Craig Alan Vandewege v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00156-CR
___________________________
CRAIG ALAN VANDEWEGE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from 372nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1481312D
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On the morning of December 15, 2016, Shanna Vandewege and three-month-
old Diederik Vandewege were murdered. Their throats were slit. Shanna was still in
bed. Diederik was still in his bassinet.
A jury found Appellant Craig Alan Vandewege guilty of capital murder by
intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Shanna and Diederik during the same
criminal transaction or by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Diederik, an
individual under ten years of age. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(7)(A), (8).
Because the State waived the death penalty, the trial court sentenced Vandewege to
life in prison without parole. See id. § 12.31(a)(2).
On appeal, Vandewege brings two points. First, he contends that the evidence
is insufficient to support the verdict. Second, he asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting statements that he had purportedly made to a coworker
because their prejudicial value substantially outweighed their probative value.
We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support Vandewege’s conviction and
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Vandewege’s statements
to a coworker. We overrule both points and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
2
I. EVIDENCE
A. VANDEWEGE AND SHANNA’S RELATIONSHIP
1. Vandewege’s Parents
Vandewege met his future wife, Shanna, on the dating site Christian Mingle.
From Vandewege’s parents’ perspective, it was true love. His father testified, “They
were in love. You know, they were meant for each other.” His mother added,
“[T]hey were very much in love.” Photographs of Vandewege and Shanna together
corroborated his parents’ observations.
2. Vandewege’s Coworkers
Vandewege’s coworkers, however, saw something quite different. One
coworker said that Vandewege made “mean, nasty comments” about Shanna; the
coworker added, “I mean it was constant.” Another coworker said that Vandewege
made derogatory comments about Shanna on almost a daily basis.
Vandewege’s former supervisor testified that Vandewege spoke so negatively
about Shanna that she questioned why Vandewege was dating her. Even before
Vandewege married Shanna, the supervisor had advised Vandewege not to marry her
because he spoke so poorly of her. The supervisor explained that Vandewege was
“just always talking bad about her.” The supervisor’s impression was that Vandewege
went through with the marriage for financial reasons.
3
3. Financial Matters
Other evidence supported Vandewege’s supervisor’s impression that
Vandewege had married Shanna for financial reasons.
Vandewege and Shanna procured their marriage license on May 2, 2014. On
the very next day, May 3, 2014, Vandewege created a living trust. A forensic financial
analyst testified that a living trust was one means of protecting assets in the event of a
divorce. The analyst noted that Vandewege had placed his house and his checking
account in his living trust. Vandewege also had his payroll checks deposited into the
living trust. In contrast, Shanna’s payroll checks were deposited into the couple’s
joint checking account. The couple married later in May 2014.
Additionally, the analyst determined that when Shanna sold her house, she
made a $65,000 profit. This $65,000 was then used to pay down the mortgage on
Vandewege’s house, which, as noted earlier, had been placed in Vandewege’s living
trust. The analyst questioned if Shanna was aware that she would never get that
$65,000 back.
Shanna had life-insurance policies in the approximate amount of $43,000
before she married Vandewege. Shanna made Vandewege the beneficiary of those
policies.
The life insurance did not stop there. One month after Vandewege and Shanna
were married, Vandewege took out another $220,736 in life insurance on Shanna.
4
Between Shanna’s and Vandewege’s policies, Shanna’s life was insured for a total of
approximately $265,000.
And in 2016, Vandewege purchased another $396,500 in life insurance on
Shanna to bring the total to $661,505. Shanna was murdered in December 2016.
Vandewege had also taken out life-insurance policies on Diederik. Two days
after Diederik’s birth in September 2016, Vandewege took out policies on him in the
amount of $56,500. As next of kin, Vandewege would have been the beneficiary of
those policies.1
B. VANDEWEGE AND DIEDERIK’S RELATIONSHIP
1. Vandewege’s Parents
Regarding Diederik, Vandewege’s mother stated that Vandewege and Shanna
were excited about Diederik because they had previously lost a baby. Photographs
seem to show Vandewege to be a happy father.
