Jenise Leann Spruiell v. the State of Texas

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 5, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00465-CR

JENISE LEANN SPRUIELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 20-DCR-093101

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Jenise Leann Spruiell guilty of murder and assessed
punishment at 22 years’ confinement. Appellant appeals her conviction and asserts
(1) the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that Appellant was a party to the
charged offense, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain
evidence. For the reasons below, we overrule Appellant’s issues on appeal and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND

On November 11, 2019, officers with the Stafford Police Department were
dispatched to reports of a shooting at a La Quinta hotel located on the Southwest
Freeway. When officers arrived, they found Complainant lying face-down in the
parking lot with multiple gunshot wounds. Complainant was pronounced dead at
the scene.

Appellant was arrested approximately one year later and charged with
Complainant’s murder. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial in May 2023. At trial,
the State alleged that Appellant was guilty of the charged offense under the law of
parties, which imposes criminal responsibility for the conduct of other persons if
the defendant (1) acts with the intent to promote or assist in the commission of the
offense, and (2) solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the others
committing the offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02.

The jury heard testimony from eight witnesses. We excerpt relevant
portions of their testimonies below.

Officer McDougle

Officer McDougle was one of the Stafford Police Department officers who
responded to the reports of Complainant’s shooting. According to Officer
McDougle, upon arriving to the hotel parking lot he “observed a black male lying
on the ground.” Officer McDougle also recalled seeing “several shell casings
around his body.”

Officer McDougle said there were no witnesses to the shooting. However, a
guest at the hotel reported hearing “approximately 8 to 10 gunshots” from his hotel
room, which overlooked the parking lot. The witness also reported seeing “a black
4-door car blacked out in the parking lot and that it left and he didn’t see a license

2
plate on it.”

Officer Stout

Officer Stout is a crime scene investigator with the Stafford Police
Department and responded to the reports of Complainant’s shooting. During
Officer Stout’s testimony, the trial court admitted into evidence photographs
showing Complainant’s body in the hotel parking lot. Officer Stout said
Complainant was found holding in his hand “a cell phone that had sustained
damage from a bullet.” Officer Stout also said 13 firearm shell casings were
collected from the crime scene. Additional testing of the shell casings did not yield
any fingerprints.

During her investigation, Officer Stout examined the hotel room
Complainant had been staying in before he was shot. According to Officer Stout,
in the hotel room she found (1) bail bond paperwork with Complainant’s name on
it, (2) an AK47 firearm “located in the folding bed that was near the door,” and
(3) “a box of Monarch 40 Smith & Wesson ammo.” Officer Stout said the spent
shell casings collected from the parking lot did not match either the firearm or the
ammunition recovered from Complainant’s room.

Officer Combs

Officer Combs is an investigator with the Houston Police Department. At
trial, Officer Combs testified about a shooting that had occurred ten days before
Complainant’s murder.

According to Officer Combs, he responded to reports of a shooting on
November 1, 2019. Officer Combs said Michael Daniel had been shot in the neck
and was transported to the hospital. Officer Combs testified that there were no
eyewitnesses to Daniel’s shooting. Officer Combs said he was unable to obtain a

3
phone number for Daniel but received one for Daniel’s mother. Officer Combs
said he called Daniel’s mother the day after the shooting and for several days
thereafter, but she did not return his calls.

Officer Combs said he subsequently received a phone call from an officer
with the Fort Bend Independent School District Police Department who had
information about Daniel’s shooting. After receiving this information, Officer
Combs said Complainant was developed as a suspect in Daniel’s shooting.

Officer Combs said he continued to investigate Daniel’s shooting and
discovered that Daniel was released from the hospital on November 6th. Officer
Combs testified that he made repeated attempts to contact Daniel and his mother.
According to Officer Combs, Daniel’s mother “finally agreed to set up a meeting”
and, on December 4, 2019, Officer Combs met with Daniel and his mother in a
restaurant parking lot. Officer Combs said he did not find Daniel to be a credible
witness and therefore “inactivated his case.”

Detective Melendez

Detective Melendez is employed by the Stafford Police Department and was
the lead detective assigned to investigate Complainant’s murder. Detective
Melendez responded to the La Quinta the night of the shooting and made contact
with three people who also had been staying in Complainant’s hotel room.
Detective Melendez stated that these individuals provided her with Complainant’s
Instagram username. Detective Melendez said it is “useful” to have a person’s
Instagram username when investigating a crime because it “gives us kind of a
timeline, depending on how active they are on the account, of where they were,
what time they last posted, [and] who they might have been corresponding with.”

Detective Melendez said she also reviewed the hotel’s parking lot

4
surveillance camera footage, which showed the shooting. Detective Melendez
testified that the footage showed that Complainant was speaking on the phone
shortly before he was shot.

Detective Melendez said she received a call the day after the shooting from a
woman who identified herself as Complainant’s girlfriend. According to Detective
Melendez, Complainant’s girlfriend provided Complainant’s Instagram username
— the same username that also was provided by the occupants of his hotel room.
Detective Melendez testified that she also learned from Complainant’s girlfriend
“about an incident where [Complainant] confessed to [his girlfriend] that he had
recently been involved with killing a man.” Detective Melendez said the Stafford
Police Department then contacted the Houston Police Department, from whom
they received information regarding Michael Daniel’s shooting on November 1,
2019.

Continuing to describe the course of her investigation, Detective Melendez
said she pulled the records for the phone Complainant was found with at the time
of his death as well as the records for his Instagram account. Detective Melendez
testified that Complainant and Daniel had communicated on Instagram on
November 1, 2019 — the day Daniel was shot. Detective Melendez said
Complainant also had exchanged messages with Appellant beginning on
November 4th, 2019, with their communications ending on November 11th — the
day Complainant was shot. Describing Appellant’s connection to Daniel,
Detective Melendez said Appellant has a child with Daniel’s half-brother.

Turning to Complainant’s phone records, Detective Melendez said the last
call received on his phone came through at 11:11 p.m. the night he was shot.
According to the La Quinta’s surveillance camera footage, Complainant was shot
in the parking lot approximately two-to-four minutes later, while he was still

5
talking on his phone. Detective Melendez said the phone number that called
Complainant was traced to a “burner phone,” which she described as a phone
purchased with cash that “cannot be traced” and requires no identifying
information to operate. Detective Melendez said these phones “are used a lot in
criminal enterprises” because “of the anonymity behind it.” According to
Detective Melendez, the burner phone that called Complainant was activated the
day of the shooting and was not used after the shooting.

Detective Melendez testified that police received a tip implicating Appellant
in Complainant’s death. Detective Melendez said subsequent cell phone testing
was able to place several phone numbers at or near the La Quinta close to the time
Complainant was shot, including the burner phone and phone numbers belonging
to Appellant and Michael Daniel’s younger sister, Kiya Daniel.

Detective Tyler

Detective Tyler worked at the Stafford Police Department and also was
assigned to investigate Complainant’s death. Describing the nature of the
investigation, Detective Tyler testified:

This was not a straightforward case, by any means. We got pieces of
information over many, many months, and in some cases years, that
we had to build on each — build on each individual piece, and then
link them together through our investigative process.
During Detective Tyler’s testimony, the State offered and the trial court admitted
into evidence the video surveillance footage from the La Quinta parking lot
surveillance cameras. Detective Tyler said this footage shows the movements of
two cars: a blue Chevrolet Malibu (which he termed the “scout car”) and a silver
Chevrolet Impala (which he termed the “shooter car”).

Detective Tyler began by describing the footage that captured Complainant’s

6
shooting. Detective Tyler said the blue scout car could be seen pulling into a
parking space near the front of the La Quinta, “with no lights illuminated.” The
Complainant is shown walking towards the scout car when the silver shooter car
“comes speeding around from the bottom-left area of the screen.” Continuing to
describe the footage, Detective Tyler said:

[Complainant] starts running towards that area, trying to run past the
approaching car. And you see an individual exit the shooter car from
the driver’s side, run after [Complainant] with his arm extended, and
[Complainant] falls, and you see the gentleman or the person who
exited that vehicle stand over [Complainant] and fire several shots.
...
That person then runs back to the shooter vehicle, and that vehicle
leaves out towards Techniplex [Drive].
The scout vehicle then backs up, drives past the down body of
[Complainant], and exits towards the freeway.

Detective Tyler said the cameras show that Complainant was shot at approximately
11:15 p.m.

The State then offered into evidence additional surveillance camera footage
from cameras at the rear of the hotel. According to Detective Tyler, this footage
shows the scout car and shooter car stop at the same point and “a person exit[ing]
the scout vehicle and enter[ing] the shooter vehicle” at approximately 11:07 p.m.
— eight minutes before the shooting. Detective Tyler said other hotel surveillance
cameras also showed the scout car and the shooter car at various points minutes
before the shooting. Describing the cars’ movements, Detective Tyler said the
vehicles appeared to be “circling the hotel” about 10-15 minutes before the
shooting.

Detective Tyler also reviewed surveillance camera footage from the hotel’s
entrance, which showed Complainant exiting the hotel at 11:13 p.m. “holding what

7
appears to be a cell phone that’s lit up.” Shortly thereafter, the footage shows that
Complainant “appears [to be] looking around the parking lot and speaking into the
cell phone, as if he’s on the phone looking for someone.” Complainant is shot
approximately two minutes later.

Also admitted into evidence was surveillance camera footage from the IHOP
restaurant located next to the La Quinta. The admitted footage was from the
restaurant’s rear camera that faces towards the hotel’s front doors and shows the
scout car’s movements approximately five minutes before the shooting.
Describing this footage, Detective Tyler said it shows the scout car “enter into the
IHOP parking lot, pull into a parking space for a short time,” then reverse out of
the parking space “a short time later.” Detective Tyler said the footage did not
show the scout car’s license plate; rather, the scout car had a “temporary paper
registration” that was “flapping in the wind.”

While the scout car is parked, the footage shows the driver “appeared to
have an object at their ear consistent with the motion of talking on a cell phone,
and then that object is brought down, almost as if they were looking at a cell
phone.” When the scout car exits the parking space, a still photograph of the driver
is captured and zoomed in on. Describing the photograph, Detective Tyler said it
shows a female with shoulder-length hair and a pink top. Detective Tyler testified
that, based on the photograph and the findings of his investigation, he believed
Appellant was the person pictured in the photograph.

Continuing to describe the course of his investigation, Detective Tyler said
officers received a Crime Stoppers tip implicating Appellant in Complainant’s
murder. Detective Tyler said officers received another tip linking Complainant’s
murder to “a shooting [that] had occurred . . . approximately ten days prior to this
offense.”

8
With respect to the prior shooting, Detective Tyler said he received an
offense report from the Houston Police Department regarding the November 1,
2019 shooting of Michael Daniel that listed Complainant as a suspect. Detective
Tyler said he reviewed Complainant’s cell phone and Instagram records and found
that Complainant had communicated with Daniel shortly before the November 1st
shooting. According to Detective Tyler, Instagram messages showed that Daniel
was planning to buy a gun from Complainant on November 1st.

Detective Tyler said he also met with Appellant during the course of his
investigation and informed her that he was looking into Complainant’s murder.
Describing Appellant as “evasive,” Detective Tyler said he showed her a picture of
Complainant but she did not acknowledge knowing him. Detective Tyler
subsequently obtained the records for Appellant’s phone number as well as her
Instagram account.

