No. 04-00-00508-CR
Santiago LOMAS,
Appellant
v.
STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 8581
Honorable George M. Thurmond, Judge Presiding
Memorandum Opinion
Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice
Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice
Paul W. Green, Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 9, 2002
AFFIRMED
Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the conviction in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 for the following reasons:
1. At trial, the State presented the testimony of Lomas's sister and the medical examiner. This, along with the other circumstantial evidence presented by the State, is legally and factually sufficient to support Lomas's murder conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Young v. State, 14 S.W.3d 748, 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We overrule his first two issues on appeal.
2. The trial court permitted the testimony of a witness who had heard the testimony of other witnesses despite Lomas's invocation of Tex. R. Evid. 614. Because the witness's "presence in the courtroom during testimony from [other] witnesses did not color [her] own testimony," the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the individual to testify. Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We overrule Lomas's third issue.
3. Because the challenged photographs were probative of the victim's injuries, as discussed by the medical examiner, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs. Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (stating "if verbal testimony is relevant, photographs of the same are also relevant"). We overrule Lomas's fourth issue.
The judgment is affirmed.
PAUL W. GREEN,
JUSTICE
DO NOT PUBLISH