Jones v. State

• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CAMPBELL; OVERSTREET
• Citation: Jones v. State, 833 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)
• Decision Date: 18 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. 71005,71005
• Parties: Raymond James JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Page 118

833 S.W.2d 118

Raymond James JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 71005.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas En Banc.

March 18, 1992.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1992.

James A. DeLee, Port Arthur, Gaylyn Leon Cooper, Beaumont, for appellant.

Tom Maness, Dist. Atty. and R.W. Fisher, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Raymond James Jones, was convicted of capital murder. Tex.Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2). At the punishment phase of appellant's trial, the jury answered affirmatively the issues set forth in Article 37.071(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial judge then sentenced appellant to death as required by Article 37.071(e). Direct appeal to this Court was then automatic. Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. 37.071(h). We will affirm.

Appellant raises nine points of error. Point of error number eight is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and will be addressed first. The remaining points will be addressed in their numerical sequence. Point of error number one challenges the State's use of its peremptory strikes. Points two through four take issue with the trial court's denial of appellant's challenges for cause. Points five and six challenge the trial court's admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal arrest. Point seven concerns alleged trial error in failing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of murder. And point of error number nine challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's affirmative finding to the second punishment issue.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence at trial established the following facts. On the morning of June 18, 1988, police officers were dispatched to the Jefferson County residence of Su Van Dang (the victim). Upon arrival, investigating officers noticed what appeared to be blood on the walk up to the house as well as on the porch and some areas of the lawn. As one officer approached the front door, he noticed the door standing open about three inches, yet secured by a safety chain. He further observed and smelled smoke from inside the house. After entering the residence, one investigating officer found the body of the victim in a bedroom closet, the victim apparently having died of multiple stab wounds. The smoke evidently emanated from an aborted or failed attempt to burn the victim's body, as instruments of arson were found in the immediate vicinity. Further evidence revealed that the victim may have been alive at the time the fire was ignited. It was suspected that some of the victim's belongings had been taken from the residence. Investigating officers discovered a fingerprint, other than the victim's, at the scene.

As the police investigated the incident, one witness told them that appellant, the victim, and two other "Vietnamese" ¹ came to her house the prior evening. The witness also told them that appellant and the victim left her house walking together. A subsequent comparison of appellant's fingerprints with the print found at the scene revealed a positive match, and an arrest warrant was issued based on that information. Appellant was arrested pursuant to this warrant on June 21, 1988. The arresting officer testified that as soon as appellant was located, he was advised of the charge against him, placed under arrest, then led to the police vehicle and given his Miranda ² warnings. Immediately after these warnings were given, appellant, responding to a question from one of the officers, stated that he "did it". Appellant then told the officers where to find some of the victim's missing property, including a stereo and some clothing ³.

Officers then took appellant to the police station, where he was arraigned and again given formal warnings as to his rights. When asked subsequent to the magistrate's warnings whether he wanted to continue to talk to police, he responded in the affirmative and proceeded to confess his guilt. This confession was ultimately reduced to typewritten form, a copy of which was signed. The following day, appellant again expressed a willingness to speak with officers, at which time he was given yet another set of warnings. He then gave a second written confession. Both written confessions indicate that appellant first beat and stabbed the victim; then tried to drown him; and ultimately attempted to burn him so that he (appellant) could take a stereo that he wanted from the victim's house without subsequently being identified.

In point of error number eight, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. This Court must review all of 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, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Dunn v. State, 721 S.W.2d 325, 327 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). It is clear from the record that, between the statements that appellant made in his confessions and the attendant corroborating evidence ⁴, appellant murdered the victim in order to facilitate his theft of the stereo. ⁵ Appellant maintains that a witness' testimony that he did not see appellant carrying the stereo when he exited the house negates this determination. However, the witness also testified that he was a block away and that it was rather dark.

We hold that a rational trier of fact could have found appellant guilty of the offense of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Point of error number eight is overruled.

In his first point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial due to the State's use of peremptory strikes against venirepersons Wright, Joubert, and Nettles. The record reveals that appellant made his objection at trial on the basis of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. 35.261 ⁶. Appellant then proceeded to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, and the trial court asked the State for explanations for its strikes. The State then responded, and the court overruled the Batson challenge in its entirety. Appellant never asked the court to declare a mistrial. ⁷

As this case was tried after the effective date of Article 35.261, the provisions of that article apply. Hill v. State, 827 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex.Cr.App.1992) (opinion on rehearing). Article 35.261 provides for a remedy of dismissal of an array when the article's provisions have been violated. Appellant complains on appeal, however, that the trial court should have declared a mistrial. Because the objection at trial does not comport with the complaint on appeal, any error is waived. ⁸ Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). Point of error number one is overruled.

Appellant's second through fourth points of error allege trial error in the overruling of defense counsel's challenges for cause to three veniremembers, thereby forcing appellant to accept an objectionable juror after exercising all his peremptory strikes. When the trial court errs in overruling such a challenge against a veniremember, the defendant is harmed only if he uses a peremptory strike to remove the veniremember and thereafter suffers a detriment from the loss of the strike. Demouchette v. State, 731 S.W.2d 75, 83 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920, 107 S.Ct. 3197, 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987). Error is preserved for review by this Court only if appellant 1) used all of his peremptory strikes, 2) asked for and was refused additional peremptory strikes, and 3) was then forced to take an identified objectionable juror whom appellant would not otherwise have accepted had the trial court granted his challenge for cause (or granted him additional peremptory strikes so that he might strike the juror). Demouchette v. State, 731 S.W.2d at 83. The order of events is crucial in order to determine if these points, or any of them, were preserved for appeal.

Appellant claims that his challenges for cause of veniremembers numbers two (Gloria Smith), sixteen (Silas Ancelot, Jr.), and seventeen (Arlene Grantham) were improperly denied. The record reveals that after appellant's challenge of veniremember Smith was denied, Smith became the first veniremember that appellant peremptorily struck. He then immediately requested and was denied an additional peremptory strike. By the time the appellant struck Ancelot and Grantham, he had already used six additional peremptory strikes and four jurors had been accepted by both sides. ⁹ Immediately after striking each of these members, appellant requested and was denied additional peremptories. Appellant used his fifteenth peremptory strike on veniremember number forty-four and the final juror (veniremember number forty-five) was seated immediately thereafter.

Appellant made no further requests for peremptory challenges. Nor did he ever establish, including in his appellate brief, that he ever had to accept an objectionable juror. Hence, appellant has not met the last prong of the Demouchette, supra, test and these points have not been preserved for our review. Points of error numbers two through four are overruled.

In points of error numbers five and six, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in admitting, over objection, physical evidence (the stereo), testimony regarding an oral statement of his, and two written statements, all of which were obtained after an illegal arrest. Specifically, appellant maintains that the affiant did not set forth sufficient facts in his affidavit supporting the arrest warrant to enable a neutral, detached magistrate to find probable cause.

It is well settled that, in determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for an arrest or search warrant, a reviewing court is limited to the "four corners of an affidavit". Lagrone v. State, 742...