Davis v. State

Decision Date05 February 2014
Docket NumberNo. 03–11–00450–CR.,03–11–00450–CR.
Citation413 S.W.3d 816
PartiesDennis DAVIS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Eric L. McDonald, Lakeway, TX, for Appellant.

Georgette Hogarth, Assistant District Attorney, Austin, TX, for Appellee.

Before Justices PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, and ROSE.

OPINION

JEFF ROSE, Justice.

A jury convicted Dennis Davis in 2011 of murdering Natalie Antonetti back in 1985, and the trial court sentenced him to 36 years' imprisonment. SeeTex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1), (2).1 Among other grounds on appeal, Davis argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance on a number of fronts, including failure to present at trial evidence that Antonetti's neighbor identified a potential alternate-perpetrator of the murder whom he had seen looking into windows of Antonetti's apartment building while holding what looked to be a club or small bat on the morning of her assault. Because we conclude that Davis has established that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced his defense, we will reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this cause for a new trial.

BACKGROUND

Natalie Antonetti was assaulted in her Austin apartment in the early morning hours of Sunday, October 13, 1985. There was no sign of forced entry, and nothing was stolen. Antonetti was not sexually assaulted and had no defensive wounds. The blunt force trauma to her head, which the medical examiner found consistent with having been attacked with a club or small bat, caused skull fractures, brain contusions, and a coma from which Antonetti never recovered. Antonetti died after the withdrawal of life support. The crime remained unsolved after the death of Austin Police Department Sergeant Edward Balagia, a homicide detective who served as lead investigator and conducted most of the interviews and evidence collection.

The unsolved “cold case” was reopened in 2007 after a call to a homicide tip line from Rebecca Davis, the wife of appellant Dennis Davis.2 Rebecca told police that in 1991 after a few drinks, Davis cried and said he had “sinned against God and man,” which she suspected was a reference to the unsolved murder of Davis's former girlfriend, Antonetti.

Davis was charged with Antonetti's murder. Davis's wife Rebecca recanted her story and argued unsuccessfully that Davis's statement to her was shielded by marital privilege. At trial, there was no physical or forensic proof connecting Davis to the crime; rather, his prosecution hinged on circumstantial evidence and testimony from witnesses, many of whom had not been contacted during the investigation back in the 1980s. The circumstantial evidence about Davis included Davis's relationship and last interaction with Antonetti, his arrival at the scene after the assault, his statements after the assault, his alibi, his ownership of a car similar to one seen in the parking lot of the apartments on the morning of the assault, and other acts of aggression in the years since Antonetti's assault. The jury also considered certain statements and a 911 call from Donn Chelli, Antonetti's neighbor at the time of the assault.

ANALYSIS

We begin by reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Davis's conviction, the appellate ground potentially affording him an acquittal, the greatest possible relief. See Roberson v. State, 810 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (appellate court should not have determined defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel issue without first reviewing sufficiency of evidence on defendant's convictions).Sufficiency of evidence

Davis contends that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that he was the perpetrator of Antonetti's murder. Murder requires proof that a person intentionally or knowingly caused the death of another person, or intended to cause serious bodily injury, and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the death of another. Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1),(2).

We review the sufficiency of the evidence as to Davis's murder conviction under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to decide whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781;Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing an actor's guilt, and an actor's guilt can be established with circumstantial evidence alone. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 359. In circumstantial-evidence cases, every fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant; it is enough if the conclusion is warranted by the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances. Id. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility and weight to be attached to the testimony of witnesses. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. When the record supports conflicting inferences, we presume the jury resolved the conflicts in favor of the verdict and defer to that determination. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 360 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781). With these standards in mind, we summarize the evidence presented at trial.

Testimony of Davis's wife and ex-girlfriend

Davis's wife Rebecca testified that early in their relationship, she asked Davis to tell her about his girlfriend who died. According to Rebecca, Davis told her that Antonetti had been too trusting, never locked her doors, and that one night somebody broke into her apartment and hit her on the head, causing her to eventually die. Davis suspected someone at Antonetti's apartment complex had done it.

Defense counsel questioned Rebecca about part of a statement she gave to police after the investigation was reopened in which she mentioned Davis swinging an ax in the backyard. Rebecca stated that in 2005, Davis had been using an ax while building a fence for their dogs and had been drinking too much. He got into an argument with her and began swinging the ax around. He yelled because the dogs had escaped and because Rebecca had not ensured that the dirt delivered for the fence was put in the right place. Rebecca testified that she “became really afraid of [Davis].” She said that although Davis was not swinging the ax at her, she “felt like it was aimed at [her].”

Rebecca denied ever hearing Davis confess to Antonetti's murder and denied that he owned a bat. She testified that she thought she was calling the police tip line anonymously, and she made the report to clear her conscience, not to turn Davis in. She also said she made the report when they were having marital problems because she was “extremely mad” at Davis. Rebecca's Buddhist mentor and therapist advised her to unburden her soul of guilt by telling someone what she thought Davis's statement meant. Rebecca testified that she did not know what Davis meant when he said that he had “sinned against God and man,” and when she asked him about it, he would not answer.

Rebecca's suspicion about the meaning of Davis's statement had some support at trial from Gelinda Mudgett, who had been Davis's girlfriend from 1987–89. Mudgett testified that once in 1988, after returning home from going out, Davis curled up into a ball on the front porch crying and said, “I didn't mean to do it,” “I didn't mean to her hurt her,” and “I didn't mean to kill Natalie.” Mudgett asked why he did it, and Davis said it was because Antonetti was pregnant with his baby.3 However, in pretrial conversations with police, Mudgett also stated that she could not recall what Davis told her and was not really sure what he said.

Mudgett further testified repeatedly, without objection, that Davis had been physically abusive to her during their relationship—once leaving her unconscious and another time placing a gun to her head while she slept—and because of his abuse she was afraid to report his confession. Mudgett acknowledged that she had loved Davis and continued to live with him after he confessed to her. Mudgett also testified that before his confession, Davis told her Antonetti had been beaten with a bat. She said Davis owned a small baseball bat but did not play baseball.

Other witnesses' opinions about Mudgett's truthfulness were mixed. Three of Davis's friends and former roommates, John Reed, James Rose, and Ray Steward, each testified that Mudgett did not have a reputation for truthfulness. The investigating officer who took Mudgett's statement, Detective Tom Walsh, testified that Mudgett told him that Davis was in a three-day rage and having a breakdown when he confessed the murder to her. Walsh said Mudgett's convictions about what she heard seemed stronger during his first conversation with her, but she called back a few days later saying she “kind of” remembered the conversation with Davis but could not remember what he said word for word. Walsh acknowledged it was odd for a person to wait 17 years to report an unsolved murder, and he wondered why it had taken her so long to make her statement.

Mudgett's testimony received some support from Linda Bless, a mutual friend of Mudgett and Davis, who recalled being at a party in 1987 at Davis's house and seeing Davis leave a bedroom with a bat in his hand. During cross examination, defense counsel asked whether Bless had ever seen Davis “do anything violent” to Mudgett, and Bless said she had not. She agreed that Mudgett and Davis had a “tumultuous relationship” and that Mudgett was not always truthful about certain things. On redirect, the State elicited further testimony about the bat incident from Bless, who said she saw Davis come out of a bedroom looking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Morrison v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 27 Marzo 2019
    ...knew client had escaped from mental institution). "Defense counsel is presumed to know the applicable law." Davis v. State , 413 S.W.3d 816, 833 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref'd) (citing Ex parte Welch , 981 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ). Though individually, instances of subst......
  • State v. Davis
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 12 Octubre 2017
    ...certain statements and a 911 call from Donn Chelli, Antonetti’s neighbor at the time of the assault. Davis v. State , 413 S.W.3d 816, 820 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref'd). The jury convicted Davis in 2011 for Antonetti’s murder, and the court sentenced him to thirty-six years' imprisonme......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 28 Mayo 2020
    ...law aspects that are implicated in case); Ex parte Williams , 753 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) ; Davis v. State , 413 S.W.3d 816, 833 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref'd). "This is because the Sixth Amendment at a minimum guarantees an accused the benefit of trial counsel who is fa......
  • State v. Hradek
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 24 Agosto 2022
    ... ... defendant's two previous convictions to the jury, by ... diminishing the defendant's credibility and encouraging ... the jury to convict because of appellant's past pattern ... of behavior and not based on the facts of the case); ... Davis v. State, 413 S.W.3d 816, 827, 837-38 ... (Tex.App.-Austin 2013, pet. ref'd)(defendant suffered ... prejudice when the evidence of guilt was largely ... circumstantial, the extraneous offense evidence was a ... significant portion and central theme of the case against ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT