G o n za l e s i s n o t a p a rty to th i s a p p e a l

. 1 

### NUM BER 13-08- 470- 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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
PA BL O PA DIL LA , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt of 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 R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Pabl o Padi ll a, an d a co- defendant, Car los Gonz ale s, w er e i ndi cte d for 1 the c api tal murder

of Vi cto r Mo ra les

. See T EX
. P EN AL C O D E A NN . § 19.03( a) (2 ) (V er non Supp. 2008) . In a separate t ri al, a j ur y found Padi ll a g uil ty : becau se the S tate did not seekSee Mir anda v. Ar

i z ona , 38 4 U

. S

. 43 6 (19 66 ). 2 2 the d eath penal ty , t he tr ial co urt as ses sed puni shmentat li fe impr is onment. See i d. § 12.31( a)

. By

tw o i ss ues, Padi ll a arg ues that the tr ial cour t er re d by admit ti ng a por ti on of his v ide o- taped sta tement int o ev ide nce, and he c hal len g es the l eg al and fact ual
s uffi c i en c y

o f t he e v i de nc e to s up po rt hi s c on v i c ti on
. W e affi r m.

I

. F AC T U AL B A CK GRO UND Trac i Romero and her

hus band, Mo ra les , l iv ed i n C or pus Chr is ti , Tex as. O n the morni ng of Febr uar

y 22, 2007, Romero w ent to w or k, lea v ing Mo ra les at home. W hen s he
re tur ned t hat a fternoon , s he found M orale s’ s d ead bod y on the li v ing room floor i n a p ool of bloo d. Rom ero testif ied that draw ers in the ir bed room had bee n ope ned and tha t jew elry
w as mis si ng
. The medic al ex aminer testi fied that Morale s died from a s kul l fract ur e and that his i nju ry

w as cons is tent w it h bei ng st ru ck by a bl unt o bje ct. After the murder , D etec ti v e R ic hard Garci a di sc ov er ed that Padi ll a had paw ned some j ew elr

y i n C or pus Chr is ti and in Sa n A ntoni o. The je w elr y w as re cov er ed, a nd Romero i denti fied i t as the jew elr y t h a t w as mis si ng from t he hous e on the d ay of the
mu rder. Pad illa w as arrested and provided a v ideo tap ed statem entto the police. In his state me nt, Pa dilla, after w aivi ng his Mi ra nda rig hts , state d that he and C ar los Gonz ale s

2
w ere close f riends. On the d ay of t he mu rder, he and G onzales drove Gonzales’s mo the r’s
car from M athi s, Tex as, to Mo ra les ’s home i n Cor pus Chr is ti

. Padi ll a sta ted that he di d not know Gonzales’s reaso n for going to Morales’s hom e and t hath e did notkn ow Morales. Pad illa stayed inside the car w hile Gon z ales kno cked o n the f ront do or of Morales’s hou se. Abo ut tw o min ute s la ter, Gon z ales ent ered t he hom e. L ess tha n a min ute later, Gonz ale s came out of

the house and si g nal ed for Padil la to come into the house. W henSpeci f i cal l y , C ur t i ss t est i f i ed t o t he f ol l owi ng wi t h r espect t o t he l um i nol : “ A di ff er ent t y pe o fr eagen t 3 k nown as “ l um i nol ” was ap pl i ed. L um i nol r eact s t o t he chem i cal pr oper t i es of bl ood and wi l l gl ow i n ext r em e, e x tre m e l o w l i g h t l e v e l s
. It— th e re h a s to b e a b s o l u te l y n o l i g h t a t a l l to b e a b l e to s e e th e re a c ti o n .” 3 Padi ll a w ent i nsi de, h e s aw Morale s’ s body

lay ing on the f loo r in a pool of blood. H e s tated that he di d n o t se e G o n zales hi t M orale s, but h e di d s ee Go nz ale s d ra g the body aw ay from the door

. W hil e Padi ll a w as in the h ouse, he s aw Gonz ale s g o i nto a nother room and
re tur n w it h a s mall w hit e pl ast icbag and some c ash. H e sai d that Gonz ale s tol d hi m that he had used a “ ti re ch eck er” to hi t M orale s tw ic e i n the head. G onz ale s c los ed th e front door , and theyran to the car
. W hen they got in the car , Pa dil la saw thatGonz ale s h ad a footlong “ tire checke r” in his han d. T hey return e d t o G o n za le s’s hom e in Mathis. Gonz ale s c hanged out of hi s b loo dy cl othes and put t hem and the “ ti re ch eck er” int o a
cardboard box

