Court Opinion

ID: 9555754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 10:08:07.863385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:02.491539
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-21-00432-CR

                                Mark James Stevens, Appellant

                                                    v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

                FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
      NO. CR-19-0238-D, THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

                Appellant Mark James Stevens was convicted by a jury of murder and tampering

with physical evidence and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years’ confinement,

respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. 1 On appeal, he contends in four issues that

the trial court improperly commented on the weight of the evidence in its charge to the jury, that

the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt for tampering, that the

trial court erred by omitting the mandatory parole instruction in its punishment charge, and that

the trial court erred by entering a deadly-weapon finding in the murder judgment. We will

affirm the trial court’s judgments of conviction.

       1   The jury also assessed a $10,000 fine as part of Stevens’ tampering punishment.
                                         BACKGROUND

               This case arises from a three-way sexual tryst gone awry. On July 26, 2018,

Officer Alexander Pinillo and Deputy Daisy Trevino with the Hays County Sheriff’s Office

(HCSO) were dispatched to a residence in Buda on a welfare call. The 911 caller, Stevens’

father, had advised police that his son had possibly been in a fight the night before.

               Deputy Trevino testified that Stevens’ wife, Jeanette Stevens, answered the front

door. When Officer Pinillo asked for Stevens, Jeanette went inside and shut the door. The

officers heard a loud scream, and Jeanette returned to the door followed by Stevens, who “looked

confused,” “kept touching his head,” was “shaking” and “breathing heavily,” and “kept looking

back at his wife.” Trevino testified that Stevens had a dried “gash” on his head and was acting

strangely, which caused her to call for EMS. Without being asked, Stevens put on a pair of

handcuffs that had been hanging on a coat rack by the door.

               Trevino testified that Stevens directed the officers to the master bathroom. She

noticed that the master bedroom door and locking mechanism were broken and that the

doorframe was damaged. In the bedroom, “there was just blood all over,” and she observed

bedsheets and a bloody pillow on the floor as well as an apparently bloodstained knife on top of

a wooden trunk at the foot of the bed. Two tall clothes hampers had been positioned to block

access to the bathroom. She observed a man, later identified as Brandon Fontenette, lying on his

back on the bathroom floor with his legs beneath him and a pool of coagulated blood under his

head. It appeared that Fontenette had been in the bathroom “for a good deal of time,” but she

saw nothing indicating that his body had been moved.

               Trevino also testified that she observed a cell phone and Ziploc bag containing a

wallet on the counter of the kitchen bar area. She testified that although she would consider the

                                                 2
items to have been in plain view, she would not have been able to see them had she not been

inside the home.

               Officer Pinillo’s testimony was largely consistent with Deputy Trevino’s. He

testified that when Stevens came to the front door, he was wearing only pajama bottoms and had

blood on his hand and a laceration to the top of his head. He could not form complete sentences

when speaking with Pinillo and appeared “quite in shock, confused,” and surprised to see police.

Stevens extended his hand toward Pinillo, who attempted to shake it, but Stevens pulled it back

and handcuffed himself. Pinillo testified that when he asked EMS to treat Stevens’ hand,

Stevens stated, “That is not my blood.”

               Christopher Uhlaender, a firefighter-EMT with the Buda Fire Department,

testified that he and Lieutenant Eric Spillar, a firefighter-paramedic, were dispatched on a call

concerning a male with a laceration to his head. En route, the call was updated to add that a

second male was unconscious at the scene. Uhlaender testified that Fontenette “was obvious

dead-on-arrival when [they] got there” and had been deceased “for an extended amount of time.”

He further testified that it did not appear that Fontenette’s body had been repositioned.

               Uhlaender also testified that he performed a full head-to-toe injury examination of

Stevens but noted only the laceration to his head. He testified that Stevens had “a lot of dried

blood in the area where he said that there . . . might be a possible laceration” but that Uhlaender

could not “find a laceration per se” and did not observe “any sort of injuries other than the dried

blood on his scalp.” On records of the call, he described Stevens as a “male patient with a

laceration to the head” but noted that “[d]ue to dried blood [he was] unable to directly observe

laceration. No active bleeding.” The records likewise stated that Stevens advised that he had

been in an altercation, that he had been struck in the head by an “unknown object,” and that this

                                                 3
was “the sole source of his pain.” Uhlaender testified that Stevens’ injuries could be categorized

as “minor or minimal.”

               Lieutenant Spillar testified that Fontenette had been dead for more than

30 minutes and that on body-camera footage that was admitted into evidence, he had stated that

it appeared that Fontenette had been in that position for more than an hour or two. Like

Uhlaender, Spillar testified that he was unable directly to observe Stevens’ head wound, that the

wound appeared “superficial,” and that Stevens was alert and oriented. Spillar testified that he

could not remember if Stevens had other injuries.

               Dr. Keith Pinckard, the Chief Medical Examiner of Travis County, testified about

Fontenette’s autopsy.    He observed several wounds on Fontenette’s body, including a stab

wound on his back and 13 shallow BB or pellet wounds “scattered over the body”: six to the

upper-left chest, one on the left side of the neck, one on the outside of the left upper-arm, four to

the left side of the back and backside of the left upper-arm, and one to the front of the left

forearm and wrist. Pinckard testified that there were no visible injuries to Fontenette’s hands,

that the pellet wounds did not appear to have been inflicted postmortem, that there was blunt

trauma to Fontenette’s neck, and that the stab wound caused his death. He also testified that

swabs were taken of Fontenette’s hands, fingernails, and penis.

               Renee Luna, the supervisor for the HCSO crime scene and evidence units,

testified that she responded to Stevens’ home twice on July 26th—at approximately 8:30 a.m.

and 4:14 p.m. During the first response, she photographed Stevens and the exterior of his home.

She testified that in her report, she documented that he had dried blood on his head, small cuts

and abrasions on the middle of the left side of his head, scrapes on both of his hands, abrasions

                                                 4
on his left elbow, and a swollen and bruised right ankle. She also documented blood on his

hands and foot, which he stated was not his.

               She testified that she returned to Stevens’ home after officers obtained a search

warrant. In the master bedroom, she observed blood splatter—caused when “an event occurs

that causes someone to bleed and there’s some impact”—on the floor, wall, bedding, items in the

room, a broken laundry hamper, and in the master bathroom. She obtained swabs of apparent

bloodstains from various locations in both the master bedroom and bathroom, but none was

submitted for DNA testing.

               She also testified that she collected a number of items of physical evidence,

including the bloodstained knife, a sheath from the top of a chest of drawers, a second knife

coated in a white powder in the master bathroom sink, camo shorts believed to be Stevens’, and

the Ziploc bag containing Fontenette’s wallet and IDs on the kitchen counter. She testified that

she observed a similar bag on top of the knife in the bathroom sink, the white powder on which

she believed was drywall deposited when the knife was stabbed into a patched area of sheetrock

in the master bedroom. In the pocket of the camo shorts were Stevens’ wallet and a set of keys

later determined to belong to Fontenette.

               She further testified that there were liquor bottles in the master bedroom and that

a struggle had possibly occurred in the master bathroom. The shower curtain had been moved to

a closed position; when it was pulled back, she observed bloodstains on the interior of the

shower area.    On cross-examination, she testified that she swabbed Stevens’ hands, the

bloodstained knife, an Airsoft gun, and the empty knife sheath.

                                                5
               M.C., a friend of Stevens’ son, A.S., testified that he received a text from A.S.

around 3:30 a.m. on July 26th, asking to come to M.C.’s house. 2 M.C. testified that there are

probably five houses between his house and the Stevenses’ and that it would take him 15 seconds

to walk between the houses. He testified that something was going on at Stevens’ home that

made A.S. want to leave and that A.S. had told him that he heard his father say, “I could kill

you.” Although M.C. also testified that A.S. may have told him, “He said I could kill you,” he

testified that he had been “very clear” when speaking with officers within a week of the incident

that Stevens had reportedly said, “I could kill you.” M.C. testified that his memory would have

been “[a] lot better” in 2018.

               He further testified that he and A.S. went to Stevens’ home that night, that A.S.

stated that he did not want to go inside, and that they returned to M.C.’s home. M.C. testified

that A.S. had been told to come to his house at least twice before when Stevens was suffering

from symptoms of PTSD. He testified that A.S. had described a “PTSD moment” as “sometimes

picking up objects and throwing them.”

               HCSO Corporal Leigh Treat testified that when he arrived at Stevens’ home on

July 26th, he saw a Dodge Durango, Honda Fit, and Chevrolet Camaro parked in the driveway.

He ran the vehicles, and the Camaro came back registered to Fontenette, who was identified by

his driver’s license photo.

               Treat also testified about the contents of security-camera footage from the

Railhouse Bar in Kyle that he watched as part of the investigation. On the video, Fontenette,

who arrived alone but was later joined by a man named Tommy Rushing, could be seen

       2 Because M.C. and A.S. were minors at the time of the alleged offense, we will refer to
them by their initials in the interest of privacy. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.10(a)(3).
                                               6
interacting and socializing with Stevens and Jeanette. Rushing appeared to know Stevens, and

the two pairs sat together at the bar. Treat testified that Fontenette was primarily interacting with

Jeanette; that he and Stevens fist-bumped; that Jeanette later appeared to be “draped over”

Fontenette; that Stevens’ body language was “[c]losed off, reserved, not engaged”; and that

Fontenette moved closer to Jeanette after Rushing left. Treat further testified that at one point,

Stevens attempted to kiss Jeanette, but she turned her head away and kissed Rushing instead.

When Stevens and Jeanette kissed, she “pulled away” first. Treat testified that Jeanette stood

facing Fontenette and with her back to Stevens; that Fontenette and Jeanette engaged in a “two-

handed high five”; that they appeared to grasp hands for a second; and that Stevens pulled her

back by her hips. After staying at the bar for approximately an hour, Stevens, Jeanette, and

Fontenette left the bar around 11 p.m., and their two vehicles appeared to follow each other out

of the parking lot.

               Melody Jaramio, a criminalist with HCSO’s crime scene unit, testified that she

collected DNA swabs from Stevens and photographed his injuries at Seton Hays Hospital. His

injuries consisted of abrasions on his face, scalp, forehead, left arm, and hands and bruises to his

arms, abdomen, right ankle, and the back of his left thigh. She testified that Stevens appeared to

be limping in the Railhouse Bar video.

               Dr. Jacob Falcon, an ER physician at Seton Hays, testified about his examination

of Stevens at the hospital. Stevens reported being assaulted but was unable to elaborate and

stated that he did not remember much of the assault. He had “unknown trauma to the head,” but

no head injuries and only superficial head lacerations. Falcon testified that Stevens’ injuries

could be consistent with his having been assaulted and that they “[t]heoretically” could have

                                                 7
been self-inflicted. He also testified that Stevens had a BAC of .182, which is “toxic,” and that

his urine tested positive for cannabis and opiates.

               Jeri Skrocki, a former HCSO lieutenant, testified that while assisting with the first

search of Stevens’ home, she observed patched holes in the drywall of the master bedroom and

“living area,” “which could be consistent with an object or person striking the walls.” She

testified that during the second search, officers collected BBs from the floor of the master

bedroom, an Airsoft gun from a tall dresser in the room, and CO2 cartridges and ammo for the

gun from a desk drawer in the living room. She also testified that she remembered the Ziploc

bag being collected, that she would consider it to have been in plain view and unconcealed, and

that it would have been concealed had she been outside of the home.

               HCSO Detective Jennifer Baker testified that having observed the damage to the

master bedroom door and doorframe, it was her opinion that the door had been forced from the

inside.   She also testified that the Ziploc bag had contained Fontenette’s driver’s license,

insurance card, and two debit cards.

               Sapana Prajapati, a forensic DNA scientist with a private forensic testing

company, testified about the results of DNA testing that she performed in the case at the request

of HCSO. The tested items included swabs from Fontenette’s fingernails, hands, and penis;

Stevens’ hands; the top of the Ziploc bag containing Fontenette’s wallet and cards; the handle of

the bloodstained knife; and the barrel and grip of the Airsoft gun. Many of the DNA results were

incomplete and not suitable for comparisons. The DNA mixture obtained from the swab of

Fontenette’s right-hand fingernail was of at least three individuals with at least two male

contributors “and a partial major female contributor [from] which Jeanette Stevens cannot be

excluded.” The non-sperm fraction from his penis was a mixture of three individuals with two

                                                 8
male contributors, and Stevens, Fontenette, and Jeanette “cannot be excluded as contributors to

this mixture.” A single-source male DNA profile was obtained from the swab of the Ziploc bag

that matched Stevens’ DNA profile. The results from the Airsoft-gun swabs were both mixtures

“of at least three individuals with a partial major male contributor from which Mark Stevens

cannot be excluded,” but from which Fontenette could be excluded.

               HCSO Sergeant Mark Opiela, the primary detective in the case, testified at length

about four interviews that he conducted with Stevens. A video recording of each interview was

also admitted into evidence. In the first interview, done shortly after police first arrived at

Stevens’ home, Stevens stated that he and Jeanette had invited Fontenette—whose name he

stated he could not remember—to their home to drink and watch a movie after the Railhouse Bar

closed. Stevens described two fights, the first occurring in the living room and the second in the

bathroom. He stated that the first fight began when Fontenette attacked him after he confronted

Fontenette for hitting on Jeanette. Stevens stated that he hit Fontenette a couple of times in his

stomach, that Fontenette hit him “[m]ostly in the head,” that he fell to the ground, that Fontenette

“started choking [him] out,” and that he got loose and thought the fight was over. Opiela

testified that he did not notice any abrasions or injuries to Stevens’ neck.

               When describing the second fight, Stevens stated, “Me and my wife were gonna

go to bed. Next thing I know, I’m going to the bathroom, and he walks into our bedroom and

into the bathroom and starts wailing on me.” He stated that he got Fontenette off of him and that

“the knife was there.” When asked if he used the knife, Stevens chuckled and replied, “I think

it’s pretty self-explanatory.” He stated that he stabbed Fontenette in his side and that he did not

intend to kill him.

                                                  9
                Opiela testified that at no point during the interview did Stevens allege that

Fontenette had sexually assaulted or attempted to sexually assault Jeanette or assert that he,

Fontenette, and Jeanette had engaged in sexual acts. Consequently, Opiela testified, a sexual

assault forensic examination was not performed on Jeanette.

                During the second interview, conducted while Stevens was receiving treatment at

the hospital later on the 26th, he stated that he may have known Fontenette’s name at one time

but could not recall it. Stevens stated that he met Fontenette through Stevens’ friend Rushing

and that he, Jeanette, and Fontenette left the Railhouse Bar after last call around 10:45 p.m.

Opiela testified that as in the first interview, Stevens did not allege sexual assault nor mention

that consensual sexual contact had occurred. He also testified that the nurse treating Stevens had

stated that he did not have a laceration on top of his head and that after cleaning the dried blood,

she stated that she “didn’t see anything.”

                The third interview was held at the police station four days after the alleged

murder. Stevens began the interview by stating that he had discussed the case with an attorney

and later stated that he had also talked about what happened with Jeanette but that he and she

were “so blank on a lot of things, missing hours.” 3

                Opiela testified that for the first time, Stevens asserted that there was a sexual

component to the incident, that the conversation at the home had “mutual[ly]” become sexual,

and that there had been unwanted attempted sexual contact between Fontenette and Jeanette

when Fontenette tried to come between her and Stevens. Stevens denied that he and his wife

engaged in intercourse and stated that neither he nor she were naked.

       3   Elsewhere, however, Stevens stated that he and Jeanette “didn’t talk at all.”
                                                 10
               He described only one fight, which began in the master bedroom when Fontenette

tried to force himself on Jeanette—who was making out with Stevens on the bed—and pushed

Stevens, causing him to trip over the chest at the foot of the bed. He stated that Jeanette then

pushed Fontenette, that she fell off the bed instead, and that Fontenette continued to move

toward her, “getting down towards her.” He grabbed Fontenette’s arm, and Fontenette began

“wailing on [him],” hitting him mostly in the head. Fontenette somehow forced him to the

ground in the bathroom and placed him in a chokehold, screaming, “Fuck you. I’m gonna kill

you.” Stevens stated that while they struggled on the bathroom floor, he tried unsuccessfully to

put Fontenette in a headlock, punch him in the throat, or hold him down with his forearm. He

stated that he thinks that Fontenette let him go because Stevens was “almost done.”

               He stated that once freed, he ran out of the room and grabbed the Airsoft gun

from the drawer of the desk by the back door and the knife from where it hung by the front door.

As he was running back to the room, he heard the door slam and Jeanette scream, so he “went

through the door” and saw Fontenette standing over Jeanette near the foot of the bed. He stated

that he heard Jeanette say, “Get away from me,” and that Fontenette told her, “I’m going to fuck

you.” Holding the Airsoft gun in his left hand and the knife in his right, he told Fontenette to

leave, but he instead came toward Stevens.           Opiela testified that from Stevens’ account,

Fontenette would have had to “go through” Stevens to leave the room. Stevens stated that he

fired two or three BBs, that Fontenette flinched and “backed for a second,” that he kept coming

when he realized that it was not a real gun, and that Stevens then stabbed him.

               He twice acted out the stabbing. Opiela testified that the motion was from his

chest outward in an underhand grip and that he would have likely struck Fontenette’s right side,

not the upper left of his back. During the second reenactment, Stevens for the first time stated

                                                11
that Fontenette had swung at him before the stabbing and missed. He stated that he did not call

911 afterward but instead called his brother and asked for help disposing of Fontenette’s body.

He further stated that after the call, he passed out on the bed, that he woke up on the ground, and

that when he came out of the bedroom, the police were already at the door. When asked why he

had concealed details, Stevens replied that his attorney had asked the same thing and that he was

scared and had not known what to do.

               Stevens also stated that he went through Fontenette’s wallet to see who he was but

did not remember putting its contents in the Ziploc bag. He stated that he put the knife on top of

the chest, that the Airsoft gun should have been “right in that area” and that he did not remember

putting it in a dresser. He stated that it would surprise him if police had found Fontenette’s keys

in his shorts pocket. Speaking of the Airsoft gun’s location, he stated, “Again, I panicked,” and,

“Jesus fucking Christ, that’s fucking stupid.” Opiela testified that the Ziploc bag would not have

been visible or in plain sight had officers not entered the home, that Fontenette’s keys were not

in plain sight even in the home, and that officers would not have discovered the keys had they

not seized Stevens’ shorts. He also testified that the Airsoft gun was found underneath clothing

inside a dresser in the master bedroom, which was a “concealed spot.”

               The fourth interview—conducted five months after the alleged murder and after

Opiela had disclosed the DNA test results to Stevens—was again held at the station. Stevens

stated that he remembered “a few things . . . after counseling and going over and over and over

[it] again” and clarified, “A lot of it I didn’t remember right away.” He acknowledged that the

DNA results contradicted his previous statements and explained that Jeanette had “started

remembering things” after an attorney said something to her. He stated that she remembered

more than he did and that they had “even gone into the bedroom and . . . tried to make sense of

                                                12
it.” Elsewhere, when asked why he had not told the police certain things, he replied that he

never had to deal with such a situation before and that other omissions resulted from

embarrassment and memory problems.

                  For the first time, he stated that he and Jeanette were going to let Fontenette

“watch,” that they both performed oral sex on Fontenette, and that “[i]t was clear from the start

that any intercourse or penetration was off the table.” Stevens stated that after the oral sex, he

and Jeanette were having sex on the bed when Fontenette got on and tried to force Jeanette to

open her legs. He stated that Fontenette “clocked [him] in the head” and that he thought

Fontenette was wearing a ring because Stevens “still ha[s] dents and scars that apparently [he

has] to have the plastic surgery to get rid of.” When describing the altercation in the bathroom,

he stated that Fontenette not only threatened to kill him but said, “I’m going to fuck her even if I

have to kill you.” He also stated that it took him approximately seven seconds after leaving the

room to get the Airsoft gun and knife and return.

                  Opiela testified that Stevens again reenacted the stabbing but that it was different

from the reenactment during the third interview. This time, Stevens described holding the knife

overhanded and making an inward motion. Opiela testified that it would have been possible

for Stevens to stab Fontenette in the back this way but that they would have to have been

“pretty close.”

                  Discussing his actions after the stabbing, Stevens stated that the call with his

brother was an “initial kneejerk reaction” but that “luckily the smart side of [his] brain finally

kicked in, and [he] left everything alone.” He stated that he could now recall placing the

contents of Fontenette’s wallet in the Ziploc bag because he “wanted to see who he was,” that

Fontenette’s belongings had been on the kitchen counter, and that he looked at Fontenette’s

                                                   13
phone and grabbed his keys as well as going through his wallet. He stated that when he woke up

on the 26th, Jeanette told him that they needed to call the police; that he said, “I know”; but that

the police showed up before they could call.

               During the interview, Stevens stated that an application on his cell phone would

have recorded his call with his brother. Opiela testified that he performed an extraction of

Stevens’ phone, and recordings of the call were played for the jury. On the first recording,

Stevens told his brother that he “need[ed] help” and was “in trouble.” He explained that he could

“do it on [his] own if – if need be,” that he needed his brother’s “expertise,” and that Stevens

would “take the fall for everything.” He asked if his brother was still on parole and if he had

seen the show Dexter, laughing and explaining, “It’s in my bathroom, bro.” He then said that it

would be fine if his brother was “not willing” but asked that he “keep [his] mouth shut.”

               Stevens also stated that he “need[ed] to get rid of a car,” that “the drywall has to

disappear,” and that he “can handle” Rushing. He told his brother that “Jeanette’s not so much

of a big help right now,” adding, “I’ll do it on my own. Done it before. Never stateside, but I’ll

do it.” At one point, a female voice told Stevens, “I’m trying to be part of the solution here,” and

he replied, “I know. I love you.” Stevens’ brother instructed him to move the car and reassured

him, “I’m not calling the cops. Fuck the cops.”

               On another recording, Stevens’ brother asked if Stevens could “pull this off as

some kind of fucking accident or suicide or something,” to which he replied, “No. I mean

there’s – that’s what Jeanette was trying to do, make it seem like he attacked me, but – uh, yeah,

no. Any court will fucking see through that.” Opiela testified that Stevens’ injuries could

potentially have been self-inflicted or inflicted by Jeanette. When his brother asked who could

tie Fontenette to Stevens, he stated, “As far as – personal motives go, you don’t have to worry

                                                  14
about that one. Never knew him until tonight.” Stevens’ brother cautioned that police would

find Fontenette’s car at his house, and Stevens responded, “It’s gonna leave tomorrow morning

around – I don’t know – seven or eight.” He then stated, “I know what needs to be done, it’s just

– I can’t do it by myself. Jeanette doesn’t have the stomach for it. I got the tools. I got the

equipment.    I got everything.”      When Stevens’ brother told him that police would learn

Fontenette’s identity, Stevens stated, “You don’t have to worry about that. He’s a nobody.”

               On the final recording, Stevens’ brother again asked him, “And there’s no way

you can tell the cops he attacked you first? It was self-defense? I mean, he’s dead. You can

make up any story you want.” Stevens replied, “No. I mean, yes, but no.” When his brother

insisted that he did not see another way “out of this,” Stevens stated, “Yeah, I know. That’s why

I’m gonna do what I do good.” The call ended with Stevens yawning and telling his brother,

“Alright, man. I think I’m gonna hit the hay . . . . I’m going to bed.”

               When asked on cross-examination what he thought happened in the case,

Opiela testified:

       I believe there was a sexual altercation or a sexual event that was taking place. I
       believe that Jeanette Stevens and Brandon Fontenette were about to engage in
       sexual intercourse. I believe that that either upset or triggered Mr. Stevens and I
       believe he retrieved the BB gun and he came back with the knife.

               He disagreed with Baker’s determination that the door was broken down from the

inside. When asked if the Ziploc bag was in plain view, Opiela testified, “It was in plain view

inside the residence, but it wasn’t in plain view to anyone on the exterior of the residence.” He

also testified that it was not secreted or hidden.

               Following Opiela’s testimony, Stevens moved for a directed verdict on both

counts, and the trial court denied the motions.
                                                     15
              A.S., called as a witness by the defense, testified that Stevens suffers from PTSD,

and that he “always gets really confused and he’s mad at the wrong things.” He testified that

when suffering from an episode, “any random thing will set [Stevens] off and he’ll get confused

and mad. And we’ll get home and he’ll – he’ll punch a wall. And it will go on for maybe an

hour or so, maybe two hours, it very rarely went on two hours. And then – then he would calm

down.” He also testified that Stevens would throw things, that he once saw Stevens stab a wall

with a knife, and that Stevens has “some anger issues” while in an episode.

              A.S. testified that he left home around 2 to 3 a.m. on July 26th after hearing

“violence” through the wall. He testified that he heard Stevens and “that – Brandon. I heard a

lot of thuds on the wall behind me.” He also heard Fontenette say, “I could kill you right now,”

and Jeanette—panicked—yelling, “Stop,” and, “You need to get out.             Calm down.”    On

cross-examination, he testified that he did not tell M.C. that Stevens was the one who said,

“I could kill you right now,” and that he had told a police officer that Fontenette—not

“someone”—made the statement.

              The jury found Stevens guilty of both counts. During the punishment phase of

trial, the State presented testimony from Crystal McGaugh, Fontenette’s sister-in-law; HCSO

Detective David Marshall; HCSO Deputy Robert Blanchard; and HCSO Deputy Thomas

McGreevy. The State’s exhibits included judgment forms for Stevens’ prior convictions, and the

defense stipulated to his identity in the judgments. Stevens presented testimony from A.S. and

Sarah George, Jeanette’s friend. His exhibits included his military records and a letter from

his father.

              McGaugh provided victim-impact testimony and explained how Fontenette’s

death had affected his family. Marshall testified about a 2016 incident in which Jeanette called

                                               16
911 to report that Stevens was intoxicated and attempting to break into their home with a

propane tank.     When officers confronted Stevens, he was dismissive, “shook his buttocks

mockingly at [them],” and called himself a “dick.”            Marshall testified that Jeanette was

nonchalant and was not upset or crying.

                Blanchard testified that officers were dispatched to the Stevenses’ home the same

year in response to an overdose call. Jeanette appeared lethargic and reported having consumed

several types of medication. Blanchard testified that A.S., who was 13, was present at the time,

and that he made a CPS referral.

                McGreevy testified that he also responded to the overdose call, that Stevens

seemed irate, and that when McGreevy asked if they were going to have a problem, Stevens

apologized and calmed down. McGreevy testified that he picked a knife up from the ground

near Stevens but that he could not recall if it was already there or had fallen out of Stevens’

pocket. McGreevy testified that Stevens explained that he and Jeanette got into an argument,

that she threatened to take pills, and that he called 911 after she did so.

                A.S. testified that he loves Stevens very deeply. When asked if Stevens would

“fly off the handle easily,” he testified, “At certain times, yes; and at certain times, no. It was a

big toss up. It – I can’t tell you what key things there were to set that off, but it really could have

been anything.”

                George testified that Stevens is caring, funny, thoughtful, and very loving toward

Jeanette. However, she agreed on cross-examination that a caring person does not punch or stab

holes in the wall.

                The jury found that Stevens did not prove the issue of sudden passion and

sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and ten years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine for

                                                  17
tampering with physical evidence.       The trial court ordered that the sentences would run

concurrently, as required by law. When asked if it had additional matters, the State replied that

“because of the way the indictment reads, there should be an automatic deadly weapon finding as

to Count I [murder].” In response, the trial court made an affirmative deadly weapon finding in

the murder judgment. This appeal followed.

                                          DISCUSSION

I.     Comment on the Weight of the Evidence

               In his first issue, Stevens contends that the trial court erred by including a limiting

instruction in the guilt-innocence jury charge that improperly commented on the weight of the

evidence presented at trial:

       During the trial, you heard evidence that the defendant may have committed
       wrongful acts not charged in the indictment. The state offered the evidence to
       show the facts and circumstances surrounding the indicted offense. You are not
       to consider that evidence at all unless you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
       the defendant did, in fact, commit the wrongful act. Those of you who believe the
       defendant did the wrongful act may consider it.

