Adell v. State
| Docket Number | 01-21-00439-CR |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Parties | DARRELL ANTHONY ADELL, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 87429-CR
Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.
A jury found appellant, Darrell Anthony Adell, Jr., guilty of the felony offense of murder[1] and assessed his punishment at confinement for life. In sixteen issues, appellant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction, his appeal should be abated, and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, admitting certain evidence, and denying his motion for mistrial and motion for new trial. We affirm.
Yolanda Cantu testified that she was the mother of the complainant Trish Rodriguez, who was thirty-nine years old at the time of her death. According to Yolanda, after the complainant graduated college, she worked at Dow Chemical at the Lake Jackson office. Yolanda and the complainant's sister Monica, previously lived with the complainant at the complainant's house located at 54 Greenvale Court in Lake Jackson, Texas. When the complainant married Robert Rathkamp he moved into the complainant's home with the complainant, Yolanda, and Monica. Eventually, the complainant and Rathkamp separated and divorced after the complainant became pregnant with appellant's child. After becoming pregnant, the complainant stopped "hear[ing] from" appellant, and the complainant subsequently terminated her pregnancy.
Later after the complainant's divorce, the complainant and appellant entered into a relationship, and the complainant became pregnant again with appellant's child. The complainant was excited about the baby and had "always wanted to have a baby." "[A]t first," appellant was "around" during the complainant's pregnancy, but when the complainant found out that appellant had "another girlfriend," the complainant and appellant stopped "seeing each other." Appellant did not attend any doctors' appointments with the complainant during her pregnancy. The complainant's child, T.A.A.R. (the "child"), was born on February 6, 2017. After the child's birth, the complainant called appellant. The child lived with the complainant, Yolanda, and Monica at the complainant's house following his birth.
When the complainant returned to work after the child's birth, the child went to "Kool Kidz" daycare. The daycare was not far from the complainant's home-about five minutes away. The daycare was also close to the complainant's work,[2]and the complainant would leave work during the day to visit the child and to breastfeed him when he was an infant. The complainant "always check[ed] on [the child] on her breaks" from work.
According to Yolanda, the complainant normally dropped the child off at daycare, and the complainant normally picked the child up from daycare. Occasionally, appellant would pick the child up from daycare. When the complainant had to travel for work, appellant was responsible for dropping the child off at daycare in the morning because the child would be staying with appellant while the complainant traveled.
Yolanda further testified that she and Monica continued to live with the complainant until November 2017. And after she and Monica moved out of the complainant's home in November 2017, the complainant and the child lived there together. In December 2017, Yolanda became aware that the complainant and appellant were back in a relationship.
In January 2018, appellant moved into the complainant's home. After appellant moved into the complainant's home, Yolanda's visits with the complainant and the child decreased, and she only visited when appellant was not around. Appellant and the complainant remained in a relationship until December 2018.
At some point in early 2019, Yolanda learned that the complainant and appellant were no longer in a relationship. The complainant seemed upset about the breakup but also relieved. The complainant was the person that ended the relationship, and she "seemed more herself and happier. She "seem[ed] like she was going to be able to finally move on."
On February 9, 2019, Yolanda attended a birthday party for the child at appellant's house in Angleton, Texas. Appellant had purchased his house around November 2017. In February 2019, the house appeared to be "under construction."
On February 15, 2019, Yolanda saw the complainant and the child, and the complainant told Yolanda that she had asked appellant to leave her house. The complainant said that "she was going for full custody and child support but that [appellant] mustn't know until right before the [court] date."[3] The complainant specifically told Yolanda that appellant "couldn't know about the child support until right before the court date," which was supposed to be at the beginning of March 2019. The complainant also told Yolanda that her relationship with appellant "wasn't meant to be." And she said: The complainant was trembling when she said that. The complainant and Yolanda discussed changing the locks to the complainant's home, but they were not changed prior to the complainant's death.
Yolanda subsequently saw the complainant on February 16, 2019 and on February 17, 2019. On February 17, 2019, the complainant spent some time loading appellant's "stuff from the complainant's home into her sport utility vehicle ("SUV"). When Yolanda left the complainant's home on February 17, 2019, the complainant was going to go to appellant's home to drop off his things. Yolanda either spoke to the complainant on the telephone or communicated with the complainant by text message on February 18, 2019. Yolanda and the complainant made plans to spend the day together on February 22, 2019, along with the child and Monica. The complainant also had plans to see a friend on February 22, 2019 for a playdate with the child at about 3:00 p.m.
On February 19, 2019, the complainant came to Yolanda's house with the child to cook dinner. While at Yolanda's home, the complainant discussed that appellant would be picking up the child from daycare on February 21, 2019 because the complainant was meeting up with her friend, Bryn Mikel. But the complainant was still going to take the child to daycare on the morning of February 21, 2019. The complainant and the child left Yolanda's home about 8:45 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. on February 19, 2019 and went home. The complainant called Yolanda when she arrived home that night. Before the complainant left on February 19, 2019, Yolanda reminded her to lock all the doors and windows at her house, and the complainant responded: "Yes, [m]ama."
On February 20, 2019, Yolanda spoke to the complainant on the telephone twice. Yolanda believed, based on her conversations with the complainant, that the complainant planned to eat dinner with the child at her home that night. The last time that Yolanda spoke to the complainant was on February 20, 2019.
Yolanda explained that on February 21, 2019, she did not hear from the complainant. At about 8:30 a.m., Yolanda became concerned because the complainant had not called her that morning, which was unusual.[4] Yolanda called the complainant repeatedly and sent her multiple text messages. At 5:00 p.m., Yolanda left work and went straight to the complainant's home.
When Yolanda arrived, she saw the complainant's SUV in the driveway, which was unusual. Yolanda went to the front door of the complainant's house and found it unlocked. The glass storm door attached to the wooden front door was also unlocked and a pair of keys was in the lock of the wooden front door. The wooden front door was slightly open, and the whole house was dark. It was unusual for the complainant's house to be dark if the complainant was home.
Yolanda walked into the primary bedroom. She heard "water running," so she went into the primary bathroom and turned on the light. She saw the complainant's body in the bathtub.[5] When she touched the complainant, the complainant was "ice-cold." Yolanda started screaming, rushed to the living room, and called for emergency assistance.[6] As to the complainant's general behaviors, Yolanda explained that the complainant always ate healthily. She was not clumsy and was very athletic. The complainant never left the front door open to allow a visitor to just walk into her house. And she never left a key in her front door to allow someone to let himself in even if she knew the person was coming over. The complainant kept her home locked. She would not have left the front door to her house open all day.
According to Yolanda, the key that opened the wooden front door of the complainant's house fit the home's other exterior doors, including the back door and the side door in the primary bedroom; every door used the same key except for the glass storm door that was attached to the wooden front door on the complainant's home. And the complainant did not drink wine or champagne in the bathtub. As to appellant, Yolanda stated that she had never seen appellant "get physical" with the complainant.
Patricia Weaver testified that she worked at Dow Chemical and she met the complainant around 2011 or 2012. After a while of working together, she and the complainant became friends. In 2012 the complainant was married to Rathkamp, but she later got divorced. After the complainant's divorce, Weaver learned that the complainant was seeing appellant, but there were times when the complainant and appellant "were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial