Upon a plea of not guilty, appellant Gabriel Urban Esquivel was convicted by a jury of capital murder and punishment was assessed at life imprisonment. He challenges his conviction by three points of error. By points one and two, he contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish that he intentionally and knowingly caused the death of the victim while in the commission of the felony offense of robbery. By his third point, he asserts the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State’s Exhibits 154, 143, 168, 161, 149, 85, 84, 77, 152, 144, 166, and 165 contending they were more prejudicial than probative. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, we affirm.
Early in the morning of July 1, 1997, operators of a Burlington/Santa Fe Railroad train unavoidably ran over the motionless body of a 19-year old female and she was decapitated as a result. Investigating police observed evidence of assaultive abrasions and scrapes on the victim’s body. Police investigation revealed that during the late evening hours of June 30, 1997, and the early morning hours of July 1, 1997, appellant, along with other young males, were out “kicking it” and drinking beer. When the group ran out of beer, Adrian Esquivel, appellant’s older brother, and a juvenile member of the group took a car without consent from the father of the juvenile to make a “beer run.” After stealing some beer, the group stole some ice from a local hotel to put on the beer in the trunk of the car and then went to the victim’s house. The group left the house shortly thereafter and, with Adrian driving, made a turn too fast and hit a curb, causing two flat tires. After the group exited the car, they hid the beer, and appellant and Fidencio Flores *fn1 left. At approximately 2:06 a.m. police officers responding to a disturbance call noticed the group’s car parked behind a house in an alley. After conducting field interviews, the juveniles were escorted to their homes for curfew violations. Adrian remained at the scene and changed the flat tires. He was allowed to leave at approximately 3:00 a.m. and the owner of the car was contacted to pick up the car.
According to appellant’s statement to the police, he and Fidencio walked to the victim’s *fn2 house after the car was disabled to ask for a ride and return to the scene to pick up Adrian. The victim borrowed her stepfather’s car and the three went to check on Adrian. While the victim was driving, she, appellant, and Fidencio stopped at a point where they could see the police and what was taking place. They didn’t notice anyone except for police officers around the car and decided to drive back to the victim’s house. Shortly thereafter, appellant, at Fidencio’s insistence, asked the victim to drive them back to the scene of the disabled car to look for Adrian. The victim was driving and appellant was in the front seat and Fidencio was in the back seat. Upon arriving at the scene, appellant exited the car to relieve himself nearby and then stood outside the car to observe the police. According to appellant’s written statement, when he got back in the car Fidencio was in the driver’s seat and the victim was lying on the back seat beaten and bloody. However, according to appellant’s oral statement that was transcribed and played for the jury, upon returning to the car, he saw Fidencio wrap a rag around the victim’s neck and pull her into the back seat where he proceeded to punch and beat her while shouting driving directions to appellant. Appellant drove east toward railroad tracks and parked in some tall weeds. The victim was carried over a barbed wire fence, where her clothes got caught and ripped. She was placed on the railroad tracks lying face down with her head and one of her arms across one rail.
