In December 2014, a jury convicted Williams of capital murder.[1] Pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues set forth in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced Williams to death.[2] Direct appeal to this Court is automatic.[3] After reviewing Williams’s forty points of error, we find them to be without merit. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and sentence of death.In his twenty-second and fortieth points of error, Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and the jury’s affirmative answer to the future dangerousness special issue. We will address these claims first. The remaining points of error will be addressed in the order presented in Williams’s appellate brief.SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE: GUILT/INNOCENCEIn point of error twenty-two, Williams argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for capital murder. Williams asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient because there was no proof of a burglary, in that there was no evidence of a forced entry or an entry by deception into the McLellands’ home. Additionally, he argues that none of the State’s witnesses at the guilt phase placed him at the scene of the murder or heard him threaten to kill the McLellands. Williams further asserts that he was linked to the McLelland murders by no direct evidence and by very little circumstantial evidence. He argues that the State did not prove either of its capital murder theories—murder in the course of committing burglary or multiple murders—beyond a reasonable doubt. He reasons that there was no proof that he shot and killed anyone because the “forensics and physical evidence” did not point to a specific person. Rather, Williams asserts, the State’s evidence pointed to a storage unit to which he did not have exclusive access.Williams also asserts that the State’s forensic computer data did not prove that he sent any of the messages attributed to him by the State. In addition, he notes that there was no evidence of calls, texts, or e-mail sent from the cellular telephones that were seized from him during the investigation. He also points out that there was no tracking data from those phones that connected them to the offense.AnalysisIn assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a capital murder conviction, we consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.[4] “The reviewing court must give deference to ‘the responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’”[5] Each fact need not point directly and independently to the appellant’s guilt, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.[6]The State may prove a defendant’s identity and criminal culpability by either direct or circumstantial evidence, coupled with all reasonable inferences from that evidence.[7] A lack of direct evidence is not necessarily dispositive of the issue of guilt.[8] This is especially so when the defendant takes steps to eliminate witnesses and conceal other forms of evidence.[9] Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient.[10] On appeal, we use the same standard of review for both circumstantial and direct evidence cases.[11]The law provides that a person commits murder when he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.[12] It is both a common-sense inference and an appellate presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts, and that the act of pointing a loaded gun at someone and shooting it toward that person at close rangedemonstrates an intent to kill.[13]In this case, the trial judge instructed jurors that, if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that, on or about March 30, 2013, Williams “did then and there intentionally cause the death of an individual, Cynthia McLelland, by shooting her with a firearm, in the course of attempting to commit or committing burglary of a habitation of Cynthia McLelland,” or if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams “did then and there murder more than one person during the same criminal transaction, to wit: intentionally or knowingly cause the death of an individual, Michael McLelland, by shooting him with a firearm,” and “intentionally or knowingly cause the death of another individual, Cynthia McLelland, by shooting her with a firearm,” then the jury would find Williams guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment. The jury found Williams guilty of capital murder “as charged in the indictment.”The trial judge’s charge authorized the jury to convict on alternative theories. We will uphold the verdict of guilt if the evidence was sufficient on either theory.[14] Contrary to Williams’s position, we need not consider whether the State proved the underlying felony of burglary because the State presented ample evidence proving that Williams intentionally or knowingly murdered more than one person during the same criminal transaction.Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed that the McLellands went to bed in their home on Friday night. On Saturday morning, they were awakened by their murderer. The perpetrator was in their home for less than two minutes. The severity and number of the McLellands’ injuries left no room for doubt concerning the perpetrator’s intent to kill the couple.[15] Using high-velocity ammunition, the perpetrator shot Cynthia between five and eight times, including several shots to her chest and abdomen. After Cynthia had fallen to the floor, the perpetrator fired a shot that entered the top of her head and exited under her chin. Additionally, the perpetrator shot Michael at least ten times, including several shots to his neck, chest, and abdomen. Some of these shots were fired after Michael was lying on the floor. The State’s evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the perpetrator intentionally or knowingly caused the deaths of two people during the same transaction.[16]The State’s evidence proved that Williams had a motive and the opportunity to kill Michael McLelland. “Although motive and opportunity are not elements of murder and are not sufficient to prove identity, they are circumstances indicative of guilt.”[17] The jury learned that Williams had been part of the legal community of Kaufman County since the early 1990s, when he began working as a coordinator for the 86th District Court. He had also worked or volunteered in law enforcement. In 1999 or 2000, Williams obtained a law degree and began practicing law in Kaufman. He became active in the Texas State Guard in 2008. He was elected as a Justice of the Peace and took office in January 2011.The jury further learned that, in June 2011, Williams was arrested for a felony offense. Kaufman County’s elected District Attorney, Michael McLelland, represented the State in that matter. Following a March 2012 jury trial resulting in conviction, Williams was suspended from the practice of law, discharged from the Texas State Guard, and removed from elected office. As a result of that felony conviction, Williams lost his elected office, his law practice, and his Texas State Guard post. Less than four months before the murders, Williams confided to an acquaintance that he was having money problems and that he was “at the end of his rope.” Williams also expressed the view that the prosecution against him had been unfair.Before his felony conviction, Williams was known to his friends and acquaintances as a firearms “buff” who owned a number of firearms. After his felony conviction, he falsely informed an acquaintance and law enforcement officials that he had gotten rid of his firearms. Williams also asked an acquaintance to help him get rid of an assault rifle “upper receiver,” stating that he wanted to “make sure [the upper receiver] never sees the light of day.” Using an assumed name, Williams paid cash for a retired police car, a white Crown Victoria. After he bought the Crown Victoria, Williams continued using his Sport Trac as his personal vehicle. Williams’s conduct before the murders indicated that he was planning something that he wanted to keep secret.[18]Less than three months before the offense, Williams lied to his friend Sergeant Major Barton “Rodger” Williams to persuade him to rent a storage unit—”Unit 18″—that was about the size of a one-car garage. Williams’s home in Kaufman was approximately twenty miles south of the McLellands’ home in Forney. The storage unit in Seagoville was roughly fifteen miles northwest of Kaufman and approximately fifteen miles southwest of the McLellands’ home.The storage facility opened at 6:00 a.m. daily. So on Saturday, March 30, Williams had the opportunity to drive to the storage unit, exchange his black Sports Trac for the Crown Victoria, and retrieve a weapon and ammunition around 6:00 a.m.; drive to the McLellands’ home and murder them around 6:40 a.m.; return to the storage unit, exchange the Crown Victoria for his Sports Trac, and leave the car, weapon, and ammunition in the storage unit; and then return to his home in Kaufman. Security video confirmed that, at the relevant times, a black Sports Trac and a light-colored Crown Victoria entered and exited the storage facility. The security camera captured no other vehicles entering or leaving the storage facility during those times. Approximately two weeks after the instant offense, the Crown Victoria, multiple firearms, ammunition, and a ballistics vest and sheriff’s patch were recovered from the storage unit.Evidence showed that Williams lied to police about the number of weapons and cell phones he owned and whether he had conducted online searches for information about McLelland. The GSR testing results were inconsistent with William’s statements that he had not fired a gun in months. And evidence found in Williams’s home linked him to the tips provided to Crime Stoppers regarding the criminal conduct.The State presented evidence that messages had been sent from Williams’s computer and user profile using The Onion Router (“TOR”) network and that Crime Stoppers had received threatening messages from the TOR network. Crime Stoppers had received a threatening message from the TOR network several minutes after a message was sent from Williams’s computer using the TOR browser, which was consistent with the message to Crime Stoppers having come from Williams’s computer. The State also presented evidence that someone in Williams’s home had written down unique identifying alphanumeric sequences that were generated by TipSubmit and associated with those threatening messages. The jury could infer from this evidence that Williams had sent the threatening messages to Crime Stoppers and that he had used the TOR network in an attempt to prevent law enforcement officials from tracing the messages back to him.Additionally, evidence found in the storage unit linked Williams to the murder weapon. Williams’s fingerprints were found on the Crown Victoria and on one of the weapons recovered from Unit 18. Although the assault-rifle upper receiver that fired the bullets that killed the McLellands was never recovered, ballistics examination revealed that the bullets that killed the McLellands were fired from the same upper receiver that had chambered a live round recovered from a bag in Unit 18. Some fired bullets recovered from underneath a bridge between Kaufman and Seagoville were also found to have been fired from that upper receiver. This evidence suggested that the same person who killed the McLellands had accessed Unit 18 and had used the area under the bridge to practice shooting the murder weapon.Williams also argues on appeal that the State did not prove that he was the perpetrator because Williams’s wife Kim and his friend Rodger had access to Unit 18. However, “[f]or the evidence to be sufficient, the State need not disprove all reasonable alternative hypotheses that are inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt.”[19] We will not usurp the role of the factfinder by factoring into our sufficiency analysis an alternative hypothesis inconsistent with Williams’s guilt.[20]Williams complains that the State did not prove that he sent the electronic messages to Crime Stoppers. He also complains that the State offered no cell phone tracking data or cell phone communications linking him to the offense. Again, however, the State was not required to disprove every alternative hypothesis inconsistent with Williams’s guilt. In this light, the lack of cell phone tracking data or cell phone communications linking Williams to the offense is not ultimately fatal. The State’s evidence demonstrated that Williams took measures to avoid leaving evidence that could link him to the offense. The fact that he was partially successful does not mean that the State’s evidence was insufficient.[21] Ultimately, any lack of direct evidence in the State’s case is attributable to Williams’s calculated decision to execute the only witness who could have provided direct evidence of guilt. And the jury could reasonably infer from the ample circumstantial evidence that Williams was guilty of capital murder. Point of error twenty-two is overruled.SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE: PUNISHMENTIn point of error forty, Williams asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s affirmative answer to the future dangerousness special issue. Williams asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to show his future dangerousness because he had no prior violent offense convictions and defense witnesses testified that he “essentially was a low risk of future dangerousness while incarcerated.” Williams urges that, before these “isolated and factually connected incidents,” he lived “a good, normal, law-abiding life of practicing law, taking court appointments, and helping people in the Court system.” He also asserts that he diligently discharged his duties as a justice of the peace.Williams also notes that, while he was in custody in Kaufman and Rockwall Counties, he was “compliant with institutional authorities.” He asserts that he had no disciplinary infractions or negative interactions with law enforcement officials. Williams points out that both the State and the defense presented evidence that the instant offenses were motivated by a desire for revenge against “a few politicians who ruined his life,” and not by any broader impulse toward violence against society in general. Appellant argues that the circumstances that motivated him to commit these offenses would not exist in prison, and therefore he would not be a future danger if sentenced to life in prison.AnalysisWhen reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s future dangerousness determination, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that an appellant would commit criminal acts of violence constituting a continuing threat to society.[22] The future dangerousness special issue focuses upon the internal restraints of the individual, not merely the external restraints of incarceration.[23] Further, we do not weigh the evidence of future dangerousness against countervailing evidence.[24]In determining the special issues, the jury is entitled to consider all of the evidence presented at both the guilt and punishment stages of trial.[25] The jury may consider a variety of factors when determining whether a defendant will pose a continuing threat to society.[26]The circumstances of an offense alone, if severe enough, can be sufficient to sustain an affirmative finding as to a defendant’s future dangerousness.[27] “[T]his Court has repeatedly said that, if the circumstances of the case are sufficiently cold-blooded or calculated, then those facts alone may support a finding of future dangerousness.”[28]The State presented evidence at punishment that Williams had committed another murder before he killed the McLellands. Specifically, on the morning of January 31, 2013, Williams murdered Mark Hasse, the assistant district attorney who helped McLelland prosecute Williams’s 2012 theft and burglary case. In preparation for the offense, Williams researched Hasse’s home address and surveilled Hasse’s neighborhood. He purchased a Mercury Sable that he found in an online advertisement and used it to travel to and from the scene of the murder.Wearing a tactical vest, a black mask, and army boots, and carrying two handguns, Williams confronted Hasse on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse as Hasse was walking to his office. After a brief encounter during which Williams shoved Hasse and Hasse cried, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” Williams shot Hasse four or five times with one handgun. He fired several of these shots after Hasse was lying on the sidewalk. After emptying that gun, Williams pulled out a second handgun and continued firing at Hasse. He also fired shots into the air as he walked away from Hasse. He then climbed into the Sable and drove away.The evidence that Williams planned and executed the murders of three people in two separate incidents supports the jury’s finding of future dangerousness. Williams prepared and executed detailed plans to shoot and kill both of the prosecutors who had successfully convicted him. His wife, Kim, testified that Williams grew “angrier and angrier” after those convictions. He formulated detailed plans for murdering the people he believed had wronged him. He primarily blamed Hasse for his convictions, and he murdered Hasse first. He ambushed Hasse outside the courthouse, shooting him multiple times, and then he fired shots into the air to scare bystanders and effectuate his escape. After Williams killed Hasse, he was happy and ready to kill his next victim.While telling Kim about his plans to kill McLelland, he stated that Cynthia McLelland would also have to die because she would be a witness. He described her murder as “collateral damage.” Immediately after killing the McLellands, Williams was happy. Later that day, his mood was “joyous” as he grilled steaks at his in-laws’ house. That evening, he disposed of the weapons he had used to kill Hasse. Far from showing any signs of remorse, Williams felt happy before and after he committed these murders. As the murder investigations proceeded, Williams enjoyed the media attention. He mocked the murder investigations, talked about killing the investigators, and submitted false Crime Stopper “tips.”Not satisfied with the three murders he had already committed, Williams proceeded with plans to kill additional victims. He planned a particularly gruesome death for his third anticipated victim, Judge Ashworth, whom he had contemplated murdering since 2007. He “scoped out” Judge Ashworth’s house and farm, and he assembled the supplies he intended to use. He wanted to make Judge Ashworth’s murder particularly gruesome in retaliation for Judge Ashworth’s having shared negative information about him with the District Attorney’s office in 2012. Williams also intended to kill Judge Wiley, who had declined to approve his excessive bills in 2008, because he felt she had “screwed him over for money.”The record does not support Williams’s description of his offenses as “isolated and factually connected incidents” motivated by his desire for revenge against “a few politicians who ruined his life.” Williams fully anticipated murdering Cynthia as “collateral damage” because she would be a witness to her husband’s murder. He told Kim about going back to shoot Cynthia again after he killed Michael because she was “still moaning.” Williams’s words and actions demonstrated a general disregard for human life.[29]Although Williams did not formulate specific plans to kill Judge Ashworth until after Williams’s 2012 conviction, Williams had talked to Kim as early as 2007 about killing him because he was “prissy” and “got mad all the time” at “their lunch buddies.” Moreover, Williams’s motive for killing his fourth anticipated victim, Judge Wiley—his feeling that Wiley had “screwed him over for money” in 2008—had nothing to do with Williams’s 2012 convictions or with his desire for revenge against the “few politicians” whom he blamed for “ruin[ing] his life.”In addition to the three murders Williams had committed and the two murders that he was planning at the time of his arrest, Williams had a general history of making threats when he became angry or wanted to control others. He threatened to kill other attorneys over perceived insults and injuries. He also threatened to kill his wife Kim. He fired a gun at or near Kim, and she believed that he had done so intentionally. Williams had threatened a former girlfriend with a gun in an effort to keep her from walking away from him, and he had pointed a gun at a couple in a church parking lot where he was trying to catch his dog. Williams had also threatened to hit his elderly and ill father-in-law during a dispute over cell phone charges.Viewing the future dangerousness evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a probability that Williams would commit criminal acts of violence constituting a continuing threat to society. Point of error forty is overruled.JURY VOIR DIREIn points of error one through thirteen, Williams contends that the trial judge erred in denying his challenges for cause against thirteen venire members. He identifies James Freeman, Daniel Chapman, Jerry Wasler, Bryan Campbell, Kelly Shivers, Brooke Padachy, Nicole Vanwey, Larry Hollifield, Scott Hooper, Sally Williams, David Phillips, Jerry Bolton, and Lesli Mutschler.When a trial judge denies a defendant’s valid challenge for cause, forcing him to use a peremptory strike on a venire member who should have been removed, the defendant is harmed if he would have used that peremptory strike on another objectionable juror.[30]Article 35.15(a) provides that, in capital cases in which the State seeks the death penalty, the defendant is entitled to fifteen peremptory strikes.[31] In this case, Williams exhausted his fifteen peremptory strikes and received two additional strikes. After he exhausted those strikes, Williams requested and was denied an additional peremptory strike to use against Mutschler. He identified Mutschler as an objectionable juror who would not have sat on the jury, but for the denial of an additional strike.[32] Because appellant received two additional peremptory strikes, he was harmed only if the record reflects that the trial judge erroneously denied his challenges for cause to at least three venire members, so that he was forced to use peremptory strikes against them.[33]Contrary to Williams’s representations on appeal, however, the record shows that Williams failed to challenge Mutschler for cause. Further, our review of the voir dire record concerning the other complained-of venire members reveals that Williams also failed to challenge Bolton for cause. Accordingly, the trial judge denied Williams’s challenges for cause to eleven of the complained-of venire members, not thirteen. In our consideration of Williams’s challenges for cause, we need not further discuss the voir dire records of Mutschler and Bolton.The standard of review on appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he overruled a challenge for cause.[34] Before a prospective juror may be excused for cause on the basis of bias or prejudice, the law must be explained to him and he must be asked whether he can follow that law regardless of his personal views.[35] The proponent of the challenge—in this case, Williams—has the burden to show that the offending venireperson understands the law and cannot overcome his prejudice well enough to follow it.[36] In making this determination, we evaluate the voir dire examination of the prospective juror as a whole and determine whether the record shows that the prospective juror’s views would interfere with his ability to serve as a juror and to abide by the oath.[37] We afford great deference to the court’s decision because the trial judge is present to observe the demeanor of prospective jurors and to listen to tones of voice.[38] Particular deference is due when the prospective juror’s answers are vacillating, unclear, or contradictory.[39]FreemanOn appeal, Williams asserts that Freeman: (1) would not consider any mitigating evidence, as revealed by his written questionnaire, although he changed his response during individual voir dire; (2) was more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer than the testimony of other witnesses; (3) believed any capital murderer would be a continuing threat to society; (4) shifted the burden to the defendant to prove that he would not be a future danger; and (5) was unqualified because he knew several police officers who had been killed.At trial, Williams challenged Freeman for cause solely on the ground that Freeman would automatically answer the future dangerousness issue affirmatively if he found a defendant guilty of capital murder, notwithstanding his voir dire responses to the effect that he would “wait to see whether the evidence proved that he would not be a future danger, which simply shifts the burden of proof from the State to the defense.” The trial judge denied the challenge. To the extent that Williams’s complaints on appeal do not comport with the grounds he raised at trial, he failed to preserve error.[40] We will only address Williams’s arguments that Freeman believed any capital murderer would be a continuing threat to society, and that he shifted the burden to the defendant to prove that he would not be a future danger.Article 37.071, section 2(c), requires the State to prove the future dangerousness special issue beyond a reasonable doubt.[41] Therefore, any venire member who would automatically answer this special issue in the affirmative, or who would place the burden of proof on the defense, is challengeable for cause under Article 35.16(c)(2) as having a bias or prejudice against a law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely.[42]During voir dire, Freeman indicated several times that he would not automatically impose the death penalty after finding a defendant guilty of capital murder. Rather, he would make the punishment decision based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Freeman also stated that he understood that not every defendant found guilty of capital murder was a future danger. However, some of his responses suggested that he believed that anyone who was guilty of an intentional murder committed without legal justification would be a future danger. When the trial judge questioned him, Freeman clarified that he would not always answer the future dangerousness question affirmatively after finding a defendant guilty of capital murder. Instead, “[he] would have to hear all the evidence to make that final determination.” He would look to the facts of the case to determine whether the defendant would probably be violent to someone else in the future, or whether the defendant would probably never “do it again.”Freeman also vacillated in his responses concerning the burden of proof on the future dangerousness special issue. He indicated several times that he understood that the State had to prove the future dangerousness special issue beyond a reasonable doubt and that he would hold the State to that burden. However, he also stated that he believed that a person who intentionally killed another person, with no legal excuse or justification, would be a future danger. Freeman averred that, if the State could prove that the defendant would “be of violence to somebody else at some time else,” then “I would go one way,” but if it was proven that the defendant “probably would never do it again, then I think those would be deciding factors of whether or not he gets the death penalty or whether or not he gets life imprisonment.”Freeman’s responses concerning the future dangerousness special issue were vacillating and contradictory. When a venire member’s answers are vacillating, unclear, or contradictory, we accord particular deference to the trial judge’s decision. We conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Williams’s challenge for cause to Freeman.ChapmanWilliams asserts that he challenged Chapman for cause because Chapman had formed an opinion about Williams’s guilt, contrary to Article 35.16(a)(10), and he was biased against Williams. Williams also adds that Chapman’s written questionnaire answers showed that he would automatically assess the death penalty after finding a defendant guilty of capital murder.At trial, Williams challenged Chapman for cause solely on the ground that he had formed an opinion of Williams’s guilt based on his detailed knowledge of the facts disseminated by the news media. Williams argued that, even though Chapman stated that he could be a fair and impartial juror, his answers during voir dire indicated that he already believed that some of the facts about the case that he had learned from the news were true. To the extent that Williams’s complaints on appeal do not comport with this ground raised at trial, we will not consider them.For an accused to receive a fair trial consistent with due process of law, the jury must determine his guilt or innocence solely on the basis of the evidence admitted at trial and not on the basis of facts or allegations appearing in the media.[43] Article 35.16(a)(10) provides that a prospective juror must be discharged if, from exposure to pre-trial publicity such as newspaper articles or other media, he forms a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant that would influence his verdict.[44] However, if a prospective juror testifies that he can set aside any outside influences and render a fair and impartial verdict based upon the evidence presented, the trial judge acts within his discretion by denying a challenge for cause.[45]Initially, when the prosecutor asked Chapman if he had any preconceived ideas of the evidence in this case, Chapman responded that he did not and that he did not “pay a lot of attention to the local media.” He added that he had heard some discussion of jury selection while listening to the car radio over the “last couple of days,” but he had turned off the radio when he realized the discussion concerned this case. He stated that he had not heard anything that caused him to make up his mind about this case. Chapman asserted several times that he would afford the defendant the presumption of innocence.In response to a series of leading questions by defense counsel, each of which began, “Do you believe that . . . ,” Chapman affirmed that he believed that the McLellands had died from gunshot wounds in their home in Kaufman County as the result of an intentional killing. He believed that, at the time of the killing, Michael McLelland was the District Attorney of Kaufman County and Cynthia was his wife. Chapman stated that he did not know whether the killing was planned in advance and that “that’s yet to be determined,” although “on the surface, I may have that opinion.” He stated that he did not know if Michael McLelland had prosecuted Williams in the past.When asked if he believed that Williams was responsible for the McLellands’ deaths, Chapman responded that he knew that Williams was accused