1
Shanna’s father testified that on the day Diederik was brought home, he
overheard Vandewege on the telephone talking to someone, after which Vandewege
commented to Shanna, “I guess we can only get $10,000 of life insurance on
[Diederik] until he’s three months.” Vandewege purchased a basic life-insurance
policy for $1,500, a supplemental life-insurance policy for $5,000, and an accidental-
death-and-dismemberment policy for $50,000. A forensic financial analyst stated that
accidental-death-and-dismemberment insurance is “generally for people who have a
high-risk job or [who] have a high-risk lifestyle and [who have other] people rely[ing]
on them financially for support.”
5
2. Vandewege’s Coworkers
Vandewege’s coworkers, however, expressed reservations about Vandewege
and his relationship with Diederik. When an ultrasound suggested that Diederik
might have physical abnormalities, one coworker described Vandewege as “[j]ust kind
of disgusted.” And the same coworker commented that when it was determined that
Diederik had a tongue tie, Vandewege recounted how he put numbing gel in
Diederik’s mouth and cut the ligament himself to avoid a $15 copay.2
C. COMMENTS FORETELLING VIOLENCE
In the months preceding the murders, Vandewege had made comments that
others thought odd. After the fact, the comments appeared to foreshadow the
murders. For example, a coworker said that Vandewege had told her about a dream
he had in which he had cut Shanna’s head like bologna. This same coworker related
that while Shanna was pregnant, Vandewege said that “he wished he could just push
her down the stairs and kill her.”
Vandewege made a similar comment to a second coworker: Vandewege stated
that he would get time off from work and life insurance money if Shanna fell or was
pushed down the stairs while pregnant and lost the baby. To this coworker,
When asked if Vandewege was frugal, Vandewege’s father responded, “Very,
2
yes. He watched his money.” Vandewege’s second point is based on the testimony
concerning Vandewege’s personally cutting the tongue tie to avoid the $15 copay.
6
Vandewege also said that he needed life insurance in case Shanna died during
childbirth.
Vandewege’s comments were not limited to coworkers. Vandewege told
Shanna’s childhood friend that he would be set for life if Shanna died. A last example
involved Shanna’s brother, Mitchell. At Thanksgiving 2016, when exchanging
goodbyes, Mitchell said that he would see them again for Christmas; Vandewege
scoffed and responded, “That’s if you get to see her again.” Mitchell said that the
comment angered him to the point that he wanted to hit Vandewege, but Mitchell and
Shanna’s father intervened to defuse the situation.
D. THE MURDERS AND THE AFTERMATH
Shanna and Diederik were murdered between 12:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on
December 15, 2016.3 Vandewege was scheduled to work from 11:30 a.m. until 9:00
p.m. Google data showed that Vandewege was at or very near the crime scene from
11:00 p.m. on December 14, 2016, until about 10:56 a.m. on December 15, 2016.
Vandewege arrived at work about forty-five minutes late. He was described as
“disheveled.” While at work that day, Vandewege told one of his coworkers that he
was trying to text Shanna, but she was not answering. When the coworker was asked
3
Based on the rigor in Shanna’s body, a medical doctor testified that Shanna
was killed any time after 12:30 a.m. and before 1:30 p.m. on December 15, 2016. The
doctor added that due to the degree of rigor in Shanna’s body, the time of death
became increasingly unlikely as the day progressed. Regarding the 12:30 a.m. starting
point, Shanna’s phone was last used at 12:35 a.m. on December 15, 2016. It was a
forty-second call to Vandewege’s phone.
7
if Vandewege was expressing concern, she responded, “No, just probably more
irrita[tion].” Vandewege also told the coworker that he had purchased diamond
earrings for Shanna. And, Vandewege went out of his way to show his supervisor a
video of Diederik, which was something that he had never done before. Google data
showed that Vandewege left work around 8:54 p.m.
When Vandewege returned home that night, at 9:28 p.m., he called 911 to
report that Shanna and Diederik were dead and that his house was a mess and all torn
up. The 911 dispatcher described him as “very calm,” “eerily calm,” and
“nonchalant.” The dispatcher, who had twenty-three years’ experience, said that she
“didn’t notice any emotion.” She added, “I did not hear him ask once what can I do
to help, do I need to put a towel on the bleeding, do I need to check for wounds, do I
need to check their pulse . . . . That’s very typical -- in my experience very common.”
She continued, “So to me for a person to call and say somebody is injured and not
once say what can I do to help, do I need to try to stop the bleeding, . . . , it was just
bizarre to me.” Vandewege did not ask that any medical help be sent to his house,
and he did not express any concern about any perpetrators still being inside the house.
When the responding officer arrived, Vandewege greeted him on the front
porch and said that his wife and child were dead. Vandewege explained to the officer
that when he had arrived home from work, the front door was unlocked, all the
cupboards in the kitchen were open, and the dogs were inside, which was “really
weird,” so he let them out. Vandewege related that when his wife did not respond to
8
his calls, he went upstairs where he found the door to the master bedroom closed.
After entering, he discovered that someone had torn up the bedroom. Vandewege
then said that he saw his wife in bed and the baby in the bassinet; both were all
bloody.
When the officer entered the house, however, it was not what he had
anticipated. Although untidy, the home had not been ransacked, and the television,
which he would have expected to have been stolen, was still there. Every cabinet and
drawer in the kitchen had been opened, but “[n]othing was rummaged through or
ransacked.”
Vandewege spoke with detectives on December 16, 2016, from about 1:18 a.m
until about 6:43 a.m., after which—because he could not return to his home—he
asked to be dropped off at his employer’s place of business. Once there, Vandewege
spoke with his direct supervisor about what had happened.
After Vandewege explained the events to his supervisor, his supervisor drove
him to a hotel. The supervisor said that while they were in the car, Vandewege
“volunteered how much his dog was going to miss his wife, that they had really
bonded when his baby was born.” Vandewege, per the supervisor, also said that “he
was just really sad that the dogs were going to miss his wife a lot.” The supervisor
added that if Vandewege had ever cried, it was while he was discussing his dogs.
Regarding Diederik, the supervisor observed that his conversation with Vandewege
was noteworthy for what it was missing: “In this whole conversation[,] he never
9
mentioned his son. Never heard his son’s name. Never mentioned him unless I
asked.”
After talking with Vandewege, the supervisor said that he was ninety percent
sure that Vandewege was the murderer.
E. ONE WEEK AFTER THE MURDERS
Shanna’s and Diederik’s funerals were scheduled for December 21 or 22, 2016,
in Colorado. On December 22, 2016—a week after Shanna and Diederik were
murdered—Vandewege posted on Facebook his plans for a Las Vegas vacation:
Ok[,] so after taking a little drive and stopping at the local Chevy
dealership[,] I told the [salesman] my life story[, and] he agreed to let me
b[o]rrow a newer [C]orvette. He has all my guns and has Shanna . . .
Vandewege[’]s [E]lantra. I want to meet you all in [L]as Vegas at Trump
Tower and ask [T]rump for a pardon in case lying dick face investigator
convicts me. I feel the deck is stacked against me. I’m going to get 2k
out of the bank and do some hookers and cocaine while one gives me a
rim job. Maybe he will let me grab [someone] by the pussy. I love you
all and God bless. God speed and balls deep! Yee yee[.]
Because Vandewege was absent, the funerals had to be rescheduled for December 27,
2016.
Also on December 22, 2016, the detective learned that Vandewege had been
arrested in Colorado on an unrelated traffic violation. The detective then procured
his own warrant for Vandewege’s arrest.
