Barron v. State
| Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-18-00324-CR,11-18-00324-CR |
| Parties | Juan Ramon BARRON, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Catherine Bernhard, Dallas, for Appellant.
Benjamin R. Smith, District Attorney, for Appellee.
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
The grand jury indicted Appellant, Juan Ramon Barron, for the murders of Joshua Hoover and Benjamin Bruns. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1) (West 2019). After a contentious trial, the jury acquitted Appellant of Bruns's murder. However, the jury implicitly rejected Appellant's claim of self-defense and found him guilty of the murder of Hoover. The same jury found that Appellant caused Hoover's death while under the immediate influence of sudden passion that arose from adequate cause and assessed his punishment at two years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See id. § 19.02(d). The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.1
Appellant raises six issues on appeal. He contends that (1) the trial court erred when it admonished Appellant's trial counsel in the presence of the jury; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence that was located nine months after the murders because it lacked relevancy; (3) the trial court erred when it admitted the same evidence because it was unfairly prejudicial; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's rejection of his claim of self-defense; (5) the trial court erred when it refused to admit Appellant's proffered evidence of prior bad acts of violence allegedly committed by the deceased victim (Hoover) against others to show motive; and (6) the trial court erred when it refused to admit proffered evidence of prior bad acts of violence allegedly committed by the deceased victim (Hoover) against others to show that Hoover was the first aggressor. We affirm.
The murders of Bruns and Hoover arose from their encounter with Appellant on January 24, 2016, at approximately 4:00 a.m. at Appellant's trailer. Later, Appellant and his wife, Nicole, provided law enforcement personnel with detailed versions of what they claimed had occurred during the encounter. The substance of their written statements and recorded interviews were presented to the jury. Neither Appellant nor Nicole testified at trial.
According to Appellant and Nicole, Amanda Smith, a friend, was with them in their trailer at the time of this encounter. They were watching movies, drinking, and using drugs—marihuana and cocaine. At approximately 4:00 a.m., they heard someone knock on the back door. As Appellant approached the back door, he held a knife in his hand because it was late and they were not expecting anyone. When Appellant answered the door, he saw two men who were dressed in black clothing; they were also wearing ski masks. Appellant said, "You ain't going to rob me." He then rushed down the steps of the trailer toward the two men. Appellant stated that Nicole was behind him, armed with two knives, and that one of the men struck her in the face with a gun.
Appellant began fighting with the man, later identified as Benjamin Bruns, who struck Nicole. According to Appellant, he stabbed Bruns repeatedly because Bruns would not drop his gun. Appellant stated that Bruns eventually "popped one round off" and then dropped the gun. Appellant heard Nicole screaming for him from around the corner of the trailer. He then grabbed the gun that Bruns had dropped and ran toward Nicole, who was fighting with the other man, later identified as Joshua Hoover. Appellant stated that Hoover was on the ground trying to pull Nicole to the ground. Appellant shot Hoover several times—he estimated four or five—until he "knew [Hoover] was dead." Appellant claimed to be approximately eight to twelve feet from Hoover when he discharged the gun.
Nicole's statement to law enforcement was essentially consistent with the statement that Appellant made during his interview, although certain details differed. In her statement to law enforcement personnel, Nicole said that, after she heard Appellant say something to the effect of "oh hell no, you're not going to rob me," she jumped up from the couch, retrieved two kitchen knives, and yelled at Smith to grab Nicole's daughter—who was asleep in her room—and to leave their trailer. Smith did so. Nicole stated that, when she went outside, Appellant was already fighting one of the men (Bruns). The other man (Hoover) then appeared from around the side of the trailer and attacked her. Nicole heard a gunshot and began calling for Appellant because she thought he had been shot. Suddenly, Hoover punched Nicole in the face. Nicole noticed that Hoover had something in his hand; Appellant then shot Hoover. Although Nicole believed that Hoover was brandishing a gun, after Appellant shot Hoover, she saw that the object in Hoover's hand was a can of mace.
Bruns and Hoover both died from the wounds that Appellant inflicted upon them. Appellant and Nicole stated that they did not recognize either man, even after their masks were removed. Appellant and Nicole both stated that they were drunk and high and that they had panicked.
After Appellant and Nicole moved the bodies of Bruns and Hoover to a spot underneath the trailer, they attempted to clean up the crime scene. They dug up the dirt where Bruns's blood and Hoover's blood had accumulated, and they used a water hose to saturate those areas with water. They concealed all the "bloody stuff," including the knife used by Appellant. They also concealed their bloody clothing, wrapped everything in blankets, and stored it all behind a nearby shed. Appellant and Nicole also put two mason jars of marihuana behind the shed. Appellant stated that the marihuana belonged to Nicole, who was a dealer, and that he did not believe that either Bruns or Hoover had come to their trailer to purchase "weed." Appellant routinely worked sixteen- or seventeen-hour days, returned home, smoked some marihuana or used cocaine, and then went to bed. According to Appellant, he did not know why either Bruns or Hoover would want to rob him.
Eventually, after cleaning and tampering with the crime scene, Appellant and Nicole decided to surrender to the police. As they left their trailer, Nicole noticed an unfamiliar car parked near their trailer, by the mailboxes; the engine was running.
Upon their arrival at the Snyder Police Department, Appellant and Nicole reported that they had killed two people who were trying to rob them. The officers on patrol were notified of this incident and were dispatched to the crime scene. Officer Nikki Gonzalez was nearby responding to an earlier report of a suspicious vehicle in the area of Appellant's trailer. Before she went to the crime scene, Officer Gonzalez investigated the presence of a maroon Crown Victoria with its engine running that was parked by the mailboxes near Appellant's trailer. After she arrived at the crime scene, Officer Gonzalez inspected the area around Appellant's trailer and eventually discovered two bodies hidden underneath the trailer.
Snyder Police Detective Mike Counts and Texas Ranger Phil Vandygriff were in charge of the investigation. Ranger Vandygriff supervised the removal of two bodies from under Appellant's trailer. The bodies were later identified as Hoover and Bruns. A large knife with a white handle, a bent blade, and a broken tip was recovered from the crime scene, and a shell casing was located near Appellant's trailer. Officers at the crime scene observed a water hose stretched across Appellant's yard; they also discovered several wet and muddy spots in the yard. Bloody clothing and two mason jars that contained marihuana were also collected from behind a shed in Appellant's yard.
Inside Appellant's trailer, a gun, a can of mace, and five shell casings were found on the kitchen table inside a pizza box. The gun had one bullet in the chamber and one bullet remaining in the magazine. Although officers at the crime scene observed blood smears and stains inside the trailer, Sergeant Lea Tarter of the Snyder Police Department testified that the stains appeared to be from transfers and that she did not believe that a wounded body or a person who was bleeding had been in the trailer. During the search of the trailer, officers also seized two bloody knives and trash bags containing bloody clothing.
Appellant stated in his first interview with law enforcement that he did not recognize either Bruns or Hoover. However, during subsequent interviews, Appellant stated that he had heard that someone named Hoover sold cocaine and had robbed two other people in the area. Nicole advised law enforcement that she sold drugs, that she had sold drugs to Hoover in the past, and that she had seen him at parties. Nevertheless, both Appellant and Nicole stated that they did not know Bruns. Nicole also told law enforcement that the only reason she could determine as to why Hoover and Bruns would appear at her trailer in disguise would be to rob her and take her two mason jars of "really good weed."
Smith was with Appellant and Nicole that night. Smith testified that the three of them were drinking, smoking marihuana, using cocaine, and watching movies. She stated that Appellant and Nicole heard something at the back door around 4:00 a.m. Appellant then walked to the back door of the trailer. Suddenly, a man wearing black clothing and a black mask burst through the front door of the trailer. The man then walked out the back door of the trailer. Smith saw that Appellant was rolling around on the ground with someone and that Nicole was fighting someone else. Nicole eventually yelled at Smith to get Nicole's daughter and leave. Smith complied. According to Smith, Nicole called later to ask if her daughter was okay. Smith asked Nicole if she and Appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wishert v. State
...or exclude extraneous-offense evidence. De La Paz v. State , 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ; Barron v. State , 630 S.W.3d 392, 410 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, pet. ref'd). We will not reverse a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence, and there is no abuse of discreti......
-
Wishert v. State
...De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 343-44; Ruiz, 631 S.W.3d at 856 (citing Beham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 474, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)); Barron, 630 S.W.3d at 410. Furthermore, we will uphold a trial court's ruling, even if the trial court's reasoning is flawed, if it is correct on any theory of law t......
-
Arevalo v. State
...to admit or exclude extraneous-offense evidence. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Barron v. State, 630 S.W.3d 392, 410 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2021, pet. ref'd). We will not reverse a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence, and there is no abuse of di......
-
Lovell v. State
... ... 2019); Henley v ... State , 493 S.W.3d 77, 82-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). This ... standard also applies to a trial court's decision to ... admit or exclude extraneous-offense evidence. De La Paz ... v. State , 279 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); ... Barron v. State , 630 S.W.3d 392, 410 (Tex ... App.-Eastland 2021, pet. ref'd). We will not reverse a ... trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence, and ... there is no abuse of discretion, unless that decision lies ... outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Beham ... ...
-
Evidence
...in the lab, and defendant presented no evidence to show that anyone tampered with the vials that contained his blood. Barron v. State , 630 S.W.3d 392, 411 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, pet. ref’d). Evidence including drugs, drug paraphernalia, and the wallet with defendant’s wife’s identificat......