OPINION
DAVID GAULTNEY, Justice.Megan Winfrey a/k/a Megan Winfrey Hammond appeals her convictions for capital murder and conspiracy to commit capital murder. She asserts there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence supports the jury’s decision. We affirm the judgment.
The Evidence
Murray Wayne Burr was found murdered in his home. He suffered twenty-five stab wounds, primarily in the head and neck area, and multiple sharp and blunt-force injuries. Burr had extensive craniofacial fracturing, including a broken right eye orbit and broken jaw bone. His body had been dragged from the living room to the master bedroom where his throat was cut. There was no evidence of forced entry into the house or of a long-term struggle. Burr’s wallet was on the washing machine. The only item investigators initially believed to be missing was a Bible, but they later determined — from a statement made by Megan Winfrey’s father to another inmate, and then from a relative of Burr’s — that Burr owned two guns which were missing.
At the time of the murder in August 2004, Winfrey was sixteen years old. She lived near Burr. Burr worked as a janitor at the high school where Winfrey attended. According to trial testimony, Burr was cognitively “slow in some areas” but “intelligent in [some.]”
Texas Ranger Grover Huff interviewed Winfrey. According to Huff, Winfrey stated that she had last seen Burr two weeks prior to his death. Winfrey denied any inappropriate contact between her and Burr. She admitted she may have commented to people that Burr had a nice home or nice things in his home, but she denied making any comments about Burr having money hidden in his house. Winfrey denied any involvement in his death.
Ranger Huff testified that during the interview, he began questioning Winfrey about some discrepancies in her statements and about some comments she made about having an ability to exercise control over men. According to Huff, Winfrey then appeared “to be frustrated or ... somewhat angry and excused herself from the interview[.]”
None of the hair, blood, or DNA collected from the scene could be matched to Winfrey or her family members. The DNA profile that did not relate to Burr was unknown.
To assist in the investigation, Huff contacted Deputy Keith Pikett, a dog handler with the Fort Bend County Sheriffs office. Pikett used bloodhounds trained to perform “dog-scent lineups.” Pikett performed a dog-scent lineup with Winfrey’s scent sample in August 2004. Pikett used two bloodhounds to perform the lineup. The lineup involved scent samples obtained from the clothes Burr was wearing at the time of the murder and scent samples from six females, including Megan Winfrey. The dogs were “pre-scented” on the scent obtained from Burr’s clothing and then walked by a line of paint cans that each contained one of the six female scents. The jury viewed a video showing both dogs alerting to the can containing Megan Winfrey’s scent. An “alert” occurs when the dog matches the scent from the *690victim’s scent pad to the scent pad obtained from the suspect.
Pikett also performed a scent lineup with scent pads obtained from Richard Winfrey, Jr. (appellant’s brother) and other males. Pikett testified that both dogs alerted to the scent of Richard Winfrey, Jr., and the jury viewed a video of the dog-scent lineup. Based on the alerts by the dogs, Pikett concluded that Megan Winfrey and Richard Winfrey, Jr. had contact with the clothes Burr was wearing at the time of the murder. On cross-examination, Pikett agreed that a person’s scent could be transferred to another person indirectly even when the two persons “have not had direct personal contact.”
In July 2006, the San Jacinto County Sheriffs Department received new information about the case from David Campbell, an inmate in the Montgomery County Jail. Campbell testified that in the summer of 2006, he shared a cell in the county jail with Richard Winfrey, Sr., Megan’s father. Winfrey, Sr. was out on parole at the time of the murder of Burr. Campbell got the impression from talking with Winfrey, Sr. that Winfrey, Sr. may have some knowledge or involvement in the murder. According to Campbell, the only way for someone to know what Winfrey, Sr. purported to know about the murder was to have been there when the murder occurred.
Campbell testified:
Q. Did Richard, Sr. have concerns about Richard, Jr., breaking?
A. He would be the first to speak, yes.
Q. So there was an indication from Richard Winfrey, Sr., that it was the kids that allowed access to be gained to the house; is that correct?
A. Not kids. He just said one of them.
Q. One of them?
A. He didn’t say which one.
Q. But did he indicate both were there, and it was one of them that let him in?
A. That let him in? He didn’t say exactly let him in. He just said—
Q. Allowed him to gain access?
A. Access. I mean, that’s hearsay. I mean—
Winfrey, Sr. told Campbell that Burr had been “[sjtabbed repeatedlyU” and also said that “[a] couple of antique guns” were taken from the house. Prior to interviewing Campbell, law enforcement investigators were not aware that any guns were missing from Burr’s home. Investigators subsequently interviewed Burr’s brother-in-law, who confirmed that Burr owned two guns that the family could not locate following his death.
