In two issues, appellant complains the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment. During an early morning argument, appellant shot and killed BG. Appellant argues that the evidence she acted in self-defense so greatly outweighed the evidence of guilt that it undermines confidence in the verdict and a rational juror could not have found all the elements of the offense.
The State responds the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to sustain the conviction. Latara Carraway Carraway, BG's daughter, testified that she was awakened by the sound of BG's and appellant's argument. Carraway heard BG's and appellant's bedroom door open and looked out.
Appellant was going downstairs with BG behind her. When BG saw Carraway standing there, he told her to go back into her room. From inside her room, Carraway could hear both of them screaming. She did not hear what they were saying or any scuffling, hitting, or things being thrown.
Both BG and appellant went outside and Carraway could hear them yelling in the parking lot. Carraway looked out her window and saw appellant and BG standing about four to five feet apart. Appellant was behind her vehicle and BG was on the other side of the vehicle parked next to appellant's vehicle. Carraway then heard, but did not see, two gunshots, followed by four more gunshots.
Carraway ran outside and saw BG holding appellant by her ears. Appellant had her hands on his shoulders. Carraway heard appellant saying she was sorry and BG saying you shot me. Appellant walked BG back to the steps and then got in her vehicle and left. Carraway never spoke to appellant and appellant said nothing to her. BG told Carraway to go get Andrew Edwards. Appellant drove around the apartments, then backed up, and asked where he was. On cross-examination, Carraway testified that she had known appellant only two to three months, but they had a good relationship.
Appellant treated Carraway like one of appellant's own children. They had gone shopping together, and appellant had bought her clothes. On the night before the shooting, Carraway and BG were home. BG was smoking marijuana and appellant was working late. Although Carraway denied that she ever saw BG and appellant do more than argue on the morning of the shooting and did not tell the police anything different.
Appellant had her read the statement she gave to the police. After reading her statement, Carraway admitted she had told the police that she saw appellant swing at BG and hit him in the head with something. Then, they started to wrestle. After about ten minutes, appellant went downstairs and BG followed her. Carraway thought that appellant was trying to get away. Andrew Edwards Edwards testified that he had known appellant and BG for some time.
At one time, BG lived with Edwards. After BG moved from Edwards's apartment to an apartment on the next street, Edwards only saw BG and appellant from time to time. He had never seen BG hit, threaten, or even yell at appellant. Appellant never complained to him about BG abusing her. Edwards thought someone had shot the deceased while trying to take his vehicle. On cross examination, Edwards testified that he did not know appellant very well. Carranza Bankston Bankston testified that when Carraway came to their door, she and Bankston ran toward BG's apartment.
As Bankston got to the front of the complex's office, she saw appellant in an automobile. Appellant neither appeared injured nor acted as if she had been injured. Bankston saw no blood on appellant. Bankston found BG face down on the concrete.
When she turned BG over, she saw a hole in his neck and a hole in his shoulder. However, she had seen appellant verbally abuse BG. Barbara Morris Morris, lived with her son directly across from BG. On the day in question, Morris's mother was at their apartment. She looked outside and saw nothing. Morris ran upstairs and through the window she saw BG was walking backwards with his hands around appellant's ears with appellant facing him.
BG fell down on the steps and appellant ran to her vehicle. Appellant had her keys and cellular telephone in her right hand, but Morris could not identify what appellant had in her left hand. On cross examination, Morris testified she heard arguing outside.
Morris saw appellant holding BG as they walked towards the stairs. Jeremiah Torrez Torrez, a Dallas Patrol Officer, and his partner were the first officers on the scene. While they were at Bolden's house, appellant telephoned and spoke with Lopez. Lopez testified that although appellant was hysterical and crying, she just started talking. She thought she had shot BG in the leg until she saw on television that he had died. Appellant told Lopez that she wanted to turn herself in.
Appellant gave the telephone to Thomas Fuller, who told Lopez that although appellant was scared, she wanted to turn herself in to the police.
Lopez told Fuller to bring appellant to Bolden's house and asked Fuller to put appellant back on the telephone-appellant was hysterical and still crying. Fuller and appellant arrived at Bolden's house about thirty to forty-five minutes later.
When they were a couple of blocks away, Fuller telephoned Lopez and assured him that appellant had put the gun away. McDonald confirmed that when appellant arrived, she was upset and crying. On redirect examination, the State asked McDonald if he saw any injuries on appellant-he did not. Steven David David, a Dallas Police Homicide Detective, testified that he had received Bolden's telephone call informing him that appellant had told her what happened.
David sent Lopez to take Bolden's statement. David also showed a photographic line-up to Morris, who identified appellant. David had interviewed appellant on videotape. David confirmed that appellant was upset and exhibited remorse when he interviewed her.
Mike Epple Epple, a Dallas Police Crime Scene Detective, testified that he photographed the apartment parking lot where the shooting occurred. He documented where he found cartridges, both fired and unfired, in the parking lot.
He also collected items from appellant's purse that had blood on them. Appellant indicated that she did not. Epple saw no signs of a struggle or damage in appellant's and BG's apartment. Epple explained he saw no holes in the wall or blood splatter and nothing was overturned or smashed. Consequently, he did not photograph anything in the apartment. She found gunpowder residue on the back of both of BG's hands and on the back of appellant's right hand.
Gunpowder residue indicates that the person either 1 fired a firearm or was near one when it was fired and 2 was within three-to-five feet of the discharging firearm. Emanuel identified the gun used as a. To fire a semi-automatic, you have to pull the trigger, release, and then pull the trigger again.
After test-firing this firearm and noting how the shell casings landed, he concluded that two shots were fired, the shooter moved, and then two more shots were fired.
On cross-examination, Emanuel testified that he based his conclusions on a pristine scene and his conclusion of the shooter's movement would change if a cartridge casing had been moved. Emanuel admitted that an ambulance or medical personnel could have caused the cartridge casings to be displaced, but he concluded that no vehicle ran over the cartridge casings and he had no way of knowing if anyone kicked or picked one up.
This particular weapon stopped depositing residue at a range of less than eighteen inches from the gun. From this observation, she concluded that the muzzle of the gun was more than eighteen inches away from BG. Additionally, she identified an entry hole on the back of BG's shorts. She recognized the hole as an entry hole because of the grease ring. Stowe also opined that clothing moves as a person moves. Consequently, a defect in clothing may not appear where a wound appears.
On cross examination, Stowe admitted that an interposed target would also affect gunshot residue. And, that she could not determine from which direction the shot came. The toxic screen showed BG tested positive for marijuana. Her external examination showed that BG had gunshot wounds on his neck and left leg.
The bullet grazed his neck before entering and traveling down through his lung and heart and ending up in his liver. On cross-examination, Gruszecki explained that although the gun could have been fired from above the decedent, it was only one possible explanation. In this case, the possibilities were endless as to how far the barrel of the gun was from the body and whether the gun was fired from above the decedent. She only could testify that after the bullet entered the body, it went straight down to the liver.