of that. He assumed that Williams would not have been accused if there were not some evidence against him. He stated that he did not know if law enforcement officers had found the weapon used in the killings. When asked if he believed that Williams had rented a storage unit “in the name of another,” he acknowledged seeing video footage of a storage unit with a white automobile in it. He recalled that the footage had something to do with a suspect in this case, but he had not heard additional details or formed an opinion about it. In response to additional questions, Chapman stated that he did not know if Williams had rented a storage unit in another person’s name or used a Mercury Sable to get to and from a murder scene. He believed that Williams was married but he did not recall the spouse’s name. He did not know if she had taken part in the killings, although he believed that she had been arrested in connection with the McLellands’ deaths. He did not know if she had been charged with capital murder or had told police that she took part in the killings.When asked if he had formed an opinion about whether Williams was guilty of the crimes charged, Chapman responded that he had not. He had avoided media stories about the case since learning that he was in the pool of prospective jurors. He assured the court that he would not let details he had learned from media reports “creep into [his] deliberations.” He stated that he would consider the evidence, pay close attention to the details presented to the jury, and listen to what the other members of the jury had to say. He reiterated that he presumed that Williams was innocent and that the State had to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.Chapman repeatedly stated that he had not formed any conclusions or opinions about Williams’s guilt or innocence based on the media coverage he had seen. We defer to the trial judge, who was in the best position to evaluate Chapman’s demeanor and responses. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Williams’s challenge for cause to Chapman.WalserWilliams asserts that Walser could not consider the full punishment range for the lesser offense of murder, he would not hold the State to its burden of proof as to each element of the offense, and he was “mitigation impaired,” in that he would not fully and fairly consider a defendant’s background in answering the mitigation special issue. Additionally, Williams contends that Walser was biased in favor of law enforcement officials because he worked as a security consultant for major corporations.At trial, defense counsel challenged Walser for cause on the grounds that he had a bias or prejudice against the law upon which Williams was entitled to rely, in that he would not fully and fairly consider and assess a minimum five-year sentence for the lesser-included offense of murder, and he would not hold the State to its burden of proof “on the individual elements of the indictment.” Counsel also challenged Walser as being “mitigation impaired” and unable to “fully and fairly consider the defendant’s background in answering” the mitigation special issue. To the extent that Williams’s complaints on appeal do not comport with the grounds he raised at trial, he failed to preserve error. Therefore, we will not consider Williams’s complaint that Walser had a bias in favor of law enforcement officials.“In a criminal trial, both the defendant and the State have the right to have jurors who believe in the full range of punishment.”[46] A prospective juror who states that he cannot consider the full range of punishment for any offense of which the accused might be found guilty is challengeable for cause under Article 35.16(b)(3) and (c)(2) for having a bias or prejudice against the law.[47] The prospective juror must be able to keep an open mind concerning punishment until he hears the evidence.[48] However, a juror is not challengeable for cause simply because he cannot immediately envision a scenario in which the minimum punishment would be appropriate.[49]In this case, Walser affirmed that the range of five years to life for an intentional murder was “fair,” depending on the facts. Walser later stated that he did not “know about a five year sentence.” On further questioning, he indicated that he could keep an open mind and perhaps find a five-year sentence for an intentional murder to be appropriate. He asserted that he thought he could wait and let the facts dictate the appropriate sentence length, but he added that five years seemed “awfully light.” He then confirmed that he could keep an open mind to the full range of punishment.Walser’s responses indicated that he could keep an open mind and consider the full punishment range for the lesser-included offense of murder. To the extent that his responses were unclear or contradictory, the trial judge was within his discretion in denying the challenge for cause on this basis.Walser stated several times that he would hold the State to its burden of proving all of the elements of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that he would find the defendant not guilty if he had a reasonable doubt as to any element of the offense. In response to questions involving hypothetical examples, Walser acknowledged that it would be “tough” to find a defendant not guilty if the State proved every element except a “technicality” such as the proper county of jurisdiction or the means of death. However, Walser asserted that he would “make the right decisions” even if he did “not like the right decisions,” and he could follow the law.Walser’s responses indicated that he could hold the State to its burden of proof concerning every element of the offense charged. To the extent that his responses were unclear or contradictory, the trial judge was within his discretion in denying the challenge for cause on this basis.An appellant is not entitled to voir dire prospective jurors on whether they can consider particular types of mitigating evidence during the capital sentencing phase.[50]Furthermore, if a judge does allow such questions and a prospective juror states that he will not consider a particular type of evidence as mitigating, that prospective juror is not challengeable for cause on that basis.[51]Walser initially stated that he could keep an open mind regarding mitigation. He had responded negatively to a question on the written jury questionnaire that asked if he thought that “genetics, circumstances of birth, upbringing, and environment should be considered in determining the proper punishment.” However, after listening to the prosecutor’s explanation of the special issues, he affirmed that he could “at least consider” such evidence and “be open to it.”When questioned by defense counsel, Walser stated that he would always think that a person who had been convicted of capital murder and found to be a future danger should receive the death penalty. Additionally, he acknowledged that any mitigating circumstances would have to be “very substantial” before he could answer the mitigation special issue affirmatively. He did not think that a defendant’s background or problems growing up were “an excuse” because “there’s evidence everywhere of people that have overcome their backgrounds.” He then clarified that background was not “always” an excuse for a person’s conduct. He would want the defense and other jurors to persuade him that a defendant’s background should affect the sentencing determination.Williams was not entitled to voir dire Walser on whether he could consider background evidence in mitigation.[52] Further, Walser was not challengeable for cause based on his assertions that he would have a hard time considering background evidence as mitigating.