty ro fo a m c u p , d i rt, l e a d , p a i n t c h i p s th a t m i g h t c o n ta i n l e a d , t h i n g s o f th a t n a tu re ."

S p o h n i s a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t f r o m UCC. 8 8 bee n actin g up a little bit, buthe w as sett ling back. " Billeaux was sche dule d to m ake another home v is iton September 19; how ev er , Ov erton and the ch il dren had been i n a c ar acc ide nt, so th e vis itw as re sc hedul ed for September 25. On that day , Bi ll eaux v is it ed Ov erton a nd found her rest ing and re cov er ing from t he i nju ri es she sustained i n the ca r acc ide nt. Ov erton i nformed Bi ll eaux that A.B. 's "behav ior had been more di ff ic ultsi nce the acc ide nt," and t hat A .B. "had s tar ted p ic ki ng up t hin g s from the floor and the t ra sh and he
w as tr y ing to eat thos e [thi ng s]. " Bi ll eaux infor med Ov erton that there is a c ondi ti on c all ed "pic a" tha t i ncl udes the s y mptom of eati ng from the t ra sh, and that A.B. "had to may be be ass ess ed bya professi onal i f this behav ior co nti nued." Bi ll eaux

su g g est ed th at O v erton 7 "seek adv ic e from a pedi atr ic ian or o th e r professi onal s." Ov erton a ls o tol d Bi ll eaux that A.B. w as "throw ing tant ru ms w hic h v ar [i ed] in int ensi ty and durati on, the lon g est one bei ng 45 minutes

. " B i l l e a u x s t a t e d t h a tO v e rt o n t o l d h e r t h a tb e c a u s e A

. B

. w a s n o th u rt i ng hims elf or

othe rs , t hey all ow ed him to cr y and "jus t ev er

y once in a w hil e tol d hi m y ou need to c alm dow n i f y ou want t o pl ay or i f y ou want t o do anythi ng el se. " The next c ontact Bi ll eaux had w it h Ov erton w as on October 2, 2006 atabout5:15 p.m ., w hen Billeaux received a pho ne call informin g her that A.B . w as be ing taken to UCC and t hat O v erton n eeded B il lea ux to br ing the pla cementag re ement be caus e Ov erton h ad forg otten i t athome. W hen Bi ll eaux ar ri v ed at the cl ini c, she w as infor med that A.B. had b e e n t ra n s fe rre d t o S p o h n , so B il le a u x we n tt h e re t o f in d O ve rt o n . Ac c o rd in g t o B il le a u x, 8 Ov erton i nformed her

thatA.B . had ch oked on chi li , w hic h s he i nter preted as ind ic ati ng thatS ta te 's E x h ib it 1 4 , L a r r y's c e ll p h o n e r e c o r d f o rO c to b e r2 , s h o w s th a t h e c a lle d G r e g o r y a t p r e c is e ly 9 1 1 :4 1 a .m . 9 the chi ld had chok ed on "a piece of pepper. " After A.B. w as transfer re d to Dr is col l, Bi ll eaux heard tha t A. B. was "let harg ic " and "not respon si v e" and that the si tuati on was "v er y bad. " Jes si ca Greg or

y , Lar ry 's si ste r, tes ti fied th at s he and Ov erton a ttend ed i nter mediat e em ergency me dical tech nician (EMT) training at Del Mar C ollege in Corpus Christi, Te x as. An y on e w ho p as s ed t he fi na l e x am was q ua l i fi ed t o ta k e th e St at e c er ti fi c at i on e x am . Al thoug h G re gory s tated thatOv erton p ass ed th e final ex am, s he di d notkn ow w hether Ov erton t ook the certi ficat ion ex am. G re g or y att ended b asi c E MT t ra ini ng i n C or pus Chr is ti , w hil e Ov erton a ttend ed bas ictrain ing i n Ty ler , Tex as. G re g or y st ated that the int er mediat e EM T train ing at Del M ar w as res tr uct ured that y ear as a paramedi c c las s a nd
w as cons ide re d ParamedicI. Acc ordin g to G re g or y , EM T train ing co nsi ste d of ass ess ing a s it uati on and deter mini ng w hether m e d ica l atten ti on i s req uired, a nd th at t he j ob of an EMT is to suppo rt and ma intain life w hile getting to a n em ergency care facility , such as a hosp ital. Gregory

testif ied th at th e signs of shockwe re cov ered "extensively " be cause acc ordin g to Greg or

y , "[ t]hat 's one of the number one thi ng s t hat we hav e to deal w it h [as an EMT ]." Gregory

st ate d, "W e learne d a lot abo ut f luid bala nces in the bod y , electrolytes, sal ine s a s well , s altbal ances ." On O cto ber

2, 2006, Greg or

y w as tak ing ca re of three of Ov erton' s c hil dren. At 11:41 a.m., Greg or

y recei v ed a phone c all from Lar ry i ndi cat ing that he w oul d pick up o ne of the c hil dren, I .O. , from her hous e bec ause I.O . ha d a n a p p o intment w it h the chiropract or; app rox ima tely an h our later, Larry and O v erton p icked I.O. up f rom Gregory's house

. Greg or

y stated that Ov erton and Larr y w ere at the chi ro pract or for "[h]alf an hour 9H a l l e r te s ti fie d th a t h e r c a l l e r ID s h o w e d th a t O v e rto n c a l l e d h e r a t p re c i s e l y 2 :5 2 p .m . 10 S. O

. was t wo y ear s ol d. 11 10 at t he mos t." Ac cord ing to Greg or y , O v erton c omplai ned t hat A .B. had t hrow n up eig ht ti mes t hat d ay . W hen G re g or y as ked Ov erton if A.B. w as si ck , O v erton respon ded, "[N ]o, he's doi ng i t j ustto pis s me off ." On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , G re g or y st ated that she bel iev ed O ve rt o n wa s e xa gge ra t in g wh e n sh e t o ld h e r t h a tA

. B

. h a d vo m it e d e ig h tt im e s t h a td a y. On re- directex aminat ion , G re g or y tes ti fied th at O v erton "was know n" to ex ag g erate. Kathr y n H all er , O v erton' s next door nei g hbor , testi fied that on Oct ober 2, 2006, at 2:5 2 p.m ., O v erton ca lled, asking h er t o w atch O v erton 's youngest ch ild, S.O., beca use

10 11 A.B. w as "maki ng hims elf puke and poo pin g and smear ing i t ev er yw here." W hen H all er ask ed Ov erton w hether A.B. w as si ck , Ov erton res ponded, "He's not si ck , he's doi ng i t t o tr y to g et t o me." Acc ordin g to Hal ler , Ov erton desc ri bed A.B. 's "poop" as "so li d" and not dia rr hea. Ov erton t old H all er , "So far t oday [A. B.' s] made hi msel f poop ei ghttimes and th en s me ars i t. " H al l er d es c r i be d Ov er

to n' s d em ea no r

a s c al m. At a pprox imat ely

2:57 p.m., Ov erton walk ed next door to Hal ler's house and left S .O.
w it h Hal ler

. Hal ler

stated that Ov erton did not hav e any"poop" or vo mit on her cl othes and nei ther di d S. O. Ov erton went b ack to her hous e, an d at approx imat ely 3:07 p.m., H all er called Overton asking for a d iape r for S .O. W hen Haller arr iv ed a t Ov erton 's house to pick up th e di aper , s he not ic ed th at O v erton h ad chang ed her cl othes ; Ov erton e x pla ine d tha t A.B. had throw n "poo p " a t h e r. H all er then retur ned t o her

home w it h the di aper . At app rox ima tely 3:4 5 or 3:5 0, Haller saw Larry arriv e at th e h o m e . Haller imm edia tely re tur ned S. O. back

to Ov erton' s home. W hen Hal ler left S.O. w it h Larr

y , she did not s ee or sp eak to O v er

ton.O n cr oss- exam i nat i on, Zapat a st at ed t hat she was usual l y t he o nl y nur se on dut y M ondayt hr ough 12 F ri da y at t he c en t er. T he c en t er al s o ha d a m ed i c al as s i s t an t , ph l eb otom i s t , an d o n e o r tw o do c t ors depen di ng o n t he t i m e.

Zapat a st at ed t hat A. B. was no t consci ousl y v om i t i ng. 13O n re -d i re c t e x a m i n a ti o n , Z a p a ta c l a rifi e d th a t t h e vo m i t w a s "[r]e d d i s h b ro w n , c h i l i c o l o r. . . . A 14 s tro n g c h i l i s m e l l

. If y o u g o to W e n d y 's a n d g e t a c u p o f c h i l i a n d o p e n i t u p , t h a t s m e l l , b u t s tro n g e r."

O v e r to n in f o r m e d Z a p a ta th a t A .B . d id n o t h a v e a s e iz u r e , d id n o t h a v e a h is to r y o fs e iz u r e s , d id 15 not hav e ast hm a, and di d no t hav e a hear t cond i t i on.

I t i s notapp ar ent f r om t he r ecor d whet herO v er t on m eantt hat A. B. v om i t ed a t herhom e ori n t he 16 car . However , t her e i s ev i dence t hat A. B. v om i t ed a t O v er t on' s hom e. 11 Di na Zapata, a li cens ed v ocat ion al nurse at U CC , t est ified thaton O cto ber 2, 2006, A

. B

. a rr ive d a t5 : 1 7 p . m . a n d wa s n o tb re a t h in g. A. B

. wa s c o o l to t h e t o u c h , d id n o th a ve 12 a pul se, hi s eyes we re open, and his pupi ls w ere di lat ed. Acc ordin g to Zapa ta, dil ated pupils u su a lly i n d icate that a person is "brain dead. " A. B. d id not h av e a p uls e w hil e at UC C. Zapa ta cal led 911, and Dr

. W esl ey Jak ubowsk i, the pedi atr ic ian wor ki ng at UC C on Oct ober 2, 2006, sta rt ed g iv ing A.B . "breaths ." Dr . J akubo wsk i immedi atel y placed a "bag mask " thatcov ers the mouth and nose on A.B.' s face. O v erton p er formed c ompre ss ion s to A .B.' s c hest

. Acc ordin g to Zapa ta, due t o the co mpres si ons, A.B . v omit ed ; t here was 13 a l arg e amountof v omitthat had a strong odor and col or of "c hil i. " Zapa ta sta ted, "[H ]e 14
w as a l ittl e g uy

v omit ing ex ces si v ely , more t h a n h is stomach co uld handl e." Zapa ta q uest ion ed Ov erton a bout A.B. 's pas t medica l his tor y i n order to deter mine w hy

A.B . was notbreath ing. Ov erton told Zap ata th at A.B . v om ited o ne tim e, passe d ou t, an d quit 15 16 breathi ng ; s he th en per formed C PRon h im i n the ca r on th e way to UC C. Ac cordin g to Zapa ta, Ov erton indi cat ed that A.B. had also passed out on October 1, but t hat s he di d not tak e A.B. to the doctor

. Zapa ta stat ed that O v erton was cal m, had "a s mir k o n her face," and did notapp ear to b e up set. On cross-examina tion, d efense co unse l asked, "You don 'tD r . R o tt a , t h e S t a te 's e x p e r t w itn e s s , e x p la in e d th a t e p in e p h r in e is "a h o r m o n e th a t is p r e s e n t in 17 t he b ody

. I t ' s al so known as adr enal i n. " Adr enal i n acce l er at es t he h ear t r at e an d i t i s t he " m ai n dr ug u sed t o r esusci t at e som eone i n car di or espi r atory a rr es t

. " Dr. R ot t a op i ned t hat epi nephr i ne " woul d no t cause sodi um l ev el s t o sky r ocket , " ev en i fm ul t i pl e do ses wer e ad m i ni st er ed.

O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , Z a p a ta e x p la in e d th a t i n tu b a tio n o c c u r s w h e n a tu b e is p la c e d in th e a irw a y. 18 E r c a n s ta te d th a t a f u ll a r r e s t o c c u r s w h e n t h e h e a r t s to p s a n d th e p e r s o n s to p s b r e a th in g o n h is 19 own. 12 know thatthatl ook w asn' t j ust[O v erton' s] bestface as she w as tr y ing to per

form C PRon thi s c hil d?" and Zapa ta repl ied , "N o." Zapa ta obser

v ed brui si ng on the l eft si de of A.B .' s l ow er r ib cag e tha t app eared to be fading

. It appeared to Z apata that A.B. had suffered a cardia c a rrest

. Zapa ta s tated that the onl y medic ati on g iv en to A.B. at UC C w as epi nephr ine

. O n re- directex aminat ion , 17 Zapa ta c lar ified thatparamedic s a rr ived at 5:20 or 5:22 p.m., and Teres a Ercan, an em ergency room nurse sup erv isor at Driscoll C hildren 's Hospital, arriv ed a t app rox ima tely 5: 27 p .m . Erc an t es ti fi ed t ha t on O cto be r 2 , 20 06 , s he rec ei v ed a c al l f rom UC C at 5: 23 p .m . and arriv ed a t the cent er f iv e min ute s later at 5:2 8 p.m . W hen Ercan arriv ed, param edics, re spond ing to Zapa ta' s 9 11 c a ll, h a d al re ady ar ri v ed and had es tabl is hed an air w ay i nto A.B. throug h "int ubati on, w here they [w ere] tak ing care of hi s b re athi ng for h im." Ercan 18 desc ri bed A. B. a s "v er

y pal e i n c olo r" w it h a d is tend e d s to m a ch . A.B. di d notmake any "spont aneous mov ements ." Ercan re ad her st atement int o the record: I as ked the woman w hen t he c hil d ha d his las t meal , and sh e s aid r ig ht before comi ng to the cl ini c he ate some chi li

. I ask ed if he had any al lerg ies to t he in g red i en t of c hi l i , an d s he d i d no t th i nk s o. Th ere w as s om e confusi on as to the s eq uence thatl ed up to t he full ar re st of thisch il d.[ ] 19

. . . . And s o I had as ked for s ome clar ific ati on. She s aid he a te t he c hil i and heE rc a n e x p l a i n e d , "I n tra o s s e o u s i s w h e n y o u e s ta b l i s h va s c u l a r a c c e s s b y a c c e s s i n g th e b o n e ." 20 D r . Jakubowsk i expl ai ned t hat epi nephr i ne i s t he f i r st dr ug a dm i ni st er ed when a chi l d i s dy i ng. 21 13 w as col d and I g av e hi m a bl anketand he v omit ed athome.

. . . E rc a n st a t e d t h a tO ve rt o n ' s st a t e m e n td id n o tc la ri f y t h e se qu e n c e fo r h e r. Er c a n ga ve A.B. hi s first dose of epinep hr ine

. The paramedic s s tar ted an intraoss eous needl e i nto 20 A.B. 's bone in order to "ra pid ly g iv e fluid s or medi cat ion " to him. The pa ra medic s p lac ed a bag of sal ine so lut ion w it h an 0.9 p ercent conc entrati on lev el hang ing w it h the fluid bei ng forced in to A .B.' s b ody throug h g ra v ity . Ercan did not acc ompany A.B . t o Spoh n. On cross -e x aminat ion , Ercan sta ted that Ov erton a ss is ted i n the resus ci tati on efforts by g iv ing A.B. c h e s tc o mp re s s i o n s . A c c o rd i n g t o E rc a n , O v e rt o n d i d n o ta p p e a r t o b e b e h a v i ng unusu all y

i n the si tuati on. Dr . Jakub owsk i tes ti fied that on Oct ober 2, 2006, he was w or ki ng at UC C, and w as called to e x am ine A.B. , w ho w as notresp ond ing to st imu li. According to Dr . Jakub owski A.B. did noth ave a p ulse, A.B. 's e xtrem ities w ere cold to the t ouch , and A .B.'s pup ils were dil ated; D r. Ja kubowsk i ex pla ine d tha t t hese sy mptoms si g nifie d tha t t he chi ld w as already dy ing

. Dr . J akubo wski st a te d thatbec ause a l ot of c hil i w as comi ng from A. B.' s mout h, they had to sucti on thos e cont ents from his mouth. Acc ordin g to Dr

. Jak ubowsk i, it w as a huge amou nt of chili and mo re tha n he would have expected to come out of a four-yearold ch il d. Dr . J akubo wsk i st a te d thathe k new thati t was chi li bec ause ithad an odor of chili and was a d a rk bro w nish colo r. Aft er an airw ay w as esta blished byintub ation , Dr. Jakub owski adm inistered four m illil iters of epine phrine through th e i nt ub at i on tu be b ecau se no IVhad bee n esta blished

. A.B. did no t have a pulse w hen he lef t w ith the param edics, 21 and he w as no t breat hing. Dr . Jakub owski noti c e d a bruise on the right side of A.B.'s14

upp er abd om en. According to D r. Jakub owski , it usua lly takes tim e for a bruise to app ear; the refore, he opine d tha t it was v eryunlikely tha t the bruise wa s cause d by C PR. Dr. Jakub owski state d tha t Ov erton did notindicate thatA .B. had a ny recen t me dical prob lem s, but s he s tated thatA.B . was not s ic k "t oo muc h." Sh e t o ld hi m thatA.B .' s vomit ing had sta rt ed th at da y . W hen t he St ate a sk ed Dr. Jak ubowsk i, on re- directex aminat ion , i f he noti ced anythi ng unus ual or i f Ov erton w as smi li ng , he sta ted, "I t hin k i t was ner v ous lau g hter so meti mes. . . . Ju st ner v ous lau g hter , I woul d s ay bec ause the s it uati on was trag ic , you k now ." Gemma M it chel l, a phlebo tomi st at U CC , t est ified thatsh e obs er v ed th at A .B.
v om it e d a r e d dish sub stan ce tha t had a strong odor of chili, w hatshe de scribed as a

" c o m in o " o r s p ic e sm e ll

. Mi t c h e ll sa w a lo to f li qu id a n d d id n o tse e a n y b e a n s a n d o n ly a li ttl e meat. M it chel l tes ti fied th at s he heard Ov erton s tate that A.B. "ate chi li and he was puni shed; so sh e puthi m asi de. And by the ti me she loo ked at hi m, he w asn' t breathi ng at al l. " John Dod g e, a paramedic w it h the Ci ty of Cor pus Chr is ti F ire D epar tment, tes ti fied t h a twh e n h e a rr ive d a tU CC , O ve rt o n wa s p e rfo rm in g C P R o n A

. B

. a n d A

. B

. d id n o th a ve a pu lse and was n ot brea thing. W hen h e asked what had h app ene d to A.B ., Overton told him that A.B. had chok ed on chi li

. W h ile cutti ng A.B .' s p ants , D odg e not ic ed w hat appeared to be b ur ns on A. B.' s leg

. Dod g e also saw so me br uis ing or

so re s o n A. B.' s r ig ht elbo w . On cross-ex am inatio n, Dod ge stated thatin h is report, he docu me nte d tha t the re w as a bruise on A.B .'s leg and some sores on his elb ow. How ever, Dodge ad mitt ed h e did not repor

t t hat t h e re w ere bur n mar ks

. On re- directex aminat ion , D odg e s tated thathe bel iev ed th e sores on A.B. 'sar ms were bur n mar ks

. Acc ordin g to Dod g e, i f there i s "a ny15

ki nd of i nkl ing of chi ld abus e," he is req uired to call poli ce; therefore, he cal led the pol ic e. Dod g e s tated thatA.B .' s p upi ls w ere dil ated by f iv e mill imet ers, cons is tent w it h s omeone w ho i s d ead on ar ri v al. D odg e ex pla ine d tha t al thoug h A. B.' s pu p ils we re d il ated to t hat poi nt, "w it h a c hil d you sti ll try t o wor k t hem. W it h an old er person you woul d c all the hosp ital and tell them w haty ou've got." Param edics took A.B. to Spohn , w hich is across the s treet fro m UC C. D odg e di d notobs er v e any br uis e on A.B. 's nos e or any head trauma. El li ot M cAl li ste r, a pa ra medic , t est ified that he as si ste d D odg e i n c ar ing for A .B. at UC C. Ac cordin g to McAl li ste r, he h eard Ov erton stat e that A.B. mig ht ha v e c hoked w hen he at e some chil i, and that becau se A.B. us ual ly bec ame sl eepy

after eati ng , s he th oug ht t h a t" h e wa s ge tt in g s le e p y a ga in b e c a u s e h e a t e a lo to f c h il i a n d h e wa s ju s tla yin g d o wn w ith a f ull stom ach. " McAllister saw two m arks o n A.B. 's a rm, w hich he believed looke d like cigarette bu rns. Rau l Gamez , a Cor pus Chr is ti pol ic e off ic er , te st if ie d tha t he w as dis patc hed t o Spohn to "back up the fire depar tment on an unrespon si v e four- y ear-o ld chi ld." Off ic er Gam ez obse rv ed so me sores on A. B.'s arm s, and some scratches o n his stom ach a nd h is "butt area." W hen the Stat e ask ed him if Ov erton appeared ups et, Gamezrespon ded t hat Overton did no t dis p la y a n y emo tion a nd h ad a blank sta re. Jesse Herna nde z , a police off ic er , s tated thathe o bser v ed s ev eral inj ur ies to A.B. , i ncl udi ng the follo w ing : (1 ) br uis ing across the tip of

his nose a nd d own his nose; ( 2) redn ess and scratche s alon g his neck, chin area , and torso; (3) boi ls or possible bu rns to his arm; and (4) bruising on his "butto ck s" and on his ri g ht knee. After obser v ing the inj ur ies , O ff ic er H er nandezco ntacted Child Prote ctiv e Services ( "CPS ").D u r in g a v id e o r e c o r d e d in te r v ie w w ith D e te c tiv e H e s s , O v e r to n s ta t e d t h a t s h e p u t s o m e "c h ili 22 powder " i n som e wat erand asked A. B. i f he want ed t o dr i nk i t

. D et ect i v e H ess asked, " W hat was t hat ?" and O v e r to n r e s p o n d e d , " Z a ta r a in 's , t h e s e a s o n in g . . . ." A c c o r d in g to O v e r to n , s h e r e f e r s to Z a ta r a in 's a s c h ili powder

. Dr

. Ro t t a t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t o f s a l t i n Za t a r a i n ' s s e a s o n i n g , a n d o n c e he l ear ned t hat O v er t on gav e A. B. Zat ar ai n' s he per f or m ed sev er al cal cul at i ons t o det er m i ne whet he r t he Zat ar ai n' s coul d ha v e cau sed t he l ev el of sodi um i n A. B. ' s sy st em . D r . R ot t a st at ed, " Because [ k nowi ng t he am ountof

Zat ar ai n' s nece ssar y t o cau se a sodi um l ev el of ov er250 ] w as ve ry i m po r t ant t o [ hi m ] " once he di scov er ed h ow m uch sodi um chl or i de was i n t he p r oduct , he per f or m ed ca l cul at i ons t o de t er m i ne t he a m ount neede d t o cau se t he l ev el of sodi um i n a chi l d A. B. ' s si z e. Accor di ng t o Dr. R ot t a, one qua r t erof a t easpoo n of Zat ar ai n' s has 0. 9 gr am s of sal t

. T her ef or e, base d on D r . R ot t a' s cal cul at i ons, i t woul d t ake t went y - t hr ee t ea s po on s of Z atarai n' s t o c au s e t he l eve l of so di um i n a ch i l d A

. B

. ' s si z e. D r. R ott a o pi ne d t ha t " i t w as very possi bl e f r om a l ogi st i cs st andpo i nt t hat som eone coul d ha v e be en m ade t o i ngestt hat qua nt i t y of sal t " f r om ei t hera sm al l or l ar ge cont ai nerofZ at ar ai n' s. D r . R ot t a t est i f i ed t hat he di scov er ed t hat a sev ent een- ounce cont ai nerof

Zat ar ai n' s was f ound at O v er t on' s hom e. Accor di ng t o D r . R ot t a, t her e ar e 13 4 t easpoo ns i n an sev ent een- ounce cont ai nerof Zat ar ai n' s. 16 Jodi M endoz a, a socia l w or ker at Dr is col l, tes ti fied th at O v erton t old her thatafter A.B. ate the c hil i, he w anted more, but she did not w ant to g iv e hi m any more. Rat her

than g iv e A. B. more c hil i, Ov erton g av e hi m a g las s of w ater mixed w it h an unkno w n amountof chi li powder

. O v erton t old M endoz a tha t w hen A. B. star ted d ri nki ng the mixture, he w as 22 ki ck ing and sc re aming

. After A.B. fini shed dr ink ing , he st umbled to the flo or and threw

up. A.B. tol d Ov erton t hat h e was col d; he then st opped t alk ing and became "let harg ic ." A.B

. w oul d not re spond to Ov erton' s q uest ion s, so she cal led Lar ry to come ho m e . Ove rt on sai d tha t A. B. was in shoc k b ut was breathi ng and moanin g . Ov erton w ra pped a bla nket around A .B., and w hen Lar ry ar ri v ed, they put him in the car and drov e to UC C. En route t o t h e ce n t e r, A

. B

. st o p p e d b re a t h in g a n d O ve rt o n p e rfo rm e d C P R. Ove rt o n t o ld Me n d o za that A.B. w as "fine" ear li er and did not "hav e any

sig ns of being si ck ." Ov erton i nformed Me ndoz a tha t A.B. had been hur ti ng hims elf dur ing the las t few w eeks and had "poo ped" in his bed the pre v ious night. Overton told Mendo z a tha t A.B. had mosquito bites on his ar m thathe s cratc hed a lot

. Ov erton s tated thatw hen one of her othe r chi ldren had an appoi ntment at U CC , a doct or told her to put Cl orox

on A.B. 's m osq uit o bites

. Acc ordin g t o O ve rt o n , A

. B

. h a d a " s t a p h a b s c e s s , [ s i c ] a s t a p h in fe ct io n " o n h is a rm . Me n d o zaM e n d o za e x p l a i n e d , "L a b i l e i s w h e n y o u 're u p a n d th e n y o u 're d o w n ; y o u r m o o d c h a n g e s ." 23 D r. R o tta s ta te d , "S ta b i l i zi n g i s m a k i n g s u re th a t [ th e p a ti e n t] h a s a n a i rw a y th a t y o u c a n ve n ti l a te 24 hi m t hro ug h, t ha t he ha s a pu l s e, t ha t he ha s a b l oo d p res s ure t ha t ' s m ea s ura bl e, an d p refera bl y t ha t t he re i s n o o n g o i n g C P R ."

D r . R ot t a exp l ai ned t hat r espi r at or y ar r est m eans t hat a per son st ops br eat hi ng a nd ca r di ac ar r est 25 o c c u r s w h e n th e h e a rt s to p s b e a ti n g . D r. R o tta fu rth e r e x p l a i n e d : "C a rd i a c a rr e s t m e a n s u s u a l l y th a t a re s p i ra to ry a rr e s t h a s a l re a d y h a p p e n e d , s o m e ti m e g o e s b y , a n d th e n y o u r h e a rt s to p s ." 17 tes ti fied th at O v erton d id not s how any emoti on. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , M endoz a s tated that she document ed that Ov erton' s mood w as "unremark abl e" from a listde sc ri bin g v ar iou s mood s i ncl udi ng "hos ti le, " "sa d," "an x iou s," "w it hdraw n," or "l abi le. " 23 Dr . D ani el W ag ner , an emerg ency medi ci ne physi ci an atSpohn , t est ified thatA.B

. w as dead w hen he ar ri v ed at Spohn. Ac cordin g to Dr . W ag ner , i t t ook tw enty min utes to "g et [A.B. ] bac k." D r. W ag ner st ated that w hen he ass ess ed A. B.' s brea thi ng , he di d not "g et v er y g ood breath sound s" from the int ubati on tube admini ste re d by EM S; t herefore, he remov ed th e tub e, pl aced a breathi ng mask on A.B. , and re int ubated A.B. w it h anot her tub e. T he int raosse ous line ("IO cath ") i n t o the lef t leg was no t f low ing properly , so Dr. W a gne r pu t a n IO ca th in A. B. 's righ t le g. Dr. W a gne r ad m in ist e re d ep in e p h rin e th ro u gh the intub ation tube . Dr. W agner opin ed tha t A.B. was no t deh y drate d ba sed o n lab resu lts. W hen t he St ate a sk ed hi m to d esc ri be Ov erton' s d emeanor , D r. W ag ner st ated, "Si len ce. She was ki nd of sho ck e d

. She did n'tsa y much at al l. I n fact, I don' t remember any re spons es. " Dr. Alex a n d re Rotta, a ped iatric cri tical care spe cialist at Driscoll and the St ate 's expert w itness, testif ied th at he treate d A.B

. on Oct obe r 2, 200 6. Dr. Rotta received a call that A.B. "present ed i n full ca rd iorespi ra tor y ar re st" to UC C, that Edg ar C ortes , M .D ., had sta bil iz ed A.B ., and A. B. was bei ng transport ed from S pohn t o D ri sc oll

. W hen A. B.

24 2518

ar ri v ed atD ri sc oll , he w as conne cte d to a v enti la to r a n d was "re sumi ng sp ontaneo us ci rc ula ti on . . . a pul se after minut es of CPR ." Howev er , he w as "v er y uns tabl e w it h l ow blo od press ure, i n s hock ." Dr . R otta ex amined A.B . from head t o t o e and noti ced numerous inj ur ies to A.B. Beca use the i nju ri es on A. B.' s b ody w ere too numerous to c ount and add re ss i n a particu lar note in his report, Dr. Rotta aske d a foren sic nurse to take picture s of the injuries. D r . R otta n ot ed , am on g ot he r i nj ur i es , th e fol l ow i ng : ( 1)a n ul c erat ed l es i on o n A. B. ' s a r m; (2 ) br uis es to the nose, mouth, torso, knee, shi n, and butto ck s; and (3) n u m e ro us scratche s, to the face, neck, arm , chest , and b ack, am ong oth er p laces. A ccording to Dr. Rotta, some o f the sc ra tch es w ere on areas of the body thatA.B . c oul d nothav e reache d. Dr . R otta sta ted t hat A .B.' s n ail s were notlo n g a n d t h a t it w oul d be "v er y , v er y hard" for A.B. to h a ve caused t he s cratc hes that w ere on his body

. Fur ther more, there was no evidence of

b lood , skin, or sca bs und erne ath A .B.'s f ingernails. W hen the St ate asked Dr. Rotta t o des cr ibe State' s Ex hib it28, a pict ure of the br uis e on A.B. 's butt ock s, he s tated , "So w hat y ou see here are i njuries that are on area s tha t are totally exposed a n d would actu al l y be th e area s of c on ta ct i f th i s c hi l d w ere to ha v e s pe nt a s i g ni fi c an t am ou nto f t i me f lat on a hard surface. One cou ld also po stulat e tha t this is an area of imp act i f the child
w ere to be hi t on thi s area ." Acc ordin g to Dr . Rott a, the brui se on A.B.' s arm was about the si z e of an adul t thumb and coul d hav e been caus ed by someone forceful ly sq ueez ing the ar m; and the b ru is e on A.B. 's nos e was not l ik ely caused by

m edi cal treat ment. Dr. R otta testif ied th at A.B . had some older skin lesions to his footthathe be liev ed were insect bites. Dr. Rotta did no t see an y scarring or ev iden ce tha t the lesions w ere "scrat c h e d ha rd enoug h to break the ski n." Acc ordin g to Dr . Rott a, this w as the one part of A.B. 's bodythatD r . R ot t a st at ed t hat nor m al chl or i de l ev el s ar e be t ween 98 and 108

. 26 19 did no t have scratche s. A c o m p u te r ax ial tomog ra m ( "CAT") s can of A.B.' s h ead rev eal ed th at A .B. had swell ing of the b ra in, ble edi ng ins ide the brain , and ble edi ng around the b ra in. Ac cordin g to D r. R otta, the ble edi ng i n the brain co uld hav e been caus ed by the hig h lev els of sodi um or by trauma. D r. R otta opi ned t hat t he C AT sc an i s b etter for o bser

v ing bl eedi ng i n the brain and is not suffici ent t o obs er v e s mall i nju ri es to t he s cal p or the sk ull. Dr. R otta tes ti fied th at i t was not o ne i sol ated inj ur y thatco ncer ned hi m , b u t th e "tot ali ty of the injuries" o n a child th at w as prese nte d w ith cardiore spi ra t ro y a rr est an d w as dying . Dr

. R otta s ta te d, "I t i s n otone iso lated s k i n i nj ur y t ha t w e' v e s ee n th atwou l d ma k e me conce rned . It's the to tality of it, th e b ru ises, the bruises of dif feren t ages, the scratches, the s cratc hes in pla ces w here a chi ld woul dn'tnormal ly be able to reach. " D r. R otta w as conv inc ed th at a cr ime had oc cur re d and sug g est ed th at t he pol ic e bec ome i nv olv ed. After lea rn ing thata bl ood t estat Spohn rev eal ed th at A .B. had "i ncredi bly hi g h" sodiu m an d chloride lev els in his bloo d, Dr. Rott a drew mo re b lood to be se nt to Dri scoll's lab for testing. Dr. R otta state d, "A nd your f irst react ion as yo u e ncou nte r the highest sodiu m rep orted in men is maybe this is not rig ht. I nee d to ab solute ly conf irm tha t." A.B.'s sodi um l ev el at Spohn was 242 and hi s c hlo ri de l ev el w as 222. To reach thi s l ev el of 26 sodi um, ac cordin g to Dr

. Rotta, A.B. w oul d hav e had to ing est tw enty-t hree te aspoo ns of Zat arain 's or

si x teas poons of sal t. D r. R otta sta ted thos e lev els w ere the hi g hesthe h ad ev er se en i n a p ati e n t a n d "arg uabl y [t he s odi um l ev el w as] one of the hi g hestev er re por ted." The tes ts of A.B.' s b loo d at Dr is col l put his sodium lev el at g re ater than 250 and his ch lor ide l ev el abov e 200. D r. Rotta tes ti fied that in addit ion to the b loo d c hemis tr y tes t,Accor di ng t o Dr. R ot t a, sodi um i s v er y t i ght l y cont r ol l ed b y t he b odyand i s kep t w i t hi n a nar r ow 27 r ange of135 t o 14 5. A pe r son wi t h a sodi um l ev el of 160 or 165 usual l y does not occuri n pe opl e who can st and up a nd get w at er . Som eone who was wal k i ng ar ound wi t h a sodi um l ev el 165 woul d exh i bi t abn or m al behav i or . D r . R ot t a ha s seen chi l dr en wi t h v ar i ous i l l nesses t hat hav e el ev at ed so di um l ev el s who d r i nk wat er out of t he t oi l et oran aqua ri um . D r. R ott a di d no t bel i ev e t hi s was a case o fa m i l d el ev at i on o fsodi um b e c a u s e A .B . h a d " f r e e a c c e s s to w a te ra n d ju s t c h o s e n o t t o d r in k it" a n d m ild s a lt in to x ic a tio n "u s u a lly h a p p e n s i n p e o p l e th a t d o n 'th a v e a c c e s s to w a te r, s u c h a s i n fa n ts w h o c a n 'tg e t w a te r b y th e m s e l v e s ."

D r. R ott a s t ated t ha t res us c i t ati on o c c urs i n a pa t i en t tha t "ha s l os t co m pl ete vi t al si gn s an d i f l eft 28 a l o n e w i l l d i e ." 20 a s eparate l ab c onducted a tes t on the a rt er ial bl ood g ases , "a sec ond w ay of loo ki ng at sodi um" l ev els

. "The ar ter ia l gas al so confir med a s odi um [l ev el] thatw as g re ater than 250." Dr . R otta tes ti fied that sodi um lev els should be between 135 and 1 45, a nd th at "t he immedi ate e x pec te d react ion s [ of sodi um i ntox ic ati on] woul d be that of dis comfort ," w it h the p ossib ility

of nause a and v omit ing

. W it hin hal f an hour , a pati ent woul d hav e a "pronounc ed th irst" and "tr y to seek w ater at any cos t." Acc ordin g to Dr . R otta, a pe rs on 27 doe s not " tolera te having a high so dium withoutwanting to f ix it." Th is pronou nced thirst
w ould be followed bymore d iscom fort, cha nges in consciou sness, chan ges in beha v ior, troubl e breathi ng , l oss of cons ci ousne ss , s eiz ures, and final ly , c ardio re spi ra tor y ar re st. Dr . R otta tes ti fied th at he kne w A. B. had a "muc h g re ater ch ance of not s ur

v iv ing tha n s u rvi v ing ," butthatsi nce there i s a n "out si de c hance of sur v iv al, " they

co nti nued t o tr y to re su sc it a te him as they woul d w it h any

ch il d. Ac cordin g to Dr . R otta, i f a heal thy

28 chi ld sto ps breathi ng and his hear t s tops beat ing , it is pos si ble for d oct ors t o resus ci tate tha t child. How ever, if the patie nt goes into shock or a m ore severe situatio n, th en it is mu ch ha rder to resuscita te. Dr. Rotta sta ted thataf ter six to ten minu tes of

arrest, "a lmo st
u n ive rs a ll y, u n le s s in ve rysp e c if icci rc u m s t a n c e s , if a p e rs o n su rvi ve s [ , ] t h e y wil l h a ve ma ssiv e resi d u a l in ju rie s, such as inju ries to the brain f rom lack of oxy gen. Th ey w ill21

hav e—i f they

manag e to sur

v iv e, t hey

are l ik ely

not to be abl e to int eractw it h the outs ide
w orld." If a child goes into cardia c arrest outsid e the h ospita l, "the re is l ess tha n a on e in ten c hance o f

s u rv iv al; and almos t al l thos e pat ien ts that sur v iv e hav e s ig nific ant neurolo g ic al dev ast ati on." Dr . R otta opi ned t hat A.B. coul d hav e s ur v iv ed i f he had be en tak en to the hospi tal "more q uic kl y ." Dr . R otta created a repor t documenti ng A.B.' s medic al his tor y thathe a cq uired from Ov erton, inc lud ing , among othe r thi ng s, w hat l ead t o the ca tas trop h ic e v ent. D r. R otta tes ti fied th at he w as not informed that A.B. had been v omit ing prev iou sl y , or thatA.B . had pass ed outon t he prev iou s d ay . Fur ther more, Ov erton d id not i ndi cat e tha t A. B. h ad suffered a sei z ure. Ov erton t old D r. R otta tha t o n O ct o b e r 2, 20 06, s he had an appoi ntment w it h the ch iropract or and that A.B. w as w ell unti l after they r e tu rn ed home. Ov e rt o n t o l d D r . R o tt a t h a to n t h e w a y t o t h e c h i ro p ra ct o r , A

. B

. w a s u p s e tb e c a u s e he
w ant ed to eat atMcDonald's; bu t beca use h e w as misb eha v ing, Overton told h im he could eat w hen t hey

g ot ho me. Ov erton tol d Dr . Rott a that she gav e A.B. some "chil i" w hen t hey a rrive d ho m e , a n d he at e a " sign if ica n t a m o u n t. " W h e n Overto n to ld A .B

. to st o p ea ti n g, he a llegedly

had a tem per tantrum , so she mix ed some "chili powder" w ith w ate r and to ld A.B. thati f he w anted to ea t, he s houl d dr ink the mixture. Ov erton t old D r. R otta that A.B. drank the water

w it h c hil i powder

"to her surpr is e" and "someti me later he stu mbled to t he groun d an d starte d ha v ing diff iculty brea thing, ha d a cha nge in his level of consciou sness

. . . [and] feltcold . . . ." Acc ordin g to Dr . R otta, Ov erton s tated thatafter A.B . s tumbl ed, he was "drif

ting in and ou t of

consciou sness. " Af

ter Overton called him , Larry arriv ed wi thin ten or fiftee n min u tes. Overton an d La rry atte mp ted to w arm A. B. in a w arm b ath . Dr

. Rotta s tated thatthi s a cti on was count er int uit iv e because a bath cool s a person dow n, "no22

matter w hat." Ov erton and Lar ry deci ded to tak e A.B. to U CC ; ac cordin g to Ov erton, A.B. sto pped breathi ng en route. Dr. Rotta no ted thathe foun d Overton's descript ion of the tim e line un usua l. Dr

. Rotta testif ied th at th ere w ere several things a bou t Ov erton 's description thatdid notmake sens e. Dr . R otta sta ted: One i s w hy

so meone woul d g iv e pow der and w ater

to a chil d. Seco nd i s t he fact th at t he rep ort was that the d ifficul ty st arted i mmediat ely

after

. . . he drank the p ow der

and w ater , and then the 'I am c old ,'

. . . st atement that the chi ld suppo sedl y

made, and t hen try ing to w ar m up th e c hil d by g iv ing a ba th, the n takin g the child to a cl inic as opp osed to an em ergency dep artm entin full ar re st.

. . . . I am n ot c onv inc ed th at t he hi sto ry I obtai ned represent ed th e facts that occ ur re d tha t ni g ht i n the ir enti re ty

. So for w hatev er reason , s ome o f the infor mati on, you know , w asn' t v er y forthc oming

. There w as someth ing about the i nter v iew [w it h the Ov ertons ] t hat made m e thi nk, y ou k now w hat, may be thi s i s real ly

j ustnot ev er

ythi ng thathappen ed. Acc ordin g to Dr . R otta, A.B . ex hib it ed s y mptoms of sodi um poi soni ng . He sta ted: W e ha v e a c h i l d t h a tw a s w e l l u n t i l t h a ta ft e r n o o n , t h a th a d b e h a v i oral is sues , t hat was hav ing temper tant ru ms, that w as then g iv en s omethi ng that is not to rew ard hi s b ehav ior , probabl y to puni sh his behav ior , t hat t hen g oes into ca rdiorespirat oryarrest and before do ing so has sy mp tom s of drift ing i n and outof cons ci ousne ss , di ff ic ulty breathi ng , w hic h i s probabl y an i ss ue w ith the acid build-u p in the bod y , and then arrests. By then I hav e a v ery cl e a r caus e rela ti onshi p effect , as i n thi ng s t hat h a p p e n e d pri o r to hi m a rre st in g were d ire ct ly re sp o n sib le fo r hi m arre st in g. An d th e on e th i ng t ha t s ta nd s o uti s t he fact th atI h av e s om eo ne t ha t to l d me that he was g iv en s omethi ng that he s houl dn'thav e been g iv en, water w it h chi li powder , k now ing thati t i s v ery li ke ly a t t he ti me, and now I know for sure, t hat t he powder

thatw as g iv en c oul d c ontai n v er y hi g h l ev els of sal t. Det ect iv e F . Mi chael H ess , a detecti v e w it h the C or pus Chr is ti Pol ic e D epar tment, t e s t if ie d t h a th e re c e ive d " a p a ge " t h a ta ch il d , A

. B

. , h a d st o p p e d b re a t h in g. De t e ct ive23

Hes s was ins tr uct ed to g o to Spohn, but he recei v ed a sec ond pag e d irecti ng hi m to Dr is col l. W hen D etecti v e H ess ar ri v ed, h e aske d O verton to g o to the p oli ce sta ti on to answer so me q uest ion s. D ur ing the int er v iew w it h Ov erton, he took bre aks to cal l Dr . R otta and ano ther

of ficer , Detecti v e H ug o St imml er , w ho was tak ing pi ctu re s o f Ov erton' s h ouse. Dur ing D etecti v e H ess 's tes ti mony , t he ju ry s a w a v ide o recordin g of his i nter v iew w it h Ov erton. On O cto ber

5, 2006, Det ect iv e H ess w ent w it h a p hotog ra pher to Ov erton' s h ouse. Det ect iv e H ess tes ti fied th at t here was a "pi ll box " or "pil l bottl e" on a shel f that c ontai ned a brow n powder

thatappeared to be a sp ic e. Dr . F er nandez , t he medi cal e xam ine r for N ueces C ounty w ho per

formed th e aut opsy, testif ied th at he o bserved three sm all rou nd area s a t the back of A.B.'s forea rm that were bur n- li ke sc ar ri ng . After tak ing a bi opsy of the i nju ri es, D r. F er nandez det ermin ed th at th e w oun ds did no t h a ve s t a p h in fection . "[T he wound ] had a sma ll amount o f inflammati on and there was los s o f the s ki n s ur face and some o f the app end ages tha t are on the skin surface. " Th e w oun ds w ere cau sed, in Dr . Fernan dez's opi nio n, by

co ntact w it h a h ot s ur

face or flame. In examini ng A.B .' s t ong ue, D r. F er nandez obser v ed a fresh impress ion of teeth and blee di ng i ns i de t he t on g ue mu s c l e, w hi c h D r . F er na nd ezo pi ne d w as a b i te ma r k , w hich commonl y

oc curs d ur ing "se iz ure ty pe conv uls ion s." W hen Dr . Fer nandezex amined the sto mach, he not ed th at t he s tomach l ini ng had infla mmation and dis col orati on, w hic h was cons is tent w it h i rr it ati on from s altor sp ic es. Af

ter remov ing the sk ull , Dr . Fer nandeznote d t h a t t h e re w a s a s u b
- s c a l p h e mo r r h a g e —t h a t i s b l e e d i n g u n d e r n e a t h t h e s c a l p i n t h e s o ft ti ss ue betw een the sc alp and the sur face of t he sk ull

. This ty pe of hemorr hag e woul d notO v er t on h ad f i v e chi l dr en, i ncl udi ng A. B. , and was pr egnan t wi t h he rsi xt h chi l d when A. B. di ed. 29 24 hav e been seen by doct ors in the emerg ency ro om. The hemor rh ag e woul d nothav e been ca u se d by a "s im p le , regu la r fa ll. " Ac co rd in g to Dr. Fe rn a n d e z, th e su b -sc a lp he m o rrh a ge w as an i mpact or

trauma- ty pe i nju ry

and w oul d nothav e been caus ed by the hi g h s odi um lev el. A chi ld w it h an impact i nju ry to the h ead woul d be "daz ed, may be bec oming uncon sc iou s o r becomi ng —g oin g i nto a coma. . . . H e may hav e s ome v omit ing al so w it h it , s eiz ure ty pe acti v ity . . . ." Dr

. Fer nandez tes ti fied that A.B. 's deat h was non- acc ide ntal , and he c las si fied th e ma nne r of

dea th as a h om icide—a d eat h at th e ha nds o f ano the r. Ov erton t est ified thatA.B . was "obses sed w it h eat ing " an d t h a t a t ev er y meal , he ate more than her oth er children. Ov erton wa s conce rned beca use A. B. ate as mu ch 29 food as she and Larr

y ate. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, A.B. "w as alway s l ooki ng for c ru mbs on the flo or" and if she took hi m to t he s tore, s he had to pu t hi m in the shopp ing ca rtso that he woul d noteat off

the floor

. Ov erton s tated that she fed A.B . t hree meal s a day and snac ks

. Ov erton e x p la in e d t h a t w hen A. B. h ad been i n her home "l ong er ," A. B. "was hav ing more and more is sues w it h eati ng off the floor and g etti ng i nto t he trash and eat ing the cat food." W hen Ov erton "caug ht" A.B. eati ng somethi ng inappropr iat e, she t ook aw ay one of A.B .' s p ri v il eg es, s u ch a s g iv ing hi m a "ti meout," sendi ng hi m to h is bed unti l "he c ou l d c a l m d o w n , " o r

n o ta l l o w i n g h i m t o h a v e a s n a c ko r d e s s e rt

. A

. B

. wo u l d b ec om e extremely

ups et w hen he w as not a ll ow ed to eat the food t hat h e wanted to ea t. Ov erton claime d t h a ts h e i nforme d Billeau x thatA.B. was eating inapp ropriate ly and ex cessively and that Bil lea ux

told Ov erton that she w oul d "look in to" f ind ing a doct or to ex amine A.B. On S eptember

12, 2006, the O v ertons , and t h e c hil dren were i n a c ar ac ci dent.25

Ove rt o n exp la in e d th a t s h e w a s b lo o d y, whic h s ca re d h e r ch ild re n , who w e re scre a m in g. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, the p aramedic s a sk ed i f any one was inj ured and she and her daug hters i ndi cat ed th at t hey w ere i n ju re d a n d w ent t o the hos pit al. O v erton s uffered
w hip las h, he r face w as br uis ed, h er frontfour teeth w ere l oose, and her l ip w as "bust ed." Acc ordin g to Ov erton, from thatpoi nt for w ard s he was "re all y

not out o f bed." Ov erton recal led thatA.B . was v er y des tr uct iv e and thoug ht i t was "funny " w hen he broke her oth er children's to y s. Ov erton alleged tha t the majo ri t y o f t h e toys that Ham il sentfor A .B. w ere broken. W hen A. B. b ro ke a s ibl ing 's toy , O v erto n woul d tak e one of A.B. 's toys away

for the d ay. Ov erton state d tha t she to ld Hamil tha t she to ok away A.B.'s Spi der man toy

for a day , but that she g av e i t bac k t o A. B. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , O v erton d e n ie d t e ll in g H a m il t h a tsh e h a d b ro k e n A

. B

. ' s t o y. Overton testif ied that A.B. had mo squito bites o n his arm th at he had "picked " un til they bec ame i nfected. H o wever, a ccordin g to Ov erton, she coul d nottak e A. B. t o the d o ct o r b e caus e he did not hav e i nsurance. O v erton c lai med thatsh e att empted t o g et Medicaid for A.B. b efore the car acciden t, butco uld notb ecau se she did nothave A.B.'s soc ial secur ity

card. Ov erton' s other

chil d, S.O., apparent ly also had a mosq uit o bi te t hat
w as infect ed, s o Ov erton t ook S.O. to the d octo r so that they co uld g et medi ci ne for the infect ion

. The doct or

g av e Ov erton a n ant ibi oti c t o treat t he i nfecti on, a nd ac cordin g to Ov erton, tol d her

to put C lorox

mixed w it h water

on A.B. 's w ounds , w hic h she did

. Ov erton sta ted t hat a lt houg h s he had enoug h ant ibi oti c for both A.B. and S.O. , w hen s he attempted to giv e A.B . the med icine, he "spit it back" at her. Overton claime d tha t she did not m ake any more att empts to g iv e A. B. t he medi ci ne bec ause she w as "not i n any sh ape t o tr

y and force him to t ake it ." Howev er , ac cordin g to Ov erton, A.B. ac cept ed th e C lorox "treatment. "26

Ov erton t est ified thatA.B . "t hrew fits " and that Ha mil had inq uired i f Ov erton was prepared to ca re for a chil d w ho "maythrow ex ces si v e fits ." Acc ordin g to Ov erton, dur ing his "fits ," A. B. woul d "throw hi msel f to the f lo or

or bang hi s h ead on the wall ." Ov erton sta ted, "It w as more li ke dest ru cti v e in himsel f, li ke he w as tr y ing to hur

t hi msel f in hi s fit s." To address the "fits, " Ov erton s ent A .B. to his bed and told hi m to stay there unti l he was cal m, and once A.B. calmed dow n, he w as all ow ed to get out of bed. O v erton c lai med that under C PS ru les , she w as not all ow ed to re strain A.B. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, after the c ar accide nt, A. B.'s tem per tan trum s increased f rom o ne e v erytwo or three days to one every fewhours. A "c oupl e of peopl e" adv is ed Ov erton to send A.B. back to Hami l, but Ov erton did no t w antto send him ba ck. Ov erton t est ified thaton O cto ber 1, 2006, Lar ry took the chi ldren, ex cept for A. B., to c hurch. O v erton s tay ed home w it h A. B., and t hey w atc hed c artoons tog ether

. Ov erton sta ted t hat s he fell as lee p, an d w hen she woke up, s he found A. B. i n the ki tch en. Ov erton all eg ed th at A .B. "had g otten i nto the refri g erator" and had eaten an unkno w n amount of food. A. B. b ecame upsetbec ause he wanted to c onti nue eati ng , so Ov erton tol d hi m to sta y i n hi s room unti l Lar ry

ca me home t o tal k to him. Ac cordin g to Ov erton, w hil e he w as in his room, "A. B. g ot real ly ups et an d he pooped hims elf" and then "smeared i t al l ov er the
w all and all ov er the sh eet s, and it g ot all over the ma ttress." Ov erton state d tha t A.B. told her he had defecated becau se he was mad at her

. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , O v erton s tated that A.B. "pooped at w il l.

. . . [H ]e w oul d sq uat dow n and he w oul d push unti l he poop ed and t hen he w oul d throw i t and smear

i t." W hen Larry

arriv ed h om e, he w entto A.B. 's room a nd clea ned up the mess. Larry re mov ed th e matt re ss and took i t out si de and w ashed i t. A.B . as ked if he c o uld hav e aT he t r i al cour t adm i t t ed Def ense Exhi bi t 9, a can o fv eget abl e be efsoup t hat O v er t on t est i f i ed was 30 s i m i l a r to th e ty p e o f s o u p s h e u s e d to m a k e "c h i l i ." 27 "warm bath ," an d acco rding to Ov erton , Larryrespon ded , "No, you are no t going to ta ke a war m bath. Y ou jus t g ot poop all ov er the pla ce and smeared it all ov er the pla ce. " On cross -e xa m in a ti o n , O vert o n st a te d th a t a s p u n ish m e n t, La rry to o k A .B . o u ts id e an d washed him w it h the w ater

hos e. In he r sta tement to D etecti v e H ess , O v erton e x pla ine d tha t A. B.
w a s n a k e d when La rry w ashe d him w ith the w ate r hose. After Larry w ashe d A.B .'s mattress w it h the hos e, he l eft itouts ide to dr y . A.B. 's sheets w ere pl aced in the t ra sh can, butaccording to Overton, be cause A.B. at tem pte d to ta ke the shee ts outof the trash , Larry to ok t he s he et s o ut s i de a nd e v en tu al l y b ur ne d th em . Lat er thatday, Gregory called and a sked if O v erton 's ch ildren could go to h er hou se to pl ay w it h Greg or

y 's ch il dren. Ov erton a ll ow ed her ch il dren, e x ceptfor A .B. and S. O., to g o to Greg or

y 's hous e. Ove rt o n ev entual ly al lowed th e c hil dren to sp end t he ni g ht at Greg or y 's hous e. Ov erton, Lar ry , A.B. , and S.O. ate at a Me x ic an re sta urant. Ac cordin g to O v erton, A. B. d id not li ke Popey e's ch ic ken; howev er , he li ked spi cy foods, suc h as jalape nos a nd sa lsa. W h e n t hey returned hom e f rom th e restau rant, A.B. was hungry ag ai n, s o Ov er

to n prep ared "c hi l i ." Ov er to n de s c r i be d th e "c hi l i " as "a be ef st ew w i th s om e stu ff added t o i t." Ov erton a ss erted t hat s he refers to an y mixture as "ch il i, " and that the ingredient s she use d to m ake th e "ch ili" w ere a con den sed so up a nd " som e Zata ra in 's seas oned s alt ." 30 At t his poi nt, there was no mattre ss o n A.B .' s b ed; O v erton e x pla ine d tha t und erne ath the m attre ss w as a piece of "ba re plyw ood ." Overton state d tha t A.B. put his sl eepi ng bag on t he pl yw ood and then lay dow n to g o to sl eep. Ac cordin g to Ov erton, A.B.28

had a temper tantr um about fifteen minut es after he w ent to be d and tol d her thathe was no t g oi ng t o s l ee p on th e pl yw oo d. A .B

. ev en tu al l y s l ep t on t he fl oo r

i n Ov er to n' s b ed roo m. In he r sta temen t to Dete cti v e H ess , O v erton s aid thatsh e and Lar ry put A.B. on h is bed
w it hout a matt re ss ; s he tol d A.B. that he c oul d s lee p on the p ly w ood bec ause "he mes sed up." On O cto be r

2 , 20 06 , Ov er

to n, A .B ., and S.O . wok e up at ap prox i ma te l y 7:0 0 a. m. O ve rt o n fe d t h e ch il d re n b re a kfa s t , a n d t h e n t h e y we n tt o b e d t o wa t c h ca rt o o n s fo r two hours. Lar ry

we nt t o wor k. Ov erton fel l asl eep, and w hen s he awoke, A.B . was in the pantr y and w as on a sto ol by "w here al l the s ug ar

and the— on th e s hel f that ha d unsweetened ch ocol ate, sug ar , [ and] a s pic e rack ." Ov erton c lai med that A.B. had bee n eat ing somet hing f rom th e pa ntry, but she did no t know w hatit was. Overton putA.B. in "tim eou t" for three minu tes. A.B. then told Overton tha t he wanted to eat ; howev er, Overton w ant ed A. B. to wait unti l Lar ry

ca me home bec ause they pl anned o n tak ing t he c hil dren to M cD onal d's for lun ch. A. B. b ecame upset , and acc ordin g to O v erton, "sta rt ed th ro w ing anot her fit and he pooped ag ain in his pants

. And stu ck his hand dow n his pants and g ra bbed i t and threw itat [Ov erton]. " Ove rt o n gav e A. B. a "w ipe y " so thathe c oul d w ipe hi msel f of f and atte mp ted to help him cha nge his clothe s. Ov erton testif ied th at "a s soon as w e got him in new cl othes and I went a nd puthi s cl othes i nto t he washer and g ot ev er

ythi ng cl eaned up, [A.B. ] poo ped on hims elf ag ain ." Acc ordin g to Ov erton, A.B. st ated, "I' m g oin g to poop on you, I'm g oing to poo p on y ou b ecau se y ou won't feed me ." Overton atte mp ted to calm A.B. d o wn, b u t he beg an s meari ng the "poop" on the floor

. Ov erton t hen t old A.B . s he
w oul d gi ve h im so methi ng to eat; she fed him l eft-ov er "ch il i" from the prev iou s n ig ht.29

Ov erton t est ified thatS.O . "us ed t h e oppor tuni ty to g o and g et a hot d og out of the re frig erator

. And he [S. O.] w as eati ng a ho t d o g." Ove rt on ex pla ine d tha t bec ause she
w as desc ri bin g ev ents thatoc cur re d el ev en month s i n the pas t, her ac countof the e v ents
w ere "probabl y

not" in the e x actorder thatthey

oc cur re d. W hen Lar ry

ar ri v ed at the house A.B. w as eati ng . Lar ry cl eaned u p the mess that A.B. al le ged lymade an d Ov erton l ay dow n to re st. O v erton a nd her so n, I .O. , had an appoi ntment w it h the ch iropract or at 2:00 p.m.; Lar ry

and A.B. ac compani ed th em. They s t o p p e d a tthe drive-thru at McDonald 's before going to the chirop ractor's of f ice; La rry boug ht "s ome food" and O v erton b oug ht an i ce cream cone. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, S.O. did not w ant a nythi ng from Mc Don ald 's ; how ev er , A.B. sta rt ed cr y ing becau se he wanted some food. Ov erton s tated thatA.B . was not a ll ow ed to hav e any fo od bec ause he had already eate n at home. Theythen w ent to Gr e gory's house to pic k u p I. O., w ent t o the chi ro pract or , and then retur ned I .O. to Greg or y 's hous e. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, w hen t hey pic ked up I. O. from Greg or y 's hous e, s he feltl ik e s he wanted to v omit , so she g ot out o f the c ar and infor med Greg or

y thatA.B . had "been poopi ng al l o ver h imself." Ov erton state d, "[ Gregory] asked me if [A.B. ] w as sick and I told her no, I didn'tthink he w as sick, that he was say ing he was doi ng i t t o make me mad." On cross -e x aminat ion , O v erton deni ed te ll ing Greg or

y thatA.B . was "tr

y ing to pis s h er

off ." Ov erton t est ified thatLar ry dropped A.B., S.O ., and her off at the h ouse at approx imat ely

2:30 . Ov erton stat ed that w hen they ar ri v ed, A .B. w ent t o the ki tch en and sa id th a t h e w a s h u n gry. Overto n to ld hi m th a t h e ha d a lre a d y e a te n an d he st a rt e d cryin g. Ov erton deci ded to allo w A.B . t o eatso me more "c hil i. " Be fore s er v ing the chi li to A.B. , s he put s ome Zat arain 's int o i t. Ac cordin g to Ov erton, ittook A.B . abo ut tw enty

min utes to eat,O v er t on st at ed t hat she l eft herf r ont doo rope n when she m et H al l erout si de. 31 30 w hic h s he found unusu al becau se "itw as v er y rare tha t i t t ook [A.B .] more than fiv e or ten min ute s to eat ." W hen A.B. f inished eat ing, he asked for mo re chili, but, Overton to ld him "no." Ov erton t est ified thatA.B . s tar ted k ic ki ng , s creaming , thro w ing himsel f to t he g ro und, and s tati ng thathe was "g oin g to poop" on Overton. O ve rt o n ca ll e d L a rry t o co m e h o m e , b u th e t o ld h e r t h a th e w a s n o ta b le t o le a ve w or k a t t hat moment

. Ov erton t hen c all ed H all er and infor med her

thatA.B . "had been poo ping himse lf

multip le time s t hatday and tha t he was telling [her] he w as going to do it ag ain and that the l astt ime he di d i t [ S.O. ] was g etti ng i nto t he poop and that [Ov erton] did n't f e e l lik e [she] w as up to cl eani ng i t and ke epi ng [S. O.] out of it and t aki ng ca re of [A.B .] and ev er

ythi ng al l at on ce. " O v erton t hen t ook S.O. t o H all er's hous e. Ov erton tes ti fied th at s he di d notg o i nto Hal ler's house , but that Hal ler met h er i n the fronty ard. 31 A few m inu tes later , Ov erton w alk ed back to her house , and w hen she entered her home, she fo u n d A

. B

. i n t h e kitche n calm ly sitting dow n; he asked for a drink of w ate r. Larry cal led , and Ov erton t old hi m thatA.B . was cal ming dow n and they w ere g oin g to tak e a nap. Ov erton t est ified thatas sh e hung up the phone, A.B. st arted c ry ing and sai d tha t he
w ant ed the Z ata rain's. Overton told A.B. that he had already eat en and that he had to w ait for hi s n ext meal ; how ev er , A.B. "w as jus t s creaming and sc re aming and sta rt ed to throw hims elf on the flo or

ag ain ." Hal ler

then call ed Ov erton a nd as ked for a dia per for S .O. ; Hal ler ca me to Ov erton' s front d oor , and O v erton g av e her the dia per . Acc ordin g to Ov erton, A.B. w as "throw ing a fiti n the ki tch en din ing ro om area" w hen s he ans w ered th e door

. Ov erton t est ified thatA.B

. cont inu ed to threaten to "poop" and ask for food, so she deci ded t hat i f she g av e hi m "a l ittl e bi t of the flav or of w hat was in the c hil i that itwoul d g et31

him to c alm dow n." Ov erton s tated , "I put— I had hi s c up of w ater and I puta c oupl e of spr ink les of the Z atarain 's in the w ater

. And I fill ed the w ater up the re st of the way . And then I t houg ht you k now w hat? That' s a l ittl e too much. So I took so me of w hat was in the cup and put iti n a s ipp y cu p. . . . And I handed i t t o [A .B.] and sai d, you c an hav e—you know , you c an hav e thi s i f y ou want t his , t o tr y and cal m him dow n." Acc ordin g to Ov erton, A.B. "took

a c oupl e s ips " and then ask ed her to put more "s eason ing" into h is cu p. Ov erton s tated thatw hen she w as attempt ing to pour some more seas oni ng into the c up, A.B. "kno cked it ou t of

[ her] han d." Overton w as unsu re if sh e putany more sea sonin g in the c up before A. B. g ra bbed t he cup and sta rt ed dri nki ng agai n. Ov erton did not t hin k t hat A.B. drank all o f

the m ixture. On cross-ex am inatio n, Overton sta ted thatZatarain 's is chili powder. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, A.B. then dec ide d tha t t he Zat arain 's and w ater mixture was not "g ood eno ug h" and a sk e d fo r some "chi li ." O v erton s tated , "H e threw the— w ell , he st a rt e d t h ro wing a f ita n d h e we n t in to —h e wa s in t h e l ivin g ro o m a t th is p o in t th ro wing a fit, throw in g h imself dow n on the g ro und ag ain

. Then he t hrew the si ppy

cu p at [her ].

. . . And then he c onti nued t o throw a f itfor a bout 20 mi nutes or so . . . . [H ]e was throw ing a fitand then he stumbl ed to the floor

. And he looked up at[her ] and sa id he was col d and threw

up." Ov erton thoug ht that A.B. had v omit ed becaus e he had bec ome too ex ci ted. Therefore, Ov erton ex pla ine d that she did not thi nk he w as si ck becau se A.B. had
v omit ed i n the pas t due to his ex ci tement. Sh e s tated, "I thoug ht t hat h e had g otten hims elf s o wor ked up th at he threw up." A. B. a g ain tol d Ov erton t hat h e was col d, s o s he thoug ht t hat "may be he had wor ked hims elf, y ou know , too much in thi s fitand he's now g otten hi msel f sic k from throw ing a fit ." Ov erton c all ed Lar ry and tol d hi m thatA.B . was32

" f re a kin g o u t" a n d h e ne e d e d to co m e ho m e . Ove rt o n grab b e d so m e rags f ro m th e gara ge and b e g a n c l e a n i n g t h e v o mi t , a n d a c c o rd i n g t o O v e rt o n , A

. B

. b e g a n h e l p i n g h e r cl ean. Then A.B . s topped hel pin g her cl ean and sta rt ed "shak ing ." A.B. ag ain tol d Ov erton t hat he was col d, s o s he w ra pped hi m in so me b la n ket s. Ac cordin g to Ov erton, w hen s he as k ed A .B

. w ha t w as w ron g , he d i d no t res po nd ; ho w ev er , A. B. di d w al kt o th e be droo m. Ov erton st a ted t hat b ecaus e A. B. was so col d, s he w ra pped hi m in hi s s lee pin g bag , a Spi der man bl anket , and the bla nket on her bed; she als o pl aced a heat ing pad under the bla nket

. W hen Larry

arriv ed h om e, Overton to ld him th at A.B

. w as okay. Sh e informe d La rry that she "thoug ht t hat may be [A.B .] had ov er w or ked hims elf in thi s fit but that now he was col d." Beca use Ov erton was not s ure w hat was "g oin g on," she re ferred to her EM T and nursing boo ks in order to d ete rmine w het her "you cou ld throw y ourse lf into sho ck to w here y ou g ot c old ." W hen Ov erton re ad the secti on of the book re g ardin g sh ock , s he c oncl uded that "itmig ht be pos si ble thathe w as in some s ort of sh ock ." On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Ov erton e x pla ine d tha t al thoug h s he th oug ht A .B. w as in shoc k, she did not cal l 911 becau se she had "bee n in shoc k mult ipl e ti mes and been fine." Ov erton als o "l ooked up" hy pother mia and det er mined that A.B. w as not s uffer ing from it becau se he was not i n a "col d pl ace. " She then tal ked to La rr y , and they

dec ide d to g iv e A. B. a w ar m bath, hopi ng itwoul d hel p war m hi m. A cc ordin g to Ove rt o n , A.B. w as not t alk ing , ex ceptthathe re peatedl y

st ated that he was col d; t hen w hen t hey put him in the shower , he sai d, "[ N] o, hot." In her

vi deo state ment, how ev er , Ov erton tol d Detecti v e Hess that after A.B. v omit ed, he would nottalk to he r. Ov erton t est ified thatw hen A. B. was in th e b a th tub, he s tar ted "b re athi ng ki nd of33

f unn y like he w as con gested. " Ov erton believed tha t his breat hing w as du e to th e "sh ock and s tuff ," s o s he remembere d tha t w hen her o th e r so n had pneumoni a, "he had a breathi ng [dev ic e] .

. . [ that] opens up your ai rway ." Acc ordin g t o Ov erton, she did not bel iev e tha t t he dev ic e, a nebul iz er , w oul d hurt A.B. because she had prev iou sl y us ed th e dev ic e on a l ittl e boy

w hen s he wor ked as an LVN . Ov erton stat ed that af ter she used the device on A.B . for a "cou ple of minu tes," A.B. be gan to brea the bett er. Ov erton a nd Lar ry

remov ed A. B. from the batht ub, and s he dress ed hi m in sweat pants and a s w eats hir

t. Ov erton s tated : [A.B .] w as just m oan ing. H e wa s u gh

. . . ugh . . . ugh. And it was v ery si mil ar to my —my y oung esthad had pne umonia a few months before that. And t he way

he w as acti ng , I des cr ibe d i n the v ide o as l etharg ic ; buti t was v erysimilar to the w ay tha t my son was a cting when he had pne um onia , just moaning a nd j ustnot re all y w anti ng to tal k o r anythi ng . But he was—y ou know , he w asn' t pas sed out. In her v ideo state me nt, Ov erton told Detective Hess tha t she believed t h a t" le tha rg ic" meant "[ n]ot re spond ing w ell ." Ov erton cal led a paramedic frie nd, w hom sh e s ometi mes cal ls for a dv ic e w hen her ch il dren are s ic k. The fri end di d notans w er her phone. Ov erton t est ified thatA.B . s tar ted "b re athi ng funnyag ain ," s o s he c heck ed hi s v it al signs, including his pulse, exam ining his pu p il s , a nd co unt ing his breaths, w hich w ere "nor mal. " O n c ro ss -e x aminat ion , O v erton s tated thatsh e di d notbel iev e th a t she w as q ual ified as a n L VN; howev er , s he feltthatsh e was q ual ified to chec k a person' s v it al si g ns. Ac cordin g to Ov erton, she beg an "th ink ing thatthere was more w ro ng w it h [A .B.] than jus t ov er

w or ki ng hi msel f." Ov erto n d e te rmined that A.B. w as si ck , s he butdi d not know w hat w as w ro ng w it h him, so she and Lar ry beg an di sc uss ing w hether to tak e A. B. to th e do ctor. Th ey talked abo ut calling 911, but de cided against doin g so for tw o reaso ns:34

(1 ) they di d nothav e i nsurance; ( 2) A.B .' s v it al si g ns w ere alleg edl y nor mal, and "they
w ould n't get lig hts an d sirens if [ the y] called an a mb ulan ce." According to Ov erton , at this po i n t , A

. B

. b e c a me l e s s a n d l e s s re s p o n s i v e , a n d s h e re a l i z e d t h a t t h e s i tuati on w as "se rious." Until this poin t, Overton asserte d tha t she did not realiz e tha t A.B. w as seriously il l becau se his sy mptoms w ere si mil ar to sy mptoms her othe r chi ldren ex hib it ed w hen t hey had "the f lu." Before taking A.B. t o the d octo r, Overton ca lled her para me dic f riend again to as k if there w as "some w eird flu g oin g around; but ag ain , she did n'tans w er the phone." On cross-examina tion, Ov erton agreed tha t if she ha d called 911 , me mb ers of her church
w ould have helpe d pa y the m edica l bills. Lar ry a nd Ov erton t hen g ot i n the ca r, and Lar ry drov e to UC C, w hil e Ov erton s at in the b ack seatw it h A. B. Ov erton s tated that"w hen [ they] g ot i n the ca r [A.B .] w as act ing sick, b ut he was n' t th ats i c k

. A nd w e w ere dr i v i ng — or w e di dn ' t k no w

h e w as t ha t sick. Obv iou sl y

he was. . . . " Larr

y ca ll ed hi s mot her

to infor m her

thatthey

woul d notbe me eting at a resta uran t for dinne r becau se the y w er e t aking A.B. to see the docto r. Ov erton cal le d B ill eaux to ask for t he nec ess ar

y forms that she forg ot athome an d to infor m her

thatA.B . was g oin g to see the d oct or . Acc ordin g to Ov erton, she ex pla ine d to Bi ll eaux thatA. B. wa s b re athi ng "funny " and w as not "respon din g w ell ." Ov erton s tated that they dec ide d to tak e A. B. t o U CC bec ause it w as "cl oser

and faster ." Overton testif ied th at w hen t hey sto ppe d at a red lig ht, A.B. st opp ed brea thing, so she beg an C PR

. Ov erton s tated thatA.B . v omit ed i n her mouth, and he s tar

ted b re athi ng ag ain

. W hil e Ov er

ton was per

forming C PRon A .B., Lar ry ca ll ed R ic h M iotti , a past or and family fri end, to t ell hi m thatthey "w ere on the wa y t o t h e hospit al, " and Mi otti st ated heM i ot t i t est i f i ed a s a wi t ness f ort he d ef ense. 32 35 w oul d meet them t here. W hen the St ate a sk ed Ov erton o n c ro ss -e x aminat ion w hy sh e 32 did not cal l 9 1 1 wh e n A .B. st opped b re athi ng i n the ca r, Ov erton respon ded, "How w as c a ll in g 9 1 1 g o in g t o ge tu s [ t h e re ] a n y fa s t e r? W e we re a tt h e li gh tri gh tst ra ig h tf ro m —we w ere at the c los est li g ht t o a p lac e w here w e tho ug ht t hey had a c ra sh car

t and woul d be abl e to hel p us ." The Stat e as ked Ov erton t o ex pla in how ca ll ing M iotti woul d hel p, an d Ov erton respon ded, "He w as g oin g to be able to pray for [A.B.] " The S tate ask ed Ov erton to c lar ify w hen A. B. s topped breathi ng ag ain because he w as li mp and not brea thi ng w hen he a rriv ed a t UCC. Overton explain e d t h a tA .B. sto ppe d brea thing again in the UCC p a rk in g l o twh e n L a rry t o o kh im o u to f t h e ca r, a n d t h a th is p u p il s d il a t e d im m e d ia t e ly. Overton state d tha t w hile at U CC, the staf f app eare d overw helm ed and were unab le to l ocat e nec ess ar

y eq uip ment, so acc ordin g to Ov erton, she "mayhav e tr ied to smi le" at a nurse "in frust ra ti on." Acc ordin g to Ov erton, she is usual ly ca lm i n "trag icsi tuati ons. " Ov erton t est ified that she ex pla ine d w hat had happened to A.B . "probabl y 15 o r 16 ti mes," a n d thatw hen s he to ld a doctor at UC C w hat h appened, he i nformed her thatA.B . "had probabl y ch oked on the chi li , w hen he threw it up, that he probabl y ch oked on hi s t hrow-u p. And s o tha t' s w hat [ she] thou g ht ha d happe ned." On cross -e x aminat ion , O v erton d eni ed tel li ng the sta ff

at UC C that A.B. ch oked on c hil i, and sta te d t h a t sh e d id not noti ce A.B. ch o kin g. On cross-examina tion, Ov erton theo riz ed th at she cause d the b ruise on A.B. 's nose
w hen she gav e him CPR in the car and tha t beca use A.B. was in cardiac arrest, he w ould hav e br uis ed "v er

y q uic kl y ." Ove rt on s tated thatsh e bel iev ed A. B. c aused al l of the sc ra t c h e s o n h i s b o d y , b u t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t ma n y o f t h e s c ra t c h e s w e re c a u s ed bythe36

medic al sta ff

. Ov e rt o n d e n ie d thatsh e forc ed A. B. t o dr ink the Zat arain 's and w ater mixture. Ov erton s tated that she did not re cal l tel li ng Det ect iv e H ess thatA.B . di d noteat before g oin g to Mc Don ald 's , butthatshe w as v er y confused and ov er

w hel med w hen s he tal ked to D etecti v e H ess . W hen the Stat e ask ed Ov erton w hy she did not infor m Bi ll eaux that she coul d nottak e A. B. t o the doctor for t he i nju ri es on hi s a rm, Ov erton respon ded, "I wasn' t v er

y co ncer ned abo ut t hat. I had al re ady tak en c are of it ." The ju ry found Overton g uil ty

of capi tal murder . The tr ial co urt s entenc ed Ov erton to l ife i mpri sonment

. The tr ial co urt den ied Ov erton' s moti on for new tr ial after a hear ing
w as hel d. This appeal ens ued. III . S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE By her third and fourth issu es, Overton challen ges th e legal a nd factu al suf f iciency of th e e vide nce to s uppor t her co nv icti on. Spec ific all y , by her thi rd i ss ue, O v erton cont ends the e v ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o es tabl ish t h a t she eit her i ntent ion all y

or know ing ly

ca used A.B. 's deat h. As w e unders tand her arg ument, Ov erton cl aims that the ev ide nce is l eg all y

i nsuffici ent for

the follo w ing reason s: ( 1 ) th e re w as no ev ide nce that she knew

so diu m coul d be tox ic ; (2 ) "there w as no ev ide nce that the Z atarain 's se asoni ng she used, cont ain ed hig h lev els of sodi um"; ( 3) the Zat arain 's l abel "co ntai ned no w ar nin g re g ardin g i ts cont ents or us e"; ( 4) an L VN may

not prov ide uns uper

v is ed medi cal ca re and is nottrain ed to di ag nose and t re at pa ti ents ; ( 5) there was no ev ide nce that Ov erton del ay ed g etti ng A.B . t o the hos pit al; ( 6) t h e re is "n o s ure s ucc ess ful treatment for hy per natremia [so diu m int ox ic ati on]"; ( 7) there w as no ev ide nce that Ov erton "a ppreci ated the s er ious n a tu re of [A.B .' s] ing est ion of sodi um i n hi s food"; and ( 8) there was no ev ide nce that Ov erton "u sed EM T sk il ls , s hor t of prov idi ng C PRto [A.B.] , b u t w as notH o o p e r v . S ta te , 214 S. W

. 3d 9 , 13 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 7) ( ci t i ng J a c k s o n v . Vir g in ia , 443 U

. S. 307 , 33 3 1 8 -1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); P o w e ll v . S ta te , 1 9 4 S .W .3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 6 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); G u e v a ra v . S ta te , 152 S. W

. 3d 4 5 , 4 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 )) ; E s c a m i lla v . S ta te , 14 3 S

. W

. 3d 81 4, 81 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ). Kin g v . S ta te , 2 9 S .W .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) (e n b a n c ); B e c k h a m v . S ta te , 29 S. W

. 3d 34 14 8, 15 1 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t

. ] 20 00 , pe t

. ref' d).

Beckham , 29 S. W

. 3d a t 151

. 35 37 eq uip ped t o k now

hi s p ro ble m." In he r fourth is sue, Ov erton c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent beca use: ( 1) she w as coo pera tiv e w ith law enforcem ent ; (2) she gav e a volun tary sta tement to po li ce ex pla ini ng her i nteract ion s w it h A. B. a nd w hat he had i ng est ed i n her presenc e; ( 3) her act ion s o f "rus hin g [A. B.] to t he hos pit al, g iv ing hi m CP R, and re v eal ing
w hat s he k new

he a te an d drank shows s he tr ied to sav e the ch il d, not kil l him"; (5) after the c ar ac ci dent, A.B . was ex amined by emerg ency

pe rso n n e l, w hic h "s how ed th at s he
w anted to prov ide adeq uate medic al care for [A.B .]"; (6 ) her dis cl osure to many peopl e of A.B. 's i ll ness and her

"hel p- seek ing co n d u cts hows t hat s he was not t ry ing to commi t a cr ime, but w as g ain ing w hat she needed to he lp her ch il d"; an d ( 7) "w hen s he was alo ne, w it h her g od, s he pray ed for [A.B .' s] speed y recov er y , notfor forg iven e ss fo r any w ro ng doi ng ." A . St and ard o f Rev iew In c onducti ng a l eg al suffici ency rev iew , we v iew

the re lev ant ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether a rati onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of t he cr ime bey ond a re asona ble doubt. W e do notreev alu ate 33 the weig ht an d c re dib il ity of the e v ide nce, and w e do not subs ti tute our ow n judg ment for the t ri er of fact. I nst ead, w e c onsi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal dec is ion

. 34 35 In rev iew ing the suffici ency of the e v ide nce, w e sh o u ld l ook at ev entsH ooper, 21 4 S

. W

. 3d at 13 (i nterna l qu otat i on s an d c i t ati on s om i t t ed ). 36 W a ts o n v . S ta te , 20 4 S

. W

. 3d 40 4, 41 4-1 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 06 ). 37 I d. at 417

. 38 M a likv . S ta te , 9 5 3 S .W .2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); A d i v . S ta te , 94 S. W

. 3d 1 24, 131 ( T ex. 39 A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , pe t

. ref' d).

M a lik , 953 S. W

. 2d a t 240

. 40 See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1 9.02 (b)(1) ( V ern on 20 03 ), § 1 9.03 (a)(8). 41 38 occ ur ri ng b efore, dur ing and after the c ommis si on of the offense and may re ly on a cti ons of t he defendant w hic h show an understa ndi ng and c ommon desi g n to do th e prohi bit ed act. Eac h fact need n o t p o in t direct ly and inde pen den tly

to the g uilt of

the ap pel la nt, a s long as the cum ulative force of all the inc ri minat ing ci rc umstan ces i s s u f f icient t o s uppor

t t he conv icti on.[ ]

36 In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , we rev iew

the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht t o det er mine
w het her the ev iden ce is so w eak that the jury 's v erdict seems clearly w rong and m anifestly unju st or is ag ainst th e great w eight and prepo nde rance of the evidence. Th is Court w ill 37 not rev erse the j ur

y 's v erdict unl ess w e c an s ay , w it h s ome obj ect iv e bas is i n the record, that the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. 38 Both leg al and factu al suffici ency are meas ured by

the ele ments of the o ffense as defined b y

a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. "Suc h a c harg e woul d be o n e tha t

39
accura tely se t s o u tt h e law , is autho riz ed b y the ind ictme nt, d oes n ot un nece ssarily in c re a s e t h e S t a t e ' s b u rd e n o f p ro o f o r u n n e c e s s a ri ly re s t ri ctt h e S t a t e ' s t h e o ri e s o f li a b il it y, and ade q uatel y

des cr ibe s t he par

ti cu la r offense for w hic h the defendant w as tr ied ." A 40 hy pothet ic all y

co rrectch arg e woul d i nst ru ct the jur y to conv ict app ell ant o f capi tal murder if sh e i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

caused the death of an ind iv idu al under si x y ears o f age

. 41 B. Ju ry Po llW e not e t hat O v er t on n onet hel ess cha l l enges t he su ff i ci encyof t he e v i dence suppor t i ng a f i ndi ng 42 t hat she i nt ent i onal l y orknowi ngl y cause d A. B. ' s dea t h bycausi ng h i m t o i ngestt oxi c am ount s of sodi um . S e e H e rr

in v . S ta te , 1 2 5 S .W .3 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 1 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); s e e a ls o Kitc h e n s v . S ta te , 823 43 S. W

. 2d 2 56, 258 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 1) ( en b anc) ( " I t i s app r opr i at e w he re t he a l t er nat e t heor i es of com m i t t i ng t he sa m e off ense ar e sub m i t t ed t o t he j ur y i n t he d i sj unct i v e f ort he j ur y t o r et ur n a gener al v er di ct i f t he evi de nc e i s su ffi c i en t t o s up po rt a fi nd i ng un de r any of t he t he ori es su bm i t t ed

. " ). T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . a rt. 3 7 .0 7 § 1 (a ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); Z u n i g a v . S ta te , 144 S. W

. 3d 44 4 7 7 , 4 8 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ), over ruled o n other

gr ounds by W atson , 204 S. W

. 3d a t 405

. E s c o b e d o v . S ta te , 805 S. W

. 2d 860, 861 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i 1991, no p et

. ) ( ci t i ng A gu irr e 45 v . S ta te , 73 2 S

. W

. 2d 32 0, 32 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 87 ))

. 39 By a sub -issue, Overton argues tha t the result of the post-v erdict j ury poll limits this Cou rt 'srev iew

onl y to ev ide nce suppo rt ing the Stat e's theo ry thatsh e i ntent ion all y

or know ing ly

ca used A.B. 's deat h by omi ss ion

. Ov erton a lle ges t h a t w e c annot re v iew the suf f iciency of

t he evidence su ppo rting the Stat e's the orythatshe inte ntion ally or know ingly caus ed A. B.' s d eath by

ca usi ng A.B . t o i ng esta s ubst ance or su bst ances co ntai nin g ac ute tox icl ev els of sodi um. The S tate re pli es that li miti ng our rev iew to one t heor

y present ed 42
w ould " amount t o an unautho ri z ed nar ro w ing of the j ur y 's v erdict or , i n effect , a spec ial
v erdict." Itarg ues that for pur poses of an ev ide nti ar y suffici ency anal ysi s, w hen a g eneral
v erdict i s retur ned and the ev ide nce is suff ic ien t to suppor t a findi ng of

gui ltunder

any of the p arag ra ph al leg ati ons submi tted, the v erdict w il l be uphe ld. 43 T he T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure g ene rally state s that"[t]h e v erdict in every criminal act ion m ust be g ene ral," an d do es no t allow for a specia l v erdict de tailing the jury 's und erly ing find ings thereon

. T hus, subm ission to th e jury in the form o f

a general v erdict 44 is req uired ev en i f different way s o f committ ing one offense are c harg ed. 45 In Zuni ga v . St ate , t he j ur

y retur ned a g eneral v erdict findi ng the defendant g uil ty of
ma nslau ghter, butinclude d ha ndwri tten note s w hich ind icated thatit had agreed on on lyZuniga , 144 S. W

. 3d a t 480

. 46 See id. at 486
- 87. 47 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . a rt. 3 7 .0 7 § 1 (a ); Zuniga , 144 S. W

. 3d a t 486
- 87. 48 40 one of the three pos si ble means bywh ich the defendant c ommitt ed th e offense. The 46 Court of Cri min al App eals ref used to consid er t h o s e note s as limiting the low er court's ev ide nti ar

y su ff ic ien cy

anal y si s, sta ti ng : W here the Cou rt of

Appe als erred, ho w ever, was in its failure to conside r all the ev iden ce. . . . Th e cou rt's interpreta tion o f t he jury 's n ote s o n the v erdict form woul d eq uate to a spec ial v erdict, in v iol ati on of Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Proced ure article 37 .07 section 1(a), s t a t ing that "T he verdict in ev ery cr imi nal act ion must be g eneral. " I n Kitch ens v. State , 823 S.W .2d 2 56, 2 58 (Tex . C ri m. Ap p . 1 9 9 1) , we s tated , "I t i s a ppropr iat e w here the al ter nate theor ies of commi tti ng t h e sa me offense are s ubmitted t o the j ur y i n the dis jun cti v e for the j ur

y to re tur n a g eneral v erdict if the e v ide nce is su ff ic ien t to s uppor

t a f ind ing under

any of the t heor ies su bmitted." So, the Cou rtof Appeal s e rred i n treati ng thi s l ik e a s peci al v erdict and by atte m p ting to int er pret the jur

y 's handw ri tten notes

. See Stat ler v. United S tates , 157 U .S. 277, 279, 15 S. C t. 616, 39 L. Ed. 700 (1 895) , s ta ti n g " The v erdict bei ng general an d no t sp e c ia l, any words att ache d to th e f inding . . . are clearly super fluous and are to b e s o t re a ted . . . a g eneral findi ng of 'g uil ty ' w il l be interp reted as guilty

of all that th e indictm entw ell alleges. . . . Surplusage in a v erdict may

be reje cte d. .

. ." Des pit e the j ur y 's handw ritin g and the t ri al cour t' s readi ng and re cei pt of the v erdict, thi s is a ge neral v erdict of g uil ty of mansl aug hter

. Therefore, the Cou rt of A ppeal s s houl d nothav e di sreg arded the e v ide nce of speed ing and pass ing in a no- pass ing zo ne for purpos es of the factu al suf

f iciency ana lysis. 47 Acc ordin g ly , bec ause the j ur y i n thi s c ase re tur ned a g eneral v erdict, w e c annot in our suffici ency

rev iew di sreg ard ev ide nce suppo rt ing a findin g tha t O v erton i ntent ion all y or k no w i ng l y

c au s ed t he c hi l d' s d ea th b y c au s i ng h i m t o i ng es t to x i cl evel s o f s od i um . 48 Therefore, i n ev alu ati ng the suffici ency of the ev ide nce, w e w il l not l imi t our rev iew by the result of the jury poll. C. A nal ysisS e e M a lik , 953 S. W

. 2d a t 240

. 49 T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 6

. 03 (a) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 50 I d. § 6

. 03 (b). 51 M a rtin v . S ta te , 2 4 6 S .W .3 d 2 4 6 , 2 6 3 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.). 52 L a n e v . S ta te , 76 3 S

. W

. 2d 78 5, 78 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 89 ). 53 H e rn a n d e z v . S ta te , 81 9 S

. W

. 2d 80 6, 81 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 91 ). 54 41 Here, t he i ndi ctmental leg ed th at O v erton c aused the death of A .B., a c hil d young er than si x y ears o f age , by

ei ther ca usi ng hi m to i ng estacute lev els of so diu m or

by fail ing to prov ide or seek medic al care for him. Thus, the S tate had t o prov e tha t O v erton e it her inten tiona lly

or know ingly c a u s ed A. B.'s de ath byeithe r of the m ean s alleged in the jury charge. A person acts inten tiona lly w ith respe ct to a result of h is condu ct w hen it is his

49 conscio us objective or desire to cause the result. A person act s knowi ngly w ith respe ct 50 to a resu lt of

h is condu ct w hen he is aw are tha t his cond uct is reason ably certain to cau se the resul t. Therefore, O v erton a cte d i ntent ion all y i f it w as her

co nsc iou s o bje cti v e or 51 desi re to caus e A. B.' s d eath by ei ther ca usi ng hi m to i ng estac ute l ev els of sodi um or by failing to prov ide m edica l care; Ov erton acte d kno w ingly if she w as aware that he r condu ct of caus ing A.B . t o i ng estac u te l e vels of so diu m or

fail ing to prov ide medi cal ca re w as re asona bly

ce rt ain to caus e hi s d eath. A c ulp abl e mental st ate is i nv ar iab ly prov en by

ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce. The 52 est abl is hment of c ulp abl e mental st ates i s o ften g ro unded upon inferences to be draw n by the factf inde r f ro m t he a tten dan t circumsta nces. M ent al culpa bility is of su ch a na ture 53 that itg enerall y

mustbe i nferred from t he c ircums tanc es under w hic h a prohi bit ed act or om ission occu rs. A culpable men tal state ma y be inferred f rom circum stan tial evi den ce 54G ue v ara , 152 S. W

. 3d a t 50. 55 H e m p h i

ll v . S ta te , 5 0 5 S .W .2 d 5 6 0 , 5 6 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 4 ); M a rtin , 246 S. W

. 3d a t 263

. 56 M a rtin , 2 4 6 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 3 ; N ic k e rs o n v . S ta te , 6 9 S .W .3 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 7 ( T e x . A p p .– W a c o 2 0 0 2 , p e t. 57 r ef ' d) ( ci t i ng P a tri c kv . S ta te , 9 0 6 S .W .2 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (e n b a n c ); W e s t v . S ta te , 846 S

. W

. 2d 91 2, 91 4 (T ex . A pp . –B ea um on t 19 93 , pe t

. ref' d)).

G u tie rre z v . S ta te , 672 S. W

. 2d 6 33, 636 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i 1984) ( ci t i ng P a la fo xv . S ta te , 58 4 8 4 S .W .2 d 7 3 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 2 )) ; s e e L e e v . S ta te , 866 S. W

. 2d 2 98, 302 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 19 93, pet r ef ' d) ( " A ' consci ousness ofgui l t ' m ay be one of t he st r ongesti ndi cat or s of gui l t

. " ) ( ci t i ng To rre s v . S ta te , 79 4 S

. W

. 2d 59 6, 59 8 (T ex . A pp . –A us t i n 1 99 0, no pe t

. ))

.

Lane , 763 S. W

. 2d a t 787

. 59 Tor res , 794 S. W

. 2d a t 598

. 60 See King , 2 9 S .W .3 d a t 5 6 5 ( c o n c lu d in g th a t e v id e n c e th a t c o n n e c te d th e a p p e lla n t t o th e c r im e 61 in c lu d e d , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , " a p p e lla n t's f a ls e s ta te m e n ts to th e m e d ia

— in d ic a tin g c o n s c io u s n e s s o fg u ilt an d a n a t t em pt t o c ove r up t he cri m e"). 42 such a s acts, w ords, an d con ductof the de fend antand surround ing ci rcumst ance s. 55 Inten t i s a q uest ion of fact to be d eter mined by the tr ier of fact from a ll of the fact s and c i rc u ms t a n c e s i n e v i d e n c e . A j u r y ma y i n fe r i n t e n t fro m t h e a ct s a n d w o rd s of the 56 defendant, the ma n n e r in w hic h the offense w as commi tted, the nature of the w ounds infli cte d, an d the rela ti v e s iz e and streng th of the p a rt ie s. "The tri er of facts mayi nfer 57 inten t to kill f rom a ny facts in evidence w hich, to his mind , proves the existence o f such inten t to ki ll." T he thresho ld of proo f nece ssary to suppo rt a jury f inding of an a w aren ess

58 t h a tsu c h a re s u ltis re a s o n a b ly c e rt a in t o o c c u r i s co n c o m it a n t ly l o w. 59 A "co nsciou sness of

g uilt" is perha ps on e of the stron gest kinds of

ev iden ce o f g u i l t

. I t i s . . . a w e l l a c c e p t e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t a n y c o n d u cto n t h e p a rto f a perso n accuse d of a crime subsequen t to i ts com mission , w hich i ndica tes a ' c o n s c io u s n e s s o f

gu il t ' m a y b e re c e ive d a s a ci rc u m s t a n c e t e n d in g t o p ro ve that he c ommitt ed th e act w it h w hic h he is ch arg ed.[ ] 60 The maki ng of false sta tements ca n be ev ide nce of a "cons ci ousne ss of g uil t." 61 1. Ev id ence Su pp or

ti ng Verdi ct a. Overto n's Acts, W

ords, an d Conscio usne ss of GuiltA c c o rd i n g to G re g o ry, th e E M T tra i n i n g i n c l u d e d h o w to s u p p o rt a n d m a i n ta i n l i fe w h i l e g e tti n g to 62 an e m er gencycar e f aci l i t y , such as a hospi t al , butdi d no t i ncl ude how t o di agnose a par t i cul arcond i t i on. 43 In he r v ide o i nter

v iew w it h D etecti v e Hes s, Ov erton s tated , "[A] l ong ti me ag o I w as an EM T so I kn ew

to chec k [ his p u p il s], but he was— his pupi ls w ere react ing , he w as brea thing. . . ." Overton explained , "I had a b ox w ith all kin ds of m edica l stu f

f , all my old stu ff from EM T and i t was in that box

. And I pul led ev er ythi ng out loo ki ng for s omethi ng that I c oul d us e tha t woul d hel p hi m. . . . " 62 Overton state d, "I asked [A.B. ] w hatw as w rong. He didn't talk to me. He said 'I'—no h e did. He said 'I'm cold'. An d t h e n h e t h re w u p and then he sat th ere for a w hil e. . . . [H ]e w as li ke re al pal e and I re ali z ed someth ing w as w ro ng ." Ov erton i nformed Det ect iv e H ess thatafter A.B . s tar

ted s haki ng and sto pped t alkin g, sh e "got sc ared becau se she coul dn'tg et him to tal k t o [he r] ." Ov erton i nformed D etecti v e H ess thatsh e deci ded t o admi nis ter

"Al buterol treatment" (t he nebu li z er ) to A .B. be caus e he w as breathi ng "funny ." Acc ordin g to Ov erton, t h e " Al buterol treatment" is "a mac hin e w it h a tube that has oxy g en attac hed to it and it g iv es oxy g en to y ou. And Al buteral is a breathi ng dr ug thatthey

gi v e y ou for

clear ing out y our

lung s." Ov erton s tated thatsh e "was thi nki ng that [A.B .] w as si ck , somethi ng w as w ro ng w it h hi m, butw e—l ik e tha t i t wasn' t s omethi ng that w e c oul dn'tfig ure outand then take him in to t he doctor ." Howev er , O v erton t est ified tha t she did not be liev e tha t she was q ualif ied to work as an LV N. Al thoug h Overton i nsis te d that A. B. was not s er iou sl y i ll , and thatthe nebul iz er hel ped A. B.' s b re athi ng , s he deci ded to "pul l[ ] out all [her ] CP R stu ff before w e w ere g etti ng re ady to go." Ov er

ton a ls o tes ti fied th at A .B. w as breathi ng bett er after sh e us ed th e nebul iz er . It w as Ov erton' s t est imony that there w as no reason for h er to bel iev e tha t A. B.D r . R o tt a t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s a p e d ia tr ic c r itic a l c a r e s p e c ia lis t, h e s e e s o n ly th e m o s t c r itic a lly il l 63 c h i l d r e n , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e w h o h a v e s e v e r e i n f e c t i o n s a n d s h o c k.

Accor di ng t o G r egor y , dur i ng t he EM T t r ai ni ng t hat she and O v er t on at t ended , t he si gns o fshock 64 w e re c o v e re d "e x te n s i v e l y ." D r. R o tta o p i n e d th a t i f a p a ti e n t g o e s in to s h o c k , i t i s m u c h h a rd e r to re s u s c i ta te th a t p a ti e n t.

A l th o u g h O v e rto n c l a i m e d th a t s h e d i d n o t h a v e th e n e c e s s a ry p a p e rw o rk to g e t M e d i c a i d fo r A .B ., 65 Bi l l eaux t est i f i ed t hat O v er t on co ul d ha v e acq ui r ed m edi cal i nsur ance f orA. B. i n June aft ert he p l acem ent was m ade. F ur t her m or e, O v er t on adm i t t ed t hat chur ch m em ber s woul d ha v e assi st ed i n pa y i ng f orA. B. ' s m edi cal 44 needed medic al care, w hic h presumabl y inc lud ed CP R. H ow ev er , O v erton a dmini ste re d a dev ic e s he c lai med prov ide d as si sta nce for breat hin g and "pul led out" it ems t hat s he was tau ght to use to adm inister CPR. Ov erton desc ri bed numerous alle g edl y unex pla ine d sy mptoms that A.B. ex hib it ed. The sy mptoms that Ov erton t old D etecti v e H ess sh e obs er ved inc lud ed th at A .B.: ( 1) stu mbled and fell ; (2)threw up; (3 ) w as col d; (4)w oul d not tal k t o her or to Lar ry ; ( 5) had troubl e breathi ng ; ( 6) w as let harg ic ; and (7 ) w as shak ing

. Ov erton t old D r. R otta that after ing est ing the Zat arain 's and w ater , A. B. w as dr ifti ng in and out of cons ci ousne ss . Ov erton sta ted t hat s he bel iev ed th at A .B. w as in shoc k, but t hat s he s ti ll di d notca ll 911. 63 Mo re ov er , w hen O v erton first thoug ht t hat A .B. w as in shoc k, she did not seek any medi cal care for him and, ins tead, dec ide d to treat h im hersel f, ev en thoug h she tes ti fied th at s he did not bel iev e s he was q ual ified as an L VN

. O v erton t old Zapata that A.B. had "pass ed 64 out" o n October

2, the d ay

he was taken to UC C, and that he had als o pas sed out o n Oct ober 1. H ow ev er , O v erton d id not i nform D r. R otta that A.B. had prev iou sl y "pas sed out" o n October

1. Furt her more, Ov erton did not indi cat e to Dr . Jakub owsk i that A.B. had any recentmedi cal probl ems, and s tated thatA.B . was not "s ic k t oo muc h." Ov erton t old D etecti v e H ess thatsh e and Lar ry dis cus sed cal li ng 911, but d eci ded ag ain st itbec ause A.B. w as not ins ured. Ov erton stat ed that she "w asn' t think ing " or sh e 65bi l l s. W e no t e t hat O v er t on co ncedes on appea l t hat she does not hav e t he necessar y t r ai ni ng t o t r eat 66 sodi um i nt oxi cat i on. 45 w oul d hav e "justtaken [A.B. ] to the hospi tal " and that as an EM T, she "w as jus t t ry ing to fix i t .

. . . " D etecti v e H ess as ked Ov erton, "So he w as in a traumati c e v ent for an h our 66
an d 4 4 mi n u t e s ? " O v e rt o n re s p o n d e d , " Y e s . I d i d n ' t re a l i z e i t w a s t h a t l o n g , b u t y es. " Fur ther more, Ov e rt on admi tted that she w as "sc ared" w hen A. B. s topped tal ki ng , but ins tead of cal li ng 911, sh e c all ed her hus band an d as ked him to c ome home. Overton gav e con f licting stories ab outw hathap pen ed to A.B. and could not explain A.B. 's sy mptoms and i nju ri es. O v erton t old H all er and Greg or

y that A.B. had been v omit ing and defecat ing on p ur pose on October 2. W hen Patr ic ia Gonz ale z , a medic al ass is tant at U CC , as ked Ov erton w hat h appened to A .B., Ov erton i nformed her thatA.B . was w atc hin g T.V. in the li v ing room, t hen O v erton t ook aw ay A.B .' s t oy , he beg an c ry ing , and Overton lef

t him a lone to cry

. Overton tho ught tha t A.B. fell aslee p, so she d id notcheck on h im. App aren tly , at som e po int, Overton che cked o n A.B. , and t hey left for UCC; w hile en rou t e , A

. B

. " p a s sed o ut." Gonzalezstate d tha t it did notapp ear tha t A.B. had "just pass ed out ." Fur

ther more, Ov erton t old D etecti v e Hess that w hen A.B. stumbl ed, i t was not b ecaus e he "pass ed out " and that A.B. w as aw ake. Ov erton test ified that A. B. s topped breathi ng w hil e Lar ry

drov e the m to U CC and that A.B. beg an breathi ng agai n after sh e g av e hi m CP R in the c ar , butthatw hen t hey w ere i n the par ki ng l ot atUCC, he s topped breathi ng ag ain

. Ov erton t old D odg e and Bi ll eaux that A.B. "chok ed" on chi li

. McAl li ste r tes ti fied th at Ov erton t old hi m thatA.B . mi g ht ha v e c hoked w hen he ate s ome ch il i, and that she thoug htAt t hi s poi nt of t he i nt er v i ew, D et ect i v e Hess had n ot i nf or m ed O v er t on t hat A. B. was suff er i ng f r om 67 sodi um i nt oxi cat i on. L at er i n t he i nt er v i ew, D et ect i v e H ess t ol d O v er t on t hat t he ca use o fA. B. ' s sy m pt om s was sodi um i nt oxi cat i on, and she appea r ed su r pr i sed. 46 he was ly ing dow n w ith a f ull stom ach b ecau se A.B

. gets sle epy when he e ats. Howev er, Ov erton t est ified thatsh e nev er tol d anyone a t UCC t h a t A. B. c hoked on c hil i. O v erton testif ied th at A.B .'s v ital sig ns w ere norm al, and h e did notst op brea thing at ho me , w hich app ears to co ntrad ict her state me nts to othe rs that A.B . choke d on chili. Overton told Dr. Rotta an d Detecti v e Hess that A.B. at e s ome ch il i, then w anted more, but she did not w ant him to ea t more, s o s he g av e A. B. a si ppy cu p w it h "c hil i powder" and w ater

. After A.B. drank the mi xture, he st umbled , s aid he was col d, an d bec ame unrespon si v e. Ov erton t est ified thatA.B . wanted the Z atarain 's , and thatafter he t hreatened to "poop," she g av e him a "tas te" of the "flav or" to cal m him dow n. Ov erton fur ther tes ti fied tha t af ter tastin g the w ate r mixed w ith Zata rain's, A.B . asked her to pu t mo re Zatarain 's in the c up, w hic h s he di d. Howev er , Ov erton tol d Dr

. Rotta that she deci ded t o g iv e A. B. t he Zat arain 's mixed w it h water and that A.B. drank the mi xture "to her su rp ri se. " In her v ideo st ate me nt, Overton told Detect iv e Hess tha t she fed A. B. som e "ch ili"
w it h Z atarain 's and that after he fini shed eati ng , he w anted more food. Ov erton s tated that she to ld A.B. he ha d just ea ten a big bowl o f fo o d, so she mixed some w ate r w ith chili powder

. Ov erton tol d A.B. thati f he w anted the water and chi li powder , he coul d hav e i t. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, she bel iev ed th at A.B. w anted the Z atarain 's bec ause he was ask ing for mo re "chili," a nd the chili had Zatarain 's season ing i n it. Ov erton state d tha t she " didn 't thi nk [the Zat arain 's and w ater mixture] w oul d hur t him. " Later , dur ing the int er v iew , w hen 67 D et ecti v e H es s a g ai n as k ed O v er to n ab ou t s pi c es i n he r h om e an d th e c hi l i powder, Ov erton stat ed that she put one "sc oop" of Zatarain 's in A.B.' s w ater , but that he w anted47

more, and that she mayhav e putmore Z atarain 's an d s o m e ga rli c i n the w ater

. W hen Detecti v e H es s fi na l l y

i nfo r me d Ov er

to n th atA .B

. ha d "tw i c e th e no r ma l h um an being's amount o f s a l t , " O v e rt o n s t a t e d , " H e d i d n ' t h a v e s a l t i n t h e w a t e r . I d o n ' t k n o w . W hat ca u se s t h a t. " Det e ct ive He ss as ke d Overto n ho w A. B. c o u l d h a ve in ges te d su ch a h igh lev el of sal t, and O v erton t heor iz ed th at A .B. somehow "g ot i nto t he s alt " and mayhav e put salt in his sippy cup

. W hen De tective He ss a sked Overton to explain the bruise on A.B.'s sto mach a nd hi s h ead inj ur y , Ov erton ins is ted that she did not know how he was inj ured. She s tated thatw hen he "stu mbled, " sh e di d notthi nk he hi t hi s h ead. Ov erton t est ified that she "loo ked up" hy pother mia and deter mined that itw as not the c ause of his sy mptoms. Howev er , Ov erton tol d Det ect iv e H ess sh e was hol din g A.B

. upr ig ht i n the car ins tead of lay ing hi m dow n bec ause she re ad i n her EM T book that the proper treatment for hy pother mia is to keep the p erson' s h ead "s traig ht." Dr. R o t t a testif ied th at he believed tha t Ov erton w as no t forthco min g or entirely truth f ul w ith him conce rning w hathap pen ed to A.B. Accordin g to Dr. Rott a, getting A.B.'s me dical histo ry

f rom Overton was "like pulling teeth ." Dr. Rotta op ined thatOv erton 's de s c r i pt i on o f t he t i me l i ne o f ev en ts w as "u nu s ua l ." D r . R otta w as c on v i nc ed t ha t a c r i me had b e e n c o mm i tt e d

. D e t e ct i v e H e s s t e s t i fi e d t h a t O v e rt o n c a l l e d H a l l e r a ft er A.B

. stu mbled and v omit e d

. D e tecti v e H ess st ated, "I g ot t hat [A.B. ] had st umbled , he had throw n up, and then that' s w hen [ Ov erton] w ent t o c all

. . . [H all er]." H alle r te st if ied that Ov erton t old her

thatA.B . had "puk ed" and had defecated eig ht ti mes t hat d ay . Acc ordin g to O v erton, A.B. ate the c hil i, drank the Z atara in's and w ater , s tumbl ed, a nd v omit ed. Howev er , w hen s he c all ed H all er , she told Hal ler thatA.B . was not s ic k b ut t hat h e w as delibe rately "poo ping" to " get" to h er.48

Bi ll eaux t e s t i fi e d t h a t O v e rt o n p l a n n e d t o e n ro l l A

. B

. i n M e d i c a i d

. A c c o rd i n g to Bi ll eaux , O vert o n wa s prov ide d al l of A.B.' s i mport ant d ocument s. Ov erton t alk ed to someone at "H uman Ser v ic es, " w ho tol d her to br ing in the p aper w or k s he recei v ed from CP S, a nd A. B. woul d be enroll ed i n M edi cai d. Howev er , O v erton t est ified thatsh e di d not hav e the nec ess ar

y paperwor k, and t herefore, she w as unabl e to enroll A.B . i n M edi cai d. Ov erton t old Bi ll eaux

thatA.B . was h a v ing temper tant ru ms, but t hat "b ecaus e A. B. was n o th u rt in g h im s e lf , " sh e a ll o we d h im t o cry a n d a s k e d h im " o n c e in a wh il e " t o ca lm d o wn if he w ant ed to play. How ever, Ov erton testif ied th at wh e n A .B. " threw" a "f it" he would "throw hi msel f to the floor

or bang hi s h ead on the wall ." Gonz ale ztes ti fied th at O v erton h ad a smi le on her face w hen s he was per forming the c hestco mpres si ons on A. B. Zapa ta de sc ri bed O v erton' s faci al ex press ion w hil e at UCC as a "sm irk." Zapat a con sidered Ov erton 's respon se as un usua l. Dr . Jakub owski testif ied th at Overton w as ne rv ously l aughing w hen she w as at UCC. b. A.B. 's Injur ies A.B. had num erou s une x plaine d injuries, includ ing a sub-sca lp hem orrhage tha t Dr. Fer nandezopined w as an impactor trauma- ty pe inj ur y and w hic h w as not caus ed bythe hig h s odi um l ev el. Ac cordin g to Dr . F er nandez , A. B. woul d hav e been "daz ed, may be becomi ng unc onsc iou s," a n d may hav e had "some vomit ing al so w it h i t, sei z ure ty pe act iv ity . . . . " Ov erton hersel f des cr ibe d A.B. 's behav ior as "l etharg ic " and "unrespon si v e." Ov erton t old D r. R otta that after A.B. drank the Z atarain 's and w ater mixture, he w as "dr ifti ng i n and out o f consc iou snes s." Dr . R otta re q uest ed th at a forens icnurse tak e pictures of A .B.' s inj ur ies due to t he number of inj ur ies vi si ble on A .B.' s b ody

. Dr . R otta coul d notst ate h ow many sc ra tch es49

he o bserved on A. B.'s bo dy. Accordin g to Dr. R o t t a , s om eon e com me nte d tha t it "a ppe ared that[A.B. ] had bee n in a f ight w ith a po rcupine ." Dr. Rotta de scribed th e bruise o n A. B. 's bu tt o ck s a s a "f re sh

. . . red inju ry" t h a t was co n si s t e n tw it h A. B. sp e n d in g a "signif icant a mo untof

time fla t on a hard surface. . . . [or] i f the child w ere to be hit on this area ." Dr. Rotta expressed t hathe w as "d ealing w ith a child th at [h ad] ev iden ce of multip le inj ur ies " w ho was "barely al iv e." Stat e's Ex hib it 30 depi cte d w hat D r. R otta desc ri bed as a br uis e to A.B. 's ar m that co uld hav e been caus ed by so meone forcefull y

sq ueez ing the ar m. There was als o br uis ing on t he frontpar t of A.B .' s s hin and on hi s k nee. Ov erton t old H all e r a n d Greg or y thatA.B . had defecate d and v omit ed numerous ti mes on October

2. F ro m Greg or

y 's tes ti mony , t he j ur

y co uld hav e bel iev ed th at A .B. had
v om i te d ei g htt i me s e ar l i er i n th e da y , s ug g es ti ng tha t A. B. w as ex hi bi ti ng t he s y mp to ms of sodium intoxication m uch e arlier than w hen Ov erton claime d A.B . drank th e Zata rain's and water

mixtu re . Base d on Hal ler's tes ti mony , t he j ur y may hav e c oncl uded t hat A .B. became il l from the sodi um intox ic ati on before 2:5 2 p.m. , w hic h was w hen O v erton c all ed Haller and sa id A.B. had defecat e d e ig h t time s and v om ited. According to Ov erton 's sta tement to Z apata, A.B . notonl y "pas sed out" o n October 2, but h e h ad al so "pass ed out" o n October

1. Ov erton t old D etecti v e H ess thatafter sh e g av e A. B. th e w ater and Zat arain 's , A. B. s tumbl ed and v omit ed. Overt o n s tated thatsh e g av e the ch il i to A .B. at app rox ima tely 2:0 0 or 2:3 0 p.m . and tha th e a t e for abo ut forty- f iv e min ute s before "stu mbli ng ." Ov erton c all ed Lar ry at 3:30 p.m.; she did not ev er ca ll 911, and she did not ta k e A. B. t o U C C u nt i l 5 :1 7 p. m. Acc ordin g to Ov erton, A.B. sto pped breathi ng en route to U CC

. Howev er , t he St ate present ed ev ide nce that A.B. may hav e s topped breathi ng ear li er than Ov erton c lai med.50

Ov erton t old D etecti v e H ess that A.B. w as hav ing troubl e breathi ng and that itco ncer ned her enoug h to p u t hi m on a nebul iz er . Ov erton t old D etecti v e H ess thatsh e us ed th e nebul iz er on A .B. becau se he was breathi ng "funny ." Mi tch ell testi fied that O v erton s tated that A.B. q uitbreathi ng after he a te t he c hil i. Ov erton als o tol d M it chel l that A.B. ate the chi li ; he w as bei ng puni shed; sh e puthi m asi de; a nd by the ti me she looked at him, he had sto pped breathi ng . Zapa ta t est ified thatOv erton t old her thatA.B . v omit ed, pass ed out , a n d t h e n s t o p p e d b r e a t h in g. W h e n A

. B

. a rr ive d a tUC C, h is p u p il s we re d il a t e d b y f ive milliliters. Zapata testif ied th at th e pu pil dilation indicate d tha t A.B. w as "b rain dea d." Dr

. Ja ku b o wski st a te d th e pu p i l d ila ti o n in d ica te d th a t A .B . was "a lre a d y dying. " Dod ge repo rted th at A.B .'s pup il dilation w as an indicatio n tha t he was dead on arriv al. Ov erton t old D etecti v e H ess thatsh e tho ug ht t hat w hen A. B. s aid he was col d, t hat he m ay have "th row n him self" into sh ock. O v erton t estif ied tha t she referred to he r EMT b o o kb e c a u s e s h e t h o u g h tA

. B

. w a s i n s h o c ka n d a tt e m p t e d t o t re a th i m h e rs e l f. F u rt h e rm o re , O ve rt o n t o ld De t e ct ive He s s t h a twh e n L a rry we n tin t o t h e b e d ro o m , " [ L a rry] said, 'Le t's try

and put him in a hot. '—or ' wa rm shower, see if we can get him to wake up'.

. . ." Ov erton tol d Det ect iv e Hes s that w hil e Lar ry hel d A.B. under the "war m shower ," Lar ry st ated, "W ake up, [A.B. ]. Are y ou okay [A.B .] Talk to me [A.B .]" F ro m thi s e v ide nce, a jur y may hav e found that A.B. w as uncon sc iou s w hen Lar ry and Ov erton all eg edl y p ut A.B. in the sho w er. Acc ordin g to Drs. Rotta an d F er nandez , t he c ause of A.B.' s d eath w as acut e s odi um intoxication. Dr . Rotta testif ied th at th ere is a sig nif icant a mo untof salt in Zatarain 's seas oni ng and cal cul ated that to hav e ac q uired th e amountof sodi um found i n hi s b loo d, A.B. musthav e i ng est ed twenty-t hre e t e a sp oons of Zatarain 's se asoni ng . Ov ertonS e e C la y to n v . S ta te , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); B o w d e n v . S ta te , 628 S. W

. 2d 68 782, 784 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 198 2) ( " R econci l i at i on o fconf l i ct s and cont r adi ct i ons i n t he e v i dence i s wi t hi n t he pro vi nc e o f t he j ury , an d su c h co nfl i c t s w i l l no t c al l for reve rsa l i f t he re i s en ou gh cre di bl e t es t i m on y t o s up po rt 51 admitted t hat she fed Z atarain 's mix ed w it h w ater to A .B. in a s ipp y cu p. Dr . R otta tes ti fied that "chi li powder" i s n ot s uit abl e for a c hil d. Acc ordin g to Ove rt o n 's account , A. B. stu mbled and v omit ed after he d ra nk the water

and Zat arain 's mixture. O ve rt o n a rg u e s t h a ta lt h o u gh s h e wa s a n L V N a n d t ra in e d E MT , sh e d id n o th a ve e n o u gh medi cal train ing to dia g nose and t re at s odi um poi soni ng . Howev er , A. B. was ex hib it ing the final sy m p to m of so d iu m in to xica ti o n —c a rd io re sp ira to ry ar re st— w hen he was brou ght t o UCC. Accordin g to Dr. Rott a, a perso n suf fering f rom sodiu m intoxication would have exhibited sympto ms of discom fo rt , extreme th irst, more d iscom fort, cha nges in conscio usne ss, chan ges in beha v ior, troub le breat hing, loss of consciou sness, seiz ures, and final ly , c ardio re spi ra tor y ar re st

. T h e pati ent woul d s top b re athi ng before g oin g i nto cardia c ar re st. W hen Ov erton broug ht A.B. to UC C, he had already su f fe re d a cardia c arrest du e t o t h e ef

fects of sev ere sod ium intoxication. Dr. Rotta test if ied th at it is v ery difficul t for a c hil d to sur v iv e an il lne ss after

he h a s gone i nto a n out -o f-hosp it al cardia c arrest, w hich typical ly o c c u rs after respirato ry arrest. Althou gh Ov erton consiste ntly ma intain ed th at A.B . did notsu f fer any seiz ures, Dr. Fernan dez testif ied th at th e bite mark on A. B.' s t ong ue was the ty pe th at c ommonly oc curs d ur ing "se iz ure ty pe c onv uls ion s." Fur ther more, w hen desc ri bin g the sy mptoms A.B. w oul d hav e ex hib it ed, Dr . R otta opi ned that w it hin one hour to an hour-a nd- a- hal f of the sal t int ox ic ati on, one w oul d "see los s o f cons ci ousne ss [and ] s eiz ures. " As the f ind er

of fact, i t was up to the jur y to re sol v e any

i ncons is tenc ies i n the
w it ness es' s t est imony

. M oreov er , 68th e c o n v i c ti o n ."); J im e n e z v . S ta te , 67 S

. W

. 3d 49 3, 50 5 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , pe t

. ref' d) (" T he j ury

ex c l us i vel y res ol ves co nfl i c t i ng t es t i m on y i n t he rec ord

. " ).

M a rtin e z v . S ta te , 19 8 S

. W

. 3d 36 , 50 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 06 , no pe t

. ) ( c i t ati on s om i t t ed ). 69 See Jim enez , 67 S. W

. 3d a t 504

. 70 52 [w]e do not reso lv e an y conf lict of fact or assign credibility to the w itnesse s, as itw as the funct ion of the tr ier of factto do so. Ins tead, our duty is o nly to det ermin e if

both the explicit and im plicit f indings o f t he trier of

fact are ration al by v iew ing all of the evidence a d m it t ed a t trial in a li ght most favorable to th e v erdict. In so d oing, any inconsisten cies in the e v iden ce are re sol v ed i n fav or

of the v erdict.[ ] 69 Here, t he j ur

y co uld hav e i nferred t h a t A.B. suffered from dis comfort , extreme thi rs t, chan ges in consciousn ess, chan ges in beh avior, trou ble brea thing, loss of consciou sness, s e izu re s , re s p ira t o ry a rre s t , a n d f in a l l yc a rd ia ca rre s t

. T h e ju ry wa s f re e t o d is b e li e ve Ov erton' s t est imony

that A.B. sto pped breathi ng en route to U CC , and free to be li ev e tha t Ov erton d id not s eek medic al care unt il A.B . s uffered a cardia c arrest

. Fur ther more, the jur y w as free t o bel iev e A. B. stopp ed breathi ng ear li er than Ov erton c lai med, bas ed on: (1 ) Zapa ta' s a nd M it chel l' s t est imony thatOv erton stat ed that A.B. stop ped breathi ng after O ve rt o n ga ve h im t h e wa t e r an d Za t a ra in ' s m ixt u re ; (2 ) O ve rt o n ' s st a t e m e n tt o De t e ct ive Hess tha t w hen Larry

held A. B. in the sh ower, La rry sa id "W ake u p, A.B ."; and (3) the fact tha t Overton used the neb uliz er on A.B. T he jury w as f ree to believe t h e e viden ce suppo rt ing a find ing thatOv erton knew that medic al care was re q uired, e it her w hen A. B. sto pped breathi ng , went i nto s hock , dr ifted i n and out o f consc iou snes s, o r suffered a sei z ure. Fur

ther more, the jur

y w as free t o bel iev e D r. Rotta' s test imony that if Ov erton h ad acq uired medi cal treatment for A. B. more "q uic kl y ," A. B. woul d hav e s ur v iv ed. 70 Overton f urth er

a rg ue s t ha t "[ t] he e ar l y s y mp to ms a re no t th e ty pe for w hi ch physi ci ans w oul d ex pecta pa re nt t o s eek hospi tal iz ati on." As suppo rtfor h er arg ument,53

Overton cites to a p ortion of the reco rd w here in her expert w itness, Judy M e li n e k, M.D. sta ted, "If all parents call ed 911 w hen their chil d v omit s, our

sy ste m woul d be ov ertax ed." Howev er , t here i s e v ide nce in the record tha t A. B. suffered f ro m sy mptoms more ser iou s tha n m e re vo m it ing, such as sho ck, drif ting in and ou t of

consciou sness, dif

f iculty in brea thing, term inatio n of b reath ing, a nd seizures. The refore, even assu min g tha t the jury believed Overton's expert tha t paren ts do no t nee d to call 9 11 w hen a child is v om iting, it mayal so hav e bel iev ed th at O v erton faile d t o s eek medic al care for A.B. ev en w hen he exhibited m uch m ore seriou s sy mp tom s.

c. T he M anner i n Which the O ffens e was Com m itted In he r statem entto police, Ov erton told Dete c t ive H e s s thatshe m ix ed Zat arain's and water

i n a l arg e tumbl er , butbec ause she thoug ht t hat i t c oul d make A.B . s ic k, she poured a smal ler amount of t he mixture i nto a si ppy cu p. Ov erton s tated thatsh e "tho ug ht if it was in a sippy cup and if it w as—if he didn 't like i t , h e wo u ldn't drink it." How ever, Ove rt o n al so te st if ie d th a t A. B. in sis te d o n d rin kin g wat e r m ixed with Za ta ra in 's se a so n in g, and ev en demande d more Z atarain 's after tas ti ng the w ater

. Ov erton s tated thatsh e put "a coup le of

sp rinkles" of

Zat arain's sea sonin g in a cup for A.B., but th en d ecide d tha t it
w as "too much," so she poured some of the mixture into a sippy cup and g av e it t o A. B. t o drink. Altho ugh Ov erton claimed thatshe on ly put on e tea spoo n of

Zatara in's in A.B.'s si ppy cu p, D r. R otta tes ti fied th at i t woul d tak e twenty-t hree te aspoo ns of Zatarain 's to c a u s e t h e l e ve l o f

s o d iu m fo u n d i n A

. B

. ' s b lo o d

. Fro m t h e e vid e n c e , t h e ju ry c o u ld h a ve re asona bly

co ncl uded t hat O v erton p ut tw enty-t hree teaspoon s of Zat arain 's in A.B.' s s ipp y cup, knowi ng that it w ould make him sick. There w as some ev ide nce suppo rt ing a findi ng that Ov erton forced A.B. to dr ink theI n G a rc ia v . S ta te , t he co ur t of app eal s st at ed: 71 T exas ca se l aw i s r epl et e wi t h hol di ngs t hat when an a dul t def endan t has had sol e acce ss to a c h i l d a t t h e ti m e i ts in j u r ie s a re s u s ta i n e d , t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u ff i c i e n t t o s u p p o rt a c o n v i c ti o n f o r i n ju ry to a c h i l d , o r m u rd e r i f th e c h i l d d i e s . S e e B ry a n t v . S ta te , 909 S. W

. 2d 579, 583 ( T ex. App. –T y l er199 5, no pet

. ) ( wher e ev i dence showed chi l d had been l eft al one wi t h def endan t and i nj ur i es t o chi l d occu r r ed a ppr oxi m at el y t hi r t y m i nut es pr i ort o chi l d be i ng b ro u g h t to e m e rg e n c y r o o m , e v i d e n c e w a s s u ff i c i e n t t o s u p p o rt c o n v i c ti o n ); E lle d g e v . S ta te , 890 S. W

. 2d 8 43, 846 ( T ex. App. –Aust i n 19 94, pet

. r ef' d) ( undi sput ed m edi cal t est i m ony pl aci ng a dul t def endan t al one wi t h chi l d when f at al i nj ur i es wer e sust ai ned suppor t ed c on vi c t i on for i njury t o a c h i l d ); B u tts v . S ta te , 835 S. W

. 2d 1 47, 151 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hri s t i 19 92 , pe t

. ref' d) (i njuri es su s t ai ne d by c hi l d es t ab l i s he d by m ed i c al t es t i m on y t o h ave oc c urred at t i m e a du l t de fen da nt ad m i t t ed t o s ol e p os s es s i on of ch i l d). 16 S

. W

. 3d 40 1, 40 5 (T ex . A pp . –E l P as o 2 00 0, pe t

. ref' d). 54 Zat arain 's and w ater

mixture. The e vide n ce demonst ra ted t hat O v erton was alo ne w it h A.B. w hen he be cam e sick fro m s o d iu m i n t o x ication . Detective Hess asked Overton if there was ev er a t im e a fte r she g ot ho me from th e c hiropract or thatA.B . was out o f her si g ht. Ov erton respon ded, "No. I don' t think so." Dr . R otta tes ti fied th at he bel iev ed th at 71 A.B. w as giv en the Z ata rain's and w ate r mixture af ter A.B. had a tem per tan trum , "pro bab ly to pu nish his be havior." Hamil testif ied th at A.B . did no t enjo y spicy food , and Overton told Dr . R otta that she w as "sur pr is ed" th at A .B. drank the Z atarain 's and w ater , al low ing an inference that Ov erton d id not e x pectA.B . t o enj oy the mixture. Det ect iv e H ess tes ti fied that he di d notbel iev e tha t a four- y ear-o ld chi ld w oul d want t o dri nk Zat arain 's mixed w it h
w ater

. Ov erton t old M endoz a tha t w hen A. B. d ra n k th e water and Zat artai n's , he w as ki ck ing and sc re aming

. Dr . R otta opi ned t hat the br uis e on A.B. 's nos e was cons is tent w it h som eon e pinch ing it. T here w ere scratch es on A.B.'s neck that were consisten t w ith ad ult fing er nai l marks. Ac cordin g to Dr

. Rotta, the br uis e on A.B. 's ar m w as loc ated in an area of the arm w here some o n e wo uld forcef ully hold a ch ild; it was con sistentw ith an adu lt thumb, w hic h "c oul d hav e been caus ed by so meone forc efull y

sq ueez ing t h e ar m." Mi tch ell sta ted that there w as a larg e amount o f v omit thatsmel led l ik e c hil i, but not a l otO v er t on t est i f i ed t hat she was an EM T and wor k ed f orapp r oxi m at el y a y earand a hal fas a l i censed 72 v o c a tio n a l n u r s e . O v e r to n 's m o th e r , L a n e H is s o n g , te s tif ie d t h a t O v e r to n h a d w o r k e d a s a n u r s e f o ra c o u p le ofy ear s and wor k ed wi t h chi l dr en wi t h di sabi l i t i es.

S e e H e m p h ill , 5 0 5 S .W .2 d a t 5 6 2 ; M a rtin , 246 S. W

. 3d a t 263

. 73 S e e M a rtin , 2 4 6 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 3 ; N icker son , 69 S. W

. 3d a t 667

. 74 See Lan e , 7 6 3 S .W .2 d a t 7 8 7

. 75 55 of mea t or bea ns. Mitchell testif ied th at she saw a lot of liquid. Za pat a an d Dr. Jakubo wski both tes ti fied th at t he amount of t he v omitw as more than ex pect ed for a c hil d A. B.' s s iz e. There is ev ide nce that A.B. suffered severe sy mptoms re q uir ing medic al atten ti on and t h a t Ove rton di d notca ll 911 or tak e A. B. t o the hos pit al unti l he s uffered a cardia c ar re st. Dr

. Rotta opi ned that the final sy mptom of sodi um i ntox ic ati on i s c ardia c a rrest

.

72 Fur ther more, there was ev ide nce that once a chil d has su ffered an out- of-hos pit al cardia c arrest, th e cha nce o f

surv iv al is minima l. 2. The Ev idence is Legall y and Factually

Sufficient It w as up to the ju ry , as the tri er of fact , t o det er mine w hether Ov erton p oss ess ed the req uis it e mental st ate from al l of the facts and ci rc umstan ces in ev ide nce. Here, t he 73 jur y may hav e i nferred Ov erton' s int ent to cause A.B. 's death f ro m her acts and w ords, the manner i n w hic h the offense w as commi tted, the n a tu re of the wounds i nflicted, and t he re lat iv e s iz e and streng th of the par ti es. F urther more, the jur y may hav e i nferred 74 Overton's me nta l state f rom th e att end antcircumsta nces. 75 Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude t hat a ra ti onal j ur

y co uld hav e found beyond a re asona ble doubtthatOv erton i n tenti onal ly ca used A.B. 's death byeither

of the t heor ies al leg ed by the Stat e and that Ov erton was aw are tha t her con ductof

failing to prov ide or see k med ical c a re was reason ably certain to cau seW atson , 204 S. W

. 3d a t 414
- 15. 76 See 684 S. W

. 2d 774, 778 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i 198 4, no pet

. ) ( en b anc) ( percur i am ) ( " I ft he 77 def ect i n t he ch ar gi ng i nst r um ent i s of such a de gr ee a s t o cha r ge n o off ense agai nst t he l aw, i t i s v oi d or fun da m en t al l y de fec t i ve a nd su c h a de fec t m ay be co ns i de red for t he fi rst t i m e o n a pp ea l

. " ).

S ta te v . M o ff

, 15 4 S

. W

. 3d 59 9, 60 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ). 78 56 A.B. 's deat h. T here fore, we conclude thatthe e vid e nce was leg ally suf f icient to supp ort a f inding tha t Ov erton eithe r intentio nally or knowing ly cause d A.B .'s dea th. W e overrule Ov erton' s t hird i ss ue. Mo re ov er , after

rev iew ing the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w e c annot conc lud e tha t the ev iden ce is so w eak th at th e jury 's f inding tha t Ov erton inten tiona lly or know ingly caus ed A. B.' s d eath seems cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ustor is ag ain st the g re at
w eight and prepo nde rance of the evidence

. T here fore, we conclu de th at th e evidence 76 is factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s how

thatOv erton i ntent ion all y or know ing ly

caused A.B. 's deat h. W e ov er ru le Ov erton' s four th i ss ue. IV. M OT I ON TO Q UA S H I NDI CT MENT In h e r f irs t issu e , Overt o n co n te n d s , c i t i n g DeL eon v . St ate , t hat t he i ndi ctment nei ther ch arg ed her

w it h a n o f

fense nor

prov ide d not ic e of the charg ed offense. 77 Spec ific all y , O v erton a rg ues that the i ndi ctment"co ntai n s no menta l sta te w it h reg ard to the omission or 'causing ing estion .'" A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw Wh e t h e r a n i n d i ct m e n ti s s u f

f i c i e n ti s a q u e s t i o n o f

l a w w e r e v i e wd e n o v o . W e 78
cons tr ue an ind ictment by readi ng it as a w hol e and appl y pract ic al ra ther

than tec hni calH a rr is o n v . S ta te , 76 S. W

. 3d 5 37 , 539 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 2, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng O li ver v. 79 S ta te , 6 9 2 S .W .2 d 7 1 2 , 7 1 4 ( T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (e n b a n c ); S o to v . S ta te , 6 2 3 S .W .2 d 9 3 8 , 9 3 9 ( T e x . C r im

. A pp . 19 81 ))

.

Ya n e s v . S ta te , 149 S

. W

. 3d 708, 709 (T ex. A pp. –Aust i n 2004, pet

. r ef ' d) ( ci t i ng D e Va u g h n v . S ta te , 80 74 9 S

. W

. 2d 62 , 67 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 88 ) ( en ba nc ))

.

Te a l v . S ta te , 23 0 S

. W

. 3d 17 2, 17 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 07 ) ( i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 81 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art

. 21

. 11 (Ve rno n 2 00 9). 82 St at e v. Edm ond , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (e n b a n c ); D eVaughn , 749 S. W

. 2d 83 a t 6 9 ; s e e Tre v in o v . S ta te , 22 8 S

. W

. 3d 72 9, 73 4 (T ex . A pp –C orp us C hri s t i 20 06 , pe t

. ref' d).

See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1 9 .0 3 (a )( 8 ); see a lso id. § 1 9.02 (b)(1). 84 57 co n sid e ra ti o n s. "Am o ti o n t o q u a sh sh o u ld be gran te d on ly w h e re th e la n gua ge 79
co n c e r n i n g t h e d e fe n d a n t ' s c o n d u cti s s o v a g u e o r i n d e fi n i t e a s t o d e n y

t h e d e fendant effect iv e not ic e of the act s h e al leg edl y co mmitt ed." 80 "A wr itten instru m e n ti s an indictm entor informa tion u nde r the Const itution if it acc uses so meone of a cr ime w it h enoug h cl ar ity and spec ific ity to ide nti fy the penal st atute under w hic h the Sta te i ntends to prosec ute, ev en if the ins tr ument is otherw is e defecti v e." 81 If th e i n d ict m e n t " ch a rge s th e c o m m iss io n o f t h e o f fe n se in ord in a ry an d co n cis e la n gua ge in suc h a manner

as to enabl e a pers on of common understa ndi ng to know w hat i s mean t, and w ith tha t degree of

certainty that wi ll g iv e the defend antnotice of the particular of

fense w it h w hic h h e i s ch a rg ed, a nd enab le the c our t, on c onv icti on, t o pronounc e the proper jud g ment," the i ndi ctmenti s s uff ic ien t. Ex cept in ra re cas es, a c harg ing i nst ru ment t hat 82 track s the l ang uag e of a c ri minal st atute i s s uff ic ien tl y sp eci fic t o prov ide a de fendant w it h noti ce of a charg ed offense. 83 B. A nal ysis The in dictment in thi s c ase track s t he lan gua ge o f the penal co de for the fel ony offense of capi tal m urder

. The c api tal murder st atute st ates that , "A person commi ts an 84I d. § 1 9.03 (a)(8). 85 I d. § 1 9.02 (b)(1). 86 See Teal , 2 3 0 S .W .3 d a t 1 7 6 ; Edm ond , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d a t 1 2 8 ; D eVaughn , 7 4 9 S .W .2 d a t 6 9 ; see a lso 87 Tre vino , 228 S. W

. 3d a t 734

.

O v e rto n s ta te s in h e r b rie f th a t h e r i s s u e s n u m b e re d s i x th ro u g h tw e l v e "w i l l b e a rg u e d to g e th e r"; 88 t her ef or e, we wi l l add r ess t hese si x i ssues t oget herand r ef ert o t hem col l ect i v el y as O v er t on' s f our t h i ssue.

I n t he se ct i on o fO v er t on' s br i efent i t l ed " I ssues Pr esent ed, " she con t ends i n i ssues si x t hr ough 89 tw e l v e th a t: VI

. T he Ju r y I nst r uct i ons Fai l ed t o Char ge M ens Rea f ort he " O m i ssi on" t o Pr ov i de M edi cal C ar e, V i o l a ti n g D u e P ro c e s s . . . . VI I

. T he Ju r y C har ge O m i t t ed M ens Rea f ort he " O m i ssi on" t o Pr ov i de M edi c al C are Vi ol at i ng 58 offense if the person commi ts murde r as defined un d e r Secti on 19. 02( b) (1 )" and "t he person murde rs an ind iv idu al under si x y ears o f age ." Se cti on 19. 02( b) (1 ) defines murder 85 as "int ent iona lly

or know ingly caus[ ing] the dea th of an indiv idua l." T he ind ictme nt in this 86 case sta ted , in pertine nt pa rt, tha t Overton "d id the n an d the re inten tiona lly or know ingly caus e the deat h of an i ndi v idu al y oung er than si x y ears o f age ." The in dictment all eg ed each ele ment of the offense of capi tal murder , i ncl udi ng the re q uis it e m e n ta l sta te. It re q uired th e St ate to p ro v e beyond a re asona ble doubtthatOv erton i ntent ion all y or knowingl y

cause d the dea th of

a child und er six

y ears of age. Becau se the indictm entin thi s c ase acc used Ov erton o f the offense w it h enoug h clar ity and spec ific ity

to ide nti fy the penal st atute under

w hic h the Sta te i ntended t o p ro se cute her , we c oncl ude t hat t he ind ictment prov ide d her w it h s uff ic ien t not ic e of t he charg ed offense. W e ov er ru le is sue 87
one. V. C H A R GE E RROR By her se cond is sue, Ov erton conte nds that the t ri al cour t' s c harg e to the j ur

y w as 88
errone ous for several reaso ns. 89D u e P ro c e s s . . . . VI I I

. T he Ju r y C har ge O m i t t ed M ens Rea f or" C ausi ng t he I ngest i on" of Sodi um , Vi ol at i ng Due P ro c e s s . . . . I X

. T he Ju r y C har ge O m i t t ed M ens Rea f or" C ausi ng t he I ngest i on" of Sodi um , Vi ol at i ng Due P ro c e s s . . . . X

. T he Ju r y C har ge Shi ft ed t he Bur den of Pr oofR egar di ng M ens Rea f o rC a p i t a l M u r d e rin V i o l a ti o n o f § 2 .0 1 o f th e T P C

. . . . X I

. T he Ju r y C har ge S hi ft ed t he Bur den ofPr oofR egar di ng M ens Rea Vi ol at i ng Due

P ro c e s s . . . . X I I

. T he Ju r y C har ge Shi ft ed t he Bur den ofPr oofR egar di ng M ens Rea Vi ol at i ng D ue

P ro c e s s . . . . (E m p h a s i s i n o rig i n a l .)

At t he ch ar ge h ear i ng, O v er t on f i r st obj ect ed t o t he j ur y c ha rge l an gu age and t hen obj ect ed b y 90 s ta tin g : " I'm g o in g to o b j e c t to th e o m is s io n c o m in g in u n d e r c a p ita l m u r d e r , th a t th e s ta tu te [s e c tio n 6 .0 1 ] is unconst i t ut i onal l y v ague and ov er br oad and t hat t he l aw as def i ned i n t he def i ni t i ons can be any t hi ng. " Sect i on 6 .0 1 o f th e p e n a l c o d e s ta te s , "A p e rs o n c o m m i ts a n o ff e n s e o n l y if h e vo l u n ta ril y e n g a g e s i n c o n d u c t, i ncl udi ng a n act , an om i ssi on, orposse ssi on . . . A per son who om i t s t o pe r f or m an act doe s notcom m i t an off ense unl ess a l aw as d ef i ned byS ect i on 1. 07 p r ov i des t hatt he o m i ssi on i s an off ense orot herwi se pr ov i des th a t h e h a s a s ta tu to ry d u ty to p e rf o rm th e a c t." T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 6 .0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ); see id. § 1. 07 ( Ver non Supp. 200 8)

. O v er t on a r gued t o t he t r i al cour t t hat t he l egi sl at ur e " i nt ended [ t hat ] i nj ur y t o a chi l d can be a ccom pl i shed by om i ssi on but not capi t al m ur der , t hat capi t al m ur der i s a r esul t s[
- ] or i ent ed o ff ense and t hat i t r equi r es a v ol unt ar y orknowi ng act

. " T he t r i al cour t ov er r ul ed O v er t on' s obj ect i on t hat capi t al m ur der c a n n o t b e a c c o m p lis h e d b y o m is s io n . O v e r to n d o e s n o t m a k e th is a r g u m e n t o n a p p e a l. 59 At the charge hea ring, Ov erton state d tha t she ha d tw o objecti o n s t o the jury ch a rge . Th e f irs t o bje ct io n Overto n m a d e t o t h e t r i a l co u rtw a s t h a t t h e ju ry cha rge

90
er ro neous ly

i ncl uded t he foll ow ing l ang uag e: " th a t, ' b y omi ss ion , fail ed to prov ide or to seek adeq uate or

ti mely medi cal ca re .' " O v erton st a te d t hat t he bas is for h er co mplai nt
w as tha t "a dequa te or t ime ly m edica l care" is not in a sta tute and "it low er[ed ] the State 's burden i mpermi ss ibl y ." Ov erton req uest ed th at t he tr ial co urt c han ge th e propose d lan g uag e of the jur

y charg e to sta te, "by omis si on, faili ng to prov ide or se ek medic al care." T h e tri a l co u rtagre e d w it h Overto n , a n d i t d e le te d "a d e qua te or t im e ly" f ro m th e ju ry cha rge and inc lud ed the lan g uag e Ov erton re q uest ed. To the extent that Ov erton i s c omplai nin gI n he rbr i ef , O v er t on st at es, " C ounsel obj ect ed t hat t he j ur y char ge l ower ed t he St at e' s bur den of 91 pr oofi n vi ol ati on o fdue pr ocess r equi r em ent s of t he T exas a nd U. S. const s . . . a nd t hat t he ch ar ge o n o m i s s i o n to p ro v i d e m e d i c a l c a re o n [s i c ] w a s n o t w h a t w a s re q u i re d b y th e s ta tu te

. . . ."

S e e D ru e ry v . S ta te , 2 25 S

. W

. 3d 4 91 , 5 05 -06 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 2 00 7) (" W e h ave no t ed , ho w eve r, 92 t hat ' [ i ] fa par t y aff i r m at i v el y seeks act i on b y t he t r i al cour t , t hat par t y cann ot l at ercont end t hat t he a ct i on was e rr o r.' In d e e d , ' th e l a w o f i n v i te d e rr o r e s to p s a p a rty fr o m m a k i n g a n a p p e l l a te e rr o r o f a n a c ti o n i t i n d u c e d .' ") (i nterna l ci t ati on s om i t t ed ); s e e e .g ., P o lkv . S ta te , 1 7 0 S .W .3 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 5 -6 6 ( T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , p e t. r ef ' d) ( " U ndert he d oct r i ne o f i nvi t ed e r r or , a cr i m i nal def endan t m aynotcr eat e er r or , whet herst at ut or y or c on s t i t uti on al , an d t he n s ub m i t t ha t error as a b as i s for ap pe l l ate rel i ef. " ). 60 on appeal that thi s lan g uag e is not w hat is re q uired by the sta tute, w e con clu d e th at 91 Ov erton h as waived thi s a rg ument by req uest ing the compl ain ed- of ins tr uct ion sh e now app ears to ch allenge on app eal. 92 On ap peal , O v erton a rg ues, w it hout ci tati on to auth or ity , t hat "[ b ]e ca u se itw as b a s e d u p o n a n i n f i r m i n d i ct m e n t , t h e j u r y c h a rg e d i d n o tc h a rg e a fe l o n y o f fe n s e . " W e dis ag re e. The ju ry

ch arg e req uired the jur y to deter mine w hether

Ov erton int enti onal ly

or knowingl y

cause d the dea th of

A.B., an individual un der the age o f s ix ye a rs. Thu s, it cor re ctl y i nst ru cte d the j ur

y on t he el ements of capi tal murder

. Ov erton a ls o appea rs to make t he s ame arg ument s he made in her first is sue—that the indi ctmentdi d noti ncl ude the req uis it e mens rea. W e hav e already conc lud ed th at t he i ndi ctmentco ntai ns all of the ele ments of capi tal murder , and w e now conc lud e that the jur y charg e cor re ctl y

i nst ru cte d the j ur y to find Ov erton g uil ty

onl y i f she i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

ca used A.B. 's deat h. Ov erton n ext as ser

ts, for t he f irst ti me on appeal , t hat t he j ur y ch arg e "neg ate[d ] t he re q uirements thatthe Stat e s how intentor know led g e" because it contai ned the foll ow ing three s entenc es: "A person act s int enti onal ly , or w it h int ent, w it h re spect to a re sul t of her condu ct w hen i t i s her cons ci ous obj ect iv e or des ire to caus e the resul t."; "A p erson act s knowingl y , or wit h k n o wle dge, w ith respe ct to a result o f her cond uct w hen she is aw are tha t her con ductis re a s o n ably certain to cau se the result." ; "A pe rson is criminally47 1 U

. S

. 30 7, 31 6 (19 85 ). 9312 2 S

. W

. 3d 79 4, 79 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 03 ). 94 S e e F r

a n k lin , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 3 1 6 ("A n i rr e b u tta b l e o r c o n c l u s i v e p re s u m p ti o n re l i e v e s th e S ta te o f i ts 95 bur den ofper suasi on b y r em ov i ng t he p r esum ed e l em ent f r om t he ca se en t i r el y i fthe S t at e pr ov es t he p re d i c a te fa c ts ."); B ro wn , 12 2 S

. W

. 3d at 79 9 (" [ A ] c om m en t or i ns t ruc t i on t ha t stat es a m an da t ory p re s u m p ti o n . . . vio l a te s d u e p ro c e s s ."); s e e a ls o G a r re tt v . S ta te , 220 S. W

. 3d 9 26, 930 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 2007) ( " M andat or y pr esum pt i ons ar e unconst i t ut i onal because t hey r el i ev e t he St at e of t he b ur den ofpr ov i ng eve ryel em en t of t he offen s e b ey on d a reas on ab l e d ou bt. " ) ( c i t ati on s om i t t ed ).

By a sub- i ssue, O v er t on asser t s, i n one sent ence, t hat " t he i ncom pl et e sect i on 6

. 04 i ns t ruct i on 96 subst ant i al l y l ower ed t he St at e' s bur den ofpr ooft o st r i ct l i abi l i t y . " H owev er , we con cl ude t hat O v er t on h as wai v ed t hi s ar gum ent on appea l beca use sh e ne i t herci t es t o au t hor i t y norsupp or t s t hi s asser t i on wi t h cl ear a n d c o n c i s e a rg u m e n t. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 38

. 1(i ). 61 re spo nsi ble i f the resul t woul d nothav e oc cur re d butfor h er co nduct ." Ov erton c it es Francis v. Franklin and Br own v. Sta te for the proposi ti on th at a mandator y presumpt ion 93 94 include d in the jury

charge v iolate s due process. How ever, we do not agree th at th ese 95 three s entenc es ins tr uct ed th e j u ry t o m ake any presumpt ion s i n thi s c ase. Al l three s e n t e n c e s a p p e a r i n a se ct io n o f t h e ju ry c h a rg e e n t it le d , " De f in it io n s . " T h e f irs ttwo se n t e n c e sp ro v i d e t h e s tatut or y defini ti ons of the te rms "i ntent ion all y ," and "kn ow ing ly ," and the third sent ence d e f in es w hen a person may be held criminallyrespon sible for his condu ct. N eit her

of thes e defini ti ons re q uired th e j ur y to presume an el ement of the charg ed offense. 96 Fur ther more, the appl ic ati on parag ra ph of the jur y charg e ins tr uct ed the jur y to find Ov erton g uil ty

i f it fou nd "from t he ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubtthat [Ov erton]

. . . int enti onal ly or kn ow ing ly

ca use[ d] t he deat h of an i ndi v idu al y oung er than si x y ears o f age ." The appl ic ati on parag ra ph of the jur y charg e also st ated, "U nle ss y ou so find from t he ev ide nce bey ond a re asona ble doubt , or i f you hav e a reason abl e doubt thereof, y ou w il l acq uit the defendant and sa y by y our v erdict ' NotGui lty .' " Therefore, the jur y ch arg e di d not "negat e the req uirements that the State show intentor know led g e," asF i n a l l y , O v e rto n a s s e rts th a t t h e ju ry c h a rg e w a s e rr o n e o u s b e c a u s e "[t ]h e c h a rg e o m i ts p ro x i m a te 97 (o r l e g a l ) c a u s a ti o n ." H o w e v e r, O v e rto n h a s w a i v e d th i s a s s e rti o n b e c a u s e s h e n e i th e r p ro v i d e s c i ta ti o n to a u th o rit y , n o r p ro v i d e s a c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e a rg u m e n t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38

. 1(i ).

S e e N g o v . S ta te , 175 S. W

. 3d 738, 743 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 6) ( pr ov i di ng t hat onl y i fwe f i nd e r r or 98 t he n w e m us t de t erm i ne w he t he r t ha t error ha rm ed t he ap pe l l an t ).

37 3 U

. S

. 83 , 83 (196 3). 99 H a m p to n v . S ta te , 86 S

. W

. 3d 60 3, 61 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 02 ). 100 I d. (i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 101 62 Overton claims. 97 W e conclu de that the jury charge did not cont ain error. Accordin gl y, we o verrule Ov erton' s s econd i ss ue. 98 VI. E XCU LPA TOR Y E V I DE NCE By her f if

th issue , Ov erton conte n d s t h a t the State w ithhe ld ma terial exculpato ry evidence. Specif ically , Ov erton argues that the State did notdisclose Dr. Edgar Cortes's opi nio n tha t he did not bel iev e tha t O v erton i ntended to ki ll [A. B.]. In Br ady v. Ma ry

lan d , th e United State s Supre me Court held thatthe St ate must dis cl ose ev ide nce that is fav orabl e and mater ial to a defendant' s g uil t or puni shment

. A

99 Br ady v iolation is reversible error i f the de fend antshows: (1) the Sta te failed to disclose evidence, regardless of the pro secut ion's good o r bad faith; (2) the w ithhe ld evi den ce is favorable to th e de fend ant ; and (3) the evi den ce is mat erial. 100 Unde r Br ady, the defend antbea rs the bu rden of showi ng that, in lig ht of all the ev iden ce, it is reasona bly prob able thatthe ou tcom e o f the trial w ould have bee n dif

feren t had t he prose cuto r m ade a t ime ly d isclosure. Th e me re poss ibi li ty

thatan i tem of undi sc los ed i nformati on mi g ht ha v e hel ped t he defense , or might hav e af fecte d the outco me of

the trial, do es no t esta blish "mater ial ity " i n the co nst it uti onal se nse. [ ] 101 Br ady m a t e ri a l i n c lu d e s in fo rm a t io n t h a tis kn o wn t o t h e p ro s e c u t io n , b u tu n k n o wnU ni t edS t ates v. A gu rs , 42 7 U

. S

. 97 , 10 3 (19 76 ). 102 H a fd a h l v . S ta te , 805 S

. W

. 2d 3 96, 399 n. 3 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 0) ( en b anc) ( ci t i ng Thom pson v. 103 S ta te , 6 1 2 S .W .2 d 9 2 5 , 9 2 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ); R a n s o n e tte v . S ta te , 550 S. W

. 2d 3 6, 39 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 1 9 7 7 )) ; J o h n s o n v . S ta te , 90 1 S

. W

. 2d 52 5, 53 3 (T ex . A pp . –E l P as o 1 99 5, pe t

. ref' d).

P a lm e r v . S ta te , 90 2 S

. W

. 2d 56 1, 56 3 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 1s t D i s t

. ] 19 95 , no pe t

. ). 104 H am pt on , 86 S. W

. 3d a t 612
- 13. 105 See H af

dahl , 8 0 5 S .W .2 d a t 3 9 9 n .3 ; Johnson , 901 S. W

. 2d a t 533

. 106W e n o te th a t t h e tr ia l c o u r t is in th e b e s t p o s itio n to ju d g e th e c r e d ib ility o fa w itn e s s 's te s tim o n y. 107 S e e S a la za r v . S ta te , 3 8 S .W .3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); B ro w n v . S ta te , 960 S. W

. 2d 7 72, 778 ( T ex. A pp . –D al l as 19 97 , pe t

. ref' d). 63 to th e de fense . Under Br ady, the State is not required to prod uce e x culpa tory 102 infor mati on th at i t doe s n ot ha v e i n i ts poss ess ion or thati s no t know n to ex is t. 103 F ur th er mo re, t he S ta te d oe s n oth av e a du ty t o s ee ko ute v i de nc e for t he d efe nda nt's use. An al leg ed Br

ady v iol ati on is anal yz ed i n l ig ht of al l the o ther ev ide nce adduc ed at 104 trial. 105 In th is case, it is unclear f rom th e evidence w het her the State actua lly knew of Dr. Cor tes 's opi nio n. Atthe hear ing on Ove rt o n 's m oti on for new tr ial , D r. C ortes i nsi ste d 106 that he had infor med the Stat e of hi s o pin ion thatOv erton d id not i ntend to k il l A.B. , butthe prosec utor , Sa ndra Eas twood, tes ti fied th at D r. Cor tes nev er infor med her

of his opi nio n. 107 On c ro ss -e x aminat ion of Dr . C ortes by the Stat e, t he foll ow ing co ll oq uy oc cur re d: [T he Sta te]: Doctor[ , ] d id yo u e ve r t e ll t h e p ro s e c u t o rs t h a t [A

. B.'s]

behav ior , s peci fical ly

that[A. B.' s] behav ior mig ht i n your op i ni on facto r

i nt o H an na O v er

ton 's st at e of m i nd a t th e ti me she p resum ably took— [D r. Cor tes ]: Y es, I did

. . . . W h a t I sim p ly said i t [ si c] to bo th of the [the prosec utors]

. . . is th a t I felt that he was a frus trati ng ch il d to care for and that that mig ht hav e factored int o some o f the thi ng s t hat were done. [T he St at e] : Did yo u ev er s pe c i fi c al l y

s ay t ha t be c au s e he w as a dif f icultO v e rto n o b je c te d to th i s te s ti m o n y o n th e b a s i s th a t E a s tw o o d 's a n s w e r w a s "n o n r e s p o n s i v e "; 108 h o w e v e r, O v e rto n d i d n o t o b ta i n a ru l i n g o n h e r o b je c ti o n fro m th e tri a l c o u rt. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 33

. 1(a )( 2). 64 chi ld to deal w it h y ou did not bel iev e that Han n a h Ov erton int ended t o k il l him at t he ti me. [D r. Cor tes ]: Y eah. That was— I' ve b e e n very co nsi ste nt i n tha t from the v er y beg inn ing that I did n'tthi nk itw as her i ntentto ki ll hi m or har m hi m, thatI thi nk that thi s was a c ase of her tr y ing to dis cip lin e a f ru strati ng ch il d to parent a nd th at t he di sc ipl ine wen t wron g. Howev er , w hen Ea stwood was ask ed, "[ D] id [D r. C ortes ] ev er ex press an o pin ion to y ou to your recollection to the ef fect th at he believed tha t Ms. Overton did no t inten tiona lly kill [A.B .]?" , Eastwood rep lied, "No . I do notreca ll th at at all. My the oryall along w ith the case w as know ing ly

. I nev er recal l hav ing a c onv ersat ion w it h [ Dr. C ortes ] abo ut int enti onal ly

. . . ." The Stat e al so ask ed Eas twood i f Dr . C ortes had ind ic ated that he "bel ieved" th at O v er

ton d id not real iz e the seri ousne ss of A.B.' s condi ti on, a nd Eas twood re spond ed: No. I n fact, he kept menti oni ng si tuati ons in the E R ro om, how parents ev en com e w hen a child has a fever, that th ere w as no ex cuse for her doin g this. I had no idea he felt this w ay, and I mo st certainly would not ha v e ha d him si t w it h me t o as si st me w it h a d eposi ti on w it h a s odi um ex per t.

. . . 108 Adol fo Ag uil o, a member of the prosec uti on te am, te sti fied atthe moti on for new tr ial hear ing , t hat "D r. C ortes nev er ex press ed any relu cta nce to prosec ute [ Ov erton] for c api tal mu rder. . . . [Dr. Cortes] always app eare d to be in agreem ent w ith w hatDr. Rotta and Dr. Fernan dez were saying regarding the case. " Beca use th ere is conf licting evidence re g ardin g w hether

the Stat e k new

of the all eg ed ex cul pator y ev ide nce, w e c annot conc lud e that the i nformati on was in fact k now n to the S tate or t h a t th e S tate w as re q uired toS ee S al azar , 3 8 S .W .3 d a t 1 4 8 ; B ro wn , 960 S. W

. 2d a t 778

. 109W e n o te th a t O v e r to n lis te d D r . C o r te s a s a w itn e s s f o r th e d e f e n s e ; h o w e v e r , th e r e is n o th in g in 110 th e re c o rd s h o w i n g th a t O v e rto n a tte m p te d to i n te rv i e w D r. C o rte s b e fo re th e tri a l s ta rte d

.

S e e L a g ro n e v . S ta te , 94 2 S

. W

. 2d 60 2, 61 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 97 ). 111 S e e F a iro wv . S ta te , 943 S. W

. 2d 8 95, 898 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 7) ( " I t i s i m possi bl e f ora wi t ness 112 t o po ss es s pe r so na l kno wl ed ge ofwha t som eo ne el se i s t hi nki ng . T he i nd i v i du al i s t he o nl y o ne wh o kno ws f orcer t ai n t he m ent al st at e wi t h whi ch he i s act i ng. T her ef or e, i ft he t r i al cour t det erm i ne s that a pr off er ed l a y -w i t ne s s op i ni on i s an at t em pt t o c om m un i c ate t he ac t ua l su bjec t i ve m en t al stat e o f t he ac t or, t he co urt shoul d excl ude t he o pi ni on b ecause i t coul d ne v erbe base d on per sonal knowl edge. " ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on o m i tte d ); A rn o l dv . S ta te , 8 5 3 S .W .2 d 5 4 3 , 5 4 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); J a c k s o n v . S ta te , 548 S. W

. 2d 6 85, 6 9 2 -9 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); W in e g a rn e r v . S ta te , 5 0 5 S .W .2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 4 ); Avila v. S ta te , 95 4 S

. W

. 2d 8 30 , 8 39 (T ex . A pp . –E l P as o 1 99 7, pe t

. ref' d); O s b y v . S ta te , 939 S. W

. 2d 7 87, 788
- 9 ( T ex. A p p .– F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 7 , p e t. re f'd ); W h itm ire v . S ta te , 7 8 9 S .W .2 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 2 (T e x . A p p – B e a u m o n t 1 9 9 0 , p e t. ref' d). W inegar

ner , 505 S. W

. 2d a t 305

. 113 65 produce t h e u n k n o w n i n fo r ma t i o n . Th e re fo re , O v e rt o n h a s n o t me t h e r b u rd e n of 109 showing tha t the State failed to disclose the ev iden ce to he r. 110 Howev e r, e ven i f the St ate k new or sh oul d hav e k now n tha t D r. C ortes di d not bel iev e Ov erton i ntended to ki ll A.B . butfail ed to i nform Ov erton, the prosec uti on has no dut y to disclose ina dm issible evi den ce. Texas courts ha v e repe ate dly excluded e x pert 111 testim ony regarding a d efend ant 's sta te of m ind or in ten t at the t ime o f t he o f fense beca use i t i s s p e c u l a t i v e a n d u n re l i a b l e . I n W inegar ner v. Sta te , the court of

criminal app eals 1 12 sta ted: In g eneral, our

co urts per mit a w it ness to tes ti fy as to h is ow n i ntent ion or other st ate o f mind w here the sa me i s mat er ial

. . . . On t he ot her hand deci si ons p u rp o rtin g to appl y the opi nio n r ule , uni formly ex cl ude t he tes ti mon y o f

a wit ness as to another person' s s tate of mind. Iti s s aid that sin c e o n e person cann ot po ssibly know ano the r's state of mind , his tes ti mony

i s n eces sar il y

bas ed on conj ect ure. 113 Acc ordin g ly , we concl ude that Dr . Cor tes 's opini on of Ov erton' s s tate of mind or her i ntent
w as spec ula ti v e and unreli abl e and thus inadmis si ble

. Ev en assumi ng the Stat e k new of Dr

. Cor tes 's opi nio n, it w as under no d uty to dis cl ose it , and therefore, there was no Br adySee id. 114 See H am pt on , 86 S. W

. 3d a t 612

. 115 66 v iol ati on. 114 Mo re ov er , ev en i f we w ere to ass ume, arg uendo, that thi s was ev ide nce the S tate
w as required t o t u rn over und er Br ady as fav orabl e to the a cc used, Overton s ti ll ca nnot show thatit is reason abl y

probabl e tha t t he out come o f the tr ial woul d hav e been different had t he s tatementbeen dis cl osed. D r. C ortes st ated that he did not bel iev e tha t O v erton 115 int enti onal ly

ca used A.B. 's deat h; ho w ev er , D r. Cortes did not testi fy at t he moti on for new trial hearing thathe be liev ed th at Overton did not com mit th e of fense knowi ngly . Dr

. Cortes, in fact, app eare d to agree tha t the killing m ay ha v e be en co mm itted knowi ngly . Dr

. Cortes indica ted thathe un dersto od th at Overton cou ld be con v icted o f capita l murde r if she know ing ly

ca used A.B. 's death. The Stat e as ked, "D oct or , i t' s n ot your tes ti mony

that Ms . O v erton woul dn'thav e understo od th e seri ousne ss of her ch il d's co ndi ti on atthe ti me, is i t, at the ti me he was sufferin g from s alti ntox ic ati on?", and D r. C ortes repl ied , "W ell , you hav e to re member that w h e n s omethi ng l ik e thi s o cc urs, y ou g o from be ing i n a n or mal state to gradua lly

g oing into a com a. So, I would imagine th at atsome pointshe sho uld hav e k now n tha t he w as hav ing di ff ic ult ies and that she shoul d c all 911. " Beca use the j ur

y ch arg e al lowed for conv icti on of cap it al murde r if Ov erton eith er int enti onal ly

or know ing ly

caused A.B. 's death, Dr . Cor tes 's tes ti mony

thatOv erton d id not inten d to kill A.B. w ould have still allow ed th e jury to convict Ov erton for capita l murde r if it foun d she cause d the dea th know ingly

. W e ha v e alread y conclud ed th at th e evidence is leg ally and factu ally

suf f icient to supp ort a f inding tha t Ov erton knowingl y cause d A.B .'s d e a t h b yo m is s io n . T h e re fo re , t h e m e re p o s s ib il it y t h a tDr

. Co rt e s ' s o p in io n m ig h th a veSee id. 116 See id. 117 H o l d e n v . S ta te , 2 0 1 S .W .3 d 7 6 1 , 7 6 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); C h a rle s v . S ta te , 146 S. W

. 3d 2 04, 118 20 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ).

M e l to n v . S ta te , 987 S. W

. 2d 7 2, 75 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 1998, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng L e w is v . S ta te , 911 119 S

. W

. 2d 1, 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ))

. 67 hel ped Ov erton' s defense does not est abl is h mater ial ity in the cons ti tuti onal se nse. 116 Acc ordin g ly , we c oncl ude t hat O v erton h as not s how n tha t t here i s a reason abl e probabi li ty that, had the c omplai ned- of ev ide nce been dis cl osed to the defense, the outc ome of the proceed ing woul d hav e been different. I ss ue fiv e i s o v er ru led

. 117 VII. N EW LY D I S COV E RE D E V I DE NCE By her sixth issue, Overton cont end s thatshe is entitle d to a n ew trial becau se the re is new ly di sc ov ered ev ide nce. O v erton a ss erts that after the tr ial , she w as abl e to loc ate a cla s s m a te , Na th a n ie l De Ko n in g, who te st if ie d atth e m o ti o n fo r ne w tr ia l h e a rin g. Ov erton ass erts that DeK oni ng 's tes ti mony "sheds new li g ht on [her ] ca se ." O v erton spec ific all y

poi nts to DeK oni ng 's tes ti mony that , dur ing the EM T train ing he a ttend ed w it h Ov erton, they

w ere noti nst ru cte d tha t s odi um w as tox ic ; t hat "E MTs are notq ualif ie d to dia g nose or

treat p ati ents "; and that"EM T train ing l a p se s a fter four to fiv e y ears, [and] CP R train ing l apses after two y ears." W e c onst ru e thi s issue as a c hal len g e to the t ri al court's de nial of

Ov erton 's mot ion for new trial. A tr ial co urt' s r uli ng deny ing a de fendant's moti on for new tr ial i s rev iewed unde r an abuse of dis creti on s tandard of re v iew

. At a m oti on for newtri al, the tr ial courti s t he tr ier 118 of factand the sol e judg e of the credi bil ity

of the w it ness es. Ar

ti cl e 40.001 of

the code 119 of criminal proce dure pro vid e s t hata new trial shall be granted if m ate rial ev iden ceT EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art

. 40

. 00 1 (V ern on 20 06 ). 120 W a lla c e v . S ta te , 1 0 6 S .W .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); D a v i la v . S ta te , 147 S. W

. 3d 5 72, 121 57 7 (T ex . A pp –C orp us C hri s t i 20 04 , pe t

. ref' d).

M a rk h a m v . S ta te , 64 4 S

. W

. 2d 53 , 55 (T ex . A pp . –S an A nton i o 1 98 2, no pe t

. ). 122 In h e rm o tio n , O v e r to n s ta te d , "T h u s , e v e n im p e a c h in g e v id e n c e s u c h a s [D e K o n in g 's te s tim o n y] 123 i s ' n e w l y d i s c o v e re d ' u n d e r T e x a s l a w ." 68 fav orabl e to the a cc used has been d isc o vere d s inc e tr ial

. A defendant i s e nti tl ed to a 120
new tr ial if: (1) the new ly

disc ov ered ev ide nce w as unknow n to hi m at t he ti me of tr ial ; ( 2) his fail ure to dis cov er

the new ev ide nce w as n o t d u e t o hi s l ack of due di li g ence; ( 3) the new ev ide nce is admi ss ibl e and not merely cu mulat iv e, c or ro borati v e, c oll ate ra l, or impea ch in g; an d ( 4) the new ev ide nce is probabl y

tr ue and w il l probabl y br ing abouta different re sul t i n a n ew t ria l. F ail ure to est abl is h any of thes e es sent ial req uirements 121 supp orts a ref usal to g rant a n ew trial. 122 Ev ide nce that EM T and C PRtrain ing l apses after a c ertai n peri o d o f

t ime is not new ly di sc ov ered ev ide nce; thi s i nformati on i s w ide ly av ail abl e to the p ublicand w as available to Overton at th e time of trial. Ev iden ce tha t EMTs a re not qualif ied to diagnose or treat pa tient s is cumula tiv e evidence beca use Gregory testif ied attrial that an E MT is nottaught to diagnose or treat pa tient s. Finally , evi den ce tha t Ov erton 's EMT trainin g did not i ncl ude i nformati on th at sodi um is tox icw oul d hav e been offered, a cc ordin g to Ov erton, as a respo nse to the "p ro sec utor i nter ject[i ng ] i nto h er

q ues tioni ng the noti on th at t he sodi um train ing w as extens iv e. . . ." In he r moti on for new tr ial , O v erton a ck now led g es that DeK oni ng 's tes ti mony w as impeac hin g . At the moti on for new tr ial hear ing , Dav id Sti th, 123 one of Ov erton' s t ri al attor neys, tes ti fied th at D eKoni ng 's tes ti mony w as impor

tant to t he case b ecau se it "w ould t e n d to . . . con tradict in som e form th e test imo ny of Ms.W e no t e t hat John G i l m or e, one of O v er t on' s t r i al at t or ney s, t est i f i ed a t t he m ot i on f ornew t r i al 124 hear i ng t hat G r egor y st at ed a t t r i al t hat she an d O v er t on h ad " ext ensi v e t r ai ni ng i n t he a r ea o fsodi um p o is o n in g ." H o w e v e r , th e r e c o r d r e f le c ts t h a t G r e g o r y n e v e rm e n tio n e d s o d iu m p o is o n in g o rin to x ic a tio n in h e rte s tim o n y. G r e g o r y s ta te d , " W e le a r n e d a lo t a b o u t f lu id b a la n c e s in th e b o d y, e le c tr o lyte s , s a lin e s a s w e ll, sal t bal ances" when asked byt he St at e, " D i d y ou l ear n about concent r at i ons of sal i ne and what was saf e an d w h a t w a s n o t s a f e ? " G r e g o r y a ls o s ta te d , " W e h a d to a c tu a lly le a r n h o w to d o a s a lin e — w e ll, a n IV in g e n e r a l. A n d w h a t w e c a ll N S 9 , n o r m a l s a lin e n in e p e r c e n t, is w h a t is u s e d m o s t o fte n in s ta r tin g a n IV ." G r e g o r y d id n o t m e n tio n s a lt, s a lin e , o rs o d iu m a n yw h e r e e ls e in h e rte s tim o n y.

W al lace , 1 0 6 S .W .3 d a t 1 0 8 ; D a v ila , 147 S. W

. 3d a t 577

. 125 S e e D re wv . S ta te , 7 4 3 S .W .2 d 2 0 7 , 2 2 7 n .1 4 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( " A n e w tr ia l is 126 nev eral l owed f ort he p ur pose ofobt ai ni ng e v i dence t hat was known and accessi bl e t o t he d ef endan t at t he ti m e th e c a u s e w a s tri e d , a n d th i s i s tru e a l th o u g h th e d e fe n d a n t h a d k n o w l e d g e o f th e e v i d e n c e b u t fa i l e d to c om m un i c ate i t t o h i s at t orn ey . " ). 69 Greg or y ." W e c oncl ude t hat t he new ly di sc ov ered ev ide nce offered by Ov erton was 124 merel y i mpeachi ng ev ide nce. " M oreov er , i t was kn o w n to Ov erton a t t he ti me of tr ial 125
w hether or not the E MT c las s s he attended in cl uded informat ion concer nin g the tox ic ity of s od i um . 126 Ev en as suming thatal l of the afore menti oned ev ide nce w as unkno w n to Ov erton at th e time trial, she has n ot sho w n tha t her failure to discov er the alleged "n ew" ev iden ce w as not d ue to her lac k of du e dil ig ence. In fact, O v erton a ck now led g es in her br ief, an d the record reflect s, that one of her tr ial att or neys, John Gi lmore, tes ti fied at the moti on for new tri al hea ring tha t he d id not ha v e time to locate w itnesse s w ho a tten ded the EMT train ing w it h Ov erton. On cross -e x aminat ion , G il more ack now led g ed th at t he St ate prov ide d not ic e tha t i t woul d c a ll G re g or y as a w it ness and sta ted t hat h e di d notkn ow w hether anyone on the d efense te am i nter v iewed Greg o ry b e fo re tr ial

. Fur ther more, Eastw ood testif ied th at she spoke w ith Lisa Harris, one of O ve rt on's trial atto rneys, conc er nin g Greg or

y 's tes ti mony . The Stat e as ked, "Cou ld y ou tel l us spec ific all y w hat you tol d M s. Har ri s a bout Jes si ca Greg or y and w hat y o u w ere g oin g to q uest ion her conce rning?" Eastw ood respon ded , "On ce I me t w ith [Gregory], I spoke with Lisa HarrisA s n oted , G r egor y di d no t t est i fy t hat t he cl ass i ncl uded t r ai ni ng t hat sal t was t oxi c, buti nst ead 1 27 st at ed t hat she l ear ned about I Vs and sal t bal ances. W e not e t hat D eKoni ng' s t est i m onyat t he m ot i on f ornew t r i al hea r i ng a ppear s t o cor r obor at e G r egor y ' s t est i m onyat t r i al

. D ef ense counsel ask ed, " W i t h r egar d t o t he r unni ng o fsal i ne so l uti on s o r s od i um t r ai ni ng, what was t he so di um t r ai ni ng t hat y ou g ot i n t hi s cl ass, basi cal l y ?" DeK oni ng r espond ed, " W hen we st udi ed so di um , i t w as t he r el at i onshi p t o di ff usi on a nd o sm osi s, t hose pr ocesses. W e wer e t au gh t tha t w her e sod i um goe s, wat ergoe s. . . . I t has t o do wi t h [ sodi um ] b a l a n c e ." 70 about her

[O v erton' s] lea rn ing aboutsh ock , t hat i t was—that she w as—the D efendant was an L VN, tha t she ha d ha d experience working w ith children as a nu rse, tha t she ha d—th is
w as a hard c lass , th a t there was sodi um train ing , t hat t here was shoc k t ra ini ng ." W hen ask ed, E astw ood affirmed thatsh e had spec ific all y di sc uss ed s odi um bal ances or so diu m poi soni ng w it h Har ri s. Har ri s did not t est ify at the mot ion for n ew

tr ial hear ing , and Ov erton did no t provide any ev iden ce con tradictin g Eastw ood 's testim ony. The refore, th e evidence suppo rt s a co ncl usi on that Ov erton' s fail ure to dis cov er DeKoni ng 's testi mony

w as due t o a l ack of due di li g ence. Fina lly, th e t rial c our

t, as the t ri er

of fact i n the ca se, w as in the b estpos it ion to det ermin e w het her this evidence would have p ro d u c e d a d if feren t result. T he reco rd suppo rt s t he tr ial co urt' s r uli ng that D eKoni ng 's tes ti mony woul d notprobabl y

br ing about a di fferent resul t i n anot her tr ial

. Ev ide nce that the t ox ic ity of sal t was not taug ht t o Ov erton d u ri n g t h e E MT cl a s s e s wo u ld n o t b ri n g a b o u t a d if fe re n tre s u ltb e c a u s e t h e ju ry m a y h a ve conc lud ed th at O v erton int enti onal ly or know ing ly

caused A.B. 's death byfail ing to prov ide
m e d ic a l c a re . Fu rt h e rm o re , e vid e n c e t h a tE MT a n d CP R c e rt if ication s e xp ire wo u ld h a ve 127 had n o i mp a ct o n t h e v e rd i ct

. Th u s , t h e re c o rd s u p p o rt s t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s d e n i al of the moti on for new

tr ial ; t herefore, the t ri al cou rtdi d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n notg ra nti ng appel lan t' s moti on for new tr ial for new ly dis cov ered ev ide nce. Ac cordin g ly , we c oncl ude that the t ri al cour

t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by deny ing Ov erto n 's m oti on for new tr ialT o t he ext ent t hatO v er t on ar gues t hat she was " sur pr i sed" by ei t herG r egor y ' s t est i m onyort he 128 St at e' s que st i oni ng ofG r egor y , w e concl ude t hat she has not pr eser v ed er r orbecause she di d not r equest a p o s tp o n e m e n t o r s e e k a c o n ti n u a n c e . S e e L in d le y v . S ta te , 635 S

. W

. 2d 5 41, 544 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 198 2) ( " T he f ai l ur e t o r equesta post ponem ent or seek a cont i nuance w ai v es any er r orur ged i n an app eal on t he ba s i s of su rpri s e." ).

F u r th e r m o r e , t h e r e is n o m e n tio n o fV e tt e r s o rh is s ta te m e n t in O v e r to n 's m o tio n f o rn e w tr ia l. 129 Tro u t v . S ta te , 70 2 S

. W

. 2d 61 8, 61 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 85 ) ( en ba nc ) ( op . on reh' g). 130 I d. 131 71 b a s e d o n n e wly d is c o ve re d e vid e n c e . W e o ve rr u le is s u e si x. 128 VIII . E X TR A -R E CORD E V I DE NCE B y h e r sev ent h issue, Ov erton claims tha t she is ent itled to a new trial becau se S teven Vet ters, an alterna te juror, m ade an allegedly i mp rope r comm entto the jury. S p e c if ic a ll y, O ve rt o n a rg u e s t h a tV e tt e rs ' s co m m e n t , a s a n o u t s id e i n f lu e n c e o n t h e ju ry, taint ed th e ju ry d e li b e ration s. Th e Sta te respo nds th at Overton ha s not pre serv ed th is issue for our rev iew

beca use th e com plaintw as no t raised i n Overton's mo tion fo r new trial. As supp ort tha t the trial court sh ould h ave grante d her mo tion for new trial becau se the j ur y heard e xtra- re cord ev ide nce, Ov erton p oin ts to V etters' s a ff ida v it , w hic h the tr ial cour t admi tted at t he moti on for new tr ial heari ng . At t he hear ing , t he tr ial co urt admi tted the a ff ida v itafter

Ov erton i nformed t he tr ial co urt t hat s he had ra is ed in her motio n for new tr ial a cl aim that the jur

y heard extra- re cord ev ide nce. Therefore, Ov erton a rg ued t hat t he af f idavit suppo rted he r claim. Ho w ever, in her mo tion for n ew trial, Ov erton did notin fa ct all eg e tha t s he was enti tl ed to a ne w tr ial on t he bas is of extra- re cord ev ide nce. 129 In Tr out v . St ate , the defendant fil ed a ti mely moti on for new

tr ial al leg ing two acts 130 of jury miscon ductsupp orted bytwo af f idavits attach ed to the m otion

. T h e t ri a l court 1 31 condu cte d a hear ing on t he moti on and, ov er the Stat e's obj ect ion , al lowed th e defendantI d. 132 I d. 133 I d. 134 I d. at 620

. 135 See id. ; s ee als o S t ate v

. M oo re , 225 S. W

. 3d 556, 570 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 7) ( concl udi ng t hat 136

" [s ]h o u ld th e tr ia l c o u r t r e f u s e to lim it its r u lin g to th e o r ig in a l m o tio n [f o rn e w tr ia l] a n d g r a n t r e lie fo n th e b a s is oft he a m endm ent ov ert he St at e' s obj ect i on, t he a ppel l at e c ou r t shou l d con si deronl y t he v al i di t y of t he or i gi nal and anyt i m el y am ended m ot i on f ornew t r i al , and shou l d r ev er se any r ul i ng gr ant i ng a new t r i al base d up on m att ers rai s ed for t he fi rst t i m e i n a n u nti m el y am en dm en t " ). 72 to rais e a t hird act of j ur y mis condu ct that had notbeen ra is ed i n the defendant' s mot ion for new tr ial

. The t ri al cour

t den ied the defendant' s mot ion for new tr ial

. The cour t of 132 133 appeal s conc lud ed that the tri al cour t shoul d hav e granted the defendant's m oti on for new tr ial on t he bas is of the thi rd act of alle g ed jur

y m is condu ct, w hic h was not i ncl uded i n the moti on. The c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s rev ersed, st ati ng : 134 Beca use the proper functi on of t he affidav it s i s t o s uppor t t he moti on for new trial, we h old tha t the a lleged jury miscon ductconce rning the [th ird a ct] wa s n o tp ro p e rl y p re s e n t e d b y t h e m o t io n fo r n e w t ri a l, s h o u ld n o th a ve been en ter

tai ned by

the tr ial courtat the hear ing on t he moti on for new tr ial and w as no t prope rly

preserved for app eal. 135 Here, Overton f iled a tim ely mo tion for new trial; h owev er, the m otion did notraise the i ss ue s he now

rai ses on appeal

. Therefore, we mustco ncl ude, under the re asoni ng in Tr out , t hat t he tr ial co urt s houl d not hav e enter tai ned the is sue at the mot ion for n ew tr ial hea ring beca use it w as no t presen ted in th e t im ely mo tion for new trial. W e overrule 136 Ov erton' s s ev enth is sue. IX. P ROSECUTORI A L M I S CONDU CT Byher e i g h t h a n d n i n t h i s s u e s , O v e rt o n c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e p ro s e c u t o r c o mm i tted misco ndu ct. Spe cif ica ll y, O ve rton alleges th at th e prose cuto r: ( 1) "m a[d e] [a ] falseIn h e r i s s u e s p re s e n te d , O v e rto n s ta te s th a t V a l d e z v i o l a te d a g a g o rd e r i s s u e d b y th e tri a l c o u rt; 137 h o w e v e r, O v e rto n n e i th e r p ro v i d e s a c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e a rg u m e n t fo r h e r c la im , n o r p ro v i d e s a p p ro p ria te c i ta ti o n s to a u th o rit i e s . T h e re fo re , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t O v e rto n h a s w a i v e d th i s i s s u e . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38

. 1(i ). W e al so no t e t hat O v er t on c l ai m s, wi t houtci t at i on t o au t hor i t y , t hat she i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al

138 because of

t he a l l eged et hi cal v i ol at i on. However , " vi ol ati ons o fdi sci pl i nar y r ul es ar e t o be dea l t wi t h by m eans oft he a dm i ni st r at i v e m echani sm s set f or t h wi t hi n t hose r ul es. . . . A v i ol at i on o fa di sci pl i nar y r ul e by th e p ro s e c u to r, i n a n d o f i ts e l f, w o u l d n o t m a n d a te a re v e rs a l o f a p p e l l a n t' s c o n v i c ti o n ." B ro w n v . S ta te , 921 S

. W

. 2d 22 7, 23 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 96 ) ( en ba nc ) ( pro vi di ng t ha t a d efe nd an t m us t sh ow t ha t the di s c i pl i na ry 73 sta tement on TV"; and ( 2) "eng ag ed in a patte rn of mi sc onduct w hic h deni ed [O v erton] a fair tr ial ." A . Th e Prosec ut or's S ta te men ts t o th e M edi a By her eighth i s s u e , O ve rt on co nte nds th at sta tem ent s bythe St ate to the med ia den ied her a fair trial. Spe cif ically , Overton argues tha t the Nuece s Co u n t y Distri ct Atto rn ey , t he H onorabl e C ar los Val dez , made sta tements to the medi a after the tr ial ended tha t: (1) v iolate d the "eth ical rules g overning prosecutio n con duct " by cr iticiz ing the jury 's
v erdict; an d (2) accused O v erton 's lawy ers of "sub orning perjury" by

"[saying] the defense w it ness es w ere pai d to li e." 137 Fi rs t, Ov erton c omplai ns of Valde z 's st atement tha t " [i ]n this ca se, M rs . O v erton killed this boy. She ca used h is d eat h inten tiona lly , it was n ot beca use of o mission , she d id iti ntent ion all y . This resul ted in jus ti ce. " Ov erton a rg ues, howev er , t hat w hen t he j ur y w as polled , "th e jurors all stated they convi cted Ov erton for 'omission ' . . . not tha t 'she did it i n t e n t i o n a l l y , ' a s M r . V a l d e zc l a i m e d

. H i s s t a t e m e n tt h u s c r i t i c i z e d t h e j u r y ' s v e rd i ct

. " W e d is a gre e t h a tV a ld e z' s c o m m e n t s " c ri t ic ize d ' t h e j u ry' s ve rd ic t

. T h e ju ry re t u rn e d a " gu il ty"
v erdict. Valdez 's statementchara cte ri z es the v erdict as "just ic e." Therefore, we c oncl ude that Ov erton' s a rg ument t hat V ald ezv iol ated the "e th ic al ru les g ov er nin g prosec uti on condu ct" by

"cr it ic iz ing " the jur

y 's v erdict i s w it hout meri t. 138ru l e v i o l a ti o n a ff e c te d h i s s u b s ta n ti a l r i g h ts o r d e p rive d h i m o f a fa i r tria l ); A rm s tro n g v . S ta te , 897 S. W

. 2d 3 61,

366 n. 5 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 5) ( en b anc) ( percur i am )

. M or eov er , we con cl ude t ha t O vert on h as no t d e m o n s tra te d th a t t h e d i s c i p l i n a ry ru l e v i o l a ti o n a ff e c te d h e r s u b s ta n ti a l r i g h ts o r d e p rive d h e r a fa i r tria l

. See B ro wn , 921 S. W

. 2d a t 230

.

S e e B ro wn , 9 2 1 S .W .2 d a t 2 3 0 ; Ar m strong , 897 S. W

. 2d a t 366 n. 5. 139It is n o te w o r th y th a t O v e r to n 's s e n te n c e w a s im p o s e d b y th e tr ia l c o u r t a n d n o t b y a ju r y. 140 S e e B ro wn , 9 2 1 S .W .2 d a t 2 3 0 ; Ar m strong , 897 S. W

. 2d a t 366 n. 5. 141 74 Next, Ov erton c omplai ns of Valde z 's st atement that: [Ov erton] had t o l ook all ov er the nati on for some p ro fessi onal s t hat a s l ong as on e pays the m, say w hat one w ant s the y w ill testif y w hat ever the defense asks. W e do not ne ed to do tha t. W e do not ne ed to g o all over the coun try loo ki ng for s omeone t o tes ti fy for us l ik e w e w ant, and that is w hat h appened in thi s c ase. Ov erton a rg ues that Val dezv iol ated ru le 3.07 of the T e xas D isc ipli nar y R ule s o f P ro fe s s io n a l C o n d u ctwh e n h e m a d e t h a tst a t e m e n t

. O ve rt o n , wit h o u tci t a t io n t o a u t h o ri ty, alleges tha t she is ent itled to a n ew trial becau se "[V alde z 's] ability to use his bully pul pit

. . . rais ed hi s conduct t o a fai r tr ial v iol ati on." Ov erton h as not e x pla ine d how Val dez 's co mment, made after the jury ret urne d a "guilty " v erdict, den ied her a fair trial. 139 W e c oncl ude t hat t his as ser ti on is w it hout meri t bec ause Ov erton h as not s how n tha t t he alleged disciplina ry

rule v iolation d eprived h er o f a fair trial. A violation of a disciplinary 140 rule by t h e p rosecu tor, in an d of itself , would not m and ate a rev ersal of Ov erton 's conv icti on unl ess i t den ied Ov erton o f a fair tr ial

. W e ov er ru le Ov erton' s e ig hth i ss ue. 141 B. Pa tt ern o f Pro secu to rial M isco nd uct By her ninth is sue, Ov erton conte nds that she is enti tl ed to a ne w tr ial bec ause the p ro s e c u t o r e n ga ge d in a " p a tt e rn o f m is c o n d u ct " t h a td e n ie d h e r a fa ir t ri a l. Sp e c if ic a ll y, Ov erton c lai ms t hat t he p ro se cu tor di d the foll ow ing : (1 ) del ay ed th e proceed ing s; (2 ) ma de inf lam ma tory com me nts; (3 ) a s k ed im prop er questions; and (4) presente d falseS ta h l v . S ta te , 74 9 S

. W

. 2d 82 6, 83 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 88 ) ( en ba nc ). 142 H o d g e v . S ta te , 48 8 S

. W

. 2d 77 9, 78 1-8 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 73 ). 143 P e n ryv . S ta te , 9 0 3 S .W .2 d 7 1 5 , 7 6 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (e n b a n c ); see T EX . R. A PP . P. 33. 1. 144 W i ls o n v . S ta te , 71 S

. W

. 3d 34 6, 34 9 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 02 ). 145O v er t on cl ai m s t hat t he St at e del ay ed t he pr oceedi ngs by " usi ng r epet i t i v e quest i oni ng, i r r el ev ant 146 q u e s ti o n i n g [,] a n d l a c k o f p re p a ra ti o n ."

I n t hese i nst ances, O v er t on d i d no t obj ect on anybasi s. 147 75 testim ony. By a sub-issue , Overton cont end s thatshe w as en titled to a mistrial beca use the State v iolate d the trial court's order in limine and l ef t the impressio n tha t the defense w ithhe ld informa tion f rom a w itness. 1. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W e rev iew

al leg ati ons of prosec utor ial m is condu ct on a cas e byca se basi s. The 142
rev iew is not limited to only the facts of each case bu t also the proba ble ef fect on the jurors' minds

. To p re se rve error for p ro sec utor ial mis condu ct, a de fendant must( 1) make a 143 time ly and specif ic objectio n, (2) request an inst ruction to disregard the mat ter imp rope rly pl ac ed be fore th e j ur

y , an d ( 3) mo v e for mi s tr i al

. F ur th er , an ob

j ecti on attrial must 144
com port wi th th e com plainton ap pea l. 145 2. Discus sion Fi rs t , O v e rt o n c l a i ms t h a tt h e S t a t e ' s a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u ctc a u s e d h e r s u b s t a nti al preju dic e w hen t he St ate a ll eg edl y del ay ed the proceed ing s becau se she w as unabl e to presentthe tes ti mony

of Dr . M ic hael M or itz . O v erton c it es to se veral i nst ances i n the 146
re cord w herein the tr ial co urt as ked the S tate "to mov e on" and s tated thatthe q uest ion s had bee n aske d an d an sw ere d

. O ve rt on a lso cites to several instan ces in the record 147
w h e re i n s h e o bj e ct e d t o t h e S t a t e ' s q u e s t i o n s o n t h e b a s i s t h a tt h e q u e s t i o n s h a d b eenS ee P en ry , 9 0 3 S .W .2 d a t 7 6 4 ; see a lso T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1

. 148 76 ask ed and answered; t he tr ial co urt s ust ain ed all of t hose obj ect ion s. H ow ev er , O v erton does not p oin t to any

i nst ances i n the record, an d w e find none, w here s he obj ect ed th at the State comm it t ed p rosecu torial misco ndu ct by imp rope rly delaying the trial, or w here she compl ain ed to the tr ial co urt t hat t he St ate' s a ll eg ed del ay tacti cs ca used her s u b s t a n t ia l p reju d ic e . T h e re fo re , O ve rt o n h a s n o tp re s e rve d t h is is s u e fo r o u r re vie w. 148 Mo re ov er , bas ed on our rev iew of the re cord, Dr . Mor itz 's fail ure to tes ti fy at t ri al w as notdue to the State 's action s. At tr ial, Gilmo re informe d the trial court thatDr. Moritzwould o n ly b e a va il a b le t o t e s t ify o n o n e d a y u n t il 6 : 1 0 p . m . , wh e n h is p la n e wo u ld le a ve t h e ci ty. Gi lmore s ug g est ed th at i f Dr . M or itzw as unabl e to testi fy b y 1:30 p.m. on th at da y , t he defense t eam woul d tak e Dr

. Mo ri tz 's depos it ion dur ing the Stat e's cas e- in- chi ef an d the n presentthe depos it ion to the j ur y . He tol d the tri al cour

t t hat "O ne of the prosec utors i n the cas e c an g o to [anot her defense couns el's] o f

f ice o r w herev er

i t i s s et up

. [The St ate] can— w e c an puthi m on, t hey ca n c ro ss ex amine him, and then pla y thatfor t he j ur

y ." The S t a t e o bjected on the basis tha t a judge w ould not be presen t to rule on object ions. Non ethel ess , t he tr ial co urt g ra nted defense couns el' s re q uest and al lowed th e depos it ion o f Dr

. Mo ri t z d u ri n g t h e S t a t e ' s c a s e -i n -c h ie f

. Dr

. Mo ri t z' s d e p o s it io n wa s t a k e n t h e n e xt day

. Howev er , t he defense did not offer the depos it ion tes ti mony i nto e v ide nce. The t ri al c o u rta s k e d O ve rt o n , " I t ' s m y u n d e rs t a n d in g t h a tb o t h o f yo u [ O ve rt o n a n d t h e S t a t e ] h a ve ag re e d that[D r. M or itz ] w il l not b e tes ti fyi ng bec ause the d eposi ti on was not fin is hed." Ov erton respon ded, "Y our H onor , t he exactag re ement we had w as that w e woul d s top t he dep osition and neith er side w ould use the dep osition . Th at w as the a greem ent ." Th is is t h e o n ly re a s o n gi ve n t o t h e t ri a l c o u rtfo r D r. Mo ri t z' s fa il u re t o t e s t ify.77

F u rt h e rm o re , a tt h e m o t io n fo r n e w t ri a l h e a ri n g, G il m o re , t h e le a d d e fe n s e a tt o rn e y, tes ti fied, o n c ro ss -e x aminat ion , that alth oug h he had notw atc hed D r. M or itz 's depos it ion , he had deci ded notto offer it into ev ide nce becau se attor neys he trus ted adv is ed hi m not to do so . Gi lmore al so tes ti fied, "W e had an ex per t [Dr . M or itz ] w ho was on s chedu le and
w e had sc hedul ed hi m sev eral ti mes and he had to cancel

. And he w as here to tes ti fy and the S tate' s c ase w ent ov er for w hatev er

reaso n. I think

it w as a j uror

probl em." The tr ial cour t t hen reminde d Gi lmore tha t i t was know n tha t D r. M or itzwoul d onl y be a v ail abl e at c er ta i n ti me s a nd tha t t he Sta te w as w i l l i ng t o ac c om mo da te t he t es ti mo ny w he n i t be c am e av ail abl e. The tr ial co urt st ated, "That was ag re ed to and then he c ancel ed and the depos it ion w as as a resul t of hi m not bei ng abl e t o b e h e re when he shoul d hav e been. Is that cor re ct? " G il more re pli ed: I bel iev e w e wor ked a s chedu le to w here w e tho ug ht we w ere g oin g to g et him here at the e nd of the Stat e's case. I thi nk the probl em w as, Ju dg e, t hat the juror was ill that mo rning and th e Sta te w asn'table to f inish the ir case tha t mo rning. W e w ould h ave b een a ble to puth im on tha t af terno on h ad it n o tb e e n fo r t h a t

. An d h e wa s n o ta va il a b le t h e n e xtd a y. The cour

t as ked, "Butthe Cou rtt o ld y ou you c an s ubpoena him and [ the C our t woul d] ma ke sure that he stay s. Is tha t correct?" Gilmore replied , "T hatis correct, Ju dge." The re is n o e vid e n c e t h a tO ve rt o n re qu e s t e d t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtsu b p o e n a Dr

. Mo ri t z. At t ri al, Ov erton n ev er

co mplai ned t hat t he S t ate' s a cti ons prev ented her from c all ing Dr . M or itzto tes ti fy or

prev ented her

from admi tti ng D r. M or itz 's depos it ion into e v ide nce. The ev ide nce present ed atthe moti on for new tr ial heari n g s h o ws t hat O v erton d id not presentD r. M or itz 's depos it ion for s trateg icreason s a nd th at de lay , i f any , w as not c aused b y t h e S t a t e , b u t was du e to a si ckju ro r. More o ver, atth e m o ti o n fo r ne w tr ia l h e a rin g, Overton did no t presen t any ev iden ce tha t the State prevented he r f ro m presen ting Dr

.78

Mo ri tz 's depos it ion at tr ial

. Therefore, we c annot conc lud e tha t t he St ate d e la y ed th e proce edin gs or thatOv erton suf fered substa ntial ha rm du e to th e Sta te's actio ns. Next, Ov erton asserts tha t th e S t a t e ma de se v eral inten tiona l "inf lam ma tory comments ." Fi rs t, Ov erton compl ain s that the S tate ask ed "w hether D et[ecti v e] H ess put Zat arain 's i n Ov erton' s water ." Ov erton o bje cte d to the q uest ion on t he bas is thatthe Stat e made a "s ide bar

co mment." The tr ial co urt sust ain ed Ov erton' s objecti on, and asked the Stat e to "mov e on. " Next, Ov erton cl aims that the Stat e "g av e the i mpres si on th at O v erton h a d a b u rd e n o f

p ro o f a n d n o ri gh tt o re m a in si le n t " wh e n t h e p ro s e c u t o r a s k e d De t e ct ive He s s , " L e tm e a s ky o u , h a ve yo u b e e n co n t a ct e d b y a n y o f t h e d e fe n s e a tt o rn e ys re g ardin g any

pos si ble defense theor ies thatthey hav e i n t h is ca se?" Ov erton o bje cte d t o t h is q u e s t io n o n t h e b a s is t h a tt h e d e fe n s e h a s " n o o b li ga t io n t o d is c lo s e a n y d e fe n s ive theor ies ." The tr ial courtagreed w it h Ov erton and did not all ow Detecti v e Hess to answer the q u e st ion

. Fi nal ly , O v erton c omplai ns that the S tate re ferred to A.B . as "Li ttl e [A .B.] " and "lef t a pho to of

[A.B. ], in extremis, in sight o f t h e ju ry , to inf lam e the m. " At trial, Ov erton o bje cte d to the S tate' s u se of the te rm "li ttl e" to desc ri be A.B. on the b asi s t hat t he Stat e was maki ng a "s ide bar" co mment. In resp o n se , th e tr ial co urt as ked the S tate to re fer to the chi ld by

hi s n ame, and the Stat e c ompli ed. Ov erton d id not o bje ctto the com plaine d-of

pho to; h owev er, the trial court instructed the State to "[ r]em ove" the picture becau se ithad already been show n. Overton has n eithe r prov ided citation to aut hority, nor prov ided a cle ar a nd co ncise a rg u m e n tsu p p o rt in g h e r a s s e rt io n t h a tt h e S t a t e m a d e i n t e n t io n a l " in f la m m a t o ry" c o m m e n t s , a n d sh e d o e s n o te xp la in a n y h a rm sh e m a yh a v e s u f fe re d

. T h e re fo re , weSee T EX . R. A PP . P

. 38

. 1(i ). 149 See id. 3 3 .1 ; W i

lson , 71 S. W

. 3d a t 349

. 150I t app ear s t hat O v er t on cont ends, t hr ough her sub- i ssue, t hat t he t r i al cour t shou l d ha v e gr ant ed 151 hera m i st r i al because t he St at e al l egedl y vi ol at ed t he t r i al cour t ' s or deri n l i m i ne. O v er t on d oes n ot ci t e t o an y aut hor i t y r egar di ng a m ot i on f orm i st r i al and has not pr ov i ded a cl earand conci se ar gum ent supp or t i ng h er a s s e rti o n . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 8 .1 (i). N o n e th e l e s s , w e w i l l a d d re s s th e i s s u e a s w e u n d e rs ta n d i t.

O v er t on a l so appea r s t o asser t t hat t he t r i al cour t shoul d hav e gr ant ed a m i st r i al on t he b asi s t hat 152

" not once butt wi ce [ t he St at e] m ade i m pl i cat i on t hat we wer e no t t el l i ng t he t r ut h t o t hi s wi t ness a nd w i t hh ol di ng s om ethi ng from t hi s w i t ne s s . " H ow eve r, O vert on ha s ne i t he r pro vi de d ci t ati on t o a utho ri t y no r a c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e a rg u m e n t fo r h e r a s s e rti o n ; t h e re fo re , i t i s w a i v e d

. See id. at R

. 38

. 1(i ).

H a w k in s v . S ta te , 13 5 S

. W

. 3d 72 , 77 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). 153 79 conclu de th at she h as w aived t his assertion

. Furthermo re, at trial, Overton did no t obje ct 149 to t he c omplai ned- of ins tanc es on th e bas is thatthe prosec utor's q uest ion s were i ntended to i nflame the min ds of the jur y , as she now

arg ues on appe al. Therefore, her arg ument on a ppe al doe s not com port wit h t h e o bjection s Ov erton mad e at trial. W e overrule 150 Ov erton' s n int h i ss ue. 3. Mo ti on for

M ist rial By a sub- is sue, Ov erton appears to chal len g e the tr ial co urt' s d eni al of her moti on for mi str ial

. F irst, Ov erton c it es a por ti on of the re cord w herein she req uest ed a mis tr ial 151 on th e bas is thatthe Stat e al leg edl y v iol ate d a n o rd er

i n l imi ne reg ardin g extraneous of fense s. Ov erton a ppe ars to argue tha t the State comm itted prosecu torial misco ndu ct

152
w hen i t all eg edl y

vi ola ted the order

i n l imi ne. Therefore, we w il l cons tr ue Ov erton' s s ubis sue as a c hal len g e to the tr ial court 's denial of her motion for mistr ial on t he bas is thatthe Stat e v iol ated the o rd er i n l imi ne. A moti on for mis tr ial w ill o n ly b e g ra nted in "extreme ci rc umstan ces , w here the preju dic e i s i ncurabl e." Preju dic e i s i ncurabl e i f "the re ferenc e [i s] cl ear ly ca lc ula ted t o 153 infla me the minds of the j ur y or w as of s uch damnin g charact er as to s ug g esti t woul d beR o ja s v . S ta te , 98 6 S

. W

. 2d 24 1, 25 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 98 ). 154 R u s s e a u v . S ta te , 171 S. W

. 3d 8 71, 885 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 5) ( ci t i ng L a d dv . S ta te , 3 S. W

. 3d 155 54 7, 56 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 99 ))

.

I d. 156 See H aw kins , 1 3 5 S .W .3 d a t 7 7 ; s e e a ls o M o s le y v . S ta te , 983 S. W

. 2d 2 49, 259 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 157 19 98 ). 80 impos si ble to re mov e the har mf ul impress ion from the jurors' minds ." In most cas es, the 154 asking of an i mp rope r question rarely requires the g rantin g of a mistrial, be cause g ene rally the h ar m can be c ured by an i nst ru cti on to di sreg ard. 155 W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt' s d eni al of a moti on for mis tr ial u n d er an a buse of discretion stand ard. The facto rs to be consid ered in dete rmining w het her the trial court 156 abu sed i ts discretion in denying a mistrial are: ( 1) the se v erityof the m iscond uct (magnit ud e of the prejud icial ef fect); (2) mea sures ad opt ed to cure the miscon duct(ef f icacy of anyca uti onar

y i nst ru cti on by the j udg e) ; and ( 3) the cer tai nty of conv icti on abs ent t he mis condu ct. 157 Ov erton a ll eg es that the S tate v iol ated the t ri al cour t' s o rd er i n l imi ne dur ing i ts cross -e x aminat ion of Dr . Me li nek, Ov erton' s e x per t w it ness . Before approachi ng the bench , t he St ate a sk ed, "As far as chi ld abuse , did y ou stu dy thi s cas e carefull y in order to de ter mine for c ertai n w hether or not there was chil d abus e?" At a bench co nferenc e, Overton obje cted to the q uest ion sta ting, "I un dersta nd th is was cross e x am inatio n. I did not a sk aboutch il d abus e." Ov erton n eit her obj ect ed to the q uest ion on t he bas is thatthe Stat e al leg edl y

v iol ated the order in li mine nor did she re q uest a li miti ng i nst ru cti on. The tr ial co urt i nformed t he St ate t hat b ecaus e thi s w as cross -e x aminat ion , t he St ate c oul d not "g o i nto i t." The S tate cont inu ed i ts cross -e x aminat ion , as ki ng D r. M eli nek ov er oneO v er t on r equest ed a m i st r i al on num er ous occasi ons on a v ar i et y of gr ounds. However , on appea l 158 O v er t on d oes n ot chal l enge t he t r i al cour t ' s den i al i n t hose ot heri nst ances.

G rig g s v . S ta te , 2 1 3 S .W .3 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 159 See id. a t 9 2 7 ; see a lso Yo u n g v . S ta te , 1 3 7 S .W .3 d 6 5 , 7 0 (T e x . C rim

. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (e n b a n c ) ("W e 160 r ecogni z e t he pot ent i al f or abuse of a r ul e al l owi ng a m ot i on f or m i st r i al wi t hout a pr ecedi ng o bjec t i on or r equestf ori nst r uct i on t o di sr egar d. I f a par t y del ay s m ot i on f or m i st r i al , and by f ai l i ng t o ob j ect al l ows f ort he in tr o d u c tio n o ff u r th e ro b j e c tio n a b le te s tim o n y o rc o m m e n ts a n d g r e a te ra c c u m u la tio n o fh a r m , th e p a r ty c o u ld n o m o re re l y o n th e u n ti m e l y m o ti o n fo r m i s tri a l th a n o n a n u n ti m e l y o b je c ti o n ."); Th o m a s v . S ta te , 137 S. W

. 3d 792, 796 ( T ex. App. –W aco 2004, no pet

. ) ( concl udi ng t hat an obj ect i on was unt i m el y when t he ap pe l l ant wai t ed t o ob j ect aft er t he St at e asked el ev en m or e qu est i ons a ft ert he co m pl ai ned- ofque st i on; and t her ef or e, t he ap pe l l an t di d n ot pre s erve error). 81 hun dred more q uest ions. T he trial co urt the n gav e the ju ry a f if tee n-min ute b reak. At th is poin t, Overton requeste d a mistrial be cause the St ate had allegedly v iolate d the order in li mine throug h i ts q uest ion co ncer nin g ch il d abus e. Ov erton s tated : I' m maki ng anot her

moti on for mis tr ial bas ed on a q uest ion thatw as ask ed at t he first of the c ro ss -e x aminat ion of thi s wi tnes s. [The St ate] ask ed th e w itness if

she revi ewed the reco rd and sa w any si gns of

child abu se. T here 's a mo tion in limin e tha t covers tha t. It's an extraneo us of fense . She sh ould have app roach ed th e be nch b efore she asked the questio n, an d she didn't approach the b ench. W e had to ob ject i n frontof the j ur

y .[ ] 158 T he trial cou rt denie d Overton's mo tion for mistrial. A moti on for mis tr ial m ustbe both ti mely and spec ificand is ti mely onl y i f it is made as soon as the g ro unds for it become apparent. H ere, t he obj ect ion abl e nat ure of the 159 Stat e's ques ti on w as apparent w hen the State mention ed "chil d abuse." H ow ev er , O v erton wait e d un ti l th e St a te as ke d ove r on e hu n d re d ad d it io n a l que st io n s b e fo re requ e st in g a mis tr ial on t he basi s that the State had v iol ated the o rd er i n l imi ne. Ov erton' s mot ion for
m is t ri a l wa s t h e re fo re u n t im e ly a n d fa il e d t o p re s e rve h e r co m p la in t fo r ap p e ll a t e re vie w. 160 Fur ther more, Ov erton n eit her obje ct e d to the c omplai ned- of qu est ion , nor req uest ed a mis tr ial on the basi s that the Stat e commi tted prosec utor ial mis condu ct. Therefore, to t he extent that Ov erton n ow co mplai ns that she w as enti tl ed to a mist ri al on th e bas is thattheSee T EX . R. A PP . P. 33. 1. 161 O v er t on a l l eg es t ha t Det ec t i v e H es s i s m ar r i ed t o a su pe r v i so ra t CPS. 162 O v e rto n c o m p l a i n s th a t D e te c ti v e H e s s "u s e d b u l l y i n g ta c ti c s w i th w i tn e s s e s a n d a tte m p te d to 163 c ajol e a nd m i s l ed [ s i c ] t he m i nto m ak i ng stat em en ts w hi c h w ou l d w ron gl y i nc ri m i na t e O vert on . " H ow eve r, O vert on do es no t po i nt t o t he " s t atem en t s " m ad e by t he " w i t ne s s es " t ha t al l eg ed l y " w ron gl y i nc ri m i na t e[d] " he r. T h e re fo re , w e c o n c l u d e th a t t h i s c o m p l a i n t i s i n a d e q u a te l y b rie fe d

. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 38

. 1(i ).

O v er t on co m pl ai ns t hat i t was i m pr operf ort he St at e t o ask Dr. M el i nek, " And y ou sa i d t hat y ou h ad 164 r ev i ewed m any r ecor ds i n pr epar at i on f ory ourt est i m ony . Di dn' t y ou r ev i ew t he r ecor ds f r om when [ A. B. ] was bor n an d t he r ecor ds f r om D r . C or t es t al k i ng about hi s heal t h, and wer en' t t heyal so ad dr essed i n t he m edi cal r ecor ds wi t h Dr. R ot t a?" O v er t on obj ect ed o n t he b asi s t hat t he r ecor ds ha d no t bee n ad m i t t ed i nt o ev i dence, and t he t r i al cour t sust ai ned t he o bj ect i on. Dr. M el i nek di d no t answert he q uest i on.

W e n o te th a t O v e rto n d i d n o t o b je c t a t tri a l to th e S ta te 's q u e s ti o n s re g a rd i n g D r. C o rte s 's re p o rt. 165 H o w e v e r , O v e r to n w a s n o t a w a r e o fD r . C o r te s 's a lle g e d o p in io n th a t s h e d id n o t in te n tio n a lly k ill A .B . a t t r ia l. D r . C or t es i nf or m ed O v er t on o fhi s opi ni on a ft ert he t r i al had end ed.

H olden , 2 0 1 S .W .3 d a t 7 6 3 ; C har les , 146 S. W

. 3d a t 208

. 166 82 Stat e's q uest ion con st it u ted pros ecut or ial mis condu ct, w e c oncl ude t hat c omplai nt ha s been waiv ed. W e ov er ru le Ov erton' s s ub- is sue. 161 4. Pres entation of Fals e Testimony Ov erton a ls o arg ues that the S tate commi tted p rosec utor ial mis condu ct by prese nting false te stimo ny. Overton alleges t h at be cause the St ate w as "a w are tha t Dr. Cor tes exonerated Ov erton o f the offense . . . [the S tate' s] present ati on of physi ci an testim ony by non -ex perts in the f ield cou pled w ith the intereste d test imo ny of Det. Hess[ ]

162 is the present ati on of unc or re cte d mi sl eadi ng ev ide nce. " Ov erton arg ues that the S tate 163 "decei v ed th e [t ri al] co urt by ask ing " Dr

. Rotta if he had cons ide re d D r. C ortes 's repor t. 164 Al thoug h Ov erton d oes not c hal len g e the deni al of her m oti on for new

tr ial , t he arg ument she m akes o n ap pea l was prese rv ed in he r motio n for new trial. W e w ill const rue this 165 sub-issue as a challen ge to the d enia l of Ov erton 's mot ion for new trial. As prev iou sl y

st ate, w e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s d eni al of a moti on for new tr ial under an abus e of di sc re ti on sta ndard. "W e do not s ubst it ute o ur j udg ment for that of the tr ial 166H olden , 201 S. W

. 3d a t 763

. 167 See Salaz ar , 3 8 S .W .3 d a t 1 4 8 ; To lle tt v . S ta te , 799 S. W

. 2d 2 56, 259 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 0) 168 ( " I ssues o ff act as t o j ur y m i sconductr ai sed a t a hear i ng o n a m ot i on f ornew t r i al ar e f ort he d et er m i nat i on oft he t r i al j udge, and wher e t her e i s conf l i ct i ng e v i dence t her e i s no abuse ofdi scr et i on wher e t he m ot i on f or ne w t ri al i s ove rr ul ed

. " ).

O v er t on a s s ert s t hat beca use East wood " t est i f i ed" t hat D r . C or t es was a m em berof t he 169 pr osecut i on t eam , " [ s] he was dut y bou nd t o see k outt he i nf or m at i on a nd p res ent i t t o t he j ur y t o pr esent c orrec t ed t es t i m on y . " H ow eve r, O vert on ha s ne i t he r provi de d a cl ea r an d c on c i s e a rgu m en t for t hi s ba re a s s e rti o n n o r p ro v i d e d c i ta ti o n to s u p p o rti n g a u th o rit y . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38. 1( i )

. T her ef or e, t hi s asser t i on i s w a i v e d

. See id. 83 cour t; ra ther , we dec ide w hether th e tr ial co urt' s d eci si on was ar bit ra ry or unreason abl e. A trial court abu ses its discretion in den y ing a motio n for new trial only w hen no reaso nab le
v iew of the record c oul d s uppor t t he tr ial co urt' s r uli ng ." 167 As sta ted ear li er , Eastw ood, the lea d prosec uti ng attor ney , tes ti fied at the m o ti on for new trial hearing thatDr. Cortes n e ver expressed his op inion to her. Altho ugh Dr. Cor tes i nsi ste d tha t he had i nformed t he State o f his opi nio n, t here i s c onfli cti ng ev ide nce. Gi v en th e c onfli cti ng ev ide nce present ed atthe hear ing and our d e ferenti al sta ndard of rev iew , w e con clude the trial court did not ab use its di s c re tion when it den ied Overton's moti on for new

tr ial on t he bas is that the Sta te c ommitt ed prosec utor ial mis condu ct by offer ing fals e tes ti mony . W e ov er ru le Ov erton' s s ub- is sue. 168 169 X. E XP ERT T E S TI MONY By her tent h i ss ue, O v erton c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt a b u sed it s d is creti on by admitti ng the opi nio n tes ti mony of D rs . F er nandezand Rotta. Spec ific all y , O v erton a rg ues tha t the trial court erred w hen it allowed the docto rs' testimo ny "regarding ma tters for w hich [they] empl oy ed no methodol og y , had no s ci enti fic b asi s, and there w as an anal yti cal g ap between [ the d oct ors' ] opi nio n[s ] and [t hei r] bas is ." A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L awB i g o n v . S ta te , 252 S. W

. 3d 3 60, 367 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 8) ( ci t i ng R usseau , 17 1 S

. W

. 3d at 88 1). 170 I d. 171 M o n tg o m e ryv . S ta te , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) ( e n b a n c ); M a lo n e v . S ta te , 172 16 3 S

. W

. 3d 78 5, 79 3 (T ex . A pp . –T ex ark an a 2 00 5, pe t

. ref' d). T EX . R. E V ID . 702

. 173 I d. at R

. 703

. 174 84 W e revie w

the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng on t he admi ss ibi li ty of sc ien ti fic e x per

t t est imony under an a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n s t a n d a rd

. A n a p p e l l a t e c o u rt s h o u l d n o t d i s t u r b t h e tr ial 170 court's de cision if

the r uling w as w ithin the z one of reason able disagreem ent

. An abu se 171 of discre ti on oc curs w hen t he tr ial co urt acts ar bit ra ri ly or unreason abl y

and w it hout referen ce to an y

g uiding rules and principles. 172 Rul e 702 of the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce prov ide s: "If sc ien ti fic, tec hni cal , or othe r spec ial iz ed k now led g e w il l ass is t t he tr ier of fact to understa nd th e e vide n ce or to deter mine a factin iss ue, a w it ness q ual ified as an e x per t by kn ow led g e, s ki ll , ex per ien ce, training, or e duca tion ma y t estif y t here to in the form of

a n opin ion or o the rw ise." Rule 173 703 prov ide s t hat t he: facts or data i n the par

ti cul ar ca se upon whic h a n ex per t bas es an opi nio n or i nferenc e may

be t hose percei v ed by , rev iewed by , or made k now n to the ex per t ator before th e h e a ri ng . If of a ty pe reason abl y reli ed upon by ex per ts in the p arti cu lar

fiel d i n formi ng opi nio ns or i nferenc es upon t he subj ect , t he facts or

data need not b e admi ss ibl e i n ev ide nce. [ ] 174 Unde r r ule 70 2, th e trial court de term ines w het her the propo nen t of the scien tif ic evidence h a s shown by clear and convincing evidence th at th e evidence is suff iciently re li abl e and re lev ant t o as si st the j ur y i n understa ndi ng othe r ev ide nce or i n det er mini ngG a llo v . S ta te , 2 3 9 S .W .3 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); R usseau , 1 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 8 8 1 ; see 175 D auber t v. Mer rel l D owPhar

m s. , I nc. , 50 9 U

. S

. 57 9, 58 9, 59 2 (19 93 ). D au be rt , 509 U

. S. at 589
- 90. 176 K e ll y v . S ta te , 8 2 4 S .W .2 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) (e n b a n c ). 177 I d. 178 I d. 179 85 a fact in is sue. 175 The subj ectof an ex per t' s t est imony

mustbe "sci enti fic . . . k now led g e." The adj ect iv e "s ci enti fic" i mpli es a groundi ng in the m ethods and pro cedures of s c ie n c e . Si m il a rl y, t h e wo rd " k n o wle d ge " co n n o t e s m o re t h a n su bje ct ive b e li e f o r u n s u p p o rt e d sp e c u la t io n . T h e t e rm " a p p li e s t o a n y b o d y o f kn o wn facts or to any body

of ide as infer re d from s uch facts or ac cept ed as tr uths on g ood g ro unds. "[ ] 176 The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appeals h a s st ated that, "As a matter of common s ense, ev ide nce d e rive d from a sc ien ti fic t heor y , t o be cons ide re d reli abl e, mus t s ati sfythree cr i t e r i a i n a n y

p a rt i c u l a r

c a s e : ( a ) t h e u n d e r l y i n g s c i e n t i fi ct h e o r y m u s tb e v a l i d ; ( b ) t he tec hni q ue appl y ing the th e o ry must be v ali d; an d ( c)the tec hni q ue mus t hav e been proper ly appl ied on t he oc cas ion i n q uest ion ." I n Kelly, the court en um erate d facto rs 177 af fecting the trial court's dete rmina tion o f reliability

of sc ie n tif ic theo ries fo r ex pert tes ti mony . Thes e factors i ncl ude:

178 (1) the extent to wh ic h t he u nde rly ing sci ent if ic theo ry and techn ique are acc epted as v ali d by

the re lev ant s ci enti fic c ommunity , if suc h a communi ty can b e ascer

tai ned; (2 ) the q ual ific ati ons of the ex per ts tes ti fyi ng ; ( 3) the existence of

literature sup portin g or rejecting the und erly ing scientif ic theo ry and t echni q ue; ( 4) the p o te n ti al ra te of er ro r of the te chni q ue; ( 5) the av ail abi li ty

of other ex per ts to tes t and ev alu ate the tec hni q ue; (6 ) the c lar ity w it h w hic h the under ly ing sc ien ti fic t heor y and te ch n iqu e c an be ex pla ine d to t he c our

t; and ( 7) the ex per ien ce and sk il l of the person( s)w ho appl ied the tec hni q ue on the o cc asi on i n q uest ion .[ ] 179 In Nen no v

. St ate , t he c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s s tated ,N e n n o v . S ta te , 9 7 0 S .W .2 d 5 4 9 , 5 6 0 (T e x . C rim

. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ), over ruled o n other

gr ounds by S ta te 180 v. Ter r az as , 4 S

. W

. 3d 72 0, 72 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 99 ) ( en ba nc ). D au be rt , 509 U

. S. at 594

. 181 I d. at 594
- 95. 182 Kum ho Tire Co. , Lt d. v. C ar m ichael , 5 2 6 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 5 3 (1 9 9 9 ); s e e Ve la v . S ta te , 209 S. W

. 3d 1 28, 183 1 3 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ("[B ]e c a u s e th e p o s s i b l e s p e c tru m o f e d u c a ti o n , s k i l l , a n d tra i n i n g i s s o w i d e , a t r i al cour t has gr eat di scr et i on i n de t er m i ni ng whet hera wi t ness p ossesses suff i ci ent qual i f i cat i ons t o assi st t he j ur y as an e xper t on a spe ci f i c t opi c i n a par t i cul arcase. " And when a t r i al j udge det er m i nes t hat a wi t ness i s o r i s n o t q u a l i fie d t o te s ti fy a s a n e x p e rt, "a p p e l l a te c o u rts ra re l y d i s tu rb th e tri a l c o u rt's d e te rm i n a ti o n .") (i nterna l ci t ati on s om i t t ed ). 86 The g eneral pr inc ipl es announc ed i n Kelly ( and D au bert) ap ply [to a ll sc ien ti fic a nd nons ci enti fic e x per t t est imony], but t he s peci fic fact ors o utl ine d in tho se c a se s mayor

may not appl y

depend ing upon the c ontext. W e do not a ttempt , here, t o dev elo p a r ig id dis ti nct ion between "hard" s ci ence, "so ft" sc ien ces , or

nons ci enti fic t e sti mony . . . . [T]he di sti nct ion between v ar iou s ty pes of test imony

may often be blu rred.[ ] 180 The supreme co urt i n Daub ert em p h a size d tha t t he reli abi li ty i nq uir y i s a flex ibl e one. 181 "Its ov erarchi ng su bje ct is the sc ien ti fic v ali dity —and thus the ev ide nti ar y rele van ce and re li abi li ty —of the pr inc ipl es that under li e a p ro posed su bmis si on. Th e fo cus , of co urse, must be s ole ly

on p ri nci ple s a nd metho dol og y , noton t he c onclus io ns that they generat e." "W het her Daub ert'sspeci fic fact ors are, or are not, re asona ble measu re s o f

182
re li abi li ty i n a part ic ula r cas e is a matte r that the l aw g ra nts the tr ial j udg e broad l ati tude to deter mine. " 183 B. D r. Fer nan dez At a pre- tr ial heari ng , Dr . Fer nandeztesti fied that he is a medic al doct or empl oy ed as the N ueces C ounty medi cal ex aminer

. Dr . F er nan d e z is a lic ensed physi ci an and compl eted medic al ex aminer train ing in 1994- 1995. He w as employe d as a m e d ic al examine r in M iam i, Florida, f rom 1 995 -200 2. In 20 02, Dr. Fernan dez was em p lo y ed in Dal las as a medi cal ex aminer , and i n 2003, he b ecame the medi cal ex aminer in Nue ces87

Cou nty

. A duty

of the medi cal ex a m in er i s t o per

form auto psi es and t o det er mine the caus e of death. D r. F e rn a ndezhas per formed "probabl y

cl ose to or

about4,00 0" aut opsie s in his career. P art of Dr. Fernan dez's spe cialty is foren sic path ology , w hich is spec ial iz ed train ing i n det er mini ng the caus e of death. Dr. Fe rn a n d ezst ated, "par t of the autops y

procedu re i s t aki ng sa mples from t he body , flui d s a mples , bl ood, fluid from t he ey e w hic h i s c all ed v it re ous fluid , and tes ti ng thos e s amples for d ru g s o r other ch emical s. " Ac cordi ng to Dr . F er nandez , t he s amples tha t he collect s f rom th e bo dy are sent to a certif ied l ab fo r testin g, and the lab is capable of tes t in g t he levels of

salt in the bo dy. Dr. Fernand ez testif ied th at th ere are m edica lly re cog niz ed te sts thatca n be used to de ter mine w hether sa ltca used a person' s d eath and that he i s q ual ified to col lect t he s amples to b e t e ste d by a c erti fied l ab. Dr . F er nandez s t a t e d t h a t on e way to d e te rm in e th e a m o u n t of sa lt in a p e rso n 's b o d y is by ta kin g a sampl e of the bloo d f ro m the pers on w hen he w as sti ll al iv e and tes ti ng the lev el of sodi um that is i n the se ru m. A cc ordin g to Dr . F er nandez , if a pe rs on has di ed from s odi um poi soni ng , t here are method s t hat c an be used to deter mine the caus e of sodi um poi soni ng w it hin reason abl e medi cal probabi li ty

. Dr . F er nandeztes ti fied th at: [t] he standard procedu re i s l ik e any othe r autops y

thatthe medic al ex aminer has or any othe r medic al ex aminer ca se. It involv es loo ki ng at the medi cal re cords if the person w as treated at t he hos pit al, l ooki ng at the resul ts of the re por ts from the hospi tal , and then loo ki ng at any pol ic e infor mati on from t he ter minal ci rc umstan ces that 's av ail abl e , a n d the n doi ng an e xter nal ex aminat ion of the b ody , doi ng an i nterna l e xami nati on of the body , an autops y , l ooki ng at the org ans, tak ing se cti ons, remov ing the org ans from the body , t hen t aki ng secti ons of t he org ans to l ook at t he org ans for trauma or di s e ase, and also collecting sam ples f rom th e bo dy, blood sam ples, f luid sam ples, a nd te sting those for drugs and che mica ls. Dr . F er nandezal so sta ted t hat t here are method s u sed to deter mine the source of sodi um88

po i s on i ng a nd t o de te r mi ne w he th er t he s od i um p oi s on i ng res ul te d from i ng es ti on o r s om e int er nal probl em or dis ease in the body

. Acc ordin g to Dr

. Fer nandez , t he metho ds used
w oul d i ncl ude examini ng the cont ents of the s tomach , the small and larg e bowels , t aki ng sampl es from the org ans to disco ver if "there's di seas e proces ses there tha t woul d be ano the r rea son tha t the p erson co uld ha v e elevated sodium [,]" and rev iew ing the sam ple that w as tes ted a t t he hos pit al or the fluid from t he ey e. W hen Dr

. Fer nandezper formed the a utops y

on A .B., he per

formed all of t he sta ndard tes ts that he w oul d do in a "nor mal autops y ." Dr

. Fer nandez deter mined the caus e of de ath, in thi s cas e, w a s a cu te so diu m tox ic ity w it h "the co ntr ibu tor

y condi ti on blu nt force head trauma . . . based on re v iew of the hospi tal records and t he repor ts w it hin the hospi tal records, the infor mati on al so obtai ned from ex amini ng the body , loo ki ng at the different org ans, and then the d ifferent tes ts that
w ere done from sa mples from t he body ." Acc ordin g to Dr

. Fer nandez , he condu cte d tes ts to de ter mine w hether

there w ere oth er

di seas es that coul d hav e caused A.B. 's deat hand "chec ked to s ee i f there was ing est ion of sal t." Dr

. Fer nandez sta ted that he had train ing and ex per ien ce in the are a of sodium poi soni ng dur ing medi cal sc hool

. He atten ded "cl ass es that cov ered mater ial deal ing w it h pati ents thathad ele v ated sodi um l ev els , and "treat [ed] pati ents w it h el ev ated sodi um levels." Finally , Dr. Fernand ez testif ied tha t the m eth ods tha t he em ployed w ere "st and ard operati ng procedu re , s tandard medi cal ex aminer pract ic e." O ve rt o n a rg u e s t h a tDr

. Fe rn a n d e z' s o p in io n s a re u n re li a b le , n o tre le va n t , a n d h a ve "n o me tho dolo gy

o r scien tif ic b asis." Spe cif ically , Overton com plains o f Dr. Fernan dez's opi nio ns that "thi s was non- acc ide ntal hy per natremia, thatthi s was a homi ci de, t hat aS ee D au be rt , 590 U

. S. at594

. 184 89 cont ri buti ng factor was h e ad trauma, an d tha t t he ti me w hic h el apsed before treatment cause d the dea th of

[A.B. ]." Altho ugh Overton ma kes an assertio n tha t Dr. Fernand ez's methods w ere unreli abl e, s he does not prov ide any suppo rt for a c oncl usi on th at a medic al examine r's meth ods o f

performin g an aut opsy a re n ot reliable or thatthe th eory of foren sic pathol og y

i s u nreli abl e. Att he p re- tr i al h ea r i ng , D r . F er na nd ezs ta te d th ath i s metho ds w ere th e s am e me tho ds he would use in an y "no rmal" auto psy and thatthe m eth ods h e em ployed to form his opin ions w ere the "stan dard ope rating proced u re " u s e d by medica l ex am iners. Dr. Fernan dez testif ied that he performe d the aut opsy on A.B. using those a ccept ed m eth ods. T h u s, th e t r i a l c o u rtha d am p le evid e n ce to co n clu d e th a t t h e rea so n in g or m e th o d o lo gy under ly ing D r. F er nandez 's tes ti mony w as v ali d. Fur ther more, D r. F er nandez 's tes ti mony w as ba sed o n tech niques use d by medica l ex am iners in foren sic path ology , and Dr. Fer nandezst ated that he per formed th e aut opsy

and made his ev alu ati on of the caus e of death, ac cordin g to acc epted sta ndards in his fiel d. Dr. Fernand ez b a s ed h is opinion s on his ed ucat ion, train ing, and experien ce w or ki ng as a c erti fied medi cal ex aminer train ed i n forens icpath olo g y . This Cou rtdoes not examine the stren gt h o f Dr. Ferna nde z 's conclusion s, butrather examin es w het her Dr. Fer nandezhas a s ci enti fical ly g ro unded a nd ac cept ed basi s for hi s c oncl usi ons. G iv en 184 Dr. Fernand ez's experience and training, it was clear tha th is k n o wledge of foren sic pathol og y

and medic ine w as based on rel iab le forens icpri nci ple s w hic h he appl ied to the facts in thi s c ase. Therefore, w e c annot conc lud e that the tri al cour t abused it s d is creti on in allow ing D r. Fernand ez to te stif y at Overton's trial.V e la , 209 S. W

. 3d a t 133 (" ' [ R ] el i abi l i t y depends upon whet hert he ev i dence has i t s basi s i n sou nd 185 sci ent i f i c m et hodol ogy . T hi s dem ands a cer t ai n t echni cal showi ng. ' And t hat showi ng g i v es a t r i al j udge t he oppor t uni t y t o ' weed ou t t est i m onyper t ai ni ng t o so- cal l ed 'j unk sci ence. ' " ) ( ci t i ng J o rd a n v . S ta te , 928 S. W

. 2d 55 0, 55 5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 96 ))

. 90 C. Dr. R otta Ne xt, Overto n argu e s th a t " Dr. R o tt a co u ld no t p o in t t o an y acc e p te d m e th o d o lo gy or sc ien ce to ba ck

up h is opi nio ns other

than to say

thati t was his opi nio n"; t herefore, she obj ect ed to "Dr. R otta' s o pin ion s t hat t he deat h of [A. B.] w as a homi ci de, t hat i t was due to forced sodi um, th at i t i ncl uded bluntforce head trau ma, and that del ay in treat ment had cause d [A.B .'s ] dea th." Ov erton challen ges the m eth odo logy utiliz ed b y

Dr. Rotta in formin g his opin ions. T hus, we mustdete rmine w het her Dr. Rotta's test imo ny has its ba sis in so u n d sc ie n t if icm e t h o d o lo gy. 185 At t he pre- tr ial hear ing , Dr

. Rotta t est ified thathe i s e mploy ed by the Uni v ersi ty

of T exas Medical Branch , work s a tD ri s c o ll, and is "a sp ecialist in ped iatric cri tical care me dicine, dea ling w ith all aspe cts of acute ly ill and sev erely ill o r injured children ." Dr. Rotta i s b oard c erti fied i n pedi atr ic s a nd pedi atr iccr it ic al care and has treated approx imat ely

1,00 0 pat ien ts per y ear in cr it ic al care. Dr . R otta' s e x per ien ce and t ra ini ng inc lud e, among other thi ng s: (1) kn ow led g e of the condi ti on k now n as "pi ca"; ( 2) treatment of bluntforc e trauma to the head; (3 ) treatment of chi ldren w ho hav e ex per ien ced an out of-hos pit al cardia c a rrest ; ( 4) so diu m le v els and how they i ncrease ov er

ti me; ( 5) the cal cul ati on of the amount o f sodi um chl or ide i ng est ed by a c hil d; an d ( 6) ch il d abus e. Dr . R otta w as the treati ng physi ci an w ho prov ide d cr it ic al care to A.B. w hen he w as broug ht t o D ri sc oll

. Dr . R otta tes ti fie d t h a t h e fo rmed his opi nio ns re g ardin g A.B . bas ed on hi s t ra ini ng and ex per ien ce. D r. R otta st a te d t hat h e c onsul ted w it h the medi cal91

ex aminer about the autops y 's findi ng s. He als o reli ed on his ex aminat ion and treatment of A.B. and t he medi cal hi sto ry he a cq uired from O v erton. Dr . R otta sta ted t hat h e i s q ual ified to anal yz e the l ab's so diu m resul ts and that he has bee n an alyz ing sodium results in critically ill children since 199 5. Accordin g to Dr. Rotta, iti s s tandard procedu re to tes t a chi ld w ho is acut ely ill for sodium, and that he has treated chi ldren s uffer ing from s odi um poi soni ng . Dr . R otta tes ti fi e d t h a t he tes ts the sodiu m levels in critically ill ch ildren beca use "[t he sodiu m test] is on e of the te sts tha t is done t o hel p es tabl is h w hether or not that chi ld has an im b a la n ce o f sa ltor w ater i n the body as a po tenti al ca u se for w hatev er dysfuncti on you're l ooki ng for." D r. R otta sta ted that he i s q ual ified to deter mine tox icl ev els of sodi um bas ed on his "st udi es dur ing medi cal schoo l, through [h is] speciality training in ped iatrics, thr o u gh [his] speciality training in cr it ic al care medi ci ne, a nd [h is ] y ears i n pract ic e." Dr . R otta anal yz ed A. B.' s s odi um resul ts and det er mined, bas ed on the h is tor y he obtai ned from Ov erton, that A.B. su ffered from sodi um i ntox ic ati on. Dr . R otta est abl is hed throug h q uest ion ing Ov erton that A.B. w as in "a per fect s tate of h ea l th unt i l tha t aft er no on ." O v er to n prov i de d D r . R otta w i th a h i s to r y o f t he s y mp to ms that A.B. ex hib it ed w hen he firs t bec ame i ll and dur ing the hour and a hal f before Ov erton took A.B . t o U CC

. Acc ordin g to Dr

. Rotta, he det er mined that the h is tor y he a cq uired from Ov erton was cons is tent w it h the chi ld sufferin g from acut e sodi um tox ic ity . Dr . R otta based his opini on on Ov erton' s stat ement that "she g av e him a s olu ti on th at l ater [D r. R otta] found out c ontai ned l arg e amount s o f sodi um"; th e fa ct thatA.B . had "si g nific antl y el ev ated sodium i n t h e body "; and hi s e x aminat ion of A.B. and further tes ti ng r uli ng out other potent i a l c a u s e s fo r t h e t o x i c l e v e l s o f s o d i u m. D r . R o tt a w a s a b l e t o r u l e outothe r92

pot ent ial cause s of

A.B.'s high sodiu m levels using standa rd me dical test s. Dr. Rotta ha s treate d children w ho h ave suf fered an ou t-of-hosp ital cardiac arrest o n m a n y o cc a sio n s. Afte r re viewin g th e m e d ica l h ist o ry th a t O vert o n pro vide d , in clu d in g, the s eq uence of ev ents and t he s y mptoms that A.B. su ffered, D r. R otta had "no doubt" that A.B. could ha v e bee n treat ed by the hosp ital if he ha d be en ta ken to the ho spital soo ner. Dr . R otta bel iev ed th at A .B. suffered an out- of-hos pit al cardia c a rrestand that the o dds of a child surv iv ing tha t event are l ower tha n ten percen t and the od ds of "inta ct surv iv al are
v ir tual ly z ero." Acc ordin g to Dr . R otta, a c hil d c an be sav ed i f the c hil d does not suffer an out- of-hos pit al cardia c a rrest

. As p a rto f his train ing and ex per ien ce, D r. R otta stu die d the l ev els of sodi um and how they i ncrease in the body

. The mult ipl e tes ts re v eal ed th at A .B.' s h ig hestso diu m le v el
w as "an immeasurabl y hig h lev el of sodi um. It was g re ater than 250.

. . . " A. B.' s s odi um lev el w as tes ted "d oz ens of times throug h di fferent t echni q ues to be su re thi s was not a t e c h n iq u e -d e p e n d e n te rro r. [T h e re we re ] a ls o t h e b lo o d re s u lt s f ro m a d if fe re n tla b o ra t o ry. So th i s w as no t l ab orat or y s pe c i fi c ." Ac c ordi ng to D r . R otta , th e te s ts pe r forme d w ere "sta ndard l abs" that are us ed ev er y dayw hen trea ti ng cri ti cal ly ill chil dren. Throug h train ing and ex per ien ce, D r. R otta lea rn ed how to c alc ula te t he amountof sodi um chl or ide thatA.B

. must hav e ing est ed to re ach the lev el he had in his body

. Acc ordin g to Dr

. Rotta, he has appl ied the cal cul ati on "mul ti ple ti mes i n c ases of sodi um i ntox ic ati on." Ba se d on hi s e xpe rie n ce a n d t ra in in g re gard in g c h ild a b u se a n d so d iu m po iso n in g, Dr. Rotta de term ined thatA.B.'s ingestion of sodium was n ot accide nta l. Accordin g to Dr. Rotta , "[a ]ll pedia tric cr itical care physicians have training in ch ild a buse

. . . . Becau se it's a high ly p re valen t cond ition th at pe diatric critical care specialists ha v e to trea t." ChildT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s st at ed i n V e la , " Exper i ence al one m aypr ov i de a suff i ci ent 186 basi s f oran exper t ' s t est i m onyi n som e case s, buti t cann ot do so i n ev er y case. 2 09 S. W

. 3d a t 134 ( i nt er nal quot at i ons o m i t t ed) ( quot i ng G am m i ll v. Jack W i

lliam s C hevr

olet, I nc. , 97 2 S

. W

. 2d 71 3, 72 6 (T ex . 19 98 ))

. See Kum ho Tire Co. , Lt d. , 5 2 6 U .S . a t 1 5 3 ; H en d e rs o n v . S ta te , 77 S. W

. 3d 3 21, 325 ( T ex. 187 App. –For t W or t h 2002, no pet

. ) ( concl udi ng t hat cl i ni cal m edi ci ne i s not wi t hi n t he har d sci ences cont em pl at ed b y D au be rt

and t her ef or e ap pl y i ng t he N enno fac t ors i ns t ea d). 970 S. W

. 2d a t 560

. 188 93 abu se "is som eth ing that i n a referral tertiary children 's hosp ital, [a doctor] w ill see a t least once a w eek. " Dr. Rotta testif ied that Ov erton informe d him tha t she g ave A.B. "som e chili as a s tew " and "then in a sec ond ser v ing after some behav ioral is sues it w as a mixture of the spice and w ate r." Dr. R otta state d tha t Overton explained t hatsh e gav e A.B. t he " spicy
w ate r solution" beca use he was misbeh aving . Based on his ed ucat ion an d experience , Dr. Rotta c oncl uded t hat t hat a ct w as abusi v e. Dr . R otta als o obs er v ed numerous inj ur ies that , base d on his ex perien ce an d training in child abu se, he conclud ed were non-accid ent al. Dr . R otta base d his opi nio ns on hi s e x per ien ce and t ra ini ng , hi s t re atment of A.B., the t est s u sed to ev alu ate A .B.' s i ll ness , his consi derati on and re jecti on of

othe r caus es of hig h l ev els of sodi u m i n a c h ild, and t he medi cal hi sto ry he a cq uired from O v erton. The trial court conclu ded thatDr. Rotta could te s t ify to ma tters tha t he de alt w ith on a daily basis, w ha t he o bs er

v ed , an d w ha t w as w i th i n hi s k no w l ed g e. B ec au s e th e tr i al court 186 adm itted Dr. Rotta 's testim ony on the basis tha t his opin ion w as foun ded on his expertise in the fie ld and on the w ide ly accept ed practi ce of differenti al di ag nosi s, w e concl ude t hat the t ri al court was w it hin i ts dis creti on to find t hat Daub ert'ssp eci fic fact ors were not re a s o n a b le m e a s u re s o f re li a b il it y wh e n a p p li e d t o Dr

. Ro tt a ' s o p in io n t e s t im o n y. 187 T here fore, we w ill con sider w het her Dr. Rott a's me tho dolo gy w as reliable u nde r the facto rs enumerated in Nen no . W e the refore consid er: (1) w het her Dr. Rott a's f ield of ex pertise 188I d. at 561

. 189 C oastal

Tankshi

ps, U

. S. A. , I nc. v. Ander son , 8 7 S .W .3 d 5 9 1 , 6 0 4 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 190 20 02 , pe t

. de ni ed ).

I d. 191 94 is a l eg it imat e one; ( 2) w hether th e s u bject matter

of Dr . R otta' s t est imony i s w it hin the sc ope of thatfiel d; an d ( 3) w hether D r. R otta' s t est imony

pro p e rly rel ies upon and/or uti li z es the p ri nci ple s i nv olv ed i n the fiel d. 189 At the pre-trial hearing, Dr. Rott a esta blished t hathe is boa rd certif ied in pe diatrics and ped iat ri c c ri ti cal ca re . The tr ial co urt all ow ed D r. R otta to t est ify reg ardin g the subj ect s of c hi l d ab us e, a c ut e s od i um t ox i cp oi s on i ng , th e na tu ral c au s es of hi g h l ev el s of s od i um , pica , t he su rv iv ability of a child w ho su f

fers an ou t-of-hosp ital cardiac arrest, and his o p in io n that A. B.' s h ead i nju ry w as a l ife- threateni ng co ndi ti on. Dr . R otta' s t est imony involv ed clinical m edicine , and w as ba sed o n the principles of dif feren tial diagnosis. [D ifferenti al Di ag nosi s] is a c li n ical proces s w hereby a do cto r deter mines w hich of sev eral pot ent ial disease s o r in ju ries is causin g the patie nt's sy mp tom s byruling outpossible cause s—by com paring the p at ie n t's sy mptoms to s y mptoms ass oci ated w it h k nown d iseas es, co nduct ing physical ex am inatio n s, collecting data on the patie nt's histo ry and ill ness, and ana lyz ing that da ta—u ntil a f inal diagno sis fo r p rope r treatm entis re ached .[ ]

190 Di fferenti al dia g nosi s h as w ide spread acc eptanc e i n the medi cal co mmunity and is "the basic m eth od o f

interna l med icine." T he State esta blished thatthe subject ma tter of Dr. 191 Rotta' s t est imony

w as w it hin the field of pedi atr iccr it ic al care. D r. R otta w as show n to hav e train ing i n c hil d abus e, s odi um lev els , sodi um i ntox ic ati on, o ther ca uses of ele v ated sodi um l ev els , hea d i nju ri es, "pi ca", and out- of-hos pit al cardia c ar re st. Dr

. Rotta t est ified that he us ed s tandard pract ic e and procedu re s, inc lud ing the w ide ly acc epted method o fI n t wo sent ences, O v er t on m akes t he b ar e asse r t i on t hat D r s. Fer nande z ' s and R ot t a' s t est i m ony 192 w a s "i rr e l e v a n t" a n d "d i d n o t a i d th e trie r o f fa c t." T o th e e x te n t th a t O v e rto n a tte m p ts to ra i s e a c h a l l e n g e to t he d oct or s' t est i m onyon a sep ar at e basi s, we concl ude t hat O v er t on has wai v ed t he i ssue because she has n o t p ro v i d e d a c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e a rg u m e n t s u p p o rti n g h e r a s s e rti o n . See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 38

. 1(i ). 95 differenti al dia g nosi s, to de ter mine the c ause of A .B.' s i ll ness . Therefore, we c oncl ude t hat the t ri al cour

t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n ru li ng that Dr

. Rotta' s t est imony w as re li abl e. 192 W e ov er ru le Ov erton' s t enth is sue. XI. C ONCL US I ON Havi ng ov erruled a ll of Ov erton 's issues on ap pea l, w e af f irm the trial court's jud g ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Oct ober , 200 9.