Melody Shenae Harris v. State

Opinion Issued January 13, 2005 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-03-01226-CR ____________ MELODY SHENAE HARRIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 934330 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant, Melody Shenae Harris, guilty of the offense of murder and assessed her punishment at confinement for 14 years. In three points of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a letter written by appellant to her ex-boyfriend and that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm. Facts Krystle Brown testified that, on December 22, 2002, she met appellant and Kelli Parker at a grocery store at about 5:00 p.m. to prepare for a barbecue to be held at the Seville Apartments, where a friend, Samuel “Dee” Jones, lived. After they arrived at Jones’s apartment, appellant, Parker, Brown, and Michael Stout went to a Wal-Mart store. Brown explained that, although Jones and appellant were then seeing each other and had been for “some months,” appellant was pregnant with Stout’s child and had previously dated Stout for a year. After leaving the store, Brown dropped Stout off, and the three girls returned to Jones’s apartment. Shortly thereafter, Tamika Delane, the complainant, who also “used to go” with Stout, and Stout’s mother, Vel Stout, stopped by Jones’s apartment. Vel Stout spoke with appellant and Brown about their spreading a rumor that Vel had AIDS. After Vel Stout and the complainant left, appellant, in her car, drove Brown and Parker to Vel Stout’s house to explain that appellant had not spread the rumor. As they approached the house, they saw Kendrich Hines driving a car, which also contained Stout, the complainant, and Nekitha “Nicole” Fields, Stout’s sister, away from the house. Brown further testified that, when they saw each other, appellant and Stout left their respective cars, confronted each other, and argued. After returning to their cars, appellant, wanting to speak with Vel Stout, again left her car and approached Vel Stout’s door. Stout then left Hines’s car and followed appellant. The complainant followed Stout, approached appellant, said, “I been wanting to whip that ho for a long time,” and hit appellant, pushing her to the ground. After appellant and the complainant had fought for a few minutes, everyone returned to their cars to leave. However, appellant, again wanting to speak with Vel Stout, went inside the house, returning to her car a few minutes later. Appellant then drove Brown and Parker toward the Seville Apartments, where they had originally planned to have the barbecue. Brown explained that the brakes on appellant’s car had been functioning properly throughout the day and that the weather was dry. Brown stated that, on the way back to the apartments, appellant said that she “couldn’t believe how [Stout] let that whore beat his baby mama like that.” When they turned onto the street leading to the apartments, they saw the complainant and Fields standing on the edge of the street “between the grass and the pavement.” When appellant turned the corner, “she was going slow, then she picked up speed” and drove toward the complainant. Brown explained that the complainant and Fields were approximately 15 feet away from appellant’s car when Brown first saw them, that appellant was looking directly toward the complainant and Fields after she turned the corner, and that, as the car approached the complainant and Fields, Fields ran off. Brown testified that “[w]e turned the corner and [appellant] sped up and went towards [the complainant] and hit her.” Appellant’s car dragged the complainant’s body “a little ways.” After the car stopped, Stout dragged appellant out of the car, and Brown and Parker then went to call for emergency assistance. Kelli Parker also testified that, after leaving Vel Stout’s house, appellant said that she could not believe that Stout had let “[the complainant] hit on me while I’m pregnant.” Appellant then turned the corner, and Parker saw the complainant standing by the curb with her fists raised. When appellant turned the corner, “the speed picked up a little bit and [they] went straight for [the complainant].” Houston Police Officer J. Bosworth testified that he arrived at the scene at about 5:41 p.m. and saw a large crowd gathered. He explained that the weather was “probably cloudy” and overcast, but the roads were dry. Appellant repeatedly told Bosworth that “she had come around the corner and the [complainant] had jumped out in front of her car and [appellant] didn’t have time to stop.” After appellant told Bosworth that she had had a confrontation with the complainant earlier in the day, he stopped questioning her and called for a homicide detective. Bosworth also spoke with Fields, who told him that appellant’s car had accelerated toward her and the complainant and that Fields had barely gotten out of the way before also being struck. Houston Police Officer J. Kay, a crime scene unit investigator, testified that, after arriving at the scene at about 7:00 p.m., he took pictures of road marks on the pavement near appellant’s car because “they depict a vehicle leaving the street, curving through the grass area and hitting the complainant.” In his opinion, based on his training, the marks were acceleration marks because “there [was] some kickback of leaves onto the driveway,” which he testified would result from rotating tires propelling leaves in the opposite direction from a spinning wheel’s direction, and because rubber was left on the road. Kay agreed that, in his police report, he had referred to the marks as “skid marks.” However, he testified that his use of the words “skid marks” was a mistake and a bad choice of words and that he really meant to say that the marks were acceleration marks. Houston Police Officer O. Lewis, an accident investigator, also testified that when he arrived at the scene, he saw “tire tracks going up” on the ground, and, in his opinion, the mark was an acceleration mark because no heavy indentations were made in the grassy area, which he testified would have been present had a car had been braking. Houston Police Officer R. Saenz, an accident reconstructionist, testified that using a 1999 Toyota Corolla, a similar model to appellant’s car, he attempted to retrace the path that appellant drove when appellant struck the complainant. In his opinion, appellant’s car was traveling northbound on Leonora street, made a right-hand turn, proceeded eastward on Glenview, and “for some reason, [appellant] saw something and turned her vehicle in a different direction” to the southeast, where she drove her car up a driveway. Then, appellant’s car accelerated, struck the complainant, and, once the car reached the grassy area, dragged the complainant across the grassy area to the driveway area, where it came to a stop. Saenz opined that, if appellant had applied the brakes on her car that “it would have, if not prevented this, it would have reduced the amount of injury.” Saenz further testified that the road mark at the scene was an acceleration mark because there was “no build up of any grass or leaves in front of this mark,” and he explained that he did not see any evidence of braking or attempts to brake to avoid the collision with the complainant. However, Saenz “seriously doubt[ed]” that appellant’s car would be able to leave an acceleration mark, and he could not say that the road marks shown to him in photographs admitted into evidence were, in fact, tire marks. Michael Estes, the assistant manager at the central garage that services patrol cars for the Houston Police Department, testified that, when he examined the brakes on appellant’s car, they functioned properly. Doctor H. Narula, a Harris County assistant medical examiner, testified that he performed the complainant’s autopsy. In his opinion, the complainant’s cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma, which was “consistent with her being run over by a car.” In her defense, appellant presented the testimony of Vincent Cannady, who told the jury that he was standing across the street in his parking lot when he saw appellant’s car strike the complainant. As the complainant walked toward the street from the sidewalk, Cannady saw appellant turn the corner and attempt to pull into a parking spot. He then saw the complainant jump in front of appellant’s car and that appellant tried to weave her car to the left and park on the side of the street. He explained, however, that the right-hand side of appellant’s car struck the complainant. Kendrich Hines testified that, at Vel Stout’s house, the complainant “blindsided” appellant, and, after he witnessed the fight between the complainant and appellant, he drove Michael Stout, the complainant, and Fields to the Seville Apartments, arriving before appellant. After he parked and exited his car, Hines saw appellant drive around the corner and that she was attempting to park her car. He also saw the complainant, who was standing in the driveway of a nearby parking area and “was cussing, talking about how she was going to whip [appellant] again and stuff like that.” When appellant attempted to park her car, she tried to turn back into the street, but the passenger side of her car struck the complainant. Hines then ran across the street, where he saw Michael Stout push appellant and Fields and another girl jump on appellant. Hines then helped to lift the car to remove the complainant from underneath the car. Appellant testified that, when Vel Stout and the complainant came to Jones’s apartment to discuss the AIDS rumor, appellant told Vel Stout that she did not spread the rumor. Appellant explained that, after Vel Stout and the complainant left, appellant was concerned about Vel Stout’s feelings because appellant was five or six weeks pregnant with Michael Stout’s child and Vel Stout was the child’s grandmother. Appellant wanted to discuss the matter further with Vel Stout and drove Parker and Brown to Vel Stout’s house. When they arrived at the house, appellant saw the complainant, Fields, Michael Stout, and Hines. Fields approached appellant’s car, spoke to appellant, and walked away. Hines, the complainant, Stout, and Fields then began to drive away in Hines’s car. Appellant and Brown got out of the car and approached Vel Stout’s door, but before appellant had a chance to speak with Vel Stout, Michael Stout, the complainant, Fields, and Hines returned. The complainant hit appellant from behind, causing appellant to fall backward between a chair and a fence. After the fight ended, appellant went inside Vel Stout’s house to fix her contact lens, but when she went back outside, Michael Stout pushed appellant to the ground. Michael Stout, the complainant, Fields, and Hines then drove away in Hines’s car. Appellant returned to her car, and she drove Brown and Parker back to the Seville Apartments. Appellant explained that, during the drive, she was “upset” at Stout and “so hurt that [Stout] let someone touch [her].” As she approached the corner, she slowed down to turn and then accelerated after entering the turn. She did not see either the complainant or Fields standing near the street. However, when she saw Hines on the other side of the street to her left, she became “a little frightened” because she knew that the complainant and Michael Stout had left with Hines from Vel Stout’s house. Appellant started to make a right turn into a parking space to park her car, but the complainant was in front of appellant’s car on the right-hand side. Appellant swerved to the left, applied her brakes, and skidded until a curb caused her car to stop, but the right-hand side of her car struck the complainant. Appellant did not “recall seeing [the complainant] until she hit [appellant’s] car.” After her car came to a stop, Michael Stout dragged appellant out of the car and hit her from behind, but Cannady came from across the street and pushed Stout off of her. Then, Fields and another girl tried to fight with appellant, but appellant broke free and ran into Jones’s apartment. Appellant then climbed over a patio area and went to the residence of the Seville’s manager, where appellant called her mother and police officers. Over the telephone, appellant told a police officer that she “had just hit someone.” Although appellant testified that she had told Officer Bosworth that the complainant had “jumped in front of [her] car” and that the complainant “got in front of [her] car,” she later testified that she did not remember telling Bosworth that the complainant jumped in front of her car. Appellant further testified that, after police officers took her to Ben Taub Hospital, she told Houston Homicide Detective S. Straughter that she was “going 30 and that would be the regular speed limit.” Dale King, a forensic scientist employed by Rimkus Consulting Group, testified that, after examining appellant’s car on September 19, 2003, he could not conclude that the road marks at the scene came from appellant’s car. In his opinion, the road marks were skid marks because (1) the white, elongated scrape marks he saw from photographs of the road appeared to be mostly continuous, which is consistent with a braking tire with debris caught in a locked tire; (2) the color of the road marks was lighter at the mark’s beginning and then turned darker, which is also consistent with braking; and (3) the outer edges of the road marks were darker than in the center, which is consistent with braking. He also testified that the built-up leaves and dirt at the scene that he could see in the photographs admitted into evidence indicated that something was pushed forward, which was consistent with braking. Additionally, King testified that, when test-driving appellant’s car, he was not able to get appellant’s car to leave an acceleration mark on the road but was able to get her car to leave a brake mark. Admission of Evidence In her first point of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a letter that she wrote to Michael Stout while he was serving time in jail about eight months before the incident because the letter was irrelevant and because its introduction by the State was “an obvious attempt to portray [a]ppellant as a bad, mean spirited person who uses rough and/or foul language.” Alternatively, appellant argues that, even if relevant, the letter was inadmissible as minimally probative and unfairly prejudicial to appellant. See Tex. R. Evid. 403. Krystle Brown testified that she wrote a letter to appellant in which Brown stated that she thought appellant had hit the complainant with her car accidentally. However, Brown further testified that she changed her opinion after she read appellant’s letter to Michael Stout. Thereafter, the State offered appellant’s letter into evidence, and the trial court admitted the letter over appellant’s objections that it was unfairly prejudicial. Throughout the letter, appellant described the intensity of her feelings for Stout and her concern about the possibility of his philandering. The letter, six pages in length, also discussed the complainant directly in the following paragraph: I hope you, forever keep it real with me. Why I say that because you said in your other letter, when you get out your going to shack Tiemeka [the complainant] off, well, what your doing is leading her on, by entertaining her, and writing her. I know you be lonely, but this gal (Shenae), will be there, through whatever. And to write her and stuff and when you get out, would be freud and hurt her. I’m not saying I care, because I don’t have no love for her, but I’m saying you would hurt me. And can I ask why would you tell her to call me on three-way, knowing she would no my phone number, I’m not tripping no more, I was just wondering. I cut for you too much. The standard of review for the admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). An abuse of discretion occurs where a trial court’s decision lies outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion, we consider whether the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably and without reference to guiding rules or principles. Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Relevant evidence is evidence that has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Tex. R. Evid. 401. Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible, and evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. Id. 402. “Evidence need not by itself prove or disprove a particular fact to be relevant; it is sufficient if the evidence provides a small nudge toward proving or disproving some fact of consequence.” Stewart v. State, 129 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Appellant argues that the letter is not relevant because “out of the six pages of the letter admitted, [a]ppellant only talks about the [c]omplainant on the bottom half of the first page” and that the “rest of the letter speaks to [a]ppellant’s relationship with Michael Stout and a[n] unrelated incident having nothing to do with the [c]omplainant.” However, appellant, throughout the letter, describes her love for Stout, her desire to have a child by him, and how hurt she was by the possibility of his philandering, i.e., “I cut for you too much.” Thus, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that appellant’s own words, as written in the letter, were probative as to whether appellant had a motive to kill or to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant. Evidence of motive is relevant and admissible to prove that a defendant committed the offense alleged. Crane v. State, 786 S.W.2d 338, 349-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Appellant’s statements in her letter to Michael Stout tended to make it more probable that she either intended to kill the complainant or to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant when appellant struck the complainant with her car because the statements provided evidence that she had a motive to kill or to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the letter into evidence on the grounds that it was irrelevant. Alternatively, appellant argues that the letter is unfairly prejudicial because (1) “the degree of relevance and strength of the extraneous evidence (first factor) weighs in favor of exclusion” because “the State failed to develop any additional testimony from the witnesses as to how or why” Brown’s opinion changed after reading the letter; (2) the letter would impress the jury “in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way” because “the letter was read to the jury purely to portray [a]ppellant as a bad person who uses foul language”; (3) the State “developed and/or used the evidence (third factor) every time the opportunity presented itself” and “exploited every opportunity to paint [a]ppellant as a bad person to distract the jury from the facts of their case”; and (4) the State did not need the letter because the “two girls in the car with [a]ppellant at the time of the incident testified and the jury was presented [with] expert testimony about the markings at the scene.” Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Tex. R. Evid. 403. However, Rule 403 favors the admissibility of evidence, and the presumption is that relevant evidence will be more probative than prejudicial. Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Trial courts should favor admission in close cases, in keeping with the presumption of admissibility of relevant evidence. Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841, 847 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The burden is on the opponent of the proffered evidence to demonstrate the negative attributes of the evidence and to show how these negative attributes substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. Goldberg v. State, 95 S.W.3d 345, 367 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). In determining whether the prejudice of admitting evidence outweighs its probative value, we consider the following: (1) how compellingly the evidence makes a fact of consequence more or less probable; (2) the potential the evidence has to impress the jury in an irrational, but indelible, way; (3) the time the proponent will need to develop the evidence, during which the jury will be distracted from consideration of the indicted offense; and (4) the proponent’s need for the evidence to prove a fact of consequence. Mozon, 991 S.W.2d at 847. Trial courts have wide latitude in conducting this balancing test, and we will not reverse a trial court whose ruling was “within the zone of reasonable disagreement.” Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’g). Here, the prejudice of the letter does not substantially outweigh its probative value. First, as noted above, the letter compellingly makes a fact of consequence more or less probable. Appellant’s intent to kill or to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant was a hotly contested issue at trial. The State offered the letter written by appellant to Michael Stout, her ex-boyfriend and the father of her unborn child, to show that appellant had a motive to kill the complainant, with whom appellant had fought earlier in the afternoon and whom appellant knew also had a relationship with Stout. Second, the letter had little potential to impress the jury in an irrational, but indelible, way. While the letter could have caused the jury to view appellant as a “bad person who uses rough and/or foul language,” the jury was allowed to hear unobjected-to testimony by Brown and Parker of appellant’s use of colloquial expressions, and the jury was informed that appellant had been five or six weeks pregnant with Stout’s child at the time of the incident. Furthermore, 13 witnesses testified over a seven-day period, and over 90 exhibits were admitted into evidence, including photographs of the complainant’s autopsy. The reporter’s record in this case consists of eight volumes, with each volume approximately 300 pages in length. Brown’s testimony concerning the letter and the publication of the letter consisted only of approximately 15 pages of the reporter’s record. Third, after reviewing the record, the amount of time to develop the evidence appeared to be minimal. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the jury was unduly distracted from the indicted offense of murder. Finally, appellant’s description of the intensity of her feelings for Stout and her concern about the possibility of his philandering expressed throughout the letter put the homicide in context. Appellant’s letter served to show that appellant and Stout had an erratic, yet long-standing, relationship and that appellant knew Stout also had a relationship with the complainant that appellant wanted him to end. This evidence created the inference that appellant, who was pregnant with Stout’s child at the time of the incident, had a motive and the intent to kill or to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant at the time of the incident. After reviewing the appropriate factors, we cannot conclude that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the letter into evidence on the grounds that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We overrule appellant’s first point of error. Sufficiency of the EvidenceIn her second and third points of error, appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support her conviction because the State failed to present satisfactory evidence that appellant “intended the result that occurred.” We review the legal sufficiency of the evidence by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if any rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In a legal sufficiency review, we may not substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder. Id. In our review of the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence neutrally, not in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we will set aside the verdict “only if the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or the contrary evidence is so strong that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been met.” Escamilla v. State, 143 S.W.3d 814, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Although our analysis considers all the evidence presented at trial, the trier of fact is the exclusive judge of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to their testimony. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Unless the available record clearly reveals that a different result is appropriate, an appellate court must defer to the jury’s determination concerning what weight to give contradictory testimonial evidence because this resolution often turns on an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, and the jurors were in attendance when the testimony was delivered. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 8. A person commits the offense of murder if she (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual or (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 19.02(b)(1), (2) (Vernon 2003). Proof of a defendant’s mental state must almost always depends upon circumstantial evidence. Ponce v. State, 127 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Intent is most often proved through circumstantial evidence surrounding the crime. Dillon v. State, 574 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Dominguez v. State, 125 S.W.3d 755, 761 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). A jury may infer intent from facts that tend to prove its existence, such as the defendant’s acts, words, and conduct. Dillon, 574 S.W.2d at 94; Dominguez, 125 S.W.3d at 761. Legal Sufficiency In regard to legal sufficiency, appellant concedes that both Brown and Parker testified that appellant increased her speed after turning the corner and then drove straight toward the area where the complainant was standing. However, appellant notes that (1) both Cannady and Hines testified that the complainant was standing in the road when she was struck by appellant’s car, (2) Brown testified that the distance between appellant’s car and the complainant after appellant turned the corner was 15 feet, and (3) neither Brown nor Parker testified that appellant accelerated after striking the complainant. Furthermore, appellant notes that, while the State had photographs of the “tire tracks and/or marks taken at the scene the day of the incident,” no one “measured, tested, or otherwise analyzed the physical evidence to circumstantially connect it as evidence of the requisite intent.” Appellant also notes that Officer Saenz, the State’s accident reconstructionist expert, testified that he “seriously doubt[ed]” that appellant’s car could leave an acceleration mark. Finally, appellant notes that “there was a legitimate question as to whether the marks at the scene even came from [a]ppellant’s car or were related to the incident” because “[t]he State’s expert testimony was too tenuous and the prosecutors failed to adequately validate the marks or explain their significance, as it related to the element of intent.” However, Brown, Parker, Hines, and appellant testified that, shortly before appellant struck the complainant with her car, at Vel Stout’s house, appellant physically fought with the complainant. Brown also testified that, immediately before the fight occurred, the complainant told appellant that she had “been wanting to whip that ho for a long time.” Hines testified that the complainant “blindsided” appellant at Vel Stout’s house. Brown testified that, minutes after the fight, while on the drive from Vel Stout’s house to the Seville Apartments, appellant stated that she “couldn’t believe how [Stout] let that whore beat his baby mama like that,” and Parker testified that appellant stated that she could not believe that Stout “let her hit on me while I’m pregnant.” Appellant admitted that, on the drive back to the Seville Apartments, she was “upset” at Stout and that she was “so hurt that [Stout] let someone touch her.” Moreover, both Brown and Parker testified that appellant slowed the car to turn the corner from Leonora street to Glenview street but accelerated after she turned the corner and that appellant drove straight toward where the complainant was standing. Both Brown and Parker testified that appellant was looking toward the complainant after appellant turned the corner. Also, Brown, Parker, and appellant testified that appellant was five or six weeks pregnant with Stout’s child at the time appellant struck the complainant with her car. Additionally, Brown, Parker, and appellant all testified that they knew that Stout and the complainant also had a relationship. Officers Kay and Lewis testified that, based on their own experiences and training, the road marks at the scene were acceleration marks. Officer Saenz, the State’s accident reconstruction expert, testified that there was no evidence that appellant had applied her brakes when her car struck the complainant. Saenz further testified that, if appellant had applied the brakes on her car, “it would have, if not prevented this, it would have reduced the amount of injury.” Estes testified that, when he examined the brakes on appellant’s car, they were functioning properly. Considering this evidence, a rational fact finder could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant either intentionally or knowingly caused the complainant’s death or intended to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the complainant’s death. Thus, we hold that the evidence was legally sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for the offense of murder. We overrule appellant’s second point of error. Factual Sufficiency Appellant asserts that the evidence that she discussed in her legal sufficiency point of error, along with the evidence that she presented in her case-in-chief, supports a finding that the evidence is factually insufficient to support her conviction. Appellant notes that both Brown and Parker testified that their attention was focused on the complainant when appellant turned the corner, and they also testified that, after turning the corner, appellant “accelerated a little, but [a]ppellant said nothing and did nothing else before the car struck the [c]omplainant. ” Appellant also notes that she testified that, (1) after turning the corner, she first saw Hines’s car and was turning to park when she saw the complainant in the street; (2) appellant tried to swerve, but the right-hand side of her car struck the complainant; and (3) her car then hit the curb and stopped. Appellant notes that both Cannady and Hines “substantiated her account.” Both Cannady and Hines testified that appellant was attempting to park the car, but when she saw the complainant, she tried to turn left back into the street, but the passenger side of her car struck the complainant. Furthermore, appellant asserts that “[t]here is simply not enough evidence to establish the necessary connection between the conduct (striking with the car) and the result (the death of the [c]omplainant).” Appellant further notes that, even if the road marks shown in the photographs came from appellant’s car, King “clearly testified, under the circumstances, that the marks found at the scene had to be skid marks.” Officer Saenz testified that he “seriously doubt[ed]” that appellant’s car could leave acceleration marks. However, Brown, Parker, Hines, and appellant testified that appellant fought with the complainant shortly before appellant’s car struck the complainant. Brown and Parker both testified that appellant slowed the car to enter the turn, but then accelerated after turning the corner and drove straight toward the complainant. Both Parker and Brown testified that appellant was looking at the complainant after appellant turned the corner. Brown testified that, minutes after the fight, appellant stated that she “couldn’t believe how he let that whore beat his baby mama like that,” Parker testified that appellant stated that she could not believe that Michael Stout “let her hit on me while I’m pregnant,” and appellant testified that she was “upset” at Stout and that she was “so hurt that [Stout] let someone touch her.” Officers Lewis and Kay both testified that the road mark was an acceleration mark. Officer Saenz testified that there was no evidence that appellant applied her brakes before her car struck the complainant and that if appellant had applied her brakes, the damage to the complainant could have been reduced. As the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given their testimony, the jury was free to believe or disbelieve all or any part of the State’s witnesses’ or appellant’s witnesses’ testimony. McKinny v. State, 76 S.W.3d 463, 468-69 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Where conflicting testimony is given, as in this case, it is the exclusive province of the jury to reconcile conflicts in the evidence. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Viewing all of this evidence neutrally, we conclude that the evidence was not so weak that the verdict was clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and that the contrary evidence was not so strong that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been met. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that appellant either intentionally or knowingly caused the complainant’s death or intended to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the complainant’s death. We overrule appellant’s third point of error. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Terry Jennings Justice Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland. Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).