[53] To the extent that Walser vacillated about whether he could consider mitigating evidence after finding a defendant guilty of capital murder and answering the future dangerousness special issue affirmatively, the trial judge was within his discretion to deny Williams’s challenge for cause on this basis.CampbellWilliams asserts that Campbell was “mitigation impaired” because he stated that, after finding someone guilty of capital murder and answering the future dangerousness issue affirmatively, the death penalty would be the only option. Williams also avers that Campbell would be unable to give meaningful consideration to any mitigating evidence. On appeal, Williams relies heavily on Campbell’s written jury questionnaire responses.During voir dire, Williams challenged Campbell for cause on the ground that he “expressed unequivocally” that after finding a defendant guilty of capital murder and answering the future dangerousness issue affirmatively, “death would be the only option.” Therefore, he would not give full consideration to any of the remaining special issues. Defense counsel also averred that, although Campbell’s responses concerning mitigation were “rather equivocating,” his questionnaire answer concerning his ability to consider a defendant’s background in mitigation indicated that he was “mitigation impaired.”The record reflects that Campbell indicated that he did not believe that someone should be deemed a threat to society simply because he had been found guilty. Campbell affirmed that he would want to consider factors such as motive and background before sentencing someone to death. He also agreed that after answering the future dangerousness question affirmatively, he would still need to consider the other special issues before deciding on the punishment. Campbell gave as examples of mitigating evidence “the way they were treated” and “their upbringing” or environment. He stated that he could keep an open mind concerning mitigating evidence and answer the special issue in such a way that a life sentence would be imposed. Later, Campbell stated that he did not think that environment and upbringing “really carrie[d] that much weight,” but he reaffirmed that he would consider such evidence in mitigation. He added that he would also consider evidence of genetics and circumstances of birth.Later, defense counsel asked Campbell how he would “feel about the death penalty as the only appropriate punishment” for a guilty capital murderer who was a future danger. Campbell responded that “the death penalty would apply.” He agreed when counsel asked him if someone who committed capital murder and had been found to be a future danger deserved the death penalty. However, Campbell later stated that he would consider a defendant’s character and background, including past good behavior, in answering the punishment issues. The trial judge asked Campbell whether he could still answer the mitigation special issue either affirmatively or negatively after finding someone guilty of capital murder and finding him to be a future danger. Campbell affirmed that he could consider either answer to the mitigation special issue, knowing that a negative answer would result in a death sentence and an affirmative answer would result in a life sentence.Contrary to Williams’s representations, this record does not establish that Campbell would automatically reject the mitigation special issue after finding that a defendant was guilty of capital murder and was a future danger. To the extent that Campbell’s answers were vacillating or contradictory, we accord particular deference to the trial judge’s decision. Further, Campbell was not challengeable for cause based on his assertions that he did not think that evidence of a defendant’s background and environment carried “much weight” in mitigation.[54] The trial judge was within his discretion to deny Williams’s challenge for cause.ShiversWilliams complains that Shivers: was unable to presume a defendant innocent until proven guilty; would not consider mitigating evidence and would be an “automatic death sentence”; and understood the meaning of “probability” in the future dangerousness issue to mean “any chance at all.” He also avers that she was challengeable for cause because she was familiar with the case and had formed an opinion about his guilt. He adds that her family and social relationships with attorneys and district attorneys who had been threatened or who had faced attempts on their lives had affected her judgment. Williams relies heavily on Shivers’s written questionnaire answers that indicated that she favored the death penalty and would not consider mitigation.At trial, defense counsel challenged Shivers on the grounds that: (1) she could not afford Williams the presumption of innocence and was biased against him because she had volunteered that she was aware that the case involved a couple being murdered in their home, indicating that she already believed some of the elements that the State had to prove; (2) she defined “probability” in the future dangerousness special issue as “any chance at all” or a “mere possibility”; (3) she had a strong belief that the mitigation special issue should not be part of the law and that mitigating circumstances should not be considered; (4) her questionnaire responses showed that she was “mitigation impaired,” because she would always give the death penalty to someone convicted of capital murder; and (5) she would want to hear evidence from both sides, which shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. On appeal, Williams has not repeated his complaint at trial that Shivers shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. Further, to the extent that Williams’s complaints on appeal do not comport with the grounds he raised at trial, we will not consider them.During voir dire, Shivers stated that she could presume Williams innocent until she heard evidence proving that he was guilty. She understood that the State had the burden of proof on every element of the offense and that she would have to find the defendant not guilty if the State proved a murder but failed to prove an element such as the county of jurisdiction or the means of death. She thought that she would be a fair juror because she “believe[d] in hearing both sides of the story.” Although she later repeated that she would want to hear “both sides,” she also affirmed that, if the defense did not present any evidence, she would require the State to prove its case.Shivers acknowledged that she had heard about “the Kaufman County case” on the news before she was summoned to the special venire. She stated that she first learned about a district attorney being killed outside the courthouse, and she later heard about the murder of a couple. She had heard Williams’s name and recalled that he worked for the county. She recalled hearing that Williams had worked with the husband of the murdered couple. Shivers also recalled hearing that there was a question about whether Williams’s wife was involved in the crime. In response to a question about whether she believed the couple had been “shot to death” in their home, Shivers stated that she knew that the couple was dead, but she did not know that they had been shot to death. However, she also repeatedly maintained that she could set this information aside, consider only the evidence presented in court, and hold the State to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.In this case, Shivers repeatedly stated that she could set aside the media coverage she had seen and determine Williams’s guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom. She also stated that she would afford Williams the presumption of innocence. We defer to the trial judge, who was in the best position to evaluate Shivers’s demeanor and responses. The trial judge was within his discretion to overrule Williams’s challenge for cause on this basis.We next turn to Williams’s challenge for cause based on Shivers’s definition of the term “probability.”When the prosecutor asked Shivers for her understanding of the question of whether there was a “probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence,” she stated that the question was asking whether the defendant was “capable of doing it again.” She then agreed with the prosecutor’s statement that probability meant “more likely than not” rather than “any chance at all.” However, in response to a hypothetical question involving a weather forecast, Shivers indicated that probability meant “any chance at all.”Shivers’s responses to questions concerning the meaning of the term “probability” were vacillating; she sometimes defined “probability” as “any chance at all,” while at other times she agreed that “probability” meant “more likely than not.” In this situation, we defer to the trial judge. Further, as the proponent of the challenge for cause, defense counsel was required to carefully and adequately explain the law concerning the distinction and determine whether Shivers continued to insist on a definition that was inconsistent with the distinction.[55] Because defense counsel failed to do so, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the challenge for cause on this basis.Williams also contends that Shivers’s responses indicate that would render an “automatic death sentence” upon finding a person guilty of capital murder. But Shivers stated that she would not vote for the death penalty in every capital murder case. She asserted that she would set aside her personal opinions and base her verdict on the law that she received in the courtroom. She also said that the State would have to prove the future dangerousness special issue to her before she would answer it affirmatively. When defense counsel asked Shivers whether any punishment besides the death penalty would be appropriate for someone she had found guilty of capital murder and had found to be a future danger, she stated that she did not know and that she thought that “the law would tell [her] what would be an alternative punishment.”Concerning the mitigation special issue, Shivers confirmed a written answer on her jury questionnaire to the effect that she did not think that genetics, circumstances at birth, upbringing, and environment should be considered in assessing punishment because “[e]verybody has choices.” However, she also stated that she could consider mitigating circumstances and answer the mitigation special issue affirmatively, knowing that it would result in a life sentence.To the extent that Shivers’s statements were unclear or vacillating, we defer to the trial judge. Additionally, Shivers’s responses to defense counsel’s questions as to whether she would consider particular types of evidence in mitigation did not make her challengeable for cause.[56] The trial judge was within his discretion to deny Williams’s challenge for cause on these bases.PadachyWilliams asserts that Padachy was biased against the law Williams was entitled to rely upon. Specifically, he asserts that she would automatically answer the future dangerousness issue affirmatively after finding a defendant guilty of capital murder. He also asserts that she stated that anyone who intentionally killed another person should be sentenced to death.During voir dire, Padachy stated that she could wait and listen to all of the evidence and require the State to prove a defendant’s future dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt. When asked about a written questionnaire response in which she indicated that the death penalty was appropriate for an intentional murder, she clarified that she had provided that response while thinking of premeditated murder. When asked about a questionnaire response in which she wrote that “in most cases, when a person takes someone’s life on purpose, they are a threat to others,” she again stated that she envisioned someone planning a killing in advance. Padachy acknowledged that she still believed that to be true. Some of Padachy’s responses to defense counsel’s questions suggested that she believed that a person who committed an intentional killing would always be a future danger. However, she also stated several times that she could keep an open mind, listen to both sides, require the State to prove future dangerousness, and weigh all the evidence before answering the special issues.Williams then challenged Padachy for cause “for the reason she has a bias or prejudice against the law the defense is entitled to rely upon,” in that she stated that she would automatically answer the future dangerousness special issue affirmatively after finding someone guilty of capital murder. The prosecutor stated that Padachy had given contradictory answers on the matter and requested that the trial judge go over the law with her to ascertain whether she could follow it. Defense counsel responded that Padachy had consistently stated that if she found someone guilty of an intentional killing, she would always find that person to be a future danger. The trial judge then called Padachy into the courtroom for additional questioning.The prosecutor asked Padachy whether she would automatically answer the future dangerousness special issue or whether she could follow the law and require the State to prove the issue beyond a reasonable doubt. She responded that she could follow the law and consider the facts of the case based on the evidence she heard from both phases of the trial. Padachy indicated that her written questionnaire answers were based on her personal feelings before she knew the law. When defense counsel questioned Padachy, she again stated that she had provided her questionnaire answers favoring the death penalty for an intentional killing before she knew the law. She stated that the question of a defendant’s future dangerousness would depend on the evidence. She averred that she could follow the law regardless of her personal feelings. Defense counsel again challenged Padachy for cause, stating that it was “pretty plain what [she] is going to do, that she’s substantially impaired in her ability to follow the law and give us a fair hearing on [the future dangerousness] special issue.”As the proponent of the challenge for cause, Williams had to show that Padachy understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome her prejudice well enough to follow it. Williams did not make this showing. Further, to the extent that Padachy’s responses were unclear or contradictory, we defer to the trial judge. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Williams’s challenge for cause to Padachy.VanweyWilliams asserts that Vanwey would “automatically and categorically impose the death penalty.” He argues that her written questionnaire responses, and her evident confusion concerning the mitigation issue during individual voir dire, established that she was biased against Williams and the law upon which he was entitled to rely.Williams challenged Vanwey for cause on the ground that she considered the punishment phase of the trial, and particularly the mitigation special issue, “to be a rehash of the guilt/innocence phase.” He asserted that she stated that the mitigation special issue in particular was confusing and that her “gut reaction” was to read the mitigation issue as if it asked about Williams’s guilt. Williams also averred that Vanwey would “automatically and categorically impose the death penalty.”During voir dire, Vanwey confirmed her written questionnaire responses indicating that she felt the death penalty was appropriate in some but not all murder cases and that she disagreed with the statement that a person convicted of capital murder should be assessed the death penalty. She affirmed her view that some capital murder cases merited a death sentence, while others merited a life sentence. She stated that, after finding someone guilty of an intentional murder, she would still be open to either a life or death sentence, and she could consider evidence at the punishment phase and answer the special issues according to the evidence. Vanwey indicated that she could answer the future dangerousness special issue negatively if the State did not prove that the defendant “was gonna be bad the rest of his life.” She also asserted that, if she found the defendant guilty and answered the future dangerousness and anti-parties issues affirmatively, she would still consider mitigating evidence before deciding whether to answer the mitigation special issue affirmatively or negatively.Vanwey then stated, somewhat inconsistently, that she could not give a life sentence to an intentional murderer who would probably commit another murder. However, after the prosecutor further explained the law, Vanwey stated that, even after finding that a defendant had committed capital murder and was a future danger, she could keep an open mind concerning mitigation until she heard the evidence. She affirmed that she could consider the circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s character and background in reaching a decision. Vanwey acknowledged that one of her questionnaire responses suggested that she believed that anyone found guilty of capital murder should receive the death penalty, and that she still felt that way. However, she also stated that, after the law had been explained to her, she would be able to set aside her personal views and follow it. She denied feeling that anyone convicted of capital murder should automatically receive the death penalty.When asked what the term “mitigating” meant to her, Vanwey responded, “it’s causes in their lives that made them do this or not do this.” She also indicated that it was hard to consider the mitigation special issue in the abstract because even a person with an unfortunate background had “the choice” of whether to take a life. She stated that the mitigation special issue did not “really make sense” to her and she did not know how it would work out in court. She acknowledged that the “ultimate issue” for her was whether the defendant committed the murder and the reasons why he did it.As the proponent of the challenge for cause, Williams had to show that Vanwey understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome her prejudice well enough to follow it. Although some of Vanwey’s responses indicated that she believed all capital murderers should receive the death penalty, she also stated that she could set aside her personal feelings and keep an open mind to the punishment evidence and the special issues. To the extent that Vanwey’s responses were unclear or contradictory, we defer to the trial judge’s decision. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Williams’s challenge for cause.HollifieldWilliams asserts that Hollifield was “mitigation impaired.” He also asserts that Hollifield, after finding a defendant guilty of capital murder, would automatically answer the special issues in such a way that the death penalty would result. He adds that Hollifield would always assess the death penalty against a defendant who killed a public official, he would not consider mitigation, and he would believe the testimony of a police officer over that of other witnesses. He relies heavily on Hollifield’s written jury questionnaire responses.Williams, however, challenged Hollifield for cause solely on the ground that he gave contradictory responses concerning his ability to consider and give effect to evidence in mitigation, and he “probably [was] mitigation impaired.” Thus, Williams failed to preserve all but one of the claims he now raises on appeal. We will consider only his claim that Hollifield was “mitigation impaired.”When the prosecutor explained the special issues and stated that jurors had to consider the circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s character and background in answering the mitigation special issue, Hollifield affirmed that he could consider such evidence. He stated that he could find someone guilty of an intentional murder, answer the future dangerousness issue affirmatively, and still consider whether the evidence was sufficiently mitigating to warrant a life sentence. Hollifield also stated his belief that not everyone who committed an intentional murder should receive a death sentence. He added that he would be able to set aside his personal views in favor of the death penalty and follow the law as it had been explained to him.Defense counsel prefaced his questioning of Hollifield by stating that counsel would inquire into how Hollifield “felt,” rather than his understanding of the application of the special issues. Defense counsel then asked Hollifield about his written questionnaire response to the effect that he did not feel that genetics, circumstances of birth, upbringing, and environment should be considered when determining the proper punishment of someone convicted of capital murder. Hollifield explained his view that a person’s upbringing should not affect his ability to commit a murder. He stated, “I think I misunderstood how the—what the question was trying to ask.” He again stated that he did not believe that every murderer should receive a death sentence.Hollifield also stated that he believed that someone who committed an offense such as the murder of a district attorney or a judge deserved the death penalty. When defense counsel asked him whether there should be a connection between the evidence he would consider concerning the mitigation special issue and the crime, he agreed that there should. He explained that he would want to consider what led the person to commit the crime. When defense counsel asked him about specific types of mitigating evidence, Hollifield stated that he could consider evidence of a defendant’s early childhood background in answering the mitigation special issue. He concurred that, after finding someone guilty of capital murder and determining that the person would be a future danger, he would still be able to decide whether he thought the evidence was sufficiently mitigating to warrant a sentence of life without parole.As the proponent of the challenge for cause, Williams had to show that Hollifield understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome his prejudice well enough to follow it. Although Hollifield suggested one time that defendants convicted of certain types of capital murders deserved the death penalty, he also stated several times that he would consider mitigating evidence in answering the special issues. To the extent that Hollifield’s responses were unclear or contradictory, we defer to the trial judge’s decision. We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Williams’s challenge for cause to Hollifield.PhillipsWilliams asserts that Phillips’s questionnaire responses indicated that he: was predisposed in favor of the death penalty; had been exposed to media coverage of the case; was mitigation-impaired; would believe the testimony of a police officer over that of other witnesses; and would automatically answer the special issues in such a way that the death sentence would be imposed.During voir dire, Williams challenged Phillips for cause on the sole ground that Phillips would not be able to give meaningful consideration to mitigating evidence because he had stated that he was “very likely not going to consider” factors that were germane to the mitigation special issue. To the extent that Williams’s claims on appeal do not comport with t