10
F. THE INVESTIGATION
The investigator4 found the crime scene odd. Neither the front door nor the
backyard gate had been damaged.5 The lock to the back door had been jimmied. The
investigator said the more common method of gaining entry was to kick the door in,
which took less time. The investigator estimated that only one to five percent of the
cases that he had worked on involved jimmying the lock to get inside. The
investigator opined that a burglar could have broken a glass pane in the back door,
reached through the broken window, and unlocked the door from the interior.
The investigator noted that someone had pulled open the drawers in the
kitchen, but he also observed that nothing had been removed. Burglars, he
commented, did not target kitchens because they “aren’t trying to find dishes and
stuff like that.” A purse on the kitchen counter had not been disturbed. The
investigator opined, “[T]hat would be an easy grab during a burglary” because “that’s
where a lot of women keep valuable items, credit cards, cash, stuff like that.”
The investigator noted other peculiarities. Televisions and gaming systems
were typically what burglars took because they were easily marketable. But in
Vandewege’s case, the flatscreen TV was still in the living room, and a television and
4
The witness identified himself as a “home inspector.” For clarity, we refer to
him as an investigator.
5
Shanna’s father testified that when he visited Shanna and Vandewege after
Diederik’s birth, the gate to the backyard had been padlocked.
11
gaming system in the game room had not been disturbed. Similarly, watches, a
computer, and a cellular telephone were left behind. And in the bedroom, where the
murders occurred, a jewelry box and a flatscreen television had not been disturbed.
A crime scene officer found a latex glove in Vandewege’s car. Jurors later
learned that on the glove was blood and that after the blood was analyzed for DNA,
Diederik could not be excluded as its source.
Like the responding officer, the detective assigned to the case commented on
the relative orderliness of a house that had been allegedly burglarized: “I thought it
was pretty neat for a burglar, yes.” When walking up the stairs to the bedroom, the
detective saw a shotgun underneath the bed. And, in the upstairs closet was another
firearm. The detective commented, “Well, typically firearms, and we’re talking about
burglaries, firearms are like gold. That’s a high[-]dollar item that a burglar could get
quite a bit of money for on the streets. They’re not typically left behind.”
Another oddity was the fact that Vandewege had two dogs and that both were
indoors when the murders occurred. The detective said, “Well, it would just seem to
be highly unusual to me that the dogs would just let somebody whittle on the back
door without alerting . . . her, and let somebody get all the way in the house without
alerting her.” The detective said that he would have expected the dogs to bark or do
something to wake up Shanna. An alerted person—the detective noted—could have
rolled to the side of the bed and grabbed the shotgun. And, “[a]t the minimum,” the
detective would have expected a burglar to have put the dogs outside. But the
12
detective saw no signs of a struggle. “It looked like [Shanna and Diederik] were
merely sleeping.”6
The detective also determined that someone had cleaned up the bathroom after
the murders. To the naked eye, blood was not visible. But with the help of Blue Star,
a chemical that illuminated blood, the detective was able to see blood. To the
detective, a burglar had no reason to clean up the bathroom; blood was already
everywhere. The detective believed that someone who had wanted to hide the fact
that the killer had gone into the bathroom to clean up would have gone to that
trouble.
On the floor in the bedroom were two open safes. One required a key to
open, and the other required a combination. Thus, the burglar would have been
someone who knew where the key was to the one safe and what the combination was
to the other safe.
The detective noted too that a burglar would have had no incentive to kill
Diederik. A three-month-old child could not testify as a witness.
6
A crime-scene reconstruction expert testified that, in her opinion, “Shanna was
laying in her bed with her covers pulled up to her throat at the time that the injury was
inflicted.” She said it was possible that Shanna was asleep when she was attacked.
Shanna had no defensive wounds on either arm.
13
II. DISCUSSION
A. SUFFICIENCY
In Vandewege’s first point, he contends that there ‘is no evidence that [he]
killed his wife and son.” The gist of Vandewege’s argument is that there is no direct
evidence showing that he murdered his wife and son and that the State’s case was
purely circumstantial.7 Despite the evidence being circumstantial, we hold that it is
nevertheless sufficient to support the verdict.
In our evidentiary-sufficiency review, we view all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found
the crime’s essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Queeman v. State, 520 S.W.3d 616, 622 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2017). This standard gives full play to the factfinder’s responsibility to
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at
2789; Harrell v. State, 620 S.W.3d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
The factfinder alone judges the evidence’s weight and credibility. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04; Martin v. State, 635 S.W.3d 672, 679 (Tex. Crim. App.
7
Although Vandewege articulates his fist point as a legal-sufficiency complaint,
the case law on which he relies is the defunct factual-sufficiency standard. See Clewis v.
State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), overruled by Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We decline to use the factual-
sufficiency standard because it is no longer deemed separate from legal sufficiency.
14
2021). We may not re-evaluate the evidence’s weight and credibility and substitute
our judgment for the factfinder’s. Queeman, 520 S.W.3d at 622. Instead, we determine
whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based on the evidence’s cumulative
force when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Braughton v. State,
569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see Villa v. State, 514 S.W.3d 227, 232
(Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (“The court conducting a sufficiency review must not engage
in a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy but must consider the cumulative force of all the
evidence.”). We must presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences
in favor of the verdict, and we must defer to that resolution. Braughton, 569 S.W.3d
at 608.
In establishing guilt, circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence,
and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient. Hammack v. State, 622 S.W.3d
910, 914–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). On appeal, the standard of review is the same
for both circumstantial- and direct-evidence cases. Id. at 915.
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the
evidence showed that Vandewege was quite capable of being duplicitous and that—
even assuming that Shanna was aware of his living trust—he was financially
exploitative. See Williams v. State, 513 S.W.3d 619, 634 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016,
pet. ref’d) (stating that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict).
Thus, a rational trier of fact could have reasonably concluded beyond a reasonable
doubt that Vandewege purchased life insurance for Shanna and Diederik, killed them
15
for the proceeds, and then staged a burglary—in a clumsy manner that law
enforcement quickly debunked—in an attempt to conceal the fact that he was the
killer. See id. at 634–36. “Attempts to conceal incriminating evidence . . . are
probative of wrongful conduct and are also circumstances of guilt.” Guevara v. State,
152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
We overrule Vandewege’s first point.
B. ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY
In Vandewege’s second point, he asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting statements that he had purportedly made to a coworker that
he had personally performed a medical procedure on Diederik to save himself the
expense of a $15 copay. Vandewege contends that the prejudicial value of the
evidence substantially outweighed its probative value.8 See Tex. R. Evid. 403.
The exchange about which Vandewege complains follows:
In Vandewege’s brief, he complained specifically about comments that he had
8
made to a coworker about Diederik because the conversation “implied ill-will towards
his son.” When quoting the reporter’s record, however, Vandewege included other
matters, after which the trial court ruled on both his objection regarding the
comments that he had allegedly made regarding Diederik and on his objections
regarding these other matters. In his brief, Vandewege does not complain about these
other rulings. We do not understand his argument to encompass any of these other
matters included in the quoted material. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (requiring
concise arguments with appropriate citations); Bramlett v. State, No. 06-11-00149-CR,
2012 WL 1537577, at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 2, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem.
op., not designated for publication) (declining to create arguments on the appellant’s
behalf).
16
Q. After Diederik was born, did he tell you about a condition
that Diederik had related to his tongue?
A. Yes. He said that the baby was tongue tied.
Q. And what did you understand tongue tied to mean?
A. That the tongue was -- there was an extra piece of skin under
the tongue that would prevent or sometimes hinder things like feeding
and that type of thing.
Q. Did he tell you anything about himself and being tongue tied?
A. He said that he had . . . the same thing.
Q. Did he tell you about -- did he tell you that he did anything to
correct that issue?
A. He said he performed the procedure on the baby to release the
tongue himself. He did it himself.
Q. And what did that involve?
A. He said that he got the information from YouTube on how to
do it and put some numbing gel on the baby and then whatever he used
to do the procedure, I didn’t ask.
Q. But did he indicate what he did?
A. He said he cut it.
Q. So he told you that after putting numbing cream in Diederik’s
mouth that he cut the ligament under Diederik’s tongue?
A. Yes.
Q. He didn’t tell you the exact mechanism he used?
A. No.
Q. Did he tell you why he did this?
17
A. Because he wanted to save $15 from his copay on his
insurance.
Q. $15 of a copay that his insurance would require?
A. Correct.
Q. So he told you that -- so his motivation that he told you was
to avoid a $15 copay he performed this procedure himself?
A. He did.
Q. Otherwise a procedure that would have been performed by a
doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Under sterile circumstances?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you ask anything about -- did he tell you anything about
Shanna’s thoughts on this?
A. Well, the first thing I asked was if Shanna was okay with that,
and he said, [“]No, not really but she finally agreed to it.[”]
Q. What was your reaction to this?
A. I was floored.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because I think it’s horrible to -- I can’t imagine taking any
kind of instrument to a tiny little baby’s mouth and cutting it. It’s just
beyond something I would consider to be a normal practice.
Q. Did you find that entire conversation very upsetting?
A. Yes.
18
Q. What was his emotional demeanor?
A. He was just happy he saved his money.
Q. That he’d saved the $15?
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you recall approximately when he told you about that?
A. It was probably October. The baby was little.
Q. And we’re talking about 2016, correct?
A. Yes.[9]
Later in the trial, a medical doctor commented on the risks a patient ran if
someone other than a doctor performed the procedure: “General risks of any type of
procedure that would involve cutting tissue would include bleeding, you could include
infection, damaging other structures in the area.” The doctor said that if the
procedure was done incorrectly, it was possible to damage the mouth: “So you could
actually cause more damage to the tongue or the salivary glands in the bottom of the
mouth if you weren’t trained to do one of the two common procedures that they do.”
We agree that the testimony was prejudicial. But we disagree with Vandewege’s
underlying premise that it was unfairly prejudicial. The point of offering evidence is
to injure the opponent’s case. See Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817, 820 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993); Gomez v. State, No. 02-17-00089-CR, 2018 WL 547626, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—
9
Vandewege preserved his complaint at a preliminary hearing.
19
Fort Worth Jan. 25, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
“Unfair prejudice” refers to evidence that has an undue tendency to suggest a decision
based on an improper basis—most commonly, but not necessarily, an emotional one.
Cohn, 849 S.W.2d at 820.
The State was asking the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that
Vandewege slit the throat of his own three-month-old son. Normally, that would be a
tall order to fill.
The disputed testimony went to Vandewege’s state of mind. It provided a
concrete example of his priorities. Despite the risks to Diederik, to save $15,
Vandewege chose to forgo having a trained medical doctor perform the procedure.
The $15 was more important than Diederik or his health.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
disputed testimony. See Cohn, 849 S.W.2d at 820; Gomez, 2018 WL 547626, at *2 n.3.
But assuming it did, we would nevertheless hold that the error was harmless. See Tex.
R. App. P. 44.2(b). Other evidence illustrated Vandewege’s callous attitude toward
Diederick. For example, while Shanna was pregnant, Vandewege stated that he
wanted to push her down the stairs. When discussing the murders with his
supervisor, Vandewege did not mention Diederick. And instead of lamenting
Shanna’s and Diederick’s deaths, Vandewege lamented the effect Shanna’s death had
on his dogs. Finally, we have reviewed the crime scene photographs. This testimony
20
about Vandewege snipping a ligament under Diederik’s tongue was the least of
Vandewege’s concerns.
We overrule Vandewege’s second point.
III. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Vandewege’s two points, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: June 6, 2024
21