       Even if you do find that the defendant committed a wrongful act, you may
       consider this evidence only for the limited purpose I have described. You may
       not consider this evidence to prove that the defendant is a bad person and for this
       reason was likely to commit the charged offense. In other words, you should
       consider this evidence only for the specific, limited purpose I have described. To
       consider this evidence for any other purpose would be improper.

               Stevens asserts that by instructing the jury that the State offered extraneous-

offense evidence “to show the facts and circumstances surrounding the indicted offense,” the

trial court “assumed that the State’s evidence was factual” and therefore true. He provides a

“far[]from complete tally of some of the main ‘bad acts’ that came before the jury,” concerning

evidence of sexual acts, his statements on the call recordings, and photographs of him and

                                                 18
Fontenette—offered, Stevens asserts in his briefing, “to show that the decedent was more largely

endowed than [him].”

       Error

               Article 36.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides in relevant part

that a trial court shall deliver to the jury a written charge “not expressing any opinion as to the

weight of the evidence.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.14. The primary reason for the rule is

that an instruction “by the trial judge to the jury on the weight of the evidence reduces the State’s

burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury’s satisfaction.” Brown v. State,

122 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting 43 Dix & Dawson, Texas Practice:

Criminal Practice and Procedure § 36.36 (2d ed. 2001)). It is “axiomatic” that a trial court may

not single out certain evidence and comment on it, Russell v. State, 749 S.W.2d 77, 78 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1988), and that a charge that “assumes the truth of a controverted issue is a comment

on the weight of the evidence and is erroneous,” Whaley v. State, 717 S.W.2d 26, 32 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1986); see Russell, 749 S.W.2d at 78 (“[W]hen a judge, in his charge to the jury, suggests

that certain evidence is true or is untrue, that is a comment on the weight of the evidence.”).

               To fall afoul of Article 36.14, an instruction need not create a mandatory

presumption or implicate a non-statutory evidentiary-sufficiency rule; on the “near end of the

‘improper judicial-comment’ scale” are instructions that are merely “unnecessary and fail[] to

clarify the law for the jury” or that “obliquely or indirectly convey some opinion on the weight

of the evidence by singling out that evidence and inviting the jury to pay particular attention to

it.” Brown, 122 S.W.3d at 801. Moreover, even an instruction that focuses a jury’s attention on

a type of evidence, but “does not pluck out any specific piece of evidence,” may be erroneous.

                                                 19
Id. (emphasis added); but see Beltran De La Torre v. State, 583 S.W.3d 613, 617 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2019) (observing that even “innocent attempt to provide clarity for the jury by including a

neutral instruction can result in an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence” by

“singl[ing] out a particular piece of evidence for special attention,”’ which the jury may then

focus on as guidance from the judge” (quoting Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim. App.

2000))); Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (explaining that outside

of certain statutorily-recognized exceptions, “a trial court should avoid any allusion in the jury

charge to a particular fact in evidence, as the jury might construe this as judicial endorsement

or imprimatur”).

               The Court of Criminal Appeals has recommended that, to ensure compliance with

Article 36.14, “a trial judge should, as a general rule, avoid including non-statutory instructions

in the charge because such instructions frequently constitute impermissible comments on the

weight of the evidence.” Beltran De La Torre, 583 S.W.3d at 617. In determining whether an

instruction is a comment on the weight of the evidence, we consider the court’s charge as a

whole and assess the probable effect of the instruction on the jury in the context in which it was

given. O’Connell v. State, 17 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.); Delapaz v.

State, 228 S.W.3d 183, 212 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. ref’d); see Russell, 749 S.W.2d at 79.

               The challenged instruction in this case appears to be a limiting instruction

combining statutory language from Article 38.36 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and

Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.36; Tex. R. Evid.

404(b). Article 38.36 provides that in murder cases, both parties may offer evidence “as to all

relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and the previous relationship existing

between the accused and the deceased, together with all relevant facts and circumstances going

                                                20
to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense.” Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art. 38.36(a). While instructions based on Article 38.36 are “permissible,” Roberson

v. State, 144 S.W.3d 34, 42 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d), and “traditional part[s] of

murder jury charges,” Delgado v. State, 635 S.W.3d 730, 746 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, pet.

ref’d), they are not required, Owens v. State, 549 S.W.3d 735, 745 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, pet.

ref’d); see Delgado, 635 S.W.3d at 746–47 (listing cases holding that Article 38.36 instructions

are not improper).

               In contrast, Rule 404(b) prohibits the State from introducing extraneous-offense

evidence—of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts—“for the sole purpose of showing the accused

acted in conformity with his past bad character towards the victim and thus murdered the

victim.” Smith v. State, 5 S.W.3d 673, 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (citing Tex. R. Crim. Evid.

404(b); Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’g 1991)).

In Smith, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Rule 404(b) is congruous with Article 38.36

and that evidence admissible under the article may nevertheless be excluded under the rule. Id.

at 679.   Thus, Rule 404(b) does not automatically bar evidence admissible under Article

38.36(a), id. at 678, so long as the evidence is admissible for a non-propensity purpose, “such as

proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake,

or lack of accident,” Tex. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). On request, a Rule 404(b) instruction should

caution the jury that it can only consider extraneous misconduct evidence if “(1) it believes

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such misconduct and (2) then only for

the limited purpose for which it was admitted.” Valadez v. State, 663 S.W.3d 133, 142 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2022).

                                               21
                Here, the trial court instructed the jury that the State offered evidence that Stevens

may have committed extraneous offenses “to show the facts and circumstances surrounding the

indicted offense,” that it could not consider the extraneous-offense evidence unless it found that

Stevens committed the wrongful acts beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it could not consider

the evidence for propensity purposes but only for the limited purpose described by the court.

The State argues that the instruction concerned same-transaction contextual evidence and was

therefore unnecessary but harmless. Alternatively, it argues that proving “the relevant facts and

circumstances surrounding the killing”—one of the bases for admissibility under Article 38.36—

is also a non-propensity purpose for which evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) and thus, by

accurately stating the law, the trial court’s instruction was not an impermissible comment on the

weight of the evidence. 4 We need not resolve that question in the present appeal because,

assuming without deciding that the instruction was erroneous, it did not egregiously

harm Stevens.

       Harm

                The standard of review for jury-charge error depends on whether the error was

preserved at trial. Jordan v. State, 593 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (citing Almanza

v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on reh’g 1985). When, as here, the

       4  Texas courts have been largely silent on the precise overlap and demarcation between
Article 38.36 and Rule 404(b). At least one court has concluded that clarifying the
defendant’s mental state and the prior relationship between the defendant and the victim are non-
propensity purposes for which evidence is admissible under rule 404(b). See Stafford v. State,
248 S.W.3d 400, 412 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, pet. ref’d). The Court of Criminal Appeals
has similarly suggested that “in cases in which the prior relationship between the victim and the
accused is a material issue, illustrating the nature of the relationship may be the purpose for
which evidence of prior bad acts will be admissible.” Garcia v. State, 201 S.W.3d 695, 703
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
                                                 22
defendant does not make a timely objection during the proceedings below, we must determine

whether the record establishes that the error caused him “egregious harm.”        See Gonzalez

v. State, 610 S.W.3d 22, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). “Neither party bears a burden of production

or persuasion with respect to an Almanza harm analysis, the question being simply what the

record demonstrates.” Hollander v. State, 414 S.W.3d 746, 749–50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

(citing Warner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)).

              Errors that result in egregious harm are those that affect the very basis of the

case, deprive the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affect a defensive theory. Gonzalez,

610 S.W.3d at 27; Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also

Chambers v. State, 580 S.W.3d 149, 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (stating that egregious harm

occurs when the error “created such harm that the appellant was deprived of a fair and impartial

trial”). The appellant must have suffered actual, and not merely theoretical, harm. Gonzalez,

610 S.W.3d at 27. In determining whether egregious harm exists, we must evaluate the entire

record in light of Almanza’s four factors: 1) the complete jury charge, 2) the arguments of

counsel, 3) the entirety of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of the

probative evidence, and 4) any other relevant factors revealed by the record as a whole. Id.;

Hollander, 414 S.W.3d at 749–50 (citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171). In some instances,

however, a single consideration may persuade a reviewing court that the risk of harm is so

minimal that it precludes a finding of egregious harm. Gonzalez, 610 S.W.3d at 27 (citing

French v. State, 563 S.W.3d 228, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)).

              Stevens asserts that the limiting instruction egregiously harmed him because his

theories of self-defense and third-party defense “might have fared better” had the “pointless

instruction” not “exacerbated” “certain distinctly unsavory additional facts,” because the

                                              23
instruction emphasized “matters in the record not directly connected with the validity or lack of

validity of [his] defensive arguments,” because his statements on the phone-call recordings

should not have been subject to a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction, and because the instruction

“gratuitously emphasized matters that negated any force [his] defensive evidence might

have had.”

               A.      Entirety of the Jury Charge

               Far from violating Stevens’ due-process rights or undermining his ability to raise

defensive theories, the full charge mitigated the risk that the jury would use extraneous-offense

evidence for propensity purposes. The trial court instructed the jury that he was presumed

innocent, that the State bore the burden of proof “throughout the trial,” that Stevens did not

“have the burden to prove anything,” and that the State must prove every element of each offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors were also instructed that they alone “review the evidence and

determine the facts and what they prove” and “judge the believability of the witnesses and what

weight to give their testimony.”     Moreover, the trial court expressly cautioned the jury that

“[n]othing the judge has said or done in this case should be considered by you as an opinion

about the facts of this case or influence you to vote one way or the other.”

