Garcia v. State, No. 07-02-0358-CR (TX 11/12/2004)
| Decision Date | 12 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-02-0358-CR.,07-02-0358-CR. |
| Parties | MARTIN GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from the 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County; No. CR-01D-058; Honorable H. Bryan Poff, Jr., Judge.
Panel B: Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
In four issues, appellant Martin Garcia challenges his conviction of capital murder and the resulting sentence of life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Appellant and his co-defendant Bryan Parrack were charged in a single indictment for the felony offense of capital murder. Appellant filed a pre-trial motion requesting severance of his trial from Parrack's. After a hearing, the motion was denied, the case proceeded to jury trial and appellant was convicted of capital murder. Appellant reurged the motion to sever during trial. He presents three issues relating to the trial court's refusal to sever his trial from Parrack's, and a fourth issue asserting that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to sustain his conviction. We will affirm.
On February 25, 2001, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Tony Garcia, assistant manager of the Thriftway East grocery store in Hereford, Texas, was shot and killed as he left the store after closing with the day's cash deposits. When officers arrived at the scene, they found Tony Garcia slumped over in the driver's seat of his vehicle, which was sitting in the parking lot with its engine running. He had been shot three times, once in the chest, once in his right side, and once in his legs, where a bullet entered and exited his right leg, lodging in his left leg. He also had another wound to the chest caused when the jacketing of the bullet that entered his chest separated from the bullet and entered separately. Autopsy results indicated that one of the wounds in his chest was the probable cause of death. The bullets recovered from wounds in his chest and side were of .38 caliber class, while his leg wounds were caused by a single .22 caliber bullet. The store's money bag was with him.
Appellant's fourth issue argues the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to convict him of capital murder. We begin with the fourth issue because disposition of it requires discussion of the evidence presented at trial.
To find appellant guilty of capital murder, as defined in the charge to the jury, the jury was required to find that he intentionally caused the death of Tony Garcia while in the course of attempting to commit the offense of robbery.1 Appellant's argument on evidentiary sufficiency is based on the premise that he could be found guilty of capital murder only if his co-defendant killed Tony Garcia in furtherance of a conspiracy with appellant. Appellant argues there was no evidence that his co-defendant Parrack caused the death of the victim, and appellant therefore could not be guilty of capital murder. Appellant's argument is faulty. It fails to consider the complete jury charge, which read, in relevant part:
"Now, if you find from the from [sic] evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about February 25, 2001, in Deaf Smith County, Texas, the defendant, Martin Garcia, did intentionally cause the death of Tony Garcia by shooting him with a gun, while said defendant was then and there in the course of attempting to commit the of [sic] robbery of Tony Garcia of his property, then you will find the defendant guilty of capital murder; . . ."
The charge continued with an alternate theory whereby appellant could be found guilty of capital murder if his co-defendant intentionally shot Tony Garcia, intending to kill him pursuant to a conspiracy between appellant and his co-defendant.2 The jury thus could have found appellant guilty under the charge if they determined either he intentionally caused the death of Tony Garcia by shooting him in the course of attempting to commit a robbery, or that Parrack did so and appellant was criminally responsible for the action. The verdict rendered by the jury states, "We, the Jury find the defendant, Martin Garcia, guilty of Capital Murder as alleged in the indictment." The verdict will be upheld if the evidence is sufficient under either of the alternative theories. See Rabbani v. State, 847 S.W.2d 555, 558 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 926, 113 S. Ct. 3047, 125 L. Ed 2d 731 (1993).
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155, 159 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). The standard for legal sufficiency review "gives full play" to the jury's responsibility "fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). In a review of the record for factual sufficiency, we consider all the evidence in a neutral light, and will set aside the verdict if the evidence supporting it, either (1) standing alone or (2) when weighed against the contrary evidence, is too weak to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The analysis is to answer the single ultimate question: considering all the evidence in a neutral light, was the jury rationally justified in finding appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? See Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex.Cr.App. 2004); Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283, 285 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). A proper appellate factual sufficiency review must include discussion of the most important and relevant evidence that the appellant claims undermines the jury's verdict. See Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600, 603-04 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003).
The State presented the testimony of appellant's brother Jose Garcia. He testified that appellant, prior to the day of the shooting, told him appellant and Parrack were planning to rob the Thriftway East grocery store.3 Jose further testified that the day of the shooting appellant described how he and Parrack planned to carry out the robbery. Jose stated, "He told me Parrack was going to be across the street on the building and he was going to shoot the manager in the legs and Martin was going to come from across the street and get the money." He testified appellant left their home with Parrack. Later that night Jose was awakened by appellant. Jose testified, "I woke up, I don't know what time it was, my brother came into the room, he told me that he shot Tony and I asked him if he had killed him and he said I don't know, but he had seen Tony slump over the steering wheel and the car took off in reverse and that he ran up to the car and tried opening the door but it wouldn't open so he took off."
Jose also testified that a few days after the shooting appellant had a black handgun, and it was the gun with which he had shot the victim. Appellant asked Jose what he should do with the gun. Jose advised him to get rid of it.
The night of the shooting, individuals near the scene of the crime heard gunshots. A hole in the windshield of the victim's vehicle, a shattered driver's-side window and glass in the interior of the vehicle indicated shots had been fired into the vehicle. Rodney Tucay, M.D., who performed an autopsy on the victim, testified that the victim had one wound in his left lateral chest, two wounds in his right upper chest, caused when a bullet and its copper jacket separated after being fired from a gun, and wounds in both legs caused by a single .22 caliber bullet. Dr. Tucay testified that the wound in the right upper chest, caused by the bullet, was the likely cause of death. He opined that the leg wounds would not have been life-threatening.
Investigators found two spent .357 Sig cartridge casings and two live .357 Sig cartridges in the Thriftway parking lot. A police search of the barn located behind the residence occupied by appellant and Jose produced a black Glock model 31 handgun (admitted as State's exhibit 16) wrapped in plastic on the barn's rafters. A live .357 Sig cartridge was found on the barn floor. Aaron Fullerton, a firearms examiner with the Texas Department of Public Safety crime laboratory, testified that the two spent .357 Sig cartridge casings found at the scene of the shooting were fired from the gun found in the barn. Fullerton identified the bullets removed from the chest of the victim as .38 caliber-class bullets, but could not say whether or not they were fired from that particular gun.4
Justin Tarr, a former co-worker of Parrack's testified that, within weeks before the shooting, Parrack showed him a .357 Sig Glock handgun he owned. Tarr identified State's exhibit 16 as being like the gun Parrack showed him. A magazine fitting a Glock model 31 was found in Parrack's pickup truck during a police search a few days following the shooting. It contained ten live cartridges.
Charles Peters, a forensic scientist for the FBI, testified that an analysis of the content of one of the lead bullets removed from the victim revealed that it was "analytically indistinguishable" from the two live .357 Sig cartridges found at the scene and the live cartridge found in the barn behind appellant's residence, indicating that all those bullets were manufactured from the same molten pot of lead. The lead content of the other bullet taken from the victim's chest was different. Peters testified, though, that it is not uncommon for bullets originating with different pours of...
To continue reading
Request your trial