Winfrey, Megan AKA Megan Winfrey Hammond, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 431

Murray Burr was murdered in August 2004; appellant, then 16, was charged in 2007 with capital murder during robbery and conspiracy to commit capital murder, along with her father and brother.
Evidence tied to the crime included DNA/hair analyses and a dog-scent lineup; no physical evidence connected appellant to the scene.
Dog-scent lineup evidence initially linked appellant’s scent to Burr’s clothing, but court later treated it as ancillary in sufficiency review.
Appellant testified and presented other witness testimony; the trial and appellate courts analyzed whether the canines’ evidence could sustain guilt.
On discretionary review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the dog-scent lineup evidence is merely supportive and that the record insufficiently proves both capital murder and conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court of Criminal Appeals rendered acquittals on both counts (capital murder and conspiracy) and reversed the court of appeals’ judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the capital-murder conviction legally sufficient based on all the evidence, including dog-scent lineup evidence?	Winfrey contends the dog-scent evidence is inadequate; the remaining circumstantial evidence insufficient.	State contends corroborating evidence exists; dog-scent lineup supports but is not sole basis for conviction.	No; evidence improperly supports conviction; sufficient corroboration lacking; acquittal warranted.
Does the record support conspiracy conviction when co-conspirators were acquitted or not charged?	Winfrey argues §15.02(c)(2) requires defense when co-conspirators are acquitted.	State argues statute allows conviction without all conspirators convicted.	No; record insufficient to prove agreement and overt acts; acquittal rendered conspiracy conviction improper.

Richard Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (dog-scent lineups are merely supportive evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson v. Virginia standards; defer to jury credibility)
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (sufficiency review considers all evidence, admissible or not)
Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (courts may consider all trial-record evidence for sufficiency)
Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (sufficiency review includes inadmissible evidence in some contexts)
Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (accomplice-witness rule; not controlling for canine evidence)