Reviewing the records associated with Appellant’s phone number, Detective
Tyler said a contact entry was created on November 2, 2019 (the day after Daniel’s
shooting) for Complainant’s phone number with the name “GET EM OUT OF
HERE COACH.” Detective Tyler said Appellant’s Instagram account records also
showed that she and Complainant had exchanged approximately 300 messages
between November 4 and November 11, 2019. The messages were flirtatious in
nature, with Complainant repeatedly requesting Appellant’s cell phone number and
to schedule a meet up.

On the day of Complainant’s murder, he made plans on Instagram to meet
with Appellant. Complainant again asked for Appellant’s cell phone number and,
at one point, messaged her to say “[a]ll this instagram shit u scared to give me your
number.” At 8:50 p.m., Appellant sent Complainant an Instagram message that
said, “I text you.”

9
According to Detective Tyler, “not even two minutes before that was the
very first instance from the burner phone of a text message to the Complainant.”
Detective Tyler said the burner phone number was activated the day of the
shooting and had not previously contacted Complainant’s phone. Detective Tyler
said the burner phone number also was “the last number that was — that
successfully communicated with [Complainant] before he was shot.”

Detective Tyler said authorities were able to access the burner phone’s
AT&T activation records. These records showed that contact was made with
AT&T at 8:43 p.m. the night of the shooting because service on the burner phone
was not working. The phone number listed in AT&T’s activation notes was
registered to Michael Daniel’s mother.

Finally, Detective Tyler testified regarding the location data collected for the
cell phone numbers suspected to be involved in Complainant’s shooting. Shortly
before the shooting, Detective Tyler said the records showed that Appellant’s
phone number had repeated contacts with a phone number associated with Michael
Daniel’s sister, Kiya. Detective Tyler said these phones’ communications were
processed through the same cell phone tower, which was located less than one mile
north of the crime scene. Detective Tyler testified that he “did not observe that
tower anywhere else in the [cell phone] records.”

Collista Franklin

Collista Franklin works for a residential property management company and
previously oversaw the community that Michael Daniel’s family resided in.
Franklin recalled that Daniel’s mother lived in a home with Daniel and several
other adult children. Franklin was shown a picture of a silver Impala (the same
type of car involved in Complainant’s shooting) and asked if she recognized it as
one associated with the Daniels family. Franklin responded “yes” and said she
10
previously had spoken to Daniel’s mother regarding the vehicle.

Agent Shaw

Finally, the jury heard from FBI Agent Shaw regarding his analyses on call
detail records from phone numbers implicated in Complainant’s shooting. Agent
Shaw explained that he used the call detail records in conjunction with cell phone
towers “to determine the approximate location of these cellular devices, relative to
the date and time and location in which the homicide occurred.”

Cell tower activations were shown for the night of Complainant’s shooting
from 10:13 p.m. to 10:22 p.m. These records show the burner phone and Kiya’s
phone pinged the same cell phone towers during the same time frame. The burner
phone made three outgoing phone calls to Complainant’s phone. Kiya’s phone
records showed two phone calls with a cell phone number registered to Daniel’s
mother.

Cell tower activations for the burner phone show it had two calls with
Complainant’s phone at 11:07 and 11:12 p.m. the night of the shooting, both of
which pinged to cell phone towers located near the crime scene. Cell tower
activations for Appellant’s phone show it also had communications that pinged cell
phone towers near the crime scene the night of the shooting during the same time
frame. Specifically, the records registered six phone calls between Appellant’s and
Kiya’s phones between 11:08 and 11:17 p.m. Finally, cell tower activation records
for Kiya’s phone also show substantial activity that registered to cell towers
located near the crime scene at the time of the shooting.

Conclusion of Trial

After the parties rested, the jury retired to deliberate and returned a verdict
finding Appellant guilty of murder under the law of parties. See Tex. Penal Code

11
Ann. §§ 7.01, 7.02, 19.02(b)(1). The jury assessed punishment at 22 years’
confinement. Appellant timely filed this appeal.

ANALYSIS

In two issues on appeal, Appellant asserts:

1. the evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction for
murder under the law of parties; and
2. the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Officer Combs’
testimony.

We consider these issues individually below.

I. Evidentiary Sufficiency

A. Standard of Review and Governing Law

In assessing sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, we view all the
evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and
determine, based on that evidence and any reasonable inferences that may be
drawn therefrom, whether any rational factfinder could have found the elements of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2011) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979)). We
may not substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder by reevaluating the
weight and credibility of the evidence. Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010). Rather, we defer to the factfinder to fairly resolve conflicts in
testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from basic to
ultimate facts. Id.

We consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as any
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. See Balderas v.
State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Circumstantial evidence is as
probative as direct evidence in establishing an actor’s guilt, and circumstantial
12
evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. See Hooper v. State, 214
S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Not every fact or piece of evidence needs to
point directly to a defendant’s guilt, so long as the cumulative force of all evidence
supports the conviction. Hammack v. State, 622 S.W.3d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2021). We look to the “events occurring before, during[,] and after the
commission of the offense and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an
understanding and common design to do the prohibited act.” Id.

We measure the evidence by the elements of the offense as defined by a
hypothetically correct jury charge. Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2018). As relevant here, a person commits murder if the person
“intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual” or “intends to cause
serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that
causes the death of an individual.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1), (2). A
person acts “intentionally” with respect to the result of her conduct when it is her
conscious objective or desire to cause the result. Id. § 6.03(a). A person acts
“knowingly” with respect to the result of her conduct when she is aware that her
conduct reasonably is certain to cause the result. Id. § 6.03(b).

The trial court also instructed the jury on the law of parties under Texas
Penal Code section 7.02. Under this section, “[a] person is criminally responsible
for an offense committed by the conduct of another if . . . acting with intent to
promote or assist the commission of the offense, [s]he solicits, encourages, directs,
aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.” Id. § 7.02(a)(2).

“Evidence is sufficient to convict under the law of parties where the
defendant is physically present at the commission of the offense and encourages its
commission by words or other agreement.” Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 739
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “However, mere presence of a person at the scene of a

13
crime, or even flight from the scene, without more, is insufficient to support a
conviction as a party to the offense.” Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012).

B. Application

We agree with Detective Tyler’s characterization of this case as “not a
straightforward” one. But viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the
evidence and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom nonetheless
are legally sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for murder under the law of
parties. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 7.01, 7.02, 19.02(b).

Considered together, the evidence shows as follows:

• Complainant was shot numerous times in a La Quinta parking lot at
approximately 11:15 p.m. on November 11, 2019.
• Complainant was talking on his phone as he exited the hotel at 11:13
p.m. Complainant appeared to be “looking around the parking lot . . .
as if he’s on the phone looking for someone.”
• Two vehicles were involved in the shooting: a blue “scout car” and a
silver “shooter car.” Shortly before the shooting, the scout car pulled
into a hotel parking space with no lights on and Complainant began
walking towards it. As Complainant was walking towards the scout
car, the shooter car drove towards him. An individual exited the
shooter car and shot Complainant several times, after which both
vehicles exited the parking lot.
• Surveillance footage showed the vehicles “circling” the hotel about
10-15 minutes before the shooting. At one point, the vehicles parked
together and a person exited the scout car and entered the shooter car.
• Surveillance footage from the adjacent IHOP showed the scout car
park in a parking space several minutes before the shooting. The
driver of the scout car appeared to be on the phone. A still
photograph from the video footage shows the scout car was driven by
a female with shoulder-length hair and a pink top.
• Reviewing the still photograph from the IHOP surveillance footage,

14
Detective Tyler said he believed the woman pictured was Appellant.
• Franklin testified that the Daniels family previously had owned a
silver car similar to that involved in the shooting.
• Police officers received a tip linking Complainant to Michael Daniel’s
shooting on November 1, 2019. Complainant and Daniel had
communicated days before Daniel’s shooting, with Daniel planning to
buy a gun from Complainant.
• Before his death, Complainant told his girlfriend “that he had recently
been involved with killing a man.”
• A Crime Stoppers tip implicated Appellant in Complainant’s murder.
Appellant has a baby with Michael Daniel’s half-brother.
• While investigating Complainant’s murder, Detective Tyler met with
Appellant and found her “evasive.” Detective Tyler showed
Appellant a picture of Complainant and she denied knowing him.
• But despite professing not to know Complainant, evidence showed
that Appellant previously had substantial interactions with him.
• On November 2, 2019, Appellant created a contact entry in her cell
phone for Complainant’s phone number with the name “GET EM
OUT OF HERE COACH.”
• Appellant exchanged approximately 300 messages with Complainant
on Instagram between November 4 and November 11, 2019. These
messages were flirtatious in nature, with Complainant repeatedly
requesting Appellant’s cell phone number and to schedule a meet up.
There were no messages after the day Complainant was shot.
• Appellant and Complainant made plans to meet on November 11,
2019. At 8:50 p.m., Appellant sent Complainant an Instagram
message that said “I text you.” According to Detective Tyler, “not
even two minutes before that [Instagram message] was the very first
instance from the burner phone of a text message to the Complainant.”
• The burner phone number was “the last number that was — that
successfully communicated with [Complainant] before he was shot.”
• The burner phone was activated the day of Complainant’s murder.
The burner phone’s activation records show that contact was made
with AT&T at 8:43 p.m. the night of the shooting because service on
the phone was not working. A phone number listed in the activation

15
notes was registered to Michael Daniel’s mother.
• The night of the murder, cell phone tower activation records for the
burner phone show it pinged the same towers as the phone belonging
to Kiya Daniel, Michael Daniel’s younger sister.
• Cell phone tower activation records show the phone numbers
belonging to the burner phone, Appellant, and Kiya Daniel all pinged
the same cellular towers located near the crime scene at the time of
the shooting.
Taken together, the cumulative force of this evidence is legally sufficient to
support Appellant’s conviction for Complainant’s murder. Specifically, it shows
that Appellant, with the intent to promote or assist in the commission of the
offense, encouraged or aided another person with respect to the shooting of
Complainant. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 7.01, 7.02, 19.02(b).

We overrule Appellant’s first issue.

II. Admission of Officer Combs’ Testimony

In her second issue, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in admitting
Officer Combs’ testimony because it was irrelevant and its probative value was
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an
abuse of discretion standard. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343-44 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009). A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is so
clearly wrong and unjust as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable people
might disagree. Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Under Texas Rule of Evidence 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Tex.
R. Evid. 403. “Rule 403 favors the admission of relevant evidence and carries a
presumption that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial.” Stone

16
v. State, 635 S.W.3d 763, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. ref’d).
Evidence is “unfairly” prejudicial if it tends to suggest an improper basis for
reaching a decision. Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

As set out above, Officer Combs testified about his investigation into the
November 1, 2019 shooting of Michael Daniel. In her appellate brief, Appellant
argues Officer Combs’ testimony was irrelevant because Daniel was not charged in
Complainant’s death and any testimony about Daniel was mere speculation. We
disagree.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.36 provides as follows with
respect to evidence in prosecutions for murder:

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. Ann. art. 383.6(a). Officer Combs’ testimony fits well
within these parameters. As discussed above in our analysis of Appellant’s first
issue, the State’s theory at trial posited that Appellant was involved in a plan to kill
Complainant as revenge for Complainant’s involvement in Michael Daniel’s
shooting. Therefore, Officer Combs’ testimony regarding his investigation into
Daniel’s shooting and the development of Complainant as a suspect is relevant to
show the “facts and circumstances surrounding” the murder of Complainant. See
id. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Officer Combs’
testimony.

We overrule Appellant’s second issue.

17
CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Meagan Hassan
Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

18