               Although the instruction in question emphasized potential wrongful acts

committed by Stevens and may have suggested that such acts were true, in other respects it was

circumscribed and worded in such a way as to minimize the risk of appearing to endorse the

purpose for which the evidence was offered. The trial court instructed that the State had offered

evidence that Stevens “may have committed wrongful acts not charged in the indictment,” that it

offered the evidence to show the facts and circumstances surrounding the charged offense, that

                                                24
the jury could not consider the evidence unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that Stevens

committed a wrongful act, that the jury could consider the evidence only for the “limited

purpose” described, and that the jury could not consider the evidence “to prove that the

defendant is a bad person and for this reason was likely to commit the charged offense”

(emphasis added).

               The court further instructed the jury that even if it unanimously agreed that the

State had proven the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, it must then consider

“whether the defendant’s act was justified by self-defense or defense of a third party.” In

providing the law governing claims of self-defense, the trial court instructed the jury that Stevens

“is not required to prove that the defense of self-defense applies to this case. Rather, the State

must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to the defendant’s

conduct.” Similar language was provided about the burden of proof for third-party defense

claims. Such instructions lessened the risk that the jury would shift or reduce the State’s burden,

the principal objective behind the prohibition against comments on the weight of the evidence.

See Brown, 122 S.W.3d at 798.

               For these reasons, we find that the first factor weighs against a finding that

Stevens was egregiously harmed.

               B.      State of the Evidence

               The second Almanza factor requires us to review the state of the

evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence. Villarreal v. State,

453 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Under this factor, “we look to the state of the

                                                25
evidence to determine whether the evidence made it more or less likely that the jury charge

caused appellant actual harm.” Arrington v. State, 451 S.W.3d 834, 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

              In at least one respect, Stevens’ characterization of the instruction’s effects is

self-contradictory. He argues both that the extraneous-offense evidence emphasized by the

instruction was “not directly connected” with his “defensive arguments” and that the evidence

simultaneously “negated” the force of his defensive evidence.        This may result from his

overbroad understanding of the evidence comprehended by the instruction. He asserts that

merely by instructing the jury that the State offered evidence that he may have committed

“wrongful acts,” the trial court “exacerbated” and “gratuitously emphasized” each of the

following matters: the “‘swinger’ conte[x]t” of the case; a photo showing his penis; DNA results

suggesting that he performed oral sex on Fontenette; the conversation with his brother discussing

how to conceal evidence and dispose of Fontenette’s body; his laughing at times during the call;

his referring to Fontenette as a “nobody”; his statement during the fourth interview that he had

performed oral sex on Fontenette; and his “apparently” discussing his having “‘chopped up’ a

body while overseas on military duty.”

              As Stevens appears to recognize in arguing that the listed evidence should not

have been subjected to a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction, all but the last matter are

not extraneous offenses. “An extraneous offense is any act of misconduct, whether resulting

in prosecution or not, that is not shown in the charging papers.        It is an offense that is

‘extra, beyond, or foreign to the offense for which the party is on trial.’” Manning v. State,

114 S.W.3d 922, 926–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting Powell v. State, 137 S.W.3d 84, 89

(Tex. App.—Tyler 2000), rev’d on other grounds, 63 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). The

evidence must include “some sort of extraneous conduct on behalf of the defendant which forms

                                               26
part of the alleged extraneous offense”; statements concerning mere “inchoate thoughts” of

wrongdoing—such as Stevens’ discussion of concealing evidence and disposing of Fontenette’s

body, his calling Fontenette a “nobody,” or his laughing on the call recordings—do not involve

conduct “which alone or in combination with these thoughts could constitute a bad act or wrong,

much less a crime.” Moreno v. State, 858 S.W.2d 453, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc)

(emphasis added). The photo depicting Stevens’ penis, which the State explained at trial it was

offering to show motive, similarly does not implicate any wrongdoing or criminal conduct on

his part.

               Even if evidence that Stevens and Jeanette engaged or intended to engage in

consensual sexual acts with Fontenette or that Stevens performed oral sex on Fontenette

somehow constitutes evidence of wrongful acts, it was admissible without a limiting instruction

under the same-transaction-contextual-evidence exception to rule 404 “to show the context in

which the criminal act occurred.” Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. Crim. App.

2000) (citing Archer v. State, 607 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), abrogated on other

grounds by Wilson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)); see Camacho

v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (holding that same transaction contextual

evidence is admissible without a limiting instruction). The exception applies “where several

crimes are intermixed, or blended with one another, or connected so that they form an indivisible

criminal transaction, and full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of

them cannot be given without showing the others.” Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29, 33 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993). Same-transaction evidence is admissible “to illuminate the nature of the

crime alleged,” Camacho, 864 S.W.2d at 532, and because “[t]he jury is entitled to know all

                                               27
relevant surrounding facts and circumstances of the charged offense,” Devoe v. State,

354 S.W.3d 457, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

               Evidence that Stevens, Jeanette, and Fontenette engaged in sexual acts was

indivisible from the charged offenses: it explained Fontenette’s presence at the Stevenses’ home,

provided the bases for both the State’s theory of motive and Stevens’ theories of self-defense and

third-party defense, underlaid Stevens’ gradual disclosures and changing accounts to police, and

was central to understanding other evidence in the case, including the DNA results. The charged

offenses would thus have made little sense without the evidence, which was necessary to the

jury’s understanding. See Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

               Thus, because all but one of the matters listed by Stevens do not concern

extraneous offenses or constitute same-transaction contextual evidence or evidence admissible

under Article 38.36, no limiting instruction was required for their admission. See Camacho,

864 S.W.2d at 532; Owens, 549 S.W.3d at 745. His characterization of the remaining evidence

as his “vague but disturbing talk . . . about his having ‘chopped up’ a body while overseas on

military duty (apparently)” is hyperbolic and appears to refer to the following exchange on one

of the call recordings:

       Stevens: What I need to know right now is if I have help or not. ‘Cause Jeanette’s
       not so much of a big help right now.

       Brother: Yeah, you got help.

       Stevens: Like I’ll do it on my own. Done it before. Never stateside, but I’ll do it.

               However, even assuming that the jury would have understood the trial court’s

limiting instruction to emphasize the statement in question, Stevens did not request a

contemporaneous limiting instruction at the time the recording was offered or admitted into

                                                28
evidence, and thus it was admitted for all purposes. See Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 895

(Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (“Because appellant did not request a limiting instruction at the first

opportunity, the evidence was admitted for all purposes.”). Consequently—as with all of the

evidence listed by Stevens—to the extent that the trial court’s limiting instruction emphasized

the evidence, it did so by unnecessarily restricting the purposes for which the jury could

consider it. To the extent that the court commented on the weight of the evidence, it did so to

Stevens’ benefit.

               Finally, the matters listed by Stevens were uncontroverted at trial; they were, in

fact, part of his defensive strategy. Defense counsel did not deny that sexual acts occurred

between Stevens, Jeanette, and Fontenette but instead asserted only that Fontenette had

attempted to go beyond the agreed acts and engage in vaginal intercourse. Likewise, defense

counsel did not argue—nor did any witness testify—that Stevens did not make the statements

recorded by his cell phone’s application, that he had not previously concealed evidence or

disposed of a body, or that the photograph depicting his penis was inauthentic. Rather, the

defense’s case centered on theories of self-defense and third-party defense and purported

deficiencies in the investigation and DNA testing. Thus, the second factor weighs strongly

against a finding that Stevens was egregiously harmed.

               C.     Parties’ Arguments and Other Relevant Information in the Record

               Under the third Almanza factor, we consider whether any statements made during

the trial by the prosecutor, defense counsel, or trial court may have exacerbated or ameliorated

the error in the jury charge. Arrington, 451 S.W.3d at 844. Here, the only relevant statement

                                               29
made by the trial judge—to the jury at the start of trial—goes some way toward ameliorating the

impact of any comment on the weight of the evidence in the guilt-innocence charge:

       [D]on’t read into anything that I may or may not do in the case regarding the case.
       I will be ruling on objections. I’ll be sustaining an objection if I believe it is a
       good objection, overruling an objection if I believe it is not a good objection. Do
       not read into anything on that. You can tell that the lawyers in this case are good.
       We are in court together almost every day on other cases. And so do not read into
       anything that I may do with regard to this case. I truly am neutral in this case.

               During voir dire, both sides questioned the panel about the Stevenses’ “alternative

lifestyle,” asking prospective jurors whether they were familiar with “swinging” and whether

evidence of the lifestyle would affect their ability fairly to consider the case. No veniremembers

indicated that the subject would cause them to lose their impartiality or that they had ethical or

religious objections to the topic. And by screening the panel for such bias, the questioning likely

ameliorated the risk of egregious harm resulting from the jury’s eventual consideration of

evidence of sexual acts involving Stevens, Jeanette, and Fontenette.

               Similarly, defense counsel, who in his opening statement preemptively addressed

both the sexual evidence and phone calls, told the jury that “things get sort of naughty between”

Stevens, Jeanette, and Fontenette, that it would hear evidence that Stevens and Jeanette

performed oral sex on Fontenette, that “[t]here is no penetration and there is no sex[, but

e]verything else is fine,” and that Stevens did not want to tell officers that that he performed oral

sex on another man because “[y]ou’ve got a very proud man who this type of behavior in the

military was frowned upon.” The State, by contrast, argued only that Stevens, Jeanette, and

Fontenette “proceed to have some sort of sexual encounter, the three of them together,” and that

“it goes horribly wrong.”

                                                 30
               With respect to the recordings’ contents, the theme of the State’s case—expressed

repeatedly in both its opening and closing statements—was that “[t]he coverup proves the

crime.” Defense counsel, in attempting again to inoculate the jury, more conspicuously and

problematically framed the anticipated evidence in his opening:

       So Mark gets on the phone with his brother, Scott. Brother Scott Stevens has got
       in some trouble up in Louisiana and had a little experience with the criminal
       justice system. You can tell from the intoxication level of the phone call that
       [Stevens] was in shock or out of his mind or something. And they start talking
       about – referencing around about disposing of the body. That is true. Brother
       goes, [‘]Well, can you spin it as self-defense? Can you spin it as a suicide?[’]
       Mark says, [‘]No.[’]

       ....

       I will have to say the phone call is somewhat troubling. But how would you
       expect somebody to act?

               Both sides likewise discussed the phone recordings at length in their closing

arguments. The State played portions of the recordings, reminded the jury that it “heard the

phone calls with the defendant to his brother asking for advice on how to get rid of the body,”

and argued that “[t]hose calls . . . show you what happened.” In particular, the State elaborated,

referring to the “ghoulish calls”:

       Think about how depraved you have to be, your first instinct after stabbing
       someone to death is to call your brother for assistance, chopping up and disposing
       of that body. He denies there’s a plan to cover this up, he denies he’s tampering
       with evidence but that’s his first instinct.

       No 9-1-1 in those phone calls Detective Opiela did, just those. Didn’t call 9-1-1,
       he called his brother to dispose of the body. Because after all, from Mark
       Stevens’ perspective, Brandon Fontenette is a nobody, easily disposable.

       ....

                                               31
       “Let’s cut him up and toss him away.” But this is defending Jeanette? This is
       self-defense? Come on, Ladies and Gentlemen, you have to leave your biases and
       prejudices at the door, but you don’t have to leave your common sense.

       ....

       Does he ever mention in those phone calls – State’s Exhibit No. 60, if you want to
       go back and review them – ever mention anything to his brother about Brandon
       Fontenette attempting to sexually assault Jeanette Stevens during those calls?

       No, not a word, because it didn’t happen. It’s a fantasy, it’s make believe.

               Yet defense counsel, although also emotive in describing the calls during his

argument, attempted to redirect the jury toward the State’s burden, again lessening the risk of

egregious harm resulting from any emphasis of the evidence by the trial court’s instruction:

       And I was ultra pissed off when I was listening to Mark Stevens’ phone calls. It
       was disgusting, it was disappointing and there’s something about hearing it over
       these speakers and in this courtroom that made it more difficult. But I’m gonna
       ask y’all to do something, which is gonna be very difficult, and that’s to do your
       duty as jurors. Just like [the State] said, we’re putting our sympathy aside, we’re
       setting our bias and prejudice aside.

       The phone calls were made after the incident. Is it – is it evidence of what might
       have happened?

       Sure, it is, but let’s, at least, look at the evidence we have been presented beyond
       the phone calls.

       ....

       I want you to set your bias and prejudices aside. That’s gonna be difficult. I still
       have that phone call replaying in my head. But the phone call was after the fact
       and the phone call was made with someone that has a skewed vision of what self-
       defense is and what’s not and who’s clearly not a legal scholar, who had just had
       his head bashed in, who was drunk as shit, right? It’s a bizarre call. It’s a bizarre
       call. But does the making of that phone call get the State to disproving self-
       defense and defense of a third person, beyond a reasonable doubt?

                                                32
               Both sides also attempted to downplay any prejudicial tendency of the evidence of

swinging or Stevens’ performance of oral sex in their closing arguments. The State did not

directly mention oral sex, obliquely stating only:

       Now he wants to say this was some sort of embarrassment. Ladies and
       Gentlemen, that was 2018, we’re now in 2021, no one cares about that stuff
       anymore.

       I mean, the idea of two men having sexual contact with each other is passe at this
       point, there’s nothing to be embarrassed about.

               Defense counsel acknowledged that “the evidence is pretty undisputed that they

all three were getting naughty together, consensually,” but reminded the jury that no one had

expressed concern with swinging during voir dire and asked that jurors “not judge Mr. Stevens

or even Mr. Fontenette or anybody involved regarding what was happening in that

room, consensually.”

               At no time through its questioning, cross-examination, or argument did the State

direct jurors’ attention to the relative sizes of Stevens’ and Fontenette’s penises. Nor did defense

counsel, other than to state in his closing, “I really hate to get lewd and crude, but we’ve seen

pictures we probably shouldn’t have to have seen.” In addition, neither side referenced Stevens’

recorded statement that he had previously engaged in some potentially troublesome activity

overseas. This factor is therefore neutral or, at most, weighs only slightly in favor of finding that

Stevens was egregiously harmed.

               We do not find, nor does Stevens assert, that there is other information in the

record relevant to our determination of whether he was egregiously harmed by the trial court’s

limiting instruction.

                                                 33
               E. Consideration of the Four Factors

               The only factor that weighs in favor of finding egregious harm, and does so at

most but slightly, is the parties’ arguments. Because the other factors weigh against such a

finding, we conclude that Stevens was not egregiously harmed by the inclusion of the trial

court’s limiting instruction.

               He fails to show that he suffered actual—and not merely theoretical—harm,

asserting only that his self-defense and third-party defense claims “might have fared better” in

the instruction’s absence. See Gonzalez, 610 S.W.3d at 27. Moreover, all but one of the matters

that he contends were improperly emphasized by the instruction do not concern extraneous

offenses, and he does not satisfactorily explain, therefore, how the jury would have reasonably

understood “wrongful acts” to refer to them. Indeed, whether because they were not extraneous

offenses, because they were part of the same transaction as the charged offenses, or because

Stevens failed to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction, none of the matters he

identifies required a limiting instruction, and the trial court could only have helped him by

restricting the purposes for which the jury could consider the evidence. Finally, the matters he

lists were uncontroverted, and any risk of harm was mitigated by the rest of the charge; the

parties’ questioning during voir dire; the trial court’s pretrial statement to the jury; and portions

of the parties’ argument. Accordingly, we overrule his first issue.

II.    Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence

               In his second issue, Stevens contends that the evidence presented at trial was

legally insufficient to support his conviction for tampering with physical evidence or,

alternatively, was sufficient to prove only attempted tampering. He asserts that by removing

                                                 34
items from Fontenette’s wallet and placing them in the Ziploc bag on the kitchen counter, he

“ma[d]e them more visible and less concealed than before their removal.” Similarly, his act of

“apparently” placing Fontenette’s keys in his shorts pocket, he explains, “did not make the keys

any more or less visible or ‘concealed’ than before.”

               Due process requires that the State prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every

element of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 313 (1979); Lang v. State,

561 S.W.3d 174, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence

to support a conviction, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to

determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see

Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237, 243 (2016); Johnson v. State, 560 S.W.3d 224, 226

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018). In our sufficiency review, we consider all the evidence in the record,

whether direct or circumstantial, properly or improperly admitted, or submitted by the

prosecution or the defense. Thompson v. State, 408 S.W.3d 614, 627 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013,

no pet.); see Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Clayton v. State,

235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We presume that the trier of fact resolved

conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner

that supports the verdict. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318; Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2009). We consider only whether the factfinder reached a rational decision. Arroyo

v. State, 559 S.W.3d 484, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see Morgan v. State, 501 S.W.3d 84, 89

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (observing that reviewing court’s role on appeal “is restricted to

                                                35
guarding against the rare occurrence when a fact finder does not act rationally” (quoting Isassi

v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010))).

               The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence.

See Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see also Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art 36.13 (explaining that “the jury is the exclusive judge of the facts”). Thus, when

performing an evidentiary-sufficiency review, we may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility

of the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Arroyo, 559 S.W.3d at

487; see Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Instead, we must

defer to the credibility and weight determinations of the factfinder. Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750,

757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Nowlin v. State, 473 S.W.3d 312, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

When the record supports conflicting reasonable inferences, we presume that the

factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. Zuniga,

551 S.W.3d at 733; Cary, 507 S.W.3d at 757; see Musacchio, 577 U.S. at 243 (reaffirming that

appellate sufficiency review “does not intrude on the jury’s role ‘to resolve conflicts in the

testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate

facts’” (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319)).         We must “determine whether the necessary

inferences are reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence

when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448

(Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (quoting Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778).

               A person commits the offense of tampering with physical evidence if he,

“knowing that an offense has been committed, alters, destroys, or conceals any record,

document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in any

subsequent investigation of or official proceeding related to the offense.” Tex. Penal Code

                                                36
§ 37.09(d)(1). The statute contains two different culpable mental states: “an actor must know

his action would impair the item as evidence and he must act with the intent to impair its

availability as evidence.” State v. Zuniga, 512 S.W.3d 902, 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (citing

Stewart v. State, 240 S.W.3d 872, 873–74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). Likewise, “intent and

concealment are two distinct elements of the offense”; a defendant must not only intend to

conceal an item but must “successfully conceal something to be guilty of tampering with

evidence by concealment.” Stahmann v. State, 602 S.W.3d 573, 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020)

(emphasis added).

