Aspen Warren v. State, 02-17-00221-CR

Appellant Aspen Warren was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment for shooting and killing Brittany Daniel on Interstate 30 on January 27, 2016.
Eyewitness testimony (Bri’Anna Walker) placed Warren in the front passenger area of a vehicle, rolling down the window and firing two shots; other witnesses described the road‑rage encounter and immediate collapse of the victim.
Forensic evidence recovered a bullet from the victim whose characteristics were consistent with a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson; the owner of such a gun reported it missing before the shooting.
Warren gave a videotaped police interview in which he ultimately admitted he fired at the victim to scare her for road‑raging him; he also made recorded jail calls in which he discussed selling the gun and disposing of shell casings.
On appeal the State responds to three principal challenges: sufficiency of the evidence; admissibility under Texas Rule of Evidence 403 of a recorded jail telephone call with Warren’s mother; and admissibility under Rule 403 of Warren’s videotaped police interview.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Warren)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support murder conviction	Evidence (eyewitness ID, confession in interview, bullet linkage, path of bullet, scene testimony) permits a reasonable juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence insufficient; challenges to witness credibility and inferences about bullet trajectory	Court affirms: evidence sufficient; jury reasonably credited eyewitness and confession
Admissibility of jail telephone call (Rule 403)	Call contained tacit admissions (possession/disposition of gun, casings) with probative value on identity; limited duration and not unduly prejudicial	Call was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded under Rule 403; preservation arguments about predicate	Court affirms admission: trial court did not abuse discretion;, alternatively, any error not reversible under Rule 44.2(b)
Admissibility of videotaped police interview (Rule 403)	Interview contained appellant’s explicit admission he fired to scare the victim; high probative value on identity, intent, motive; not unduly prejudicial despite length	Interview was prejudicial and should have been excluded under Rule 403; preservation/predicate challenges	Court affirms admission: trial court did not abuse discretion; any error harmless given strength of other evidence

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (due‑process standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury credibility and reasonable inferences)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (identity as elemental fact; relevance of tacit admissions)
Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (definition and balancing of probative value vs. unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Rule 403 favors admission and presumes relevance outweighs prejudice)