Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 12, 1998

AFFIRMED

Joseph Pena appeals his murder conviction. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

After Pena and Joe Bernal initiated a confrontation in a convenience store parking lot, Pena stabbed Louis Gonzalez in the heart and then fled to a nearby apartment complex. Then, another of Pena's friends, Albert Ramirez, drove his blazer over Gonzalez and rammed the rear of the car in which Gonzalez and two friends had arrived. Shortly thereafter, Gonzalez died of the stab wound inflicted by Pena.

At trial, the court admitted a surveillance camera videotape showing Ramirez ramming his Blazer into Gonzalez' friend's car.

Discussion

Pena contends the trial court erred in admitting the surveillance videotape because it constitutes evidence of an extraneous offense committed after Pena left the scene. We disagree.

The admissibility of evidence is governed by an abuse of discretion standard. Gordon v. State, 784 S.W.2d 410, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the surveillance videotape because (1) it does not show an extraneous offense committed by Pena, see Brown v. State, 505 S.W.2d 850, 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); and (2) Pena failed to object when two witnesses testified to the same events depicted in the videotape. See Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 100 (1997). We therefore overrule Pena's point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH