by first assuming that appellant was the perpetrator of the murder and then working backwards. The evidence does not prove that appellant had an opportunity to kill the victim. Instead, it proves that appellant was present at the crime scene after the murder, but mere presence is not enough to prove guilt. See Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Medina, 7 S.W.3d at 641; Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Failing to notify authorities of a crime is also not enough. See Medina, 7 S.W.3d at 641. Although courts have upheld murder convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence, such cases have often involved proof of motive in addition to other incriminating circumstances. See Ates v. State, 21 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Reeves v. State, 969 S.W.2d 471, 479
recognizing and discussing importance of privacy interests of victims in context of newspapers request for court to order governments disclosure of victims identity holding that jury may consider victims mental capacity in determining whether defendant acted with victims knowledge and consent holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same holding that proof of motive could be inferred from absence of victims purse and victims refusal of defendants sexual advances holding that a prosecutors motive may often be inferred from the totality of relevant facts