Campbell also testified that Winfrey, Sr. bragged that Burr’s penis had been mutilated; this statement regarding the crime was inaccurate. According to Campbell, Winfrey, Sr. was “[vjery concerned” that Megan Winfrey or Richard Winfrey, Jr. would be held responsible for the murder, and he repeatedly stated that they were not responsible.
In August 2007, Pikett was asked to perform another “dog-scent lineup” using the scent of Richard Winfrey, Sr. The jury saw a video of this lineup. All three dogs used in the lineup alerted to the paint can with Winfrey, Sr.’s scent. Pikett testified that, based on the scent lineup, Winfrey, Sr.’s scent was also on the victim’s clothing.
Detective Katherine Wick with the San Jacinto County Sheriffs Department testified that she attempted to obtain a pubic hair sample from Megan Winfrey. Winfrey had shaved her pubic area “that morning” and Wick was unable to obtain the sample. According to Wick, Winfrey “made the comment that her brother had *691called her and stated that [the sheriffs department was] harassing him and that he was mad.” Wick advised Winfrey that she would attempt to obtain a sample at a later time and that shaving prior to that time would constitute a violation of the court’s order. Wick subsequently obtained a pubic hair sample from Winfrey. The sample did not match a hair recovered from the scene.
Jason King, Winfrey’s ex-boyfriend, testified that he contacted the San Jacinto County Sheriffs Department because he was “told some things” by Winfrey that he “needed to get off [his] chest.” At that time, he had moved to another state and had married. King testified concerning what Megan Winfrey told him:
Q. And these comments related to the murder of Murray Burr?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Megan indicate any reason why they would go to Murray Burr’s?
A. She told me that they used to take him to church. They would pick him up and take him to church.
Q. Did she indicate why they would do anything to Murray or why they went over there to the house?
A. Her words were it was an easy lick.
Q. And what did you take “easy lick” to mean?
A. I guess—
Q. Did they think they would get money?
A. I think so.
Q. Were you present when Megan received a phone call from her little brother or one of the family members—
A. The day—
Q. —or her older brother?
A. —when he was arrested?
Q. Yes.
Yes, sir. >
Okay. What did — what did Megan do when she got that phone call? <©
Had me take her to Chris Hammond’s mobile home.
And what did she say was the purpose of going over there? O’
That it had something to do with Danielle. When we got there, the only thing that was said was we were at a concert that night.
So they — she and — this was Chris Hammond? <£>
Yes, sir. <tj
Who was Chris Hammond? G?
Megan’s ex-husband. <¡
And so, the only thing they talked about was an alibi? G?
Yes, sir. <j
And prior to that, to your knowledge, did Megan receive information that a search warrant was going to be conducted regarding pubic hair? <3?
Yes, sir. l>
Okay. Do you know — did she get a phone call? <C>
I can’t tell you, sir.
Okay. Do you know what she did when she got that information? ¿0
Yes, sir. í>
What did she do? <0
She shaved herself. !>
And since you were having sexual relations with her, you were aware of that? (O
Yes, sir. ⅛>
Okay. And she remained shaved for a period of time? «O
Yes, sir. í>
Okay. Did she indicate anything else regarding the murder of Murray Burr? <0
*692A. No, sir. All she said was it was an easy lick.
Winfrey and Christopher Hammond had been dating for “about five months” at the time of the murder. A “dog-scent lineup” was performed with a scent pad from Christopher Hammond, but the dogs did not alert to his scent. Two of his shoe laces were admitted; a report stated blood was found on one shoe string. Hammond and Winfrey married, had a child together, and were divorced before trial. Winfrey called Hammond’s mother on the morning of the last day of the State’s case to ask whether Hammond was going to testify. Hammond did not testify at trial.
Karen Robertson, a teacher from Winfrey’s high school, testified regarding a statement made by Megan Winfrey during summer school approximately a month before the murder. Robertson testified that while Burr was working as a janitor, Winfrey saw him in the hall and “jumped up ... and grabbed him by the arm and said, ‘Oh, Murray, Murray, when are you going to take me out and spend some of that money that you have? We know you have that money hid at home.’ ” According to Robertson, Burr looked embarrassed and “went on about his business[.]”
Debra King (not related to Jason King), a teacher at Winfrey’s school in 2003 and 2004, testified she observed Megan Winfrey having a conversation with Burr in the school hallway. King testified that she could not hear the contents of the conversation, but as Burr turned away, Winfrey “cl[e]nched her fist and said, ‘[sjomebody should beat the s* * * out of him.’ ” Winfrey looked “very angry” and Burr looked distraught, saddened, or “like he really didn’t understand.” King testified that Winfrey then followed King into her classroom and apologized. Winfrey told King that she “didn’t mean to say that aloud[,]” and explained that “[s]he lived near [Burr] and was just tired of all his cats.”
Megan Winfrey testified that she had nothing to do with the murder, and did not know who murdered Burr. Winfrey testified that she and her brother would drive past Burr’s residence on their way to church and “would see [Burr] outside in his yard, and we would stop by and see him to see if he wanted to go to churchf.]” According to Winfrey, Burr “would always say, ‘[t]ry next weekend.’ ” She and her brother visited Burr at his residence occasionally, and she was last there “anywhere from two weeks to a month” before his death. They “talked about everything!,]” but nothing “too [ ] memorable.” Winfrey explained that she sat on his furniture and had casual physical contact with Burr, a hand shake or hug.
Winfrey stated she was at the Burr residence “probably a handful of times, maybe four or five or six” times during the summer before the murder. She also saw Burr when he was working at school. When asked if it was her understanding that Burr had a lot of money, Winfrey stated, “No. He was a janitor.” Winfrey testified that she was not aware that Burr owned any guns until she was charged with the offense. Winfrey explained that when she became a suspect in the case, she cooperated with authorities by voluntarily submitting a buccal swab, fingerprints, scent evidence, and giving nearly a two-hour statement. She explained that she had a regular habit of shaving her pubic hair and did not shave to avoid giving a sample.
Winfrey did not completely dispute the testimony of Karen Robertson. Winfrey admitted that she made the statement to Burr, but “[n]ot those exact words.” She testified that she did not say anything about Burr’s money or him having money hidden at his house, and she characterized *693that part of Robertson’s testimony as “a little exaggerated.”
Winfrey did not recall making the statement testified to by Debra King. When asked if she said she thought Burr may have been killed because he was bragging about money to other people, Winfrey testified that Burr said “he was getting a retirement check or something.” Winfrey testified, “Yeah, I guess I said that, yeah. If it says I said that, then, yes, I said that.” Regarding Ranger Huffs testimony about her claim to control men, Winfrey admitted that she had made that statement, explaining that she was “16 and immature.”
Winfrey denied that she said Burr was “an easy lick.” She did not know what that term meant but she believed it to be drug-related, “like selling drugs or picking up drugs or something to that nature.” In response to Jason King’s testimony that Winfrey shaved because she learned her brother had been served with a warrant for pubic hair, Winfrey responded that she was not dating King at that time. Winfrey testified that when King asked her why the sheriffs department was accusing her of the crime, she told King that someone said the reason he felt she was guilty was because she shaved her pubic hair after obtaining information about the warrant.
Winfrey agreed that Jason King’s testimony regarding her conversation with Hammond the day her brother was arrested was “true,” but viewed “out of eon-text[.]” According to Winfrey, when investigators questioned her regarding the murder, they asked her where she was the night before, and she said she was at a concert. Winfrey testified that her conversation with Hammond was, “ ‘Chris, how can they do this? We were at a concert[,]’ ” and the conversation was not an attempt to establish a false alibi. Winfrey testified that when her brother was arrested, she asked King to take her to Hammond. She knew she was also being investigated and she wanted to make arrangements for Hammond to watch her daughter in the event that she was arrested.
Winfrey testified that her father was paroled nine days before the murder. When asked to explain why her father’s scent would be on the clothes Burr was wearing at the time of the murder, she suggested she could have transferred her father’s scent to Burr’s residence. When it was noted that she had previously stated she had not seen Burr during the two weeks preceding his murder, and her father had only been out on parole for nine days, she stated that “[she] had never thought of that.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In four issues, Winfrey argues the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions. In a sufficiency review, an appellate court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). This Court must give deference to the jury’s responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Klein v. State, 273 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. Crim.App.2008) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781). 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.’” Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (quoting *694Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 16-17). “[T]he Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard is the only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.Crim.App.2010).
“On appeal, the same standard of review is used for both circumstantial and direct evidence cases.” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. It is unnecessary for every fact to point directly and independently to the guilt of the accused; it is enough if the finding of guilt is warranted by the cumulative force of all the incriminating evidence. Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).
The Offenses
A person commits the offense of murder if she “intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual[.]” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1) (West 2003). She commits a capital murder offense when she “intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit ... robbery ... [.] ” Id. § 19.03(a)(2) (West Supp. 2010). The State need not prove that the defendant completed the theft of the victim to establish the underlying offense of robbery or attempted robbery. Bustamante v. State, 106 S.W.3d 738, 740 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). The requisite intent to rob may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Id. at 740-41; see also Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 207 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).
A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with the intent that a felony be committed, (1) he or she agrees with one or more persons that they engage in conduct that would constitute the offense and (2) he or she or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.02(a) (West 2003). “An agreement constituting a conspiracy may be inferred from acts of the parties.” Id. § 15.02(b).
“Dog-Scent Lineup” Evidence
In Richard Lynn Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 884-85 (Tex.Crim.App.2010), the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that “while [dog-scent lineup] evidence may raise a strong suspicion of appellant’s guilt, we nevertheless decide that, standing alone, it is insufficient to establish a person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Court stated that, “ ‘[t]he dangers inherent in the use of dog tracking evidence can only be alleviated by the presence of corroborating evidence.’ ” Id. at 884 (quoting State v. Loucks, 98 Wash.2d 563, 656 P.2d 480, 483 (Wash.1983)). Therefore, “when inculpatory evidence is obtained from a dog-scent lineup, its role in the court room is merely supportive.” Id. at 884. As in that case, Megan Winfrey did not object to the evidence at trial, so this Court does not have “an occasion to review or determine the admissibility of that evidence under either Kelly v. State [824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) ] or Nenno v. State [970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Crim. App.1998) ].” See id. at 885 (Cochran, J., concurring). Nevertheless, the dog-scent lineup evidence is insufficient to establish Megan Winfrey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we set it aside from our sufficiency review.
Sufficiency Review
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we should look at ‘events occurring before, during!,] and after the commission of the offense[.]’” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (quoting Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has noted that “[circumstantial evidence is *695as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.” Id.
“Once a defendant has been found guilty of the crime charged, the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. “[A] court faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume — even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record — that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution.” Id. at 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781; see also Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 895 (The Jackson v. Virginia legal sufficiency standard is the applicable standard of review.). “[A] reviewing court is required to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony.” See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899.
The CRIME Scene
Winfrey points to the lack of any DNA or other physical evidence connecting her to the murder, but the lack of that type of evidence does not necessarily render the evidence presented to the jury insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See Tinker v. State, 148 S.W.3d 666, 669 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Ranger Huff testified that it would not be unusual for hairs collected from a crime scene to be unrelated to a suspect or anyone who was at the crime scene. Burr worked as a school custodian, and he most likely came into contact with hairs from the school that could easily be carried home on his shoes or clothing. Huff explained that in most of his murder investigations he consistently finds DNA evidence, but he does not consistently find DNA evidence that links a particular suspect to the scene. When asked if he typically finds' fingerprints that identify the suspects, he responded: “[A]bsolutely not. It’s a very rare occurrence, in my experience, to find fingerprints linking a suspect to a scene. We often don’t find fingerprints at all.” He stated that if the suspects have time to flee the scene and dispose of evidence, and in most cases they do, it would not be unusual if shoes, bloody clothes, fingerprints of the suspect, or DNA tying the suspect to the crime were not recovered.
Megan Winfrey’s Statements and Conduct
Jason King testified that Megan Winfrey made “comments and stuff’ “[u]sually when we were partying.” She stated “regarding the murder” that Burr “was an easy lick.” Jason King was asked, “Did she indicate why they would do anything to Murray or why they went over there to the house[,]” and he said: “Her words were it was an easy lick.” Winfrey denied making this statement. The jury determines the credibility of the witnesses and resolves conflicts in the testimony. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. A rational juror could conclude that Winfrey did make the statement, and that it implicated her in the crime.
Jason King testified that on the day Winfrey’s brother was arrested, Winfrey had a conversation with Hammond regarding their attendance at a concert. King understood the conversation as an attempt to establish an alibi. Winfrey testified that she told the officers who interviewed her that she had been at a concert. Burr was last seen on the evening of August 6, 2004. Burr’s body was discovered early on the morning of August 8, 2004. Ranger *696Huff determined that the concert to which Megan referred took place the night of August 8, 2004, and said Winfrey used the concert as an explanation for an injury to Hammond’s chin. A rational factfinder could infer Winfrey met with Hammond to assure his explanation would be the same as hers. Her belief that a meeting with Hammond was necessary to ensure that their accounts matched could be viewed by a rational factfinder as indicating a concern that his explanation might be different.
According to Karen Robertson, Megan Winfrey told Burr that she knew he had money hidden at his house. Winfrey admitted she said Burr may have been killed because he bragged about money. A rational factfinder could reasonably infer Megan Winfrey thought Burr had “that money hid at home,” and thought the hidden money was the motive for his murder. Burr suffered stab wounds and multiple sharp and blunt-force injuries. A rational factfinder could reason that the motive was “that money hid at home,” and that the multiple inflictions of pain executed in separate areas of Burr’s house were not inconsistent with the attempt to learn where the money was hidden.
Debra King testified Winfrey very angrily said someone “should beat the s* * * out of [Burr].” A rational factfinder could conclude from this statement, and from her clenched fist when she made it, that Winfrey was very angry at Burr and wanted Burr badly hurt.
Two witnesses testified Winfrey shaved when she knew a pubic hair sample would be requested by the investigators. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and could disbelieve Winfrey’s explanation. A rational juror could conclude Winfrey tried to avoid providing evidence she feared might implicate her. See Wincott v. State, 59 S.W.3d 691, 702 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. ref'd) (A defendant’s conduct may indicate consciousness of guilt.).
Campbell’s Testimony
Campbell testified as follows:
Q: [State] And did [Winfrey, Sr.] ever indicate that he had been present or knew what may have happened in that murder or did you get that impression?
A: [Campbell] I got that impression after him talking over and over. The things that he was saying that the only way he would be able to know exactly what he was saying would have been to put him at the murder.
[[Image here]]
Q: [State] Did Richard Winfrey, Sr. indicate that the kids had something to do with him getting into the house?
[[Image here]]
A: [Campbell] Yes.
Q: [State] And what did he convey to you?
A: [Campbell] That his children — that [Burr] was a janitor at their school; that they frequently would go over there and visit with Richard; and one of them they used — one of them, when he got out of wherever he was at, they went to this house and was supposed to have opened a door or window. I don’t know if it was a door or the window in the back of his house.
Q: [State] For him to gain access?
A: [Campbell] Right.
[[Image here]]
Q: [State] Did he indicate any particular concerns regarding his son, Richard, Jr.?
*697A: [Campbell] That was his biggest concern the whole time I was there_ It was the well-being of his children, Megan and Richard, both, that they was going to be framed for something they didn’t do.
Q: [State] Did [Winfrey, Sr.], have concerns about Richard, Jr., breaking?
A: [Campbell] He would be the first to speak, yes.
Q: [State] So there was an indication from [Winfrey, Sr.] that it was the kids that allowed access to be gained to the house, is that correct?
A: [Campbell] Not kids. He just said one of them.
[State] One of them?
[Campbell] He didn’t say which one.
[State] But did he indicate both were there, and it was one of them that let him in?
A: [Campbell] That let him in? He didn’t say exactly let him in. He just said—
Q: [State] Allowed him to gain access?
A: [Campbell] Access. I mean, that’s hearsay. I mean—
Q: [State] Yeah. Okay. Now, you appear nervous.
A: [Campbell] Well, I am. I mean, I don’t — I don’t know Megan. I have never met her. I mean, everything that you are asking me is hearsay to this trial. You know, I—
Campbell testified as follows on cross-examination:
Q: [Defense] All right. And I think you said earlier he was concerned about his children would be framed. I think that was your exact words?
A: [Campbell] Exact words.
Q: [Defense] He was concerned that his children would be framed for something they didn’t do?
A: [Campbell] Yes, sir.
Q: [Defense] He was concerned about his children being responsible for something they weren’t responsible for?
A: [Campbell] Yes. Very concerned.
Q: [Defense] All right. So what he was telling you was that his children were not responsible for this murder?
A: [Campbell] More or less, yes. Over and over. He kept on.
Campbell testified:
But the more he talked, the more — I mean, I have been in jail, been in and out [of] a bunch of prisons. The more he would talk about it saying they didn’t do it, he is stating — talking things and putting them right back where he said they didn’t have nothing to do with it.”
The investigators found no evidence of forced entry into the house. A rational factfinder could infer from Campbell’s testimony that one of Winfrey, Sr.’s children allowed access to Burr’s house. Considering Megan Winfrey’s statement that “it was an easy lick,” in addition to her other statements and conduct, a rational juror could infer that Winfrey, Sr.’s statements to Campbell implicated Megan Winfrey.
Winfrey, Sr. told Campbell about the theft of the two guns from Burr. The investigating officers did not know about the missing guns before Winfrey, Sr. told Campbell, but the officers were later able to confirm that fact. A rational factfinder could reasonably infer that Winfrey, Sr. knew details about the crime because he was involved or because he learned the details from the actual murderer or murderers. See Winfrey, 328 S.W.3d at 881 (“Thus, it is possible that the information *698appellant heard could have come from the actual murderer or murderers.”). A rational factfinder could reasonably infer that the person that allowed access to the house knew the information about the murder.
The jury found Megan Winfrey guilty of the crimes charged, and the jury’s role as “weigher of the evidence” requires this Court to review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. Even when the facts support “conflicting inferences,” a reviewing court must presume the jury resolved the “conflicts in favor of the prosecution,” and the court is required to “defer to that resolution.” Id. at 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781. When all the evidence the jury considered is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and the required deference is given to the jury as factfinder, as is required by the applicable appellate standard of review, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
The Acquittals
Megan Winfrey’s brother, Richard Winfrey, Jr., and her father, Richard Winfrey, Sr., were tried in separate trials. Richard Winfrey, Jr. was acquitted of capital murder and conspiracy to commit capital murder. Winfrey, 323 S.W.3d at 876 n. 1. Richard Winfrey, Sr. was convicted of murder. Id. at 876. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction and rendered an acquittal. Id.
From the description of the evidence in Winfrey, Sr.’s trial in the opinions of the Eastland Court of Appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals, it appears considerable additional and different evidence was offered in Megan Winfrey’s trial, including inculpatory statements and conduct by the defendant. Nevertheless, in arguing the evidence is insufficient to support her criminal conspiracy conviction, Winfrey asserts for the first time in her supplemental brief in this Court that “since both of the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted of the capital murder that [Winfrey] is alleged to have conspired to commit with them, the evidence cannot support that [Winfrey] cooperated with one or more individuals to commit capital murder.” Essentially, without citation to authority, she asserts the acquittals of her father and brother as a bar to the criminal conspiracy charge on insufficient evidence grounds. A sufficiency review is based on the evidence that was presented to the jury, however, not something that occurred in a separate proceeding.
The jury was charged that to find Megan Winfrey guilty of capital murder it must find that “acting individually or as a party” Winfrey “intentionally caused the death of [Burr] by beating him with her hands and fists and by stabbing him with a knife,” while “then and there engaged in the commission of robbery[.]” The jury was charged under the law of parties that “[a] person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.” Under the law of parties, it is no defense “that the person for whose conduct the actor is criminally responsible has been acquitted[.]” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.03(2) (West 2003).
The jury was chai'ged on the elements of criminal conspiracy. A person commits the offense of criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed, she agrees with one or more persons to engage in conduct that would constitute the offense, and she performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. Id. § 15.02(a).
Section 15.02(c)(1) of the Texas Penal Code states that the fact that one or more *699coconspirators is not criminally responsible for the object offense is not a defense to prosecution for criminal conspiracy. Id. § 15.02(c)(1). Section 15.02(c)(2) states that “[i]t is no defense to prosecution for criminal conspiracy that ... one or more of the coconspirators has been acquitted, so long as two or more coconspirators have not been acquitted!.]” Id. § 15.02(c)(2). If we assume the last clause of section 15.02(c)(2) is intended to create a defense to prosecution when all alleged coconspira-tors have been acquitted of criminal conspiracy, we note nevertheless that the Court of Criminal Appeals acquitted Winfrey, Sr. of murder. A conspiracy to commit a crime is a separate and distinct crime from the object offense. Turner v. State, 720 S.W.2d 161, 162 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, pet. refd). On this record, it does not appear section 15.02(c)(2) is a bar to Megan Winfrey’s criminal conspiracy conviction. Generally, “the disposition of the coconspirator’s case will not serve as a defense to criminal conspiracy to commit murder.” 6 Michael B. Charlton, Texas Practice: Texas Criminal Law § 9.3, at 128 (2001) (“... Section 15.02 focuses on an individual’s culpability by defining the offense in terms of the individual defendant’s conduct rather than that of the group. Thus, a given defendant’s case will not be affected by the disposition of cocon-spirators.”).
Appellant’s issues are overruled. The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.