Arlin Walbert Barrientos v. State, 539 S.W.3d 482

On Jan. 4–5, 2014 a well‑attended house party on Nyoka Street in Houston was shot into from the adjacent parking lot; Wayland ("Wayland") Clark was killed and others wounded.
Surveillance video showed a car (a 2006 Nissan Maxima owned by Barrientos) arrive, circle back, park behind vehicles with lights off, wait ~8 minutes, then pull out quickly after gunfire; only one spent casing was recovered in the lot and ballistics linked a .40 S&W recovered from Barrientos’s house to the casings and a bullet from Clark.
Barrientos admitted driving Larios back to the party, rolling down his window at Larios’s request, and fleeing immediately after the shooting; he later washed his car and kept the gun and casings at his house.
Investigators developed a gang nexus: Barrientos and shooter Randy Larios were documented members of SB13; Clark and others at the party were affiliated with the rival 52 Hoover Crips. The State argued motive was gang retaliation.
Jury convicted Barrientos of first‑degree murder under the law of parties and assessed 50 years’ imprisonment; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence as a party and erroneous admission of gang‑affiliation evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Barrientos's Argument	Held
Sufficiency under law of parties	Evidence showed Barrientos acted with Larios in a common plan: he drove, parked with lights off, waited, complied by rolling down the window, fled, washed car, and possessed the murder weapon—supporting intent to promote/assist.	No proof Barrientos knew Larios was armed or intended to shoot; driving and post‑offense conduct alone are insufficient; any assistance occurred after the shooting.	Affirmed: cumulative circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to find Barrientos guilty as a party.
Admission of gang‑affiliation evidence during guilt phase	Gang affiliation was relevant to motive and explained conduct; probative value outweighed prejudice.	Gang evidence was unfairly prejudicial and unrelated to the charged offense; State failed to show the shooting was for the gang’s benefit.	Affirmed: gang evidence relevant to motive and not substantially more prejudicial than probative; admission not an abuse of discretion.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (post‑offense conduct and presence alone insufficient under law of parties when no evidence defendant anticipated or assisted shooting)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may be as probative as direct evidence)