Opinion
03-23-00230-CR
08-09-2024
John Paul Rangel, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
Do Not Publish
FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY No. 22-0410-K26, THE HONORABLE DONNA GAYLE KING, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
A jury found John Paul Rangel guilty of murder, found that an enhancement allegation was true, and assessed sentence at ninety-nine years in prison. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.32 (setting punishment range for first-degree felonies), 19.02 (defining murder and classifying it as first-degree felony). Rangel contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence a video showing him "playfully" pointing a gun at the victim a month or two before the murder. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Law enforcement officers found Joseph "Jay" Neal, Jr., dead in his vehicle in his apartment garage on December 8, 2021. The officers were responding to a welfare-check request made because Neal had missed work and was possibly diabetic. They found Neal slumped in the passenger seat of his two-door Mercedes-Benz soft-top convertible. He had a small hole on the left side of his head, and there were blood stains in the passenger seat. Officers found no note or gun, the latter of which, in their view, weighed against suicide as a cause of death. They found Neal's two cell phones between the passenger seat and the center console. The trunk contained business cards for a lawn service bearing Rangel's phone number. Officers learned that Neal and Rangel had a romantic relationship. Rangel visited Neal several days a week, but Rangel was also dating at least one woman.
A neighbor who knew both Neal and Rangel said Neal made a lot of money selling marijuana in the parking lot. She said Rangel often drove Neal's cars, including the Mercedes. The neighbor testified that she overheard Rangel talking on the afternoon of December 7, 2021, to two Hispanic males with whom she was unfamiliar. The men had backed their truck into the spot where Rangel usually parked. She heard Rangel refer to Neal in a disrespectful way. She said she had not seen Rangel much that week and said it "just felt like things were distant, I suppose."
Another neighbor who recognized Neal and Rangel was nearby helping her father move that same afternoon. She overheard a two-to-three-minute argument that evening between Neal and Rangel that she characterized as "romantic" and "toxic." She said that they were arguing over who was going to drive the car and tussling over the driver's door, a bottle was thrown, there was yelling, and they eventually left in the Mercedes with Rangel driving and Neal in the passenger seat; a video she recorded shortly after their departure is time-stamped at 5:53 p.m.
Travis County Sheriff's Office (TCSO) Detective Jennifer Boland testified that Rangel voluntarily spoke to TCSO detectives on December 13, 2021. She described Rangel as cooperative, not combative. Rangel told officers that he and Neal had dated since February 2020. Neal bought his car, paid insurance, paid for his phone, and bought lawn equipment for his business. Boland testified that Rangel said the last time he saw Neal, he, his Uncle Jacob Rangel (Uncle), and Alonzo Rodriguez (a coworker) went after work to Neal's apartment to pick up a fire pit. Boland said that Rangel told her Neal was not happy that Rangel continued to see his girlfriend, Eliza, but Rangel wanted a family. Rangel said that his argument with Neal on December 7 concerned his continuing relationship with his girlfriend. He said he left Neal's place with Uncle and Rodriguez and took the fire pit to Uncle's house in Taylor, then went to Rodriguez's house. By the end of the interview, though, Rangel could not recall if he had traveled to Taylor with Uncle and Rodriguez. Rangel said Neal did not come to Taylor.
Boland testified that Rangel said he and Rodriguez drank at Rodriguez's house until Rangel blacked out. Rangel said he texted Neal but got no response. Rangel said he learned of Neal's death when Neal's best friend called him. Rangel said he got sick upon learning the news and cried while telling the officers about it. Rangel said Neal used a black drawstring bag with the word "blessed" on it to keep drugs and money. Rangel told officers if they found the bag, they would find the person who killed Neal.
The medical examiner confirmed that Neal died from a gunshot wound to the left side of his head. He testified that, with a suicide by gunshot, a firearm is typically found at the scene. The absence of a firearm does not rule out suicide but is more consistent with other means of death. The projectile was recovered from Neal's brain, and the minimal (if any) soot and presence of stippling on Neal indicated a firing distance of a few inches to three feet. The forensics firearm examiner testified that the bullet recovered from Neal was consistent with a bullet that can be fired from a Walther P22 handgun and that the Walther P22 has rifling consistent with marks on the bullet. He was not able to determine whether any particular handgun fired the bullet because no gun was ever recovered.
Uncle testified that he, Rangel, and Rodriguez went to Neal's apartment to pick up a fire pit in Rodriguez's truck. Uncle said he joked with Rangel but not about Rangel's relationship with Neal. He said he and Rodriguez left with the fire pit and Rangel stayed behind. Uncle said that he, Rangel, and Rodriguez went to work the next day, though the other men were sluggish and seemed hungover. He learned on December 9, 2021, that Neal was dead when Rangel asked to borrow his phone to check on Neal because Neal had blocked Rangel on Facebook. Uncle said Rangel started crying upon seeing a post that Neal was dead. Uncle testified that, months earlier, he had seen a weapon in the glove compartment of the Mercedes.
Rodriguez testified that, after dropping Uncle off with the fire pit, he went home. He said he had drunk beer, smoked marijuana, and used cocaine over the course of the day. He said his usual pattern when drinking was to drink until he passed out. He was drinking beer to wind down when he heard Rangel honk the horn outside of his house at about 5:30 p.m. when the sun was going down. Rodriguez testified that Rangel got out of the car, came to him, and told him to "bring me that thing that I left here." Rodriguez testified that the only thing Rangel had left at his place was a .22 pistol that was partly green. Rodriguez gave him the pistol, and Rangel went back to the car, got in, and closed the door. Rodriguez said he could not see Neal and was trying not to look at the car but could hear a confrontation from inside it between Rangel and Neal. The argument lasted less than ten minutes until the gun fired once. He did not hear Neal's voice again.
Rodriguez said he did nothing in response to the gun shot. He testified that Rangel got out of the car with the gun and asked, "Are you good?" Rodriguez said he responded, "yes," and that they stood in silence for a little while. He said he shut down, then they went inside the house, and he went out of his way not to ask Rangel questions. Rodriguez said he scrolled through Hulu options and tried not to make Rangel uncomfortable. He testified that Rangel then "says he had to do that because [Neal] knew something about him that could put him away for a long time." Rodriguez said he took that as a threat because Rodriguez now knew something about Rangel that could put him away for a long time; he said he put his phone down so that Rangel could see he was not calling anyone. Rodriguez testified that Rangel called Rangel's mother and confessed to shooting Neal in the head; in the defense case, Rangel's mother testified that Rangel called her that night, as he often did, but denied that he confessed to murder.
Rodriguez testified that Rangel insisted that Rodriguez go to the car so that he would believe what had happened and that he complied because Rangel had a gun. Rodriguez said he saw Neal's body limp and to the side in the passenger seat. Rodriguez said he told police that Rangel told Neal to "wake up" and that Rangel stuck Neal with an epi-pen; Rodriguez said the actions were done in a teasing or taunting manner. They then went back to the house. Rodriguez said Rangel left a black bag containing drugs and cash at Rodriguez's home. Rangel left in the Mercedes but returned for the black bag in a small, white SUV driven by a girlfriend, then left again. Rangel later messaged that he was going to get a room, and Rodriguez said he told Rangel he was going to go to Lockhart, hoping that Rangel would not come back to his house. Though Rodriguez testified he did not remember leaving that night, a neighbor's security camera showed that Rodriguez's truck left the house that evening for a short time.
Rodriguez testified that he and Rangel went to work the next day. Rodriguez said he still had dead emotions and kept his shades on all day. He was shocked and afraid of Rangel. He said that Rangel indicated that Rodriguez shared his guilt as an accomplice. Rodriguez recalled that on their second day back at work Rangel was upset when told Neal was dead.
Rodriguez admitted lying repeatedly to law-enforcement officers because, he said, Rangel asked him to lie. He also said he initially lied because he feared he had done something wrong and did not want to be in trouble. For example, he told officers that Rangel spent the night at his house on December 7, 2021. Rodriguez testified that, after police had searched his house and he had retained a lawyer, he decided he had done nothing wrong and that it was his moral obligation to tell the truth.
On cross-examination, Rodriguez testified that everyone was in a good mood at Neal's apartment on December 7 and that no one was arguing. He said, though, that they often teased Rangel about his relationship with Neal because he would get worked up and defensive. He admitted he initially lied and said he had not seen Rangel's gun when instead he had kept the gun for Rangel.
A woman testified that she and Rangel were casually dating in the fall of 2021. She said she met him after work in December 2021 near a Taco More and Long John Silvers in Round Rock. He was in the Mercedes, but they left it and drove off in her off-white Kia Soul; he told her he had tire issues. They went to a motel in a smaller town before midnight and left before 7 a.m. for work. She said he mentioned "out of the blue" the death of a friend. She dropped him off at his car in Round Rock. She said Rangel said he was going to Mexico, which sounded normal to her. TCSO Detective Paul Salo testified that video from the Taco More showed Neal's Mercedes parked at the Taco More at 7:00 a.m. on December 8, 2021. Consistent with cell phone data, the witness's car arrives on that video at about 7:17 a.m. A male gets out carrying a black bag.
The witness was not named Eliza, the name Rangel told Boland was his girlfriend. It is unclear from the record whether Boland misunderstood her name, if Rangel gave a false name for his girlfriend to the police, or if the witness was an additional romantic interest for Rangel.
Law enforcement seized and got call reports for Neal's two cell phones, Rangel's cell phone, and Rodriguez's cell phone, and got the call report for Uncle's phone. They obtained data from various applications and social media. Data from cellular companies and various applications showed that on December 7, 2021, Uncle and Rodriguez left Neal's apartment together and that Rangel and Neal followed a few minutes later. Neal's phone was near his apartment at 5:11 p.m. on December 7, 2021, then began moving at about 5:54 p.m. with Rangel's phone and arrived near Rodriguez's home in Taylor, Texas, at 6:30 p.m. Neal's personal phone used its flashlight at 6:40 p.m., and the last activity-a change in orientation-was at almost 6:48 p.m. The second phone's display turned off just after 6:48 p.m. Neither of Neal's phones was active after that.
Rangel's phone remained near Rodriguez's home for more than an hour after Neal's phone became inactive. Rangel's phone left at about 8:15 p.m. and was near Taco More at I-35 and US-79 in Round Rock by 8:45 p.m. At 9:28 p.m., Rangel's phone was near the Luxury Inn & Suites in Taylor, which the technician testified is not close enough to Rodriguez's home that the location information could be ambiguous between the two sites. Rangel sent a text to Rodriguez at 10:05 p.m. that night, indicating he was not staying with Rodriguez. At about 11:15 p.m., Rodriguez took a selfie with a hard-to-read expression. On December 8, 2021, at 7:16 a.m., Rangel was near I-35 and US-79. By 7:37 a.m., he was near Neal's apartment. Rangel sent a series of messages to Neal's second phone from 7:47 p.m. until 9:30 p.m., then sent more between 6:13 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
Other data discovered included a picture of a Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun on Rangel's phone and Facebook account. A similar gun with a greenish brown component was in videos and photographs on Neal's phone, including on Defense Exhibit 1 (DX-1), a video of Neal, alone and crying, and putting the gun to his own head.
Salo testified that when he saw Neal dead in the Mercedes in the apartment garage with a gunshot wound to the left side of his head, he considered that Neal might have died by suicide, but that the absence of a nearby gun indicated otherwise. Based on Neal's body position in the Mercedes when Salo saw him, Salo said Neal would not have been easy to see from the outside; someone who saw him might think he was sleeping.
Salo agreed that Rangel was cooperative at his December 13, 2021 interview. Rangel said he was in love with Neal and teared up talking about him but admitted arguing with Neal. Salo said that Rangel's statement that he, Uncle, and Rodriguez went together to Taylor conflicted with cell phone data and the neighbor's report that she had seen Neal and Rodriguez leave together. Rangel said he stayed overnight with Rodriguez; this proved inconsistent with the cell phone data.
Salo testified that he talked to Rodriguez five times. Twice in December, Rodriguez was cooperative. Salo said that, after seeing a text from Rangel indicating Rangel stayed in a hotel on December 7, Salo determined that Rodriguez and Rangel lied about Rangel staying with him. When Salo searched Rodriguez's home on January 27, 2022, Rodriguez was more guarded and wanted to talk to a lawyer. Accompanied by a lawyer when interviewed on February 2, 2022, Rodriguez changed his story. Salo testified that, though Rodriguez lied on multiple occasions, Rodriguez ultimately provided information consistent with information Salo had-i.e., that Neal was shot one time.
Salo testified that, according to Rodriguez's neighbor's security video, Rodriguez's truck arrived home at 6:12 p.m. At 6:33 p.m., the Mercedes arrived with the top down and two passengers who Salo believed were Rangel and Neal. Somebody from the car went to the residence and the top of the convertible went up. At 6:35 p.m., somebody went from the residence to the car. A few minutes later, Rangel called his mother for four minutes. At 7:39 p.m., Rodriguez's truck left and returned about twenty minutes later; Rodriguez testified that he did not remember leaving but denied that Rangel took his truck anywhere. The Mercedes left Rodriguez's place at about 8:15 p.m., consistent with Rangel's cell phone location information.
Salo testified that, on December 4, 2021, a friend of Rangel's asked on Facebook if he had a "strap," which Salo said was a gun. Rangel replied that he did, but that it was in Taylor. Salo found photos of a gun on Rangel's phone and Facebook account. He saw what appeared to be the same gun in a video on Neal's phone in which Neal held the gun at his temple while crying; that exhibit was introduced and played by the defense. That gun was not found.
The video in dispute in this appeal, State's Exhibit 102 (SX-102), was the last exhibit shown. The twenty-two-second video from Neal's phone, recorded either in October 2021 or on November 6, 2021, shows Rangel in Neal's apartment kitchen appearing to wipe an object with his shirt while talking to somebody outside the frame. A voice identified as Neal's says, "Look what these kids be doing all the time. Look at these kids," then says louder, "Relax. Relax." Rangel responds by abruptly putting a cartridge in a pistol and pointing the gun at Neal, who responds by saying "uh, uh" several times and, "You better quit playin'. You better put that [] down." Rangel, still pointing the gun at the camera, starts to respond verbally; according to the State, Rangel says, "Sit down. I'm gonna shoot," as the video ends.
The court admitted the video over Rangel's objections. The court found expressly that SX-102 was relevant under article 38.36(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecution theories that included absence of mistake, absence of accident, intent, motive, opportunity, and rebutting a potential theory of suicide. The court found under Texas Rule of Evidence 403 that the exhibit's relevance was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
APPLICABLE LAW
Texas law for evidence in murder prosecutions provides as follows:
In all prosecutions for murder, the state or the defendant shall be permitted to offer testimony 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 to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense.Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.36(a). The rules of evidence define relevant evidence as evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence when the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Tex. R. Evid. 401.
Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. Id. R. 404(b)(1). But such evidence may be admissible for another purpose, like proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. Id. R. 404(b)(2); Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Further, "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 403.
