requests that this court remand the cause for an out-of-time hearing on her motion for new trial as alternative relief in the event we do not reverse and remand for a new trial or punishment hearing. 5 . The State also cites Atchison v. Weingarten Realty Management Co., 916 S.W.2d 74, 76B77 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ), but we do not find that case instructive. In Atchison, the appellant challenged the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the appellee, but the motion for summary judgment was not included in the record. A document purporting to be the motion for summary judg ing videotape reenactment had no probative value when position of victim, which was crux of reenactment, was inconsistent with testimony); State v. Philbrick, 436 A.2d 844, 859-60 (Me.1981) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Appellant also argues the demonstration
holding evidence did not connect defendant to narcotics found in individual bags inside a larger bag in a car following the defendants car when the only connection was his fingerprints on outer bag and when the driver and passenger of the car in which the drugs were found exhibited nervousness and other factors indicating consciousness of guilt holding drug addiction admissible to show motive to rob and kill when defendant had the victims car check book and credit cards told his wife and a friend that he had killed the victim in selfdefense sold the car to a drug dealer and used all the money from forged checks credit card cash advances and car sale to purchase and use drugs holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door holding that one circumstance justifying the officers reasonable belief that a driver in an accident suffered sufficiently serious injuries was the presence of blood on the seat and blood mingled with glass on the dashboard and steering wheel holding detectives demonstration using front seat and dashboard of car and mannequins to depict shooting was not substantially similar and overly prejudicial when car parts had been altered and their original positions were not verified the mannequins were not shown to be physically similar to the defendant or the victim and the detective was not qualified to opine as an expert on blood spatter evidence forming part of his opinions