Opinion
Nos. 11-07-00013-CR, 11-07-00014-CR, 11-07-00015-CR, 11-07-00016-CR
Opinion filed July 31, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 259th District Court, Jones County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 9409, 9411, 9478, 9479.
Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., McCALL, J., and STRANGE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Russell Lee Dentler of possession of anhydrous ammonia in a container not designed and manufactured to hold anhydrous ammonia, the murder of his six-year-old son, and two offenses of injury to a child. The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years in a state jail facility for the possession offense and at confinement for forty-three years each for the murder and two injury-to-a-child offenses. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. We affirm. There is no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record reflects that the trailer house that appellant lived in with his wife, their children (daughter age seven and son age six), and appellant's wife's eleven-year-old daughter was destroyed by fire in the early morning hours of March 3, 2004. Appellant's father-in-law, his mother-in-law, and three of his mother-in-law's grandchildren (ages eleven, six, and three) were also in the home. Everyone but appellant's six-year-old son was able to get out of the burning home. The son was later found burned beyond recognition in his bedroom. The seven-year-old daughter was severely burned and suffered critical injuries. Authorities noticed a strong smell of ether, starter fluid, or petroleum around the home. An investigation revealed that the fire started on the back left burner of the stove in the kitchen. The heating element of the back left burner was missing, and an aluminum sauce pan had melted down into the burner. The investigation also concluded that the fire was accidental and was the result of cooking methamphetamine. Aerosol cans with holes punched in the bottom were recovered in the living room area, in the kitchen area, in the barrels used to burn trash behind the home, and outside the home. Empty blister packs of Sudafed were also recovered. Lithium batteries were found throughout the home including in the master bedroom as well as in the trash barrels. Many of the batteries had been cut down the center or "peeled" to remove the lithium strip. Officers also recovered a propane tank altered with brass fittings that had turned blue, pliers used to peel batteries, strips of aluminum foil, a list of names and money amounts, a brass fitting that had turned blue from coming in contact with anhydrous ammonia, hoses and glass pipes, a homemade HCL generator, and syringes. The vast quantity of empty Sudafed blister packs, batteries, and aerosol cans with holes in the bottom was not consistent with the amount typically found in one location for personal use. The scene and the items recovered were consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine. Appellant, his wife, his mother-in-law, and his father-in-law all used methamphetamine. Appellant and his father-in-law had each cooked methamphetamine. Before the fire, appellant was the last person in the home awake. Even though appellant had a rule that once the children went to bed they had to stay in their beds, his wife's eleven-year-old daughter had gotten out of bed the night of the fire and had seen appellant cooking something at the stove while the rest of the family was asleep. While the home was burning, his wife's daughter saw appellant throwing items into the blaze. In a sole issue in each appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting "extensive evidence" in violation of TEX. R. EVID. 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). While appellant does not specify what this extensive evidence is, it is clear from his brief that he is complaining of evidence concerning debris and trash found in and around the burned trailer house, evidence of drug paraphernalia, and anything pertaining to the use or manufacture of illegal drugs. Rule 401 defines "relevant" evidence while Rule 402 states the general rule that relevant evidence is admissible and irrelevant evidence is not. Rule 403 provides that even relevant evidence may be excluded if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." A trial court's determination to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the determination falls outside of the zone of reasonable disagreement. Page v. State, 213 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Freeman v. State, 230 S.W.3d 392, 404-05 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007, pet. ref'd). Rule 404(b) excludes the general admission of other wrong acts or crimes "to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." We disagree with appellant's argument that evidence of items seized at the scene were "completely unrelated to the cause of the fire." These items seized from the burned home depict the crime scene and support the conclusion that the fire started as a result of the cooking of methamphetamine on the stove. The evidence concerning how to cook methamphetamine was relevant, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. It explained the significance of the type and quantity of items recovered and explained the officials' conclusions concerning the cause of the fire. The fact that appellant's wife, his mother-in-law, and another witness received immunity went to the weight and credibility that the jury assigned to their testimony. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.13 (Vernon 2007), art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979). We note that appellant made a running objection to much of the testimony and evidence of the appearance of the home. We also note that the trial court stated on the record during the ten-day trial on guilt/innocence that it had conducted a balancing test. Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. The evidence was relevant; its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect; and its admission did not violate Rule 404(b). The trial court's determination was in the zone of reasonableness. The single issue on appeal in each case is overruled. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
No. 11-07-00013-CR.
No. 11-07-00014-CR.
Nos. 11-07-00015-CR and 11-07-00016-CR.