Christine Marie Paolilla is an American woman who was convicted of shooting four of her friends to death in 2003 in what became known as the Clear Lake Massacre, which made national headlines.

Early life

Christine Paolilla was born on Long Island, New York on March 31, 1986 to Lori, a stay-at-home mom, and Charles Paolilla, a construction worker. When she was 2 years old, her father died, followed by her grandfather and great-grandmother. When she was 7 years old, Paolilla went to live with her grandparents. As a young girl, Christine was diagnosed with alopecia and began wearing wigs. During her childhood, Paolilla's self-confidence was very low.

Paolilla attended Clear Lake High School in Houston, Texas, where she befriended students Rachael Koloroutis and Tiffany Rowell, who helped her fit in with the other students. In 2003, she was voted "Miss Irresistible" by her school's student body. That year, she also began a relationship with 21 year-old Christopher Lee Snider.

Murders

On July 18, 2003, 17 year-old Christine Paolilla and her then-boyfriend, 21 year-old Christopher Lee Snider, went to her friend Tiffany Rowell's house, where Tiffany and Rachael Koloroutis, Tiffany's boyfriend Marcus Precella, and Marcus' cousin Adelbert Sanchez were. According to Paolilla, the couple planned to get drugs at the house, but Snider reportedly got into an argument with Precella, which led to the killings of Rowell, Koloroutis, Precella, and Sanchez.

Apprehension

More than three years after the murders, the case was still unsolved. In July 2006, after receiving an anonymous tip, police arrested Paolilla inside a San Antonio, Texas hotel room. She was living with her then-husband Justin Rott; the two were heroin addicts who had not left the hotel room in eight months. Initially, Paolilla denied killing her friends. In his interrogation however, Rott told police that Paolilla had confessed to him that she had been an active participant in the murders. He stated that Paolilla had gone back into the house and beat Koloroutis to death with a gun.

Before he could be apprehended by police, Christopher Snider committed suicide in Greenville, South Carolina.

Conviction

On October 13, 2008, Christine Paolilla was convicted of four counts of capital murder. Because she was a juvenile offender at the time of the killings, she was spared the death penalty. The following day, she was sentenced to life in prison. She is currently incarcerated at the Mountain View Unit in Gatesville, Texas and will be eligible for parole in 2046.

Psychiatrist Gail Saltz stated "I think there’s a chance she thought they were pitying her … but still envied them, because they didn’t have to work so hard to be nice, to be accepted. That’s going to create some intense envy and jealousy, bring out the aggression, and the … wish to punish them for what they have" about Paolilla's killings.

How jealousy drove 'psycho' teenager to brutally murder one of the only girls who was ever nice to her

By Michael Zennie - February 27, 2012

DailyMail.co.uk

Christine Paolilla was viciously bullied in high school over the outlandish wigs and messy drawn-on eyebrows she wore to hide the fact that she went bald as a young child. 

When Tiffany Rowell and Rachael Koloroutis, two of the most popular girls at suburban Clear Lake High School outside Houston, Texas, befriended her, they made Paolilla into a new woman.

They taught her to dress and do her makeup. They helped her buy more attractive wigs. When they were done with her transformation, Paolilla was voted 'Miss Irresistible' by her class.

But police say a dark jealous streak drove 17-year-old Paolilla, along with her drug-addict boyfriend, to gun down Rowell and Koloroutis, both 18, along with Rowell's boyfriend and his cousin.

The killings were committed in such a brutal fashion that police concluded they were the result of deep personal hatred. Rowell and Koloroutis were both shot multiple times, including in the crotch -- evidence of sexual envy.

When Paolilla realized Koloroutis was still alive despite being shot 12 times, she grabbed the barrel of her pistol and, holding it like a hammer, used the butt of the handle to bash in her best friend's head as she choked on her own blood.

The cold-blooded murders remained a mystery that baffled police for three years. Investigators never suspected a 17-year-old friend could be responsible for such a horrendous crime.

A new book, 'Never See Them Again' by true crime writer M. William Phelps, exposes the gut-wrenching story of a teen plagued by drug abuse and consumed by jealousy who turned on 'the only people who wouldn’t stab me in the back.'

Revelation comes as little surprise, in retrospect, to the family of her 21-year-old boyfriend at the time, Chris Snider.

In Snider's house, Paolilla became known as 'the psycho,' according to Snider's sister Brandee for her obsessive behavior and 'crushing jealousy.' Snider called the police on Paolilla several times, Phelps wrote.

When they would fight, Paolilla would sleep on Snider's front lawn until he let her inside. She rattled the screen door and tried to break into the house. 

She demanded violently rough sex from him, as if 'she wanted him to punish her.'

But Snider, for his part, was no choir boy. He was 'pushy and aggressive' and had a hard drug habit.

Rowell and Koloroutis urged Paolilla to dump him, saying she could do much better for herself.

When Paolilla confessed to her crimes three years later, she says it was Snider's idea to visit her two friends and rob them.

By this time, Rowell and Koloroutis had graduated and were pulling in large cash tips working at a local strip club. Rowell was dating Marcus Ray Precella, 19, who dealt cocaine and ecstasy.

In the afternoon on July 18, 2003, Paolilla and Snider went to visit Rowell and Kolorouti, who were home with Precella and his cousin, Adelbert Nicholas Sanchez, 21.

Paolilla said Snider surprised her by thrusting a pistol into her hand before the robbery. He surprised her again during the robbery, she said, by shooting Precella.

Paolilla says the first shot triggered a rampage inside her. She claimed the gun went off on its own and she began firing blindly and sobbing.

But police say the crime scene they discovered, four bloody bodies in the living room of a home in suburban Clear Lake City, Texas, showed a clear-eyed execution.

They counted 40 shots fired. Most were directed at Rowell and Koloroutis. Paolilla shot both women in the groin -- wounds that were absent in the men.

Koloroutis was wounded in the buttocks, meaning she was likely shot trying to run away. As she choked on her own blood, Paolilla walked over, police say, and repeatedly bashed her in the head with the butt of her pistol.

Police noted distinctive 'overkill' in the female victims, meaning their killer had intense personal animosity toward them.

This behavior from Paolilla doesn't surprise Brandee Snider.

'I remember her being intensely jealous,' she said, according to the New York Post.

'There must have been some underlying jealousy between (Paolilla) and (Koloroutis). When I saw photos of (Koloroutis), I knew instantly. She was very beautiful.'

A break in the case didn't come for three years. Paolilla had just married a man she met in rehab when a TV special on the unsolved Houston murders came up on TV. She saw a sketch of the suspect. It looked just like her.

That's when Paolilla confessed to her new husband. The pair went on the run, staying in a hotel room for seven months straight without leaving.

When police, acting on a tip, caught up with Paolilla, they found a fetid room littered with more than 100 needles from heroin use and smeared with dog feces.

When officers closed in on Snider, he ran into the woods with a bottle of pills and soda. They found in dead from a deliberate drug overdose. 

Paolilla never fully confessed to her part in the killings -- she always blamed most of her actions on Snider.

However, thanks to testimony from her new husband, a jury convicted her of four counts of capital murder. Because she was a minor during the killings, she was spared the death penalty and sentenced to 40 years to life in prison.

'Psycho' 17-year-old shot, beat classmates to death

Pretty Texas teens give high school’s ugly duckling a makeover — and psycho 17-year-old shoots & beats them to death

By Larry Getlen - NYPost.com

February 26, 2012

When she was a teenager, Rachael Koloroutis, who lived in a suburb outside of Houston, used to keep a photo of her close friend Christine Paolilla in her handbag.

On the back of the picture, Paolilla had written, “Damn, we’ve had some crazy memories. I love you.”

One night in the summer of 2003, Paolilla, along with a boyfriend accomplice, shot Koloroutis and three other young people for no discernible reason.

Upon realizing that Koloroutis was still alive, Paolilla bashed her skull with the butt of her gun, striking her over and over as the dying girl, choking on her own blood, asked, over and over, “Why?"

“Never See Them Again,” the riveting new book from veteran true-crime author M. William Phelps, examines one of the most horrific murders in recent American history, a case that took the Houston Police Department three years to solve.

That’s because the perpetrator was their least likely suspect — a 17-year-old girl.

When she was 2 years old, Christine Paolilla lost her heroin-addicted father to a construction accident. Soon after, she was diagnosed with alopecia, a disease that results in the loss of all body hair.

Growing up, she tried to compensate, wearing “bulky, Halloween-like” wigs, drawing eyebrows that would easily smudge with sweat.

She was teased relentlessly at school, other kids whipping off Paolilla’s wigs as she tried to make her way to class.

Rachael Koloroutis, however, seemed different. She and her best friend, Tiffany Rowell, were among the most popular and pretty girls at Clear Lake HS, and they decided to befriend the bullied girl — a decision that Paolilla surely found confusing. After all, teen girls being mean to each other is the linchpin of pop culture: think “Carrie,” “Pretty in Pink,” “Heathers,” “Clueless,” “Mean Girls,” etc.

Yet Koloroutis and Rowell, one year ahead of Paolilla, seemed well-intentioned. They taught her how to “dress and buy wigs and wear her makeup so she didn’t look like Tammy Faye Bakker,” and helped her so reverse her fortunes that she was eventually voted “Miss Irresistible.”

The three were so close that Rowell and Koloroutis were the only friends Paolilla would let see her without her wig on.

Other things, however, she kept hidden.

Paolilla had a boyfriend named Chris Snider, a “pushy and aggressive” kid with a criminal record and a hard-drug habit.

Snider scared Paolilla’s mother, who later told ABC that there was “something in [his] eyes.” Even Koloroutis and Rowell, Phelps writes, told Paolilla that “she could do better,” and that “there was another guy out there for her who would treat her with dignity, respect and kindness."

Sources told Phelps that every fight Paolilla and Snider had was caused by a “crushing jealousy” on her part that resulted in “a crazy rage.” If Snider so much as looked at another girl, Paolilla would hit him.

Yet a part of her also enjoyed feeling humiliated and degraded by Snider, and she demanded such rough sex that it almost seemed “as if she wanted him to punish her.”

Around the Snider home, Paolilla — who also had the police called on her several times by her own parents — was known as “the psycho.”

After particularly nasty fights, “she’d spend the night on the front lawn, sleeping, trying to get into the house, yelling, going nuts, rattling the screen door,” writes Phelps. Snider’s sister, Brandee, is quoted as saying, that Paolilla “threatened to kill my mom, my dad and even me! She was an absolute cancer to us."

The abusive nature of their relationship reached its apex one night when an enraged Paolilla, without warning, stopped yelling at Snider, stared him down and “licked his face from his chin up.” She then spat on the ground before walking away.

Snider had told his family, more than once, that only two things frightened him: the cops and Christine.

The murders took place at around 3:30 p.m. on July 18, 2003, when a teenage couple, calling on friends in Clear Lake City, Texas, found four bodies in a blood-soaked living room.

In addition to Koloroutis and Rowell, both 18, the dead included Rowell’s boyfriend, Marcus Ray Precella, 19, and his cousin, Adelbert Nicholas Sanchez, 21.

All four had been shot multiple times, and Precella had “blunt-force head injuries.”

But the worst appeared to be saved for Koloroutis — her head bashed in, a clump of clotted hair in her right hand. She was shot at least 12 times, including once in the left buttock, an indication that she was trying to run from her killer. She had also been shot in the crotch.

The nature and precision of the shots — over 40 bullets were fired, with police marveling at their accuracy — indicated a possible execution-style slaying. But the personal anger directed toward Koloroutis — known among investigators as “overkill” — suggested that the murderer had a personal relationship with at least this victim. The shot to the crotch alone was a strong indicator of sexual jealousy or competition.

Yet police quickly formulated a theory that the murders were most likely drug-related, and they stuck to it. Koloroutis and Rowell had just graduated, and the former pretty girls of Clear Lake High were now pulling waitressing shifts at a local strip club. Precella dealt ecstasy and cocaine.

Despite over 400 leads in the early months, most leading back to Precella’s drug associations, the investigation went nowhere.

No one thought to suspect Paolilla, in large part because few women — let alone teenage girls — commit murder. Of the 1,190 juveniles arrested for murder or manslaughter in the United States in 2009, only 7 percent were female.

And so a couple years passed, and life went on. Snider wound up in a Kentucky jail on an old car-theft warrant and Paolilla in drug rehab in Kerrville, Texas, where she met a longtime heroin addict named Justin Rott.

It was love.

The two got married and, using a $360,000 trust left by her late father, bought a condo. Their nesting period was short-lived.

Soon after moving in, Paolilla saw a news story on TV about the anniversary of her best friends’ unsolved murders. She called Rott in to watch, and as police sketches were thrown up on screen, Paolilla unraveled.

She paced the living room, saying “Oh my! Oh my!” over and over. Then she stopped and stared at her new husband.

“Does that,” she asked, “look like me?”

Having offered this semi-confession, Paolilla soon told her husband what happened that afternoon — a version of events in which she was surprisingly passive.

She and Snider went to the house to steal money and drugs — his idea, she said — and Snider surprised her by handing her a gun just before entering the house.

He then shot Precella — another surprise. And then, she claimed, the gun she was carrying just went off on its own, and she lost control of it as she fired “blindly” around the room, crying the whole time.

After they left the crime scene, she told Snider she had to go back inside to “make sure they’re all dead.” Back inside, she saw Koloroutis crawling on the floor, trying to dial 911 on her cellphone while gagging on her own blood.

At that point, Phelps writes, “Christine took out her pistol . . . leveled it over her head, holding it by the barrel like a hammer, and began, in a whipping motion, pounding on the back of Rachael’s head, bashing her skull in, making sure she was dead.”

Finished, Paolilla then ordered Snider to drive her to work— she needed to clock-in for her shift behind the makeup counter at Walgreens.

Rott moved through a version of the stages of grief: shock, anger, denial, acceptance.

The couple stuck together, going on the run. They moved into a room at a La Quinta Inn and embarked on a drug binge as epic in its volume as its squalor.

They shot $500 worth of heroin and cocaine daily while living on Cheez-Its, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and soda. They never left the room and never allowed housekeeping in, and as the weeks accumulated, it was strewn with blood, vomit, their dog’s feces and over a hundred needles.

They lived in that room for seven months.

Ten days before the third anniversary of the murders, Houston police received an anonymous tip from a man — later confirmed not to be Rott — who said he’d met Paolilla in rehab and she’d had told him how she and her boyfriend committed the Clear Lake murders.

Cops tracked her down through her ATM activity, and within two days of that tip, they arrested her.

Paolilla gave varying accounts of what happened the afternoon of the murders, but eventually gave away enough that, combined with Rott’s testimony and other evidence, prosecutors were able to convict her of first-degree capital murder.

She was given a mandatory life sentence, leaving her ineligible for parole for 40 years.

Her accomplice and former boyfriend, Chris Snider, ran into the woods with a bottle of soda and a collection of pills once he heard the cops were on his tail. He killed himself.

As to the question of why a 17-year-old girl would turn so violently on “the only people who wouldn’t stab me in the back,” as she once said, the most plausible explanation may have come from Snider’s sister Brandee.

“I remember her being intensely jealous,” Brandee said. “There must have been some underlying jealousy between her [Christine] and [Rachael]. When I saw photos of [Rachael], I knew instantly. She was very beautiful.”

Rowell, too, had been shot in the crotch. The two young men were not.

Ultimately, though, only Paolilla knows why she did what she did. And, she continues to exhibit no interest in apologizing or explaining.

Paolilla gets life in 4 Clear Lake slayings

Clear Lake victims' families say the verdict allows them to move forward

By Dale Lezon - Chron.com

October 14, 2008

Although Christine Paolilla claimed her former boyfriend fired fatal gunshots at four young people five years ago, the former Clear Lake High School student was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison on Monday.

Paolilla, 22, was found guilty by a Harris County jury in connection with the deaths of her friends, Rachael Koloroutis and Tiffany Rowell, both 18; and in the killings of Rowell's boyfriend, Marcus Precella, 19; and his cousin, Adelbert Sanchez, 21.

Paolilla received an automatic life sentence because she was 17 at the time of the killings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute murderers who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.

Paolilla cried as a bailiff led her from the courtroom after state District Judge Mark Kent Ellis sentenced her. She must serve 40 years before she is eligible for parole, prosecutors said.

After more than five years, the families of the four young victims said the guilty verdict would allow them to move forward with their own lives.

"I feel justice was served," said George Koloroutis, Rachael's father, outside the courtroom after the verdict was read. "It's a good first step toward closure."

Paolilla's attorney, Mike DeGeurin, said the case will be appealed.

In closing arguments Monday, DeGeurin suggested to jurors that Paolilla's former boyfriend, Christopher Lee Snider, was solely responsible for the shootings. Snider later killed himself in 2006.

"She's upset," he said of his client. "She totally understands the grief of the families, her friends, the ones who were killed. She only wishes they could understand that she didn't want any of that to happen. But she understands their grief."

The four victims were found dead July 18, 2003, in a Clear Lake-area home. Prosecution witnesses have said the killings appeared to have been drug-related.

Snider and Paolilla had gone to the house together, and he killed the four while Paolilla hid, DeGeurin said. Earlier in the trial, jurors saw Paolilla's videotaped statement, in which she told police that Snider was responsible.

She said she had accompanied him to the house to buy drugs and that the shootings took place after they returned later.

DeGeurin told jurors in his opening statement that Snider duped Precella out of drugs and then took Paolilla back to the house to show that he wasn't scared of him.

Paolilla told police that she did not know Snider had intended to shoot the four. She said that she was scared and was crouched behind a pillar when she heard gunshots.

Snider opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol with 16 bullets after they arrived. Then he jammed a .38-caliber revolver against Paolilla's stomach to try to make her help, DeGeurin said.

Paolilla, who also had a gun, said Snider forced her into the living area and held her hand on the gun handle as it fired.

Prosecutor Rob Freyer told jurors that Snider alone was not to blame for the killings

"What a tired and pathetic tactic," he said. He said Paolilla was just as responsible.

"Could this horrible event have happened without her?" he asked jurors in his closing argument. "Of course not."

Paolilla's stepfather, Thomas Dick, blamed Snider.

"I'm very sorry for these families and their loss," Dick said when the court adjourned after the verdict was announced. "The guy who did this is dead. He was very, very bad. He was a predator. My daughter is paying for someone else's sins. My daughter doesn't deserve this. My daughter was a victim, too."

Juror Cliff Sheets said he was among four panelists who had initially voted for acquittal, but who all eventually changed their minds. He said questions he had about the case were answered during their discussions.

"There was a lot of contradiction in her stories, in the three interviews she gave (to police)," he said.

Dr. George Glass, a psychiatrist testifying for the defense, said that Paolilla was a heroin addict at the time she gave her statement to police, and she would have told investigators anything as long as she thought it would help her get drugs to relieve the painful withdrawal from the narcotic.

Quadruple murder suspect found guilty

By Mary Alys Cherry - Clear Lake Citizen

October 14, 2008

Clear Lake High graduate Christine Paolilla was found guilty of capital murder by a Harris County jury Monday and will be sentenced to life in prison.

Paolilla was charged with the murders of four young people in Clear Lake five years ago -- killed in a Brook Forest home while enjoying a pizza party.

The panel got the case after Assistant District Attorneys Rob Freyer and Greg Goodheart and defense attorney Mike DeGeurin presented their closing arguments, each trying to punch holes in the other’s case.

DeGeurin worked to discredit the most damaging testimony and paint Paolilla as a frightened unwilling participant in the quadruple murders, committed by her then-boyfriend Christopher Snider -- telling jurors that they should not convict her unless they thought she was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."

He also showed a large photo of Snider, who committed suicide in July 2006, and questioned police tactics in questioning his client.

Freyer asked "if this horrible event could have happened without her." And, he wanted to know, "if she was so scared of Snider, why did she call him 11 times the day after the murders? Why do a home invasion of someone you know unless you’re going to kill them?

"You are the ones who get to clean up the wreckage," he told the jurors, going on to show photos of the four victims.

"This is Adelbert Sanchez. That young man will never get to go home again, never get to eat a cheeseburger, enjoy Christmas. His family can go visit him at the graveyard." Then, turning and pointing at Paolilla, he said. "But her mommy can visit her in prison.

"Those kids don’t get to go home again and she shouldn’t either."

Goodheart quickly went on the attack, calling it a home invasion for dope. "They sold drugs in that house. She knew about the drugs, Christopher had only been there one time. She got them in."

Earlier, Paolilla told police how she had blood on her hand and went in the bathroom and washed it off. "So, how in the name of God did she get blood on her hand if she didn’t participate?

"Disregarding all the rest (of the evidence), she was a willing participant in a dope hijacking," Goodheart said as he concluded the case.

Both prosecution and defense rested their cases at the end of last week -- the prosecution after testimony put the defendant at the scene of the crime and also taking part in the quadruple murder, and the defense after trying to dispute damaging testimony.

Paolilla, now 22, is charged with accompanying Snider on July 18, 2003 and killing Tiffany Rowell and Rachael Ann Koloroutis, both 18; Marcus Ray Precella, 19; and Precella’s cousin from Houston, Adelbert Nicholas Sanchez, 21, as they were enjoying a pizza party at the Rowell home.

Rowell and Koloroutis, recent Clear Lake High graduates, and Precella, were former classmates and friends of Paolilla, who was 17 at the time of the murders and therefore not eligible for the death penalty.

Snider committed suicide in Greenville, S.C., shortly after Paolilla’s arrest, as Houston Police looked for him.

Paolilla told police that she and Snider went to the Rowell home looking for drugs and Snider just started shooting the four, even putting his hand on the gun he had given her to hold and causing it to go off.

Later, however, a HPD fire arms expert testified that neither of the guns used in the crime, found at the home of Snider’s mother and stepfather in Louisville, Ky., would go off as Paolilla claimed, showing jurors that it was somewhat difficult to fire either weapon.

Paolilla’s husband, Stanley Justin Rott, testified at length how she confessed her role in the murders to him numerous times and how they were both addicted to heroin.

Each of the victims had been shot multiple times, a doctor from the Medical Examiner’s Office testified, and both Precella and Koloroutis also suffered blunt force trauma to the head.

A psychiatrist, Dr. George Glass, testified for the defense Thursday afternoon, talking about Paolilla’s "very unfortunate life."

He told the jury how her uncle committed suicide, how her father was killed in a construction accident when she was a child, leaving her mother overwhelmed with two small children and no insurance, and then how her mother turned to drugs.

"All this could affect a person," he said, explaining that while still a child she also developed alopecia, losing all her hair, eyelashes and eyebrows and was teased at school about her wig -- making her vulnerable to bad guys such as Snider, whom she met in intermediate school.

Glass also testified that he did not think Paolilla had the capacity to waive her rights when police were questioning her, as she was in withdrawal from heroin.

He said one’s mental state during withdrawal is concentrating on drugs. "I don’t think she had a clue (about what was going on). She just wanted to feel better."

In the police video he watched, he said, "she doesn’t look like anyone who can make reasonable decisions."

Court of Appeals of Texas
Houston (14th District)

Paolilla v. State

Panel consists of Justices SEYMORE, BOYCE, and CHRISTOPHER.

SUBSTITUTE OPINION

Appellant Christine Marie Paolilla filed a petition for discretionary review. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 50, we withdraw our opinion of March 3, 2011, and issue this substitute opinion in its place.

Appellant was convicted of capital murder. She was seventeen years old at the time of the offense, and therefore ineligible to receive the death penalty. See Tex. Penal Code § 8.07(c) (West 2010). Because the State could not seek capital punishment, she was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment instead. On appeal, she challenges the constitutionality of her sentence, the denial of her motion to suppress, and the denial of her motion for mistrial. We affirm.

FACTS

Four people were murdered in a Clear Lake home during the afternoon of July 18, 2003. The home belonged to Tiffany Rowell, who was counted among the four complainants. The other three were her friends Rachel Koloroutis, Marcus Precella, and Adelbert Sanchez.

Nearly three years after the offense, police received a tip through Crime Stoppers linking the homicides to appellant and her then-boyfriend, Christopher Lee Snider. A warrant was secured for appellant's arrest in San Antonio, where she had been staying in a hotel with her husband, Stanley Justin Rott.

The Arrest and Appellant's Recorded Statements

The warrant was executed at 11:55 a.m. on July 19, 2006. When police entered the hotel room, they were met with evidence that the occupants had been using substantial amounts of heroin. Hundreds of used syringes littered the room. Appellant was wearing a t-shirt stained with blood, and several needle marks could be found over her body.

Appellant was escorted to the San Antonio Police Department, where she agreed to a video-taped interview at 2:45 p.m. During the interrogation, appellant admitted to driving Snider to Rowell's house on the day of the offense. She said they originally went there to purchase drugs, but they made a return trip when Snider complained of forgetting something. Appellant insisted that Snider went into the house by himself on both occasions while she remained in the car. When Snider returned the second time, she saw him running with a gun in his hands. She denied ever hearing any gunshots.

The interrogation ended at approximately 3:50 p.m. Appellant, however, remained alone in the interview room as the recorder continued to tape. In the ensuing minutes, her condition clearly began to deteriorate. She grew visibly tired, appearing weak and sick. The recording ended just after 3:58 p.m., when appellant requested to see a nurse, claiming she was bleeding.

Appellant was transported to Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio at approximately 4:12 p.m. Medical records indicate she was currently menstruating, but no other signs of bleeding were reported. Appellant did present, though, with a chief complaint of heroin withdrawal. She informed doctors that she was accustomed to taking heroin every ten to fifteen minutes, and that her last injection was roughly 10:00 a.m. that morning. At 5:30 p.m., appellant was administered six milligrams of morphine and twenty milligrams of Methadone.

Using only an audio recorder, interrogators continued their interview inside the hospital at 6:15 p.m. During this session, appellant again denied ever entering the home. She stated, however, that a fight erupted inside, with Snider admitting to shooting all four complainants. The interview concluded at 7:15 p.m. At approximately 9:00 p.m., just before her discharge, appellant received additional dosages of morphine and Methadone.

Appellant was flown to Houston later that evening. She slept on the flight and through part of the next day after being placed in a jail cell. Following an unrecorded interview during the afternoon of July 20, appellant complained of illness and requested to see a doctor. She was taken to Ben Taub Hospital at 6:50 p.m. and again treated for heroin withdrawal, this time receiving twenty-five milligrams of Librium at 10:07 p.m. Appellant was discharged at 11:00 p.m. and escorted back to police headquarters in downtown Houston.

A final video-taped interrogation commenced at 11:38 p.m. During this interview, appellant stated that Snider forced her into the house on the return trip, making her hold one of his two guns. Although she denied aiming at any of the complainants, she stated that Snider pulled the trigger a number of times while she held the gun in her hand. The interrogation ended at 1:39 a.m. on July 21. Appellant was then returned to her jail cell. The record does not show that she complained of illness following the interview.

The Suppression Hearing

In a pretrial hearing, appellant moved to suppress all three recorded statements. Although advised of her Fifth Amendment rights before each interview, appellant complained that her statements were rendered involuntary because of medications she ingested and because she was suffering from acute opioid withdrawal.

Appellant called a single expert witness, Dr. George S. Glass, a physician board certified in psychiatry and addiction medicine. Dr. Glass testified that appellant was a heroin addict with a very high tolerance for narcotics. He stated that heroin has a short half-life, meaning that it breaks down in the body relatively quickly. If the addiction is not sustained, an abuser can suffer from withdrawal between four and eight hours after her last injection. The physical symptoms of withdrawal, he said, include chills, fever, shaking, nausea, vomiting, and seizing.

Dr. Glass assumed that appellant's last use of the drug prior to her arrest occurred between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on July 19. Based on that time frame, he supposed that appellant would have entered serious opioid withdrawal between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. that evening. Dr. Glass observed the first video-taped interrogation, which ended just before 4:00 p.m., and opined that appellant was in acute withdrawal because she was wrapped in a thin blanket and shaking.

Dr. Glass also described the drug treatment appellant received following her arrest. He said that six milligrams of morphine was a significant dosage normally reserved for intense pain, similar to the type of pain experienced by an adult male during a heart attack. Methadone, however, is commonly used when treating opioid dependence. The drug has a much longer half-life than heroin, and patients who take Methadone will not usually enter maximum withdrawal until twenty-four hours after it was last ingested. Dr. Glass also stated that the high dosage of Methadone demonstrated the extent of appellant's heroin addiction—the average person would have been comatose on that dosage if not similarly tolerant to the drug.

Dr. Glass explained that Librium is a minor tranquilizer also used in treating addictions. The drug removes the anxiety of withdrawal, but it does nothing for the cravings or for certain physiological symptoms, such as vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and bone aches. According to Dr. Glass, appellant's dosage of Librium was the equivalent of consuming three to five shots of alcohol.

Dr. Glass testified that appellant was not intoxicated during her third interview in Houston. However, he opined that she did exhibit certain withdrawal symptoms, referencing a moment where she mentioned a desire to throw up. Dr. Glass observed shaking and anxiety, testifying that appellant's posture was “a little bizarre,” as though her muscles were in spasm. Because appellant received her last dosage of Methadone more than twenty-six hours before this interview, Dr. Glass found her symptoms consistent with a person entering the peak of withdrawal.

The State produced testimony from three police officers. Sergeant Brian Harris executed the arrest warrant and conducted the two recorded interviews in San Antonio. He testified that he has been a certified peace officer for twenty-one years. During his tenure on the police force, he personally observed the effects of heroin on users, which he claimed are typically marked by irrational behavior and slurred and incoherent speech. He has also observed the physical breakdown of a person entering withdrawal.

According to Sergeant Harris, appellant did not appear to be under the influence of narcotics at the time of her arrest. During the first recorded interview, he stated that appellant was clear and calm, and her tone suggested an inquisitive demeanor. He testified that appellant did shake occasionally, but only when she was crying, which occurred during the interview's more sensitive discussion of the complainants, who appellant revealed were her friends and classmates. Sergeant Harris denied seeing any signs of intoxication. When questioned whether appellant deliberated before giving her answers, he described her responses as “calculated.”

Sergeant Harris accompanied appellant on her transfer to Santa Rosa Hospital. He testified that appellant was relaxed and conversational during the hospital interview. He described her answers as clear and concise. Despite her treatments of morphine and Methadone, Sergeant Harris testified that appellant did not appear to be under the influence of any sort of intoxicant. Rather, he stated she was conscious and alert, and she made appropriate hand gestures when communicating her story.

Officer Connie Park managed the intake desk at the Houston Police Department on the night of July 20, 2006. Officer Park testified to having twelve years of experience with the police department, four of which were spent on the Gang Task Force. During those four years, she encountered a number of people who were impaired by the influence of drugs.

Sometime between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on July 20, Officer Park was asked to escort appellant to the bathroom, where they had a casual conversation. Officer Park testified that during their brief discussion, she observed none of the signs of impairment that typically accompany drug abuse. Officer Park described appellant's speech as “clearly coherent” and “matter of fact.” In her view, appellant appeared to be oriented to time and place, and neither upset nor distraught. She also testified that appellant made no complaints about withdrawing from heroin.

Sergeant Breck C. McDaniel conducted the video-taped interview in Houston. He testified to having thirteen years of experience with the Houston Police Department. In that time, his work has involved some exposure with heroin addicts. He stated that heroin is a depressant, and addicts tend to appear tired or lethargic. He also testified that he has witnessed the symptoms of withdrawal, which primarily include vomiting, seizing, sweating, and visible illness.

Sergeant McDaniel testified that appellant displayed none of these symptoms during her interview. Occasionally, appellant did seem upset. When she recounted the shootings, for instance, her hands shook and she began to cry. Sergeant McDaniel allowed her frequent breaks to compose herself, even permitting her to smoke and drink a soda. According to him, she appeared physically fine and lucid throughout the interview.

The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress. The court later issued findings of facts, which stated that the testimony from Sergeant Harris, Officer Park, and Sergeant McDaniel was credible and reliable. In the findings, the court also concluded that appellant was not intoxicated or suffering from withdrawal symptoms, and that during all three interviews, she was “lucid and capable of understanding the warnings given to her and the nature of her statements.” Furthermore, the court specifically found that Dr. Glass's opinions were “not supported by the evidence and therefore not reliable.” Because the court determined that appellant voluntarily waived her rights in supplying her statements, all three recordings were later published for the jury's consideration.

The Trial

Two eyewitnesses placed appellant at the scene of the crime. Michelle and Craig Lackner lived next door to Tiffany Rowell. The Lackners testified that on the day of the offense, they both observed a young man and woman casually walk down the street and approach Rowell's house. In court, the Lackners identified appellant as the girl they had witnessed. They denied seeing her with a gun, but they each said that she was carrying a purse. Using a six-person photo spread, the Lackners also identified Snider as the accompanying male.

Rott was called as a witness for the prosecution as well. He testified to calling in the tip to Crime Stoppers after learning of the offense from his wife. Rott said that he met appellant at a drug treatment center in Kerrville around November 2004, more than a year after the murders. The two were married about four months later. During their courtship, appellant vaguely told him of an incident with her former boyfriend that resulted in the deaths of four people. On a later occasion, she elaborated that she and Snider went to Rowell's house in Clear Lake. Just before entering the house, Snider handed her a gun, which she carried in her purse. The intention was to take some drugs and money, but not hurt anyone, she stressed.

According to Rott, appellant mentioned that she and Snider were invited into Rowell's house, where they eventually started shooting at the four people inside. After leaving, appellant told Snider that she needed to make sure they were really dead. Appellant then returned to find Koloroutis choking on her own blood. Rott testified that appellant admitted to beating Koloroutis with her gun until she was dead.

Bullets from two separate weapons were recovered at the scene. Kim Downs, the State's firearms examiner, testified that bullets from both sets of guns were found in the bodies of Rowell and Precella. The bullets were later traced to two handguns found in Louisville, Kentucky, in a safe stored at the home of Snider's stepfather. Dr. Morna Gonsoulin, the State's medical examiner, testified that in addition to several gunshot wounds, Koloroutis suffered skull fractures consistent with blunt force trauma to the head.

Part of appellant's defensive strategy was to attack Rott's credibility. In his opening statement, defense counsel suggested that Rott reported his wife to Crime Stoppers in order to claim a substantial reward. Defense counsel further argued that Rott made a deal with the State to testify falsely against appellant so that he might avoid prosecution for the heroin recovered in the San Antonio hotel. Defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony regarding this deal from Thomas Pardue and his daughter, Lane, a woman whom Rott began to date following appellant's arrest. Much of the Pardues' testimony was interrupted by various objections from the State.

During closing argument, defense counsel again referred to Rott's alleged deal with the prosecution and his relationship with the Pardues. The trial court sustained the prosecutor's objection to these arguments as being outside the record. The prosecutor then responded to these exact arguments in his own closing statement. The prosecutor told the jury:

Mr. Pardue. I feel sorry for that man, I truly do. I mean, he has gone through hell for his daughter, but you don't get to know everything. You probably figured out by now you cannot know all the facts and circumstances of a case. You hear us making objections, you've got to go outside the room, come back inside the room. You don't know the whole truth about everything that happened in this case. When it's all over, we will tell you the whole truth.

Appellant objected that this argument improperly encouraged the jury to convict her on facts not admitted in evidence. The objection was sustained, and the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the statement. The trial court further admonished that “the only thing you can base your verdict on is the evidence that you have in front of you.” Appellant also moved for a mistrial, but that was denied.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty after receiving the trial court's instruction on the law of parties. Appellant was then sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment.

ISSUES PRESENTED

In her first issue, appellant contends a mandatory life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when imposed on a juvenile offender. In her second issue, she contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for mistrial. In issues three through six, she contends the trial court erred in dismissing the opinions of Dr. Glass and in denying her motion to suppress. We examine these issues slightly out of order, considering her second issue last.

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

At the time of the offense, section 12.31 of the Texas Penal Code stated that “[a]n individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state does not seek the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life.” Act approved June 19, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3602 (amended 2009). Appellant contends this automatic sentence is grossly disproportionate as applied to juveniles because it forecloses the opportunity of producing evidence of mitigating circumstances.

We have previously held that a mandatory life sentence does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment, even when applied to juvenile offenders. See Laird v. State, 933 S.W.2d 707, 714 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd) (“Presumably, the law statutorily considers youth in mitigation of the death penalty and thereby mandates the lesser of the two possible punishments for capital murder.”). Appellant now urges us to reach the opposite conclusion in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. In particular, appellant relies on Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010), and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), two cases which recognized that juvenile offenders should not be punished as harshly as their adult counterparts.

In Graham, the Supreme Court determined that the Eighth Amendment proscribes a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide crime. Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2034. In Roper, the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment similarly prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on juveniles. Roper, 543 U.S. at 578. Both cases observe that juveniles are inherently different from adults, and because of their innate differences, the Court reasoned that a punishment that is permissible for adults may occasionally be disproportionate when applied to younger offenders. See Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2026 (noting that juveniles have an objective lack of maturity, underdeveloped sense of responsibility, vulnerability to negative influences, and unformed characters); Roper, 543 U.S. at 569–70 (same). Because the Texas capital murder statute did not distinguish between adults and juvenile offenders at the time of her offense, appellant contends her mandatory sentence is likewise disproportionate.

Appellant raises an issue not directly addressed by either Graham or Roper: whether a mandatory sentence of life with the possibility of parole may be imposed on a juvenile convicted of a capital offense. When faced with a categorical challenge to a term-of-years sentence, the reviewing court must first consider the “objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice.” Roper, 543 U.S. at 563; see also Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2022–23 (applying Roper's categorical rules where “a threshold comparison between the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime does not advance the analysis”). The court examines this objective evidence to determine whether a national consensus exists against the sentencing practice at issue. See Roper, 543 U.S. at 563. Although “entitled to great weight,” evidence of national consensus is not itself determinative of whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 434 (2008). Because the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains a judicial responsibility, the court must still exercise its independent judgment to determine whether the punishment violates the Constitution. Roper, 543 U.S. at 575. This judgment is guided by consideration of the moral culpability of the offenders at issue in light of their crimes and characteristics, the severity of the punishment, and whether the punishment serves legitimate penological goals. Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2026; cf. Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (applying the same factors to a challenge involving a juvenile capital offender who was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole).

Balancing all of these factors, we cannot conclude that appellant's mandatory sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant has not produced any evidence of a national consensus against the sentence imposed. Even though a juvenile's culpability may be diminished when compared to an adult, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently recognized that the moral culpability of a juvenile capital offender is still substantial. See Meadoux, 325 S.W.3d at 195.

In Meadoux, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a juvenile capital offender's mandatory sentence of life without parole. See id. at 195–96 (finding that the punishment served legitimate penological goals). Following Meadoux, we cannot conclude that appellant's lesser sentence is grossly disproportionate simply because the capital murder statute did not distinguish between juveniles and adults at the time of the offense. Appellant's first issue is overruled.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

In issues three through six, appellant contends the trial court should have suppressed her three recorded statements.

The recording of an interrogation may not be introduced into evidence unless the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives her Fifth Amendment rights. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22, § 3(a) (West 2005); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 474–75 (1966). Appellant argues that waiver was involuntary in this case because her recorded statements were procured as she was either withdrawing from heroin or under the influence of morphine, Methadone, and Librium.

We examine a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard of review. Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 457–58 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). We afford “almost total deference to a trial court's determination of historical facts,” especially when the trial court's findings are based on an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). If supported by the record, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed. Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). The only question we review de novo is whether the trial court properly applied the law to the facts presented. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex.Crim.App .2000).

The voluntariness of a statement is assessed by considering the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was obtained. Creager v. State, 952 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). Of principal concern are the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation. Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 337 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Although relevant, evidence of intoxication does not necessarily render a statement involuntary. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 651 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); King v. State, 585 S.W.2d 720, 722 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). When the record reflects evidence of narcotics, medications, or other mind-altering agents, the question becomes whether those intoxicants prevented the defendant from making an informed and independent decision to waive her rights. See Jones, 944 S.W.2d at 651; see also Nichols v. State, 754 S.W.2d 185, 190 (Tex.Crim .App.1988) (“The central question is the extent to which appellant was deprived of his faculties due to the intoxication.”), overruled on other grounds by Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App.1989).

We recognize that appellant's drug abuse was significant, and her medical treatment considerable. Nevertheless, the record supports the trial court's ruling that appellant was capable of making an informed decision to waive her rights. Appellant did not appear intoxicated at any stage of her three recorded interrogations. Sergeant Harris testified that appellant spoke clearly and concisely during both interviews in San Antonio. During her first interview, appellant's responses were described as “calculated.” At the hospital, Sergeant Harris said she was conscious and alert. Officer Park testified that appellant was oriented to her surroundings, and Sergeant McDaniel testified that she was physically fine and lucid during her Houston interview. All three officers testified to having experience dealing with heroin addicts, and each denied witnessing any signs that appellant was withdrawing from heroin or under the influence of any sort of intoxicant. The court, as trier of fact during the suppression hearing, was free to believe the officers over the testimony of the expert. See McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex.1986).

Although we defer to the trial court's finding that Dr. Glass's opinions were not credible, Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89, we do observe that Dr. Glass similarly testified that appellant was not intoxicated from any of the drugs she received. Even if appellant was further suffering from the effects of withdrawal, as Dr. Glass claimed, the evidence does not support appellant's argument that she was unable to make an informed decision to waive her rights. Cf. Davis, 313 S.W.3d at 337–38 (finding waiver voluntary despite confessor's testimony that he was “coming off” drugs where confessor was calm and exhibiting a rational understanding of the questioning); United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.1992) (finding waiver voluntary despite symptoms of withdrawal where confessor was coherent, responsive, and displaying an ability to think rationally), disapproved on other grounds by United States v. Kim, 105 F.3d 1579 (9th Cir.1997). We find support for the testimony of the officers in our own review of the recordings. We therefore conclude that the record supports the trial court's conclusion that appellant voluntarily waived her rights.

Appellant still argues that her statements should have been suppressed under the authority of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Keeney v. Tamayo–Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992). In Townsend, a heroin addict confessed to murder after receiving treatment with a drug having the properties of a “truth serum.” Id. at 297–98. The drug was administered because the addict was entering opioid withdrawal. Id. The Supreme Court held that a “coherency” standard was not the appropriate test for determining whether a drug-induced statement was voluntarily made. Id. at 320. Rather, the appropriate inquiry is whether the individual's will was overborne, or whether his statement was the product of a rational intellect and a free will. Id. at 307. Appellant argues that the trial judge's findings should be disregarded because he used the wrong standard.

We do not find that appellant's recorded statements were admitted in violation of Townsend. Appellant may have very likely been under the influence of heroin during her first interrogation, yet no one, including Dr. Glass, actually testified that she appeared intoxicated. Moreover, Dr. Glass never testified that heroin by itself was sufficient to abrogate appellant's free will. See King, 585 S.W.2d at 722 (holding that heroin taken on day of confessing did not render confession involuntary).

Dr. Glass also failed to explain how any of the medications appellant received acted in the nature of a “truth serum.” He merely testified that appellant was treated with morphine and Methadone to begin her detox and to stabilize her condition before her transfer to Houston. Although appellant received potent dosages of each drug, no one testified that either morphine or Methadone would render appellant incapable of understanding her rights. After receiving this treatment, appellant did not slur her words during the second interview. She did not pause inappropriately before answering a question, nor did she seem confused. Nothing on the audio recording indicated that appellant was incompetent to testify. Likewise, there was no testimony that the combined effect of morphine and Methadone had overcome appellant's free will, making her appear competent when, in fact, she was not.

Before her third recorded interview in Houston, appellant received Librium to treat the anxiety associated with her heroin withdrawal. Dr. Glass testified that the amount of Librium administered was the equivalent of several shots of alcohol, and that it did nothing for the physical symptoms of withdrawal. Dr. Glass agreed with the officers, however, that appellant was not intoxicated when she offered her statements. Moreover, Dr. Glass never testified that Librium would prevent appellant from waiving her rights freely and knowingly.

The record supports the trial court's finding that appellant's statements were not induced from either the medications she received or the effects of withdrawal. Because her recorded statements were not admitted in violation of Townsend, we overrule issues three through six.

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL

In her last remaining issue, appellant challenges the trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor's improper closing argument.

We review a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). When the refusal to grant a mistrial follows an objection for improper jury argument, we evaluate the trial court's decision using the following factors: (1) the severity of the misconduct; (2) the measures adopted to cure the misconduct; and (3) the certainty of conviction absent the misconduct. Id. (citing Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)). Balancing these factors in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for mistrial.

When assessing the severity of an improper jury argument, our primary focus is the prejudicial effect of the misconduct. Id. In deciding whether prejudice was incited, we examine the statement “in light of the facts adduced at trial and in the context of the entire argument.” See McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, 239 (Tex .Crim.App.1989); Gaddis v. State, 753 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); see also Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (“The determination of whether a given error necessitates a mistrial must be made by examining the particular facts of the case.”).

Argument that places the jury outside the record has always been held to be improper. See Everett v. State, 707 S.W.2d 638, 641 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). The prosecutor's remarks in this case are no exception. But despite being highly inappropriate, we cannot conclude that the argument was clearly prejudicial when taken in context. The argument followed defense counsel's own closing statement where he claimed that Rott made a deal with the State to testify falsely against appellant. Testimony of this side deal was limited during trial because of various objections from the State. The prosecutor referenced these very objections just before his remark that the jury cannot know “the whole truth about everything that happened in this case.” The immediate discussion was focused entirely on the questions surrounding Rott's alleged deal, not appellant's involvement in the murders. Viewed in this context, even though the prosecutor did venture outside the record, his argument did not introduce a risk that the jury would convict appellant on facts not in evidence. At most, the argument suggested that an agreement did exist between Rott and the State. As this could only damage Rott's credibility, we do not believe that the prosecutor's argument was so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial.

In considering the second factor, we generally presume that a prompt instruction to disregard will cure any error associated with improper jury argument. Phillips v. State, 130 S.W.3d 343, 356 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). “Only offensive or flagrant error warrants reversal when there has been an instruction to disregard․” Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 116 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). In this case, the trial court promptly instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's statement, adding further that the jury should only consider evidence that has actually been admitted. The prosecutor's argument was not extreme or in violation of a mandatory statute, and it did not inject any new facts into the case that were harmful to appellant. Cf. Thompson v. State, 89 S.W.3d 843, 850–51 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (holding prosecutor's argument was improper where it encouraged the jury to speculate on “a very important reason” he could not legally disclose). Accordingly, we do not believe that the argument was so blatant as to render the curative instruction ineffective. See Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 115.

Finally, even if the prosecutor's argument did encourage the jury to speculate on facts not in the record, evidence of appellant's participation in the murders was already well-substantiated. For instance, the Lackners witnessed appellant casually approaching Rowell's house on the day of the murders. In her third recorded statement, appellant herself admitted to being inside the home and holding a gun as her boyfriend pulled the trigger. Bullets from both guns used in the murders ultimately struck two of the complainants. Although this evidence may not be suggestive of direct guilt, we cannot say that the prosecutor's argument affected the likelihood of appellant's conviction as a party to the murders.

Having considered each of the factors adopted in Hawkins, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for mistrial. Appellant's second issue is overruled.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TRACY CHRISTOPHER, Justice.