Cruz v. State
| Docket Number | 01-22-00070-CR |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2023 |
| Parties | DAVID CRUZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
1
DAVID CRUZ, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 01-22-00070-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, First District
December 21, 2023
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1641590
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sarah Beth Landau Justice
Appellant David Cruz was convicted of murder, pleaded true to an enhancement, and was sentenced to 40 years' confinement. Cruz raises eight issues on appeal: (1) a directed verdict should have been granted because of insufficient evidence; (2) there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict; (3) an instruction
on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter should have been submitted to the jury; (4) testimony was improperly excluded; (5) evidence of the complainant's criminal history should have been admitted; (6) a mistrial should have been granted because the State commented on Cruz's failure to testify; (7) a mistrial should have been granted because the State shifted the burden of proof to him in its closing argument; and (8) the State made improper closing argument based on personal opinion. Because there is sufficient evidence, a lesser-included instruction was not required, evidence was properly excluded, a mistrial was not required, and any improper arguments were harmless, we affirm.
Background
Cruz, Christian Tristian, L. Hernandez, and D. Pate were drinking at Tristian's home. Cruz, who was carrying a firearm, began acting aggressively. Sometime after Hernandez and Pate left, police were called to a shooting at Tristian's home. Tristian was found deceased with a gunshot wound to his head. Police spoke to Cruz's father, M. Cruz, and sister, Cynthia, who were on the sidewalk nearby. They told police that Cruz was at his uncle's home.
Police found Cruz at his uncle's home a few miles away. While in custody, Cruz told officers, "I did it, man, I did it. I should have stayed." He stated he fled the scene and threw the firearm out of his car, but police failed to locate the weapon. An autopsy revealed that a firearm was fired in direct contact with Tristian's head.
At trial, the jury heard from multiple witnesses, including Hernandez and Pate, Tristian's friends who were drinking with Cruz and Tristian before Tristian's death; J. Perez, Tristian's wife; Lieutenant M. Nava of the Houston Police Department, who investigated Tristian's death; A. Reyes, a crime scene investigator who responded to Tristian's death; Dr. D. Wolf, the deputy chief medical examiner at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences who reviewed and cosigned Tristian's autopsy report; and Cynthia Cruz, Cruz's sister.
The jury found Cruz guilty of murder, and the trial court sentenced Cruz to 40 years' confinement.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Cruz contends the trial court should have granted a directed verdict and that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because Cruz's first two issues overlap, we address them together. See Lewis v. State, 193 S.W.3d 137, 139- 40 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (appeal from denial of directed verdict motion is treated as challenge to legal sufficiency of evidence supporting conviction).
A. Standard of Review
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee prohibits a criminal defendant from being convicted of an offense and denied their liberty unless there is sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to find them guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); see Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854, 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (holding that Jackson applies when determining sufficiency of evidence).
B. Analysis
A person commits the offense of murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual, or if he intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1), (2). The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense charged. See Johnson v. State, 673 S.W.2d 190, 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
The parties do not dispute that Tristian died from a gunshot wound. Cruz only argues that the State did not show that Cruz caused Tristian's death. Cruz points to a lack of motive or animosity toward Tristian, narcotics found next to Tristian's body that were likely either methamphetamine or cocaine, and testimony that it was unclear whether Tristian's death was a suicide, an accident, or intentional.
Direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone may suffice. Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Each fact need not point directly and independently to the defendant's guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The combined force of the incriminating circumstances can be enough to support the conviction. Id. But if considering all the evidence, a rational factfinder would have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, then due process requires a reversal and an acquittal. Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 95. While Cruz seeks to parse the State's evidence, each fact need not point directly and independently to his guilt if the cumulative force of all the incriminating evidence supports his conviction. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
The evidence showed that Cruz, Tristian, and friends were at Tristian's home. Hernandez and Pate testified that Cruz had a firearm and was acting aggressively. Photographs show Cruz and Tristian handling a firearm matching the description Hernandez provided. At some point, the friends left, and Cruz and Tristian were alone. Later, police responded to a call about a shooting. Upon arriving at Tristian's home, police found Tristian's body on the floor with a gunshot wound to his head. Police located Cruz soon after. He told law enforcement he "did it" but he was scared so he fled. The jury also heard that Cruz disposed of the firearm after the shooting. A. Reyes, crime scene investigator for the Houston Forensic Science Center, stated
that she could not determine whether Tristian's death was caused intentionally, negligently, or recklessly. Lieutenant Nava of the Houston Police Department testified that he could not determine whether Tristian's death was a suicide, an accident, or a murder. An autopsy revealed Tristian had a muzzle imprint on his head, and there was no stippling outside the gunshot wound. Dr. D. Wolf, deputy chief medical examiner at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences, testified that the autopsy showed the firearm was discharged with direct contact with Tristian's head, but he could not say whether the shooting was intentional, negligent, reckless, or self-inflicted. Dr. Wolf added that the toxicology report showed that Tristian had a blood alcohol concentration level of .089 and that methamphetamine and amphetamine were present in Tristian's system at his death.
"A jury may infer intent from any facts which tend to prove its existence, including the acts, words, and conduct of the accused, and the method of committing the crime and from the nature of wounds inflicted on the victims.” See Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting Manrique v. State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Meyers, J., concurring)). A firearm is also a deadly weapon per se. Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(17) (West 2019); Sholars v. State, 312 S.W.3d 694, 703 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd). The intent to kill someone may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a deadly manner. Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). "When a deadly
weapon is fired at close range, and death results, the law presumes an intent to kill." Sholars, 312 S.W.3d at 703.
Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Cruz had a firearm at Tristian's home, Tristian was found deceased with a gunshot wound to the head, and Tristian's wound was consistent with a gunshot fired at close range. Cruz admitted that he "did it" and should not have left, and Cruz disposed of the firearm after leaving Tristian's home. Although some evidence is circumstantial, its cumulative force provided more than a scintilla of evidence to support a reasonable conclusion that Cruz intentionally shot and killed Tristian. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 320 (setting forth standard for legal insufficiency); Galvan-Cerna v. State, 509 S.W.3d 398, 404 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (jury can use common sense to infer intent from conduct). Even if there were evidence suggesting otherwise-such as Cruz's friendship with Tristian, Tristian's narcotics use, and testimony about the unknown intent of the shooter-the jury had the exclusive role as factfinder to weigh the evidence and the witnesses' credibility, and we defer to its determinations. See Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Bartlett v. State, 270 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (jury is exclusive judge of facts proved and weight to be given to testimony); Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (we resolve any inconsistencies in testimony in favor of jury's verdict).
Accordingly, we overrule Cruz's first two issues.
Jury Instruction
Cruz contends the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter because there was evidence that the shooting was...
To continue reading
Request your trial