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. In Clear Lake, Texas, in the fall of 2002, two beautiful girls decided to befriend an outcast. Christine Paolilla suffered from Alopecia, a condition where most, if not all our hair falls out. She was lonely, and often wore garish makeup and Halloween wigs. Rachael and Tiffany helped her buy new, more flattering wigs and showed her how to properly apply makeup. But they were a year ahead of her, graduated, and Christine reunited with a boyfriend who had been jailed with a felony.
Christine Paolilla, right, and her boyfriend at the time of the murders, Christopher Snider, left. On July 18, 2003, Christine and her boyfriend Christopher Snider went to Tiffany's home in Clear Lake City, Texas, and murdered Tiffany, Rachael, and two other friends in cold blood. Why would a young girl-who had already experienced such a deep loss-commit such a brutal act? Especially upon the two people she seemingly cared about most. By the time she entered high school, Christine had suffered the sudden death of her father and was diagnosed with alopecia--an irreversible disease that caused her to lose her hair, eyebrows, and eyelashes.
He said Snider killed Precella and Sanchez, and Paolilla shot the two girls. "Their intention ... that day was not for anyone to be murdered," Rott said. "Their intentions that day were to hang out and do drugs." Rott, who was not married to Paolilla at the time of the killings, shared with the Chronicle previously unpublicized details of what he seekers crime said his wife told him happened that day.
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.
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. If supported by the record, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed. 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).
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. 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). Sergeant Breck C. McDaniel conducted the video-taped interview in Houston. He testified to having thirteen years of experience with the Houston Police Department.