a mallet. He acknowledged that in previous statements to the police, he said

appellant participated in the robbery and was the person who attacked one of the people with a

mallet.

          Finally, Sussan and Savage’s father, Harold Savage, testified that on the night of the

robbery, he received a call from his son at about 2 or 2:30 in the morning. He could hear

appellant’s voice in the background. His son told him that he and Kerkove needed a ride back to

the motel so Harold Savage picked them up and took them to the motel.

          In his second issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support his

conviction because the evidence failed to  After returning to the motel room hours after leaving, Savage admitted he and the others

committed the robberies. He made the spontaneous admission to his sister, not a police officer.

See Walter, 267 S.W.3d at 898 (acknowledging that statements to friends, loved ones, or family

members normally do not raise same trustworthiness concerns as those made to law enforcement

because, in latter instance, declarant has obvious motive to minimize role and shift blame to

others). The timing and spontaneity of the statement tend to establish its reliability.

       In addition, the State developed independent corroborative facts that verified the

statement. Evidence showed appellant left the motel room on the night of the robbery with

Savage, Kerkove, and Lee in Sheffield’s gold SUV. Murata testified he and his friend