. Theythen drov e dow n a c ounty ro ad and dis carded the cl othes and the “t ire c heck er”. G onz ale s g av e Padi ll a $80 and some j ew elr y . He sta ted t hat b oth h e and Gon z ales pa w ned the jewelry using Padilla’s driv er’s license. Pad illa ex plaine d tha t he did not c all the pol ic e bec ause he w as afrai d of Gonz ale s. Af ter providing the state me nt, Pa dil la t o o kDetective Garcia to the location w here Gonz ale s d is carded t he c lot hin g and “t ire c heck er”. Pol ic e recov er ed th e “ ti re ch eck er” as
w ell as som e glov es tha t Pad illa identif ie d a s “ b e ing i nvolv ed” in the murd er. Rome ro tes ti fied th at s he k new

Gonz ale s b ecaus e he had bee n to her home on pr ior

oc cas ion s t o purch ase m arihua na f rom Morale s. Dav id Cur

ti ss , a cr ime- sc ene i nv est ig ator , us ed l uminol to tes t for blo od i nsi de of Gonz ale s’ s mot her ’s car
. He tes ti fied that the lumi nol show ed “s ome re act ion ” to blo od on the f loor ma t in the v ehicle’s f ront-pa ssenger area a nd on som e of t he f loor ma ts foun d in the v ehicle’s trun k. 3At t he t i m e Padi l l a pr ov i ded hi s v i deo t aped st at em ent t o t he p ol i ce, Padi l l a’ s def ense counsel and 4 D et ect i v e G ar ci a wer e pr esent i n t he i nt er v i ew r oom
. T he v i deot ape showed t hat aft er Padi l l a r ecount ed h ow G onz al es ha d ki l l ed t he v i ct i m , t he f ol l owi ng co l l oquy occur r ed b et ween Det ect i v e G ar ci a an d Padi l l a: G ar ci a: W oul d i t sur pr i se y ou a t al l t hat he [ G onz al es] sai d f r om t he chai r [ def ense

counsel ’ s] i n, he [ G onz al es] sai d t he sa m e t hi ng a bout y ou? Padi l l a: Excuse m e? G arc i a: W ou l d i t su rpri s e y ou a t a l l if C a rlo s [G o n za l e s ] s at i n t he c ha i r w he re

[ def ense c ou ns el ] sat , possi bl y y est er day , and sai d t he sa m e t hi ng a bout y ou? P a d illa : N o , it w o u ld n ’t s u r p r is e m e . I m e a n , h e ’s

. . . I d id n ’t e v e n e x p e c t f o r h im

.

. . W hen I fi r st cam e i nt o [ def ense counsel ’ s] of f i ce I guess t hey sai d he had 4 Ev a Sarabi a, a manag er at a Cas h Amer ic a Paw n sto re in San A ntoni o, t est ified that on F ebr uar

y 28, 2007, Padi ll a paw ned thre e piece s of jew elr y . Ray Sanc hez , t he manag er of First Cash Pa w n in Corpus Christi, testif ied th at Pa dilla cam e into his store to sell a brace let. He iden tif ied a sale s agreeme nt, d ate d Februa ry 24, 200 7, show ing tha t Pad illa sol d the bracel et t o F irst Cas h Paw n. He sta ted t hat t his transa cti on w as re corded on
v ide otape. Tomas Ma dr ig al, the manag er of Pronto Paw n i n San Ant o n io , testi fied th at Padi ll a paw ned a g old rope c hai n in h is s tore and als o i denti fied a sal es ag re ement t hat Padi ll a had si g ned. Rox anne M ar eztes ti fied th at s he tw ic e ac compani ed Pad il la and Gonz ale s t o San Ant onio w here Padilla pawned som e jew elry

. S he explained t hatw hen she aske d Pad illa and G onz ale s w here the j ew elr y ca me from, t hey

av oid ed ans w er ing the q uest ion

. II. D I S CUS S I ON A. Admi ssion of Eviden ce By hi s firs t is sue, Padi ll a arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by

ov er ru li ng hi s o bje cti ons to sta t em ent s mad e by D ete ctiv e Garcia in the v ideo -tape d inte rv iew w here in Garcia challen ged Pad ill a ’s ve rsion of the events b y

referring Pad illa to Gonzales’s cont rary
v ersi on of the ev ents

. At t ri al, Padi ll a obj ect ed to D etec ti v e Garci a’s st atements on t he 4m ade a st at em ent aga i nst m e. T hat shocked m e al r eady

. ‘ C ause t hey sai d,

“ D o y ou t hi nk he’ l l m ake a st at em ent aga i nst y ou?” And I was wi t h m y par ent s, and I sai d, “ N o, I don ’ t t hi nk he w ou l d.” Because we wer e cl ose f r i ends. I di dn’ t expect hi m t o do so m et hi ng l i k e t hat t o m e, t o t ur n hi s back on m e aft erwe he l ped each ot her so m uch. So, no, i t woul dn’ t sur pr i se m e i f h e s a i d s o m e th i n g l i k e th a t. G a r c ia : S o it w o u ld n ’t s u r p r is e yo u a t a ll? P a d i l l a : N o t a t a l l

. N o t o n e b i t. Ar t i cl e 1. 05 o ft he co de o fcr i m i nal pr ocedur e pr ov i des, i n r el ev ant par t : “ I n al l cr i m i nal pr osecut i ons 5 t he ac c us ed

. . . s ha l l be c on fronted w i t h t he w i t ne s s es ag ai ns t hi m
. . . . ” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . a rt. 1.05 (Ve rno n 2 00 5). 5 g ro unds ( 1 ) t h a t t h e y w e r e h e a rs a y , a n d ( 2 ) t h a t t h e y v i o l a t e d P a d i l l a ’ s r i g h tof confro ntati on prote cte d bythe Uni ted S tates and Tex as Con sti tuti ons. See U .S. C ON ST
. amends. VI, X IV; T EX
. C ON ST . ar t. 1, § 10; T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 1.05 (V er non 2 0 0 5 ). P a d il la a s k e d t h a tG a rc ia ’s s t a t e m e n t s b e r e d a c t e d f ro m t h e vid e o t a p e d in t e rvi e w,

5 but t he St ate a rg ued t hat t he s tatement s w er e notoffer ed to prov e the tr uth o f the matt er asserte d; rath er, the y

w ere of fered t o show Pa dilla’s rea ction to th em , thu s allow ing the jury to j udg e hi s c re dib il ity . The tr ial co urt ov er ru led the obj ect ion s, and th e ent ire v ide otape
wa s p la ye d t o t h e ju ry. 1. S tandar

d of Rev iew W hen rev iew ing a t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng to admito r e xclu d e ev ide nce, w e g iv e g re at def eren ce to th e trial court’s decision and w ill rev erse the ruling only w hen t h e record show s that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on. Mo ntgom er y v . St ate , 810 S. W .2d 3 72, 3 91 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) ( op. o n reh’ g ). F urther , w e w il l uphol d a t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng i f it w as
cor re ct under any

theo ry of law appl ic abl e to the c ase. Ma rt in v. State , 173 S.W .3d 4 63, 467 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. “A ppellat e c our ts w il l uphol d a t ri al cour t’ s r uli ng on t he admis si bil ity

of ev ide nce ‘as l ong as the tr ial court ’s rul ing w as at leas t w it hin the z one of
reaso nab le disagreem ent . . . .’” I d. (q uoti ng Montgo m ery , 810 S.W .2d at 391 ).6

A. Hear say A s t a t e m e n t n o t o f

fe re d t o p ro ve t h e t ru t h o f t h e m a t t e r as s e rt e d is n o t h e a rs a y. Ma rt ine z v. Sta te , 22 S.W .3d 504, 508 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; Bel l v. State , 877 S.W .2d 21, 2 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1994, pet. re f’d) . Addi ti onal ly , state ments off er ed only to show thei r eff ecton t he l is tener are not hearsay
. In r

e B e xa r C o u n t y C r i mi n a l D i s t

. A tto r n e y ’s Office , 224 S.W .3 d 1 8 2 , 188-89 ( Tex . 200 7) ; Young v. State , 1 0 S

. W

. 3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 2 (T e x. App .–T exarkana 19 99, pet. ref ’d). Here, the Sta te arg ued at tri al tha t Detect iv e Garcia’s sta tements w er e not off er ed to prov e the tr uth of t he matt er as ser ted b ut w er e offer ed to show Padi ll a’s demeanor in r espon se to t he q uest ion

. After the S tate pla y ed th e
v ide otape, the tr ial co urt i nst ru cte d the j ur y , “ Ladi es and g entl emen, as f ar as the por

ti on
w here the dete cti v e as ked about Car los Gonzal e s, t h a t is not off er ed for the t ru th of the matter , jus t for

the fact that it w as ask ed and answ er ed.” W e c oncl ude t hat t he s tatement s
w ere no t hea rsaybeca use th ey w ere of fered solelyto show their ef fect on Padi ll a’s demeanor , t hus per mitt ing the jur y to ev alu ate his credi bil ity . Acc ordin g ly , w e hol d tha t t he tr ial co urt di d noter r by ov er ru li ng the hearsay obj ect ion

. B. Conf ronta tion Clau se Padi ll a al so arg ues that the a dmis si on of thes e s tatement s v iol ated his Si xth Amendment ri g ht of

confrontat ion

. The Co nfrontat ion C lau se of the Si xth A mendment t o the United Sta tes C onst itution bars the adm ission at tri al of a testim onia l o u t -o f -co urt sta tement “u nle ss the defendant has had a pr ior oppor tuni ty to ex amine the w it ness and the w itness is una v ailable to testif y .” Del C ar m en Her nandez v. Sta te , 273 S .W .3d 6 85,T he C raw f ord C our t decl i ned t o spel l out a com pr ehensi v e de f i ni t i on o f“ t est i m oni al , ” but i t st at ed t hat 6 t he t er m “ appl i es at a m i ni m um t o pr i or t est i m ony at a pr el i m i nar y hea r i ng, bef or e a gr and j ur y , or at a f or m er t ri al ; an d t o po l i c e i nterrog ati on s
. ” C r aw f ord v. W ashi

ngt on , 541 U

. S. 36, 68 ( 2004)

. Because t he co m pl ai nedo fs ta te m e n ts w e r e m a d e b y a c o - d e f e n d a n t in r e s p o n s e to p o lic e in te r r o g a tio n , t h is w a s te s tim o n ia l h e a r s a y. 7 687 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( ci ti ng Cra wfo rd v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68 (200 4)). 6 Ev en w hen hea rs ay

ev ide nce is admis si ble under ev ide nti ar y ru les , itmay

st il l v iol ate t he C o n fro n t a t i o n C l a u s e i f t h e a c c u s e d i s n o ta ffo rd e d t h e o p p o rt u n i t y t o c o n fro n tt h e o u t
- o fcour t dec larant. Shuff

ield v . St ate , 189 S

. W .3d 782 , 790 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). How ev er , the C onfronta ti on C lau se “d oes not b ar the use of test imoni al sta tements for purp oses o the r than e stab lishing the truth of the ma tter asserted. ” Del C ar m en Her nandez , 2 7 3 S. W .3 d at68 7 (cit in g Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 59 n.9)

. Here, be caus e the co mplai ned- of sta tements w er e notoffer ed for the t ru th of the matte r ass erted, w e c oncl ude t hat t he Con frontat ion C lau se did not bar admi ss ion of thes e s tatement s. Ac cordin g ly , w e hol d tha t the t ri al cour

t did not abuse its disc re ti on byadmitti ng the sta tements i nto e v ide nce. I ss ue one i s o v er ru led

. B. Su fficiency o f the Eviden ce By hi s s econd i ss ue, P adi ll a c hal len g es the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the
ev ide nce to s uppor

t hi s c onv ic ti on as a pr inc ipa l or as an a cc ompli ce. In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce to s uppor t a conv ic ti on, w e cons ide r all the e v ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav or abl e to the v erdic t and dete rmi ne w hether , based on t hat e v ide nce and t he
re asona ble inferences therefrom, a ra ti onal j uror co uld hav e found the es sent ial el ements of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 318 -19 (197 9); Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2007)

. This as ses sment affords app ropriate def eren ce “to the respon sibility of the trier of

fact fairly

to resolve conf licts in the t est imony , t o w eig h the ev ide nce, and to d ra w re a sonable inferences from bas icto8

ulti m a t e f a c t s .” Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 31 9. In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the
ev ide nce, “ w e shoul d look at ‘ ev ents oc cur ri ng before, dur ing and after the c ommis si on of the o ff ense and may re ly on ac ti ons of the defendant w hic h s how an u ndersta ndi ng and
com mo n de sign to do the prohibite d act.” Hooper , 2 1 4 S. W .3 d at13 (quo ti n g Cordova v. State , 698 S.W .2d 1 07, 1 11 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985) ). “ Ci rc um st a n ti a l e vi dence i s a s probati v e as directev ide nce, ” and t he c umulat iv e forc e of the inc ri minat ing ev ide nce may be s uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t a conv ic ti on. Id

. W hen as ses si ng a fact ual insuffici ency clai m, w e consi der

all of the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht an d as k w hether the ev ide nce int ro duced to suppo rt the v erdic t, is so w eak as to rend er the verdict clearly wrong an d ma nifestly un just or wheth er t he verdict is ag ainst the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the ev ide nce. W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 414 -15 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6). Althou gh w e rev iew t he e v iden ce in a ne utral light, w e still “a fford al most compl ete deferenc e to a jur y ’s deci si on w hen t hat d eci si on i s b ased upon
an evaluation o f

cred ibility .” Lanco n v

. St ate , 253 S.W .3d 699 , 705 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08). A person commi ts capi tal murder i f he or sh e c ommits murder

as defined under
sec ti on 19.02( b) (1 ) of t he pena l code and, inter alia , the pers on i ntent ion all y co mmits the murde r in the c ourse of commit tin g o r attempt ing to commi t robber y . T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 19.03( a) (2 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. A person commi ts m u rd e r if he or she “inten tiona lly

or know ingly

cause s the de ath of

a n indiv idua l.” Id . § 19.02( b) (1 ) (V er non 2003)

. A person commi ts ro bber y i f, in the c ourse of commit ti ng theft, and w it h int ent t o obt ain or ma intain control of prope rt y, h e o r she inten tiona lly , knowing ly , or recklessly
caus es bodi ly

i nju ry to another , or

i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

pl aces a n o th e r in fear of immi nent bodi ly

i nju ry or deat h. Id . § 29.02( a) . T heft is the unl awful appropr iat ion of proper ty w it h the i n tent to d epr iv e the ow ner of the p ro per

ty

. Id . § 31.03 (V er non Su pp.9

200 8). A person a cts inten tiona lly with resp ect to a result of h is or her condu ct w hen it is his or her co nsc iou s o bject ive o r d e sire to eng ag e i n the co nductor to caus e the resul t. Id . § 6.0 3(a) (Vernon 200 3). A perso n is cri min ally respon sible as a pa rty to an o f

fense if t h e of

fense is
com mitt ed b y

his ow n con duct , by the cond uct of ano the r fo r w hich he is cr imina lly
re spons ibl e, or

by both

. Id . § 7 .01 (a) (Vernon 2 005 ). A person is criminally respo nsible for an off ense commi tte d b y t h e conductof another i f: “ act ing w it h i ntentto promote or
ass is t t he c ommis si on of the off ense, he s oli ci ts, encourag es, dir ect s, ai ds, or at tempts to aid th e oth er person to com mit th e of fense .” Id . § 7.03( a) (2 ) (V er non 200 5)

. “E ach par ty to an of fense may be charged wi th com mission of the of fense .” Id . § 7.0 1(b). In hi s vid e o t a p e d s tatement , Pa dil la admit ted t hat h e w as w it h Gon z ale s o uts ide Mo ra les ’s home i mmediat ely before the murder

and that he w as w it h Gonz ale s ins ide the home i mmediat ely

after the murde r. W hil e the pr esenc e of an acc used at the s cene of an
o f fe n s e is n o t a lo n e s u f

f ic ie n t t o s u p p o rt a c o n vic t io n , it is a c ir c u m s t a n c e t e n d in g t o p ro ve guilt w hich, co mb in e d wi t h othe r fa cts, ma y suf f ice to sho w

thatthe accu sed was a par ti ci pant. Bear

dsley v. State , 7 3 8 S .W .2d 681 , 685 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 87). Pad illa adm itted in his v ideo tape d stat em entthathe an d Gon z ales fled the crime scene togethe r. W hi l e fl i g hta l on e i s n ote no ug h to s up po rt a v erdi c t of g ui l t, e v i de nc e of fl i g htfrom a c r i me
sc ene i s a ci rc umstan ce from w hic h an inference of gu il t may be d ra w n. Valdez

v. Sta te , 623 S. W .2d 3 17, 3 21 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1981) (op . on re h’g ); see W il ker son v. State , 881 S.W .2d 3 21, 3 24 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994) ( sta ti ng thata find ing of int ent may be i nferred from ev ide nce of fli g ht from sc ene)

. Gonz ale s sto le a few hundred dol lars a nd j ew elr y from t h e vic t im ’s h o u s e
. Aft e r th e m u rd e r, h e ga ve P a d il la $ 8 0 a n d s o m e o f t h e st o le n je we lry. Spl it ti ng the sto len proceed s is a ci rc umstan ce tendi ng to show g uil t. Valdez , 623 S.W .2d10

at 321. Romero dis cov er ed that the dr ess er draw ers i n the ir bedroom had been op ened and t hat j ew elr

y had been t aken. Sh ortl y after the murde r, D etec ti v e Garcia recov er ed
som e jew elry f rom paw n shop s, and Rome ro ident if ied th e recovered jewelr y as the jewelry stolen f rom th e ho use o n the day of the m urde r. Paw nsho p em ployees iden tif ied Pa dilla as the p e rs on who pawned som e of the sto len jewelry . Paw ning a dece ased ’s jew elry shor tl y after the decea sed’ s murde r is a ci rc umstan ce of g uil t. See Youens v. Sta te , 742 S.W .2d 8 55, 8 59, 8 60 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 19 87, p et. re f’d)

. Other ci rc umstan ces tend ing to prov e Padi ll a’s g uil t are: (1 ) alt houg h Padi ll a di d not know the v ic ti m, he knew that a pie ce of jew elr y thatGonz ale s g av e hi m after the murder
cam e f rom the v ictim; ( 2) Mareztw ice accom pan ied Pa dilla and Gonzales to Sa n Ant onio
w he r e Pa di l l a pa w ne d s om e j ew el r y , an d w he n s he a s k ed t he m w he r e th e j ew el r y c am e from, t hey

“av oid ed” the q uest ion ; ( 3) w hil e i n the murder v ic ti m’s home, Padi ll a s aw Gon z ales go into a roo m an d return w ith a little w hite p lastic ba g; ( 4 ) a ft e r the mu rder, Gon z ales an d Pad illa dispose d of Gonzales’s b lood y

clo thing as w ell a s t he “tire checke r”; ( 5 ) b o t h G o n z a l e s a n d P a d i l l a s o l d t h e j e w e l r y ; ( 6 ) P a d i l l a h e l p e d t h e p o l i c e r ecov er the “t ire ch e ck e r” a s w ell as so me g re en g lov es that Padi ll a s aid w er e i nv olv ed; ( 7) M orale s die d from a sk ull frac ture, w hic h w as cons is tent w it h bei ng str uck by a bl unt o bje ct; and (8 ) lum inol sho w ed “som e reactio n” on th e f loor ma t on the f ront-pa ssenger side of the vehicle used in the m urde r; and in which Padilla w as a pa ssenger. Contro v erting ev iden ce sho w ed th at: (1) neith er f inge rp ri nts no r DN A evidence li nked eit her Padi ll a or Gonz ale s to the cr ime sc ene; (2 ) no ey e w it ness saw eit h e r m an
c o m m itt h e m u rd e r: (3 ) P a d il la d e n ie d t h a th e wa s in vo lve d in t h e m u rd e r a n d t h e ro b b e ry; (4 ) the medi cal ex aminer co uld not say

how many persons hit Mo ra les ; (5 ) Padi ll a hel ped Gon z ales pa w n the jew elry beca use Go nzales did noth ave a d riv er’s license; (6) Pad illa11

did not know that Gonz ale s w as g oin g to int enti onal ly ki ll the v ic ti m; and (7 ) Padi ll a di d not call the po lice beca use h e w as af raid of Gonzales. Vi ew ing thi s e v ide nce under th e appropr iat e s tandards, w e c oncl ude t hat t he
ev ide nce is l eg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he c onv ic ti on. Iss ue tw o i s o v er ru led

. III

. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA 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 er ed and filed thi s 2 0th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 9.