               The Court of Criminal Appeals has agreed with our sister court that “[a]ctual

concealment requires a showing that the allegedly concealed item was hidden, removed

from sight or notice, or kept from discovery or observation.” Id. (quoting Stahmann v. State,

548 S.W.3d 46, 57 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2018), aff’d, 602 S.W.3d 573, 581

(Tex. Crim. App. 2020)). Other than in cases where the “thing” allegedly tampered with is a

human corpse, see Tex. Penal Code § 37.09(c), the specific identity of the tampered-with

evidence is not an element of the offense. Zuniga, 512 S.W.3d at 908 (explaining that only

“element” that State must allege in indictment is whether evidence at issue was “a record, a

document, or a thing”).

               In the present case, the State was required to prove—as charged in the

indictment—that Stevens was aware at the time he allegedly concealed Fontenette’s car keys,

wallet, identification, and debit cards that he had cut or stabbed Fontenette with the conscious

objective or desire to kill him or to cause him serious bodily injury, with the awareness that his

act was reasonably certain to kill Fontenette. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 19.02, 37.09; Hall v. State,

283 S.W.3d 137, 159 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. ref’d); cf. Barron v. State, 629 S.W.3d 557,

                                               37
563 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, pet. ref’d) (“A person has knowledge of the commission of a

murder where that person is aware at the time of his alleged acts that someone intentionally or

knowingly caused the death of another individual.”).

               Opiela testified that Stevens told him that the stabbing was an intentional act, that

Stevens never said that it was an accident or resulted from recklessness or carelessness, and that

Stevens “definitely intended” to stab Fontenette. Opiela also testified that a knife can be a

deadly weapon and that if someone were to stab an individual in the torso, it would constitute an

act clearly dangerous to human life. In the video recordings of Stevens’ interviews, he acted out

the stabbing on multiple occasions. Moreover, M.C. testified that on the night of the alleged

murder, A.S. told him that he had heard Stevens say, “I could kill you right now.” The jury

could therefore have reasonably found that the State proved the first element of the offense, that

Stevens knew a murder was committed, beyond a reasonable doubt.

               Next, there was ample evidence that Stevens intended to impair the availability of

Fontenette’s belongings as evidence in any subsequent investigation or official proceeding. In

the recordings of his calls with his brother, Stevens asked if his brother was still on parole, stated

that he needed his “expertise” and help, asked if he had seen the television show Dexter, and

stated, “I know what needs to be done . . . . Jeanette doesn’t have the stomach for it. I got the

tools. I got the equipment. I got everything.” Stevens also stated that he needed “to get rid of a

car,” that he could “handle” Rushing, that “the drywall has to disappear,” that his cell phone was

“burnt,” and that he knew that he and his brother needed “to get rid of these phones.” When his

brother told him that the police would “find out where [Fontenette] was last night [because h]e

used a credit card or debit card or something,” Stevens stated, “You don’t have to worry about

that. He’s a nobody.”

                                                 38
               Similarly, when his brother warned that “the first thing you need to do is move the

vehicle,” Stevens responded, “Hell, I can put that shit in my garage.” Later, Stevens’ brother

again cautioned, “Once [the police] find the car, they’re gonna control everything,” to which

Stevens replied, “Oh, no. It’s gonna leave tomorrow morning around – I don’t know – seven or

eight.” And when his brother once more advised that Stevens was “gonna have to get rid of the

car somewhere [and . . .] leave that motherfucker in a parking lot somewhere or something,”

Stevens stated, “Yep, got that covered. I already know where.”

               Stevens’ statements in the recorded interviews provided additional evidence that

he intended to conceal evidence in the case. Although Stevens acknowledged that he had gone

through Fontenette’s wallet to “see who he was,” he repeatedly professed not to know

Fontenette’s name, telling Opiela at one point, “From the news, I know they say his name’s

Brandon . . . . I could have sworn he was like Sam or something.” He told Opiela that he kept

the Airsoft gun used to shoot Fontenette in a desk drawer by the back door of his home and that

it should have been near the hope chest in the master bedroom when officers arrived. When told

that it was found underneath clothing in a dresser, Stevens replied, “Again, I panicked,” and,

“Jesus fucking Christ, that’s fucking stupid.” He also told Opiela that although he looked at

Fontenette’s phone, grabbed his keys, looked through his wallet, and put everything in a Ziploc

bag, it would surprise him if officers found Fontenette’s car keys in his shorts pocket. He stated

that he “know[s] it looks bad” and that he “didn’t know what to do.”

               Finally, there was also evidence presented from which a reasonable juror could

have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Stevens had concealed Fontenette’s car keys by

hiding them or removing them from notice. See Stahmann, 602 S.W.3d at 581. During his final

interview, when asked why he put Fontenette’s belongings in a plastic bag, Stevens replied that

                                               39
he did so “just to keep [them] all together.” Opiela asked if Fontenette’s wallet was already on

the kitchen counter, and Stevens answered, “[A]ll his stuff was. I went out there, looked at

his phone, forgot where I had left it, grabbed his keys, looked through his wallet, put everything

in a Ziploc bag, and I’m pretty sure I left the Ziploc bag either on the dresser or the counter. I

don’t remember.”

               Luna, the HCSO crime scene supervisor, testified that while Fontenette’s wallet,

identification, and debit cards were found inside the clear Ziploc bag on the kitchen counter, his

keys were discovered in a pair of camo shorts—which were thought to belong to Stevens—on

the floor of the master bedroom. Opiela testified that the keys were not in plain view when

officers entered Stevens’ home and that officers would not have found the keys had they not

seized the shorts as evidence. Therefore, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Stevens

had taken Fontenette’s keys from the kitchen counter and placed them in his own shorts pocket,

thereby concealing them.

               Because the evidence was legally sufficient to support Stevens’ tampering

conviction, we need not address his alternative argument that the evidence was sufficient only to

prove attempted tampering. Accordingly, we overrule his second issue.

               III.    Parole Instruction

               In his third issue, Stevens contends that the trial court erred by failing to include

the mandatory parole instruction in the portion of its punishment-phase jury charge setting forth

the law applicable to the murder count. He asserts that the jury’s note to the trial court during its

sentencing deliberations—asking whether “the sentences of the two counts [would] be served

concurrently or subsequently”—demonstrates that the question of parole eligibility contributed to

                                                 40
its assessment of a life sentence. He also asserts that his life sentence, in light of his “thin

criminal history,” was sufficiently severe to show egregious harm. In support of his contention,

he cites two cases—one from the Court of Criminal Appeals and one from our sister court,

respectively: Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645, 647–48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), and Villarreal

v. State, 205 S.W.3d 103, 110 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. dism’d).

               Subsection 4(a) of Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

provides that in the penalty phase of trials for certain offenses, including murder, the trial court

must instruct the jury in writing:

       The length of time for which a defendant is imprisoned may be reduced by the
       award of parole.

       Under the law applicable in this case, if the defendant is sentenced to a term of
       imprisonment, the defendant will not become eligible for parole until the actual
       time served equals one-half of the sentence imposed or 30 years, whichever is
       less. If the defendant is sentenced to a term of less than four years, the defendant
       must serve at least two years before the defendant is eligible for parole.
       Eligibility for parole does not guarantee that parole will be granted.

       It cannot accurately be predicted how the parole law might be applied to this
       defendant if sentenced to a term of imprisonment, because the application of that
       law will depend on decisions made by parole authorities.

       You may consider the existence of the parole law. You are not to consider the
       manner in which the parole law may be applied to this particular defendant.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07, § 4(a); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.054(a)(2) (listing

murder as statutory offense for which instruction must be provided).

               The trial court in this case provided a subsection 4(a) instruction beneath the

headings “SPECIFIC LAW APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE IN COUNT II [Tampering with

Evidence]” and “Parole and Good Conduct Time – Count II only.” The instruction was not

included in the portion of the charge instructing the jury on the law applicable to the murder

                                                41
count.   In its brief, the State concedes that the trial court erred by failing to include the

instruction with respect to the murder count but argues that the error was harmless. We conclude

that the omission was error. See Cormier v. State, 955 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Tex. App.—Austin

1997, no pet.) (explaining that “failure to give this mandatory instruction is charge error subject

to Almanza analysis”); Sanders v. State, 448 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014,

no pet.) (noting that courts have routinely concluded that language from Article 37.07 is

mandatory and that trial courts are not authorized to alter instruction from precise statutory

language). Because Stevens did not object to the punishment charge or request that the parole

instruction be given for the murder count, he must demonstrate that its omission caused him

egregious harm. See Ritz v. State, 481 S.W.3d 383, 387 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, pet. dism’d);

Cormier, 955 S.W.2d at 164.

               Referring to a prior version of the parole statute, the Court of Criminal Appeals

has previously observed that “the only purpose in allowing jurors to consider ‘existence’ of

parole law and good conduct time is to inform their assessment of punishment; the instruction is

‘clearly designed to increase [the] sentence.’” Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 300 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1990) (quoting Gabriel v. State, 756 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988,

no pet.)).   We have likewise recognized that “[a]n instruction to the jury stating that the

defendant will be eligible for parole benefits the State, not the defendant, because it

could encourage the jury to assess a longer sentence with the expectation that the defendant may

not actually serve the entire sentence.” Ritz, 481 S.W.3d at 387 (citing Grigsby v. State,

833 S.W.2d 573, 576 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts agree that the State,

not appellant, benefits from the parole law instructions . . . . The instruction was designed to

increase jury sentences.”); Lemmons v. State, No. 05–08–00205–CR, 2008 WL 5341043, at *5

                                                42
(Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 23, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[W]e

note that the omitted parole law instruction was designed to increase sentences juries assess and

therefore benefits the State, not the defendant.”)); see also Vanschoyck v. State, 189 S.W.3d 333,

338 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d) (“As several courts have pointed out, the original

rationale for the Legislature requiring the inclusion of this issue was not to aid defendants in

obtaining more lenient sentences. Most courts have agreed that the parole law instruction chiefly

favors the State.”). But see Hooper v. State, 255 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet.

ref’d) (“Courts generally agree that the parole instruction was designed to favor the State and to

increase sentences. But it can help the defendant because the jury could learn that the defendant

would serve longer than it expected and could be influenced to assess less time.”).

