Beltran v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 58905,No. 2,58905,2 |
| Citation | 593 S.W.2d 688 |
| Parties | Raymond BELTRAN & David Romo, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Walter F. Splawn, Austin, for Beltran.
Eric R. Borsheim, Austin, for Romo.
Ronald D. Earle, Dist. Atty., Don Keith, and Bill White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Austin, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ODOM, TOM G. DAVIS and CLINTON, JJ.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for arson. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 28.02. After finding appellant guilty, 1 the jury assessed punishment at 14 years.
Prior to the instant offense, appellant had been incarcerated in the Travis County Jail. On the morning of January 18, 1977, appellant and several other prisoners were transferred from the Travis County Jail to the Austin City Jail. Appellant was assigned to Cell 3 of Cell Block Number 7.
Steve Geron, a city jailer, testified that he arrived for duty at the jail at 3:00 p. m. Geron related that many of the prisoners were voicing loud complaints about the condition of the jail. Lt. Lowell Morgan, of the Austin Police Department, testified that at 6:40 p. m. he observed appellant and three other prisoners walk in unison from the day room to their cells. Approximately 30 seconds after appellant entered his cell, Morgan saw a large wad of flaming toilet paper fly from a cell other than appellant's. Immediately thereafter, burning wads of toilet paper were tossed from appellant's cell and two other cells. Blankets were then tossed out of various cells toward the area where the paper had been thrown.
Sammy Russell, a jailer, related that he also observed the burning material fly from the individual cells. He stated that appellant and three other prisoners left their cells, took the blankets and began pushing the flaming wads into a pile. He saw appellant holding blankets over the foot high blaze in an effort to ignite them. Appellant was repeatedly yelling, "Start a fire." He tried to prevent the jailers from extinguishing the fire by sheltering it from the fire hose with a mattress. Tony Hipolito, a city jailer, ran to the cell block when he heard the commotion. He heard appellant call out, "Let's burn this place." Hipolito later discarded several burned blankets.
In his first ground of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove an element of the offense. He maintains that the evidence is insufficient to show an intent to damage or destroy a building.
Sec. 28.02, supra, provides in pertinent part:
Thus, the statute requires that appellant acted with the specific intent to damage or destroy the building. A person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 6.03(a). Intent can be inferred from the acts, words and conduct of the accused, though in an arson case it cannot be inferred from the mere act of burning. Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 566 S.W.2d 614.
The evidence shows that appellant attempted to enlarge the fire by adding a blanket to it. Appellant encouraged others to start fires and to "burn this place." He attempted to prevent efforts by jail personnel to extinguish the blaze. We find that the evidence is sufficient to establish that appellant intended to damage or destroy the building.
Appellant places great emphasis on the fact that the building was constructed of nonflammable materials. He argues that intent to damage or destroy cannot be inferred unless the building is made of flammable materials. Appellant overlooks the fact that the statute reads "Damage or destroy" (Emphasis added). Material need not be combustible to be damaged by fire. A fire may produce scorching and smoke damage without igniting the surrounding materials. Furthermore, the Legislature removed the requirement under prior law that the building be ignited in fact. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State
...face of an extrajudicial writing, but is admitted "as circumstantial evidence from which an inference may be drawn," Beltran v. State, 593 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). See also Woods v. State, 533 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). 22 Still, that which indicates that a utility servicing the......
-
Adams v. State
...in particular, is often shown by acts done, words spoken, and conduct of the accused at the time of the offense. Beltran v. State, 593 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); see Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). Evidence of flight is admissible as a circumstance from which a j......
-
Gilmore v. State
...admitted to show the truth of the assertations contained therein. However, as the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in Beltran v. State, 593 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.Cr.App.1980): An extrajudicial writing may be admitted as circumstantial evidence from which an inference may be drawn, and not for the......
-
v. M.D., Matter of
...State, 819 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 974, 112 S.Ct. 2944, 119 L.Ed.2d 568 (1992); Beltran v. State, 593 S.W.2d 688, 689 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). The evidence in this case supports a finding that V.M.D. intended to kill both Alice and Timothy. The most incrimina......
-
Death and Texas: the Unevolved Model of Decency
...152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)). 231. Beltran v. State, 593 S.W.2d 688, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (citing Miller v. State, 566 S.W.2d 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 232. See supra subsection VIII.A.1. 233. See supra subse......