We review a trial court's ruling regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. See Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). A trial court's ruling will be deemed an abuse of discretion only if it is so clearly wrong as to lie outside "the zone of reasonable disagreement," Lopez v. State, 86 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), or is "arbitrary or unreasonable," State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Moreover, the ruling will be upheld if the trial court's decision "is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under any theory of law applicable to the case." Carrasco v. State, 154 S.W.3d 127, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the admission of evidence of an extraneous act is error, we nevertheless cannot reverse if, after examining the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
DISCUSSION
By his sole issue on appeal, Rangel contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting SX-102. He argues that the video was not relevant because it did not shed any light on "the main fact of consequence that was at issue in this case-whether appellant fired the shot that killed the victim." Rangel contends that the relationship of the parties was clear without this exhibit, that the exhibit does not show a bad or illegal act or even a threat, that the month-old video showed nothing about Rangel's intent at the time of Neal's death, that it was not necessary to rebut a theory of suicide because Rangel did not argue that theory, and that the exhibit was not relevant to any of the main issues at trial. Rangel also argues that the exhibit was clearly more prejudicial than probative.
The elements of the crime against which relevance must be measured are that Rangel intentionally and knowingly caused the death of the individual by shooting him with a firearm and/or that with intent to cause serious bodily injury to an individual, Rangel committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused death by discharging a firearm toward the victim's head. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1), (2). The legislature has provided expressly that in murder prosecutions the State or the defendant can offer testimony "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 to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.36(a).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the video was relevant to show the relationship between the parties, to show Rangel's intent, and to rebut the inference that Neal died by suicide. Initially, we note that the month (or two) gap between the video's recording and Neal's death does not show that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the exhibit. In a murder case, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the admission of evidence that, two years before the defendant's wife was found dead from blunt-force head trauma and strangulation while her divorce petition was pending, the defendant had pushed her out of a car and left her stranded without purse and phone. Garcia v. State, 201 S.W.3d 695, 703-04 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that, because the stranding incident led to the decedent's initial, withdrawn divorce petition, it was relevant to show the nature of the relationship at the time of the murder two years later. Id. at 704. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court's admission of the evidence was within the zone of reasonable disagreement and that the court of appeals had erred in reversing the judgment "simply because it disagreed with that decision." Id. at 704-05. Similarly, here the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the time elapsed between the recording and the murder did not make the recording irrelevant to the murder.
While there was ample evidence that Rangel and Neal had a romantic relationship, the court could have reasonably concluded that the video offered insight into the nature of that relationship. There was evidence that, on December 7, the relationship had strains as shown by Rangel's disrespectful comment about Neal overheard by one neighbor, the argument overheard by another neighbor, and Rangel's admission that Neal was not happy that Rangel was dating a woman. Rangel argues that extraneous acts offered under article 38.36 are usually bad or illegal acts, but (a) the statute does not require that the acts presented be bad or illegal and (b) pointing a loaded gun at another person can be both bad and illegal. See Jones v. State, 500 S.W.3d 106, 113 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) ("The act of pointing a loaded gun at someone, by itself, is threatening conduct that supports a conviction for aggravated assault."); see also Sauceda v. State, 739 S.W.2d 375, 376 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987, pet. ref'd) (defendant convicted of aggravated assault for threatening victim with unloaded gun). Whether the interaction in SX-102 was playful or threatening or somewhere in between, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that the evidence provided the jury information relevant to Rangel's relationship with Neal and showed facts and circumstances about Rangel's condition of mind at the time of the offense. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.36(a).
The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the evidence was admissible to show opportunity, preparation, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). While there was other evidence that Rangel had access to a gun, the video showed Rangel's facility with operating the gun short of firing it. That evidence is relevant to show that Rangel knew what he was doing when, according to Rodriguez, he took the gun to the car where Neal was waiting, argued with Neal, then fired the gun once.
The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence to rebut defensive theories. See Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Rangel argued that he had no motive to kill someone he clearly loved. But the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting SX-102 to allow the jury to assess the nature of that love and its expression. Though Rangel contends that he did not argue at trial that Neal died by suicide, he kept the theory before the jury. His attorney asked the medical examiner how many autopsies he had conducted that involved death by suicide and, when cross-examining Salo, obtained admission of DX-1, a video showing Neal crying and pointing a partly greenish P-22 pistol at his own temple. After admission of DX-1, the State sought to offer SX-102. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the jury could assess the nature of the interaction in SX-102 and how it related to the evidence showing that Neal had previously held the type of gun that killed him to the side of his head where he was shot.
Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the probative value of SX-102 was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 403; see also Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on reh'g) ("trial courts should favor admission in close cases, in keeping with the presumption of admissibility of relevant evidence"). Unfair prejudice refers to an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis-commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Rangel contrasts what he contends was the minimal probative value of a playful interaction at least a month before Neal's death with the danger that the jury would misinterpret SX-102 as showing threatening behavior and convict him because they disapproved of playing with guns. When performing a Rule 403 analysis, courts must balance issues such as
(1) the inherent probative force of the proffered item of evidence along with (2) the proponent's need for that evidence against (3) any tendency of the evidence to suggest decision on an improper basis, (4) any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues, (5) any tendency of the evidence to be given undue weight by a jury that has not been equipped to evaluate the probative force of the evidence, and (6) the likelihood that presentation of the evidence will
consume an inordinate amount of time or merely repeat evidence already admitted. Of course, these factors may well blend together in practice.Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Taking the last concern first, we note that the video lasted twenty-two seconds and the process of admitting it before the jury was fairly brief. Substantively, SX-102 showed Rangel's dexterity with the pistol and comfort with pointing it at Neal and gave insight into the nature of their relationship. Evidence of threats or altercations between a victim and a defendant are admissible to show relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the offense, the relationship between the victim and the accused, and the condition of the accused's mind at the time of the offense even in a letter sent eleven days before a murder. See Gilbert v. State, 840 S.W.2d 138, 145 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.). The risk to Rangel was if the jury interpreted the interaction as hostile when it was in fact playful, but such interpretations are a quintessential jury duty. See Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (factfinder's role is "resolving conflicts in the testimony, weighing the evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences from basic facts"). The jury was made aware that the video predated Neal's death by at least a month, reducing the chance that the jury would be confused and tie the two events too closely together and give it too much weight. W e conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the Rule 403 challenge.
Ultimately, however, we conclude that any error in the admission of the evidence was harmless. The record as a whole assures us that SX-102 had no substantial effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. The record lacked the weapon itself, an express threat to Neal, or physical evidence that Rangel fired the gun, and the image on SX-102 of Rangel pointing the gun at Neal (and the viewer) is powerful. But much more powerful is the evidence of tension in the relationship on December 7 and of data from Rangel's and Neal's cell phones contrasting with Rangel's statements to law-enforcement officers. Rangel told TCSO detectives on December 13 that Neal did not go to Taylor, but the cell phone evidence and witness testimony indicated that Rangel drove Neal there. Rangel told detectives that he stayed with Rodriguez that night, but his cell phone data showed and his then-girlfriend testified differently. Rodriguez's testimony placed Neal in the car and the gun in Rangel's hands when an argument occurred in the car punctuated by a single gunshot; inferences from this evidence that Rangel shot Neal are supported by and consistent with the abrupt inactivity of Neal's cell phones and the single wound and bullet in Neal's head. Rodriguez admitted consuming many intoxicants and repeatedly lying to law enforcement, but said he lied out of fear of his coworker who had just killed his boyfriend; the jury could assess that excuse. The jury could reasonably set aside peripheral inconsistencies-i.e., the content of Rangel's conversation with his mother, whether Rodriguez left the house after the murder and where he went, and how nobody saw Neal die when the neighborhood was lit up for Christmas- and focus on the evidence more directly linked to the elements of the offense.
Viewing the record as a whole, we cannot conclude that the admission of SX-102 had a substantial or injurious effect or influence on the jury's verdict. We overrule Rangel's issue on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Rangel's appellate issue, we affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.