Consequently, to the extent that the trial court’s error impacted the jury’s assessment of Stevens’

sentence, it likely did so to his benefit.

                The only evidence that Stevens cites to show that he was harmed is the jury’s

assessment of the maximum allowable term of imprisonment.             As noted above, however,

Almanza requires a showing of actual, not theoretical, harm. Gonzalez, 610 S.W.3d at 27;

Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 174.           There is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury’s

assessment of life imprisonment was influenced by a misunderstanding of parole or

good-conduct-time law or that Stevens was denied a fair and impartial trial. Contrary to his

argument otherwise, the jury’s note, which concerned the possible stacking of his sentences, was

not suggestive of confusion on the issue of parole.

                Similarly, the relative paucity of his criminal history does not compel the

conclusion that the parole instruction’s omission was determinative of his life sentence. The jury

heard evidence that he shot Fontenette over a dozen times with a Airsoft gun, caused blunt

                                                 43
trauma to his neck, and stabbed him in the back. On a phone call with his brother shortly after

the alleged murder, Stevens laughed, discussed destroying and concealing evidence in the case,

insinuated that he intended to dismember Fontenette’s body, called him a “nobody,” and stated

that he was going to go to sleep mere feet from where the body lay. Evidence was also presented

that Stevens concealed evidence, lied to and misled investigators, and had a history of irrational

behavior and angry outbursts. On one occasion, he may have brandished a knife when officers

responded to a prior 911 call at his home. His son testified to the ease and unpredictability with

which he would enter a rage, and the jury heard him admit that he punched and stabbed holes in

his home’s drywall.

                 The cases cited by Stevens are distinguishable and do not support a finding that he

was egregiously harmed. In Igo, which involved an appeal from the denial of a motion for new

trial that alleged jury-charge error, the trial court erroneously informed the jury that the

defendant would become eligible for parole earlier than he would. 210 S.W.3d at 646. The

Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed with the defendant’s contention that the court of appeals

had misapplied the “egregious harm” standard because although appellant received the

maximum sentence, the Court noted that “a number of other factors mitigate[d] against a finding

of egregious harm,” including the inclusion of a curative instruction, neither side’s mentioning

parole during argument on punishment, and the strength of the evidence relating to punishment.

Id. at 647–68.

                 Here, despite the absence of a curative instruction, the trial court omitted, and did

not misstate, the relevant law; consequently, the jury was not given the erroneous impression that

Stevens would be eligible for parole after his actual time served, plus good time, equaled

only one-fourth of the sentence imposed. The State did not mention parole or good conduct

                                                  44
time in its argument, and—as discussed—the facts surrounding the charged offense were

particularly severe.

               Villarreal is likewise distinguishable. The jury in that case sent the trial court a

note asking “how many years [the defendant] would actually serve compared to how many we

sentence,” and the court, in finding that the defendant was egregiously harmed, emphasized that

“the jury obviously had been considering the impact of the parole law on [the defendant]’s

punishment” and that the record failed to demonstrate “that the trial court followed the proper

procedural steps in responding to this note and then failed to submit the mandatory parole law

instruction in accordance with Article 37.07.” Villarreal, 205 S.W.3d at 110.

                For these reasons, we conclude that Stevens was not egregiously harmed by the

trial court’s error. We overrule his third issue.

               IV.     Deadly-Weapon Finding

               In his fourth issue, Stevens contends that the trial court erred by entering a

deadly-weapon finding in his murder judgment because the indictment did not allege that he used

or exhibited a deadly weapon, the jury did not make an express or implied finding of a deadly

weapon, and the evidence did not show the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon per se.

               Article 42A.054 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides in relevant

part that “[o]n an affirmative finding regarding the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon . . . , the

trial court shall enter the finding in the judgment of the court.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art.

42A.054(c). The Court of Criminal Appeals has directly recognized four different ways in which

a trial court can determine that a trier of fact made an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon:

                                                    45
       (1) the indictment specifically alleged a “deadly weapon” was used (using the
       words “deadly weapon”) and the defendant was found guilty “as charged in the
       indictment;”

       (2) the indictment did not use the words “deadly weapon” but alleged use of a
       deadly weapon per se (such as a firearm);[]

       (3) the jury made an express finding of fact of use of a deadly weapon in response
       to submission of a special issue during the punishment stage of trial[; or]

       ....

       (4) the indictment specifically alleges the use of “deadly weapon;” [] the jury
       charge’s application paragraph on a lesser-included offense requires a finding
       from the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an offense
       using the alleged “deadly weapon;” [] and the jury finds the defendant guilty of
       that lesser-included offense.

Duran v. State, 492 S.W.3d 741, 746–47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); see Lafleur v. State,

106 S.W.3d 91, 98–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Polk v. State, 693 S.W.2d 391, 396 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1985).

               The Court has also noted, however, that in Crumpton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 663,

664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), it “seem[ed] to have extended the degree to which courts can rely

upon deductive reasoning to determine whether the jury entered an affirmative deadly-weapon

finding.” Duran, 492 S.W.3d at 747. In Crumpton, a case involving a conviction for criminally

negligent homicide, the Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision that the jury had made an

affirmative deadly-weapon finding because (1) the jury found the defendant guilty “as included

in the indictment,” which expressly alleged that the defendant committed the offense with a

“deadly weapon,” and because (2) “a verdict of homicide necessarily is a finding that a deadly

weapon was used.” 301 S.W.3d at 664. As the Court explained with respect to the second basis

for its affirmance:

                                              46
       Having found that the defendant was guilty of homicide, the jury necessarily
       found that the defendant used something that in the manner of its use was capable
       of causing—and did cause—death. Therefore the verdict was an adequate basis
       for the trial court’s entry of the deadly-weapon finding in the judgment.

Id.

               Both we and our sister courts have understood Crumpton as permitting a trial

court’s entry of a deadly-weapon finding based on the deductive-reasoning approach.

See George v. State, No. 05-18-00941-CR, 2019 WL 5781917, at *10 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Nov. 6, 2019) (mem. op., not designated for publication), aff’d, 634 S.W.3d 929 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2021) (“Having found [the defendant] guilty of capital murder, the jury necessarily found

that he used something that in the manner of its use was capable of causing—and did cause—

death.”); Perez-Vasquez v. State, No. 01-15-00882-CR, 2018 WL 2727761, at *15 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] June 7, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(determining that because “the indictment alleged that [the defendant] caused the death of [the

decedent] with an object, and the jury found that he was ‘guilty of murder as alleged in the

indictment,’” the jury “necessarily found that [the defendant] used something that in the manner

of its use was capable of causing—and did cause—death.”); Mills v. State, 541 S.W.3d 381, 385

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (explaining that Court of Criminal Appeals

recently held that “an affirmative deadly weapon finding can be made when the jury finds the

defendant guilty as charged in the indictment and the indictment alleges the defendant

caused death or serious bodily injury with a weapon”); In re Tate, No. 09-16-00455-CR,

2016 WL 7473853, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 28, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (“In some cases, depending on the language in the indictment, the

evidence in the trial, and the charge, it is possible that a trial court can infer from a finding on

                                                47
aggravated assault that the defendant used a deadly weapon in committing the assault.”); Splawn

v. State, No. 10-14-00054-CR, 2015 WL 4710251, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco July 30, 2015, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that verdict was adequate basis for

trial court’s entry of deadly-weapon finding because “[h]aving found [the defendant] guilty of

the charged offense of attempted capital murder, the jury necessarily found that [he] used

something that in the manner of its use was capable of causing—and did cause—death”);

McCallum v. State, 311 S.W.3d 9, 18 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (declaring that

Crumpton allows “the trial court to find the jury made an affirmative deadly weapon finding by

finding the defendant guilty of homicide”); Griffith v. State, 315 S.W.3d 648, 654 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d) (“Under Crumpton, the jury’s determination that [the defendant]

committed manslaughter necessarily constituted a finding that he used something that in the

manner of its use was capable of causing—and did cause—death.”).

              Here, the indictment charged that Stevens intentionally and knowingly caused

Fontenette’s death by cutting and stabbing him with a knife or, intending to cause him serious

bodily injury, that Stevens committed an act clearly dangerous to human life, namely, cutting

and stabbing him with a knife and thereby causing his death. The indictment did not specifically

allege that Stevens used or exhibited a deadly weapon, and a knife is not a deadly weapon per se.

See Lafleur, 106 S.W.3d at 95. The guilt-innocence charge instructed the jury in the law

applicable under both theories, and the jury found Stevens “GUILTY of the offense of Murder,

as charged.” No deadly-weapon special issue was submitted to the jury. However, by finding

Stevens guilty of murder as charged in the indictment, the jury necessarily found that he caused

Fontenette’s death by using something that in the manner of its use was capable of causing—and

did cause—death. See Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(17)(B) (defining “deadly weapon”). Thus, we

                                               48
conclude that the verdict was an adequate basis for the trial court’s entry of the deadly-weapon

finding in the judgment form for the murder conviction. We overrule Stevens’ fourth issue.

                                       CONCLUSION

               Having overruled each of Stevens’ issues, we affirm the judgments of the

trial court.

                                            __________________________________________
                                            Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: August 11, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                              49