the evidence connected with the murder directly demonstrates the main fact. The fingerprints that were “lifted” from the cold Schlitz beer can proved that the appellant handled the beer can sometime during the morning of the murder, but prior to the time when the police arrived. They did not prove that the appellant fired the bullet which killed the deceased. Jones v. State, 568 S.W.2d 847, 859 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (en banc). Similarly, in this case, the fingerprints do not prove that appellant fired the weapon that was used to kill Playnonero. The bloody fingerprints prove that appellant was with the victim after the shooting; however, they are not evidence that appellant was with the victim before the shooting, and an inference to that effect can be reached on Waco 1998, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Although motive is not an element of murder,
holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him holding that defendant had motive because victim did not love him anymore and did not want to be around him and defendant was jealous of victims other intimate relationships holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave