Nga Lone Aung v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00096-CR
NGA LONE AUNG, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 072,330-E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding
March 5, 2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Nga Lone Aung appeals his conviction for capital murder. The jury found that he
intentionally shot and killed a husband and wife in their yard and home during the same
criminal episode. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress
evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional right prohibiting unlawful searches and
seizures. The evidence in question was obtained while law enforcement officials
searched 1) his bedroom after being given access to the apartment by his roommate and
2) his car. We affirm.
For purposes of this appeal, we assume, arguendo, that appellant is correct and
focus only on harm. When error implicates evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, we must reverse unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that it did
not contribute to appellant’s conviction or punishment. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a); Gibson v.
State, 253 S.W.3d 709, 716–17 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, pet. ref’d). This test obligates
us to ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed
to the conviction. Id. at 717. And, our answer is influenced by indicia such as the
importance of the improperly admitted evidence to the State’s case, whether it was
cumulative of other evidence, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or
contradicting the erroneously admitted evidence on material points, and the overall
strength of the State’s case. Biera v. State, 391 S.W.3d 204, 211–12 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2012, pet. ref’d).
The record reveals that searching appellant’s bedroom and car resulted in the
discovery of miscellaneous evidence such as a gun case in the bedroom, cigarettes that
were consistent with the cigarette butt located at the shooting scene, a bullet hole in the
dashboard of the car, and a bullet in the car. Yet, it was of little import given other
evidence admitted at trial. For instance, appellant’s DNA was discovered on the cigarette
butt located at the scene. Furthermore, shell casings, footprints, and tire tracks at the
scene compared favorably to the gun appellant owned, shoes appellant wore, and the
tires on appellant’s car, respectively. But, most importantly, appellant told the jury during
the guilt/innocence phrase of the trial not only that he shot the husband and wife but also
how he did it and why.
2
Simply put, the only real issue raised at trial was whether appellant shot his victims
with the requisite mens rea. The evidence garnered as a result of the searches in
question had little relationship to that topic. So, the evidence about which appellant does
not complain coupled with his own trial testimony prevents us from finding a reasonable
probability that the searches of his car and bedroom contributed to appellant’s conviction.
We overrule the point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3