Kirk v. State

Decision Date23 January 2014
Docket NumberNo. 02–12–00095–CR.,02–12–00095–CR.
Citation421 S.W.3d 772
PartiesDouglas Lynn KIRK, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, State.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Gary A. Udashen, Sorrels, Udashen & Anton, Dallas, for Appellant.

Joe Shannon, Jr., Criminal Dist. Atty.; Charles M. Mallin, Chief Appellate Section; Edward L. Wilkinson, Lisa Callaghan, and Robert Huseman, Asst. Criminal Dist. Attys. for Tarrant County, Fort Worth, for the State.

Panel: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

OPINION

BOB McCOY, Justice.

I. Introduction

In three issues, Appellant Douglas Lynn Kirk appeals his murder conviction. We affirm.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

On the evening of April 24, 2010, Orlando Benavides helped Kirk move from 1700 Clover Lane to 2820 Raton Drive, loaning both his truck and physical labor. Around 10:00 p.m., Kirk and Benavides made their last trip of the night to the Clover Lane house. When Kirk and Benavides arrived at the Raton Drive house, Alphonso Beza, who lived next door, approached them, introduced himself, and volunteered to help unload the truck. Kirk accepted Beza's offer, and Beza invited Pedro Diaz and another man to help unload the truck.

Around 1:00 a.m., Kirk announced that it was time for everyone to leave, said good night to Beza and Diaz, and walked Benavides to his truck. What occurred after Benavides left is disputed. Kirk claimed that he thought Beza and Diaz were trying to steal from him and that they threatened him. After firing four warning shots into the ceiling of his house, he kneeled in the corner of a bedroom and fired down the hallway, killing both men.

Kirk was charged with murdering Beza and Diaz by shooting them with a firearm. 1 The State presented evidence to counter Kirk's self-defense and defense-of-property theories, and after deadlocking on counts one and two, the jury found Kirk guilty of count three—causing Diaz's death by shooting him with a firearm—and assessed his punishment at forty-seven years' confinement and a $1,000 fine. This appeal followed.

III. Sufficiency

In his first issue, Kirk argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict because the State failed to disprove that he acted in self-defense and in defense of property.

A. Standard of Review

In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view 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 crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex.Crim.App.2012). This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact 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, 99 S.Ct. at 2789;Blackman v. State, 350 S.W.3d 588, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2011).

The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. SeeTex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903. Thus, when performing an evidentiary sufficiency review, we may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Instead, we determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the cumulative force of the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). We must presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S.Ct. at 2793;Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903.

We must consider all the evidence admitted at trial, even improperly admitted evidence, when performing a sufficiency review. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485, 489–90 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).

After the defendant has introduced some evidence supporting a defense under section 2.03 of the penal code, the State bears the burden of persuasion to disprove it. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (explaining that a conviction produces an implicit finding against the defensive theory). The burden of persuasion does not require the production of evidence; rather, it requires the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To determine sufficiency of the evidence to disprove a self-defense claim, we ask whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against appellant on the defensive issue beyond a reasonable doubt. Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); see also Smith v. State, 355 S.W.3d 138, 144–47 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (applying Saxton and Zuliani to the jury's rejection of the defendant's self-defense and defense-of-third-person theories).

Penal code sections 9.31 and 9.32 provide in relevant part that a person is justified in using deadly force against another “when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary ... to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 9.31(a), 9.32(a)(1)-(2)(A) (West 2011). Additionally, penal code section 9.42 provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.412; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Id. § 9.42.

B. Evidence

Kirk contends that he “had a legitimate fear for his life” and that he “reasonably believed that Beza and Diaz were going to hurt him and rob him of his property.” In support of his contention, Kirk points to his own testimony and the version of events he gave to the jury describing what happened that night.

1. The State's Evidence

Isabel Diaz testified that Beza, her fiancée, and Diaz, her brother, had been drinking beer and playing with her kids and nephew in front of her house on the evening of April 24, 2010. She testified that Beza and Diaz went next door to Kirk's house around 11:00 p.m. to help Kirk move in and that Beza had appeared happy and indicated that there was free beer. When Isabel awoke the following morning to find that Beza and Diaz had not returned home, she became concerned, walked outside, and saw Kirk and another man walking towards Kirk's house. She asked Kirk if he knew where Beza and Diaz were. Kirk told her that he did not know where they were, so she went back inside her house and called the police.

When first responders arrived and found a semiautomatic rifle in the bushes underneath a broken window at Kirk's residence, they searched the house and found Beza's and Diaz's bodies in the hallway. A detailed search of the bedrooms and closets revealed boxes of ammunition and numerous loaded weapons, including rifles, shotguns, pistols, and hunting bows. Ballistics tests later confirmed that the semiautomatic rifle found in the bushes outside of Kirk's house fired the rounds that killed Beza and Diaz. The police also found empty beer cans and bottles of liquor scattered around the kitchen and on the living room floor.

The police also searched the Clover Lane house and discovered a variety of unusual objects including, among other things, a plastic manikin torso and head suspended by a noose around its neck, several pieces of animal skulls, jawbones, antlers, and a faux human skeleton with a chain locked to its ankle and a vice grip next to its knee. Photographs of these items were admitted and published to the jury over Kirk's objection.

Kirk's friend, Benavides, testified that he helped Kirk move from the Clover Lane house to the Raton Drive house on the night of April 24. He testified that he had taken a final load of items back to the Raton house around 10:30 p.m. after stopping at a gas station to pick up two eighteen-packs of beer. Upon arriving at the Raton Drive house, Benavides spoke with Beza, who identified himself as the next door neighbor and offered to help them unload Kirk's belongings. Benavides testified that after Kirk had told Beza he could help them unpack, Beza called Diaz and his nephew over to help as well. Benavides further testified that once the unloading was finished, the group sat on the front porch and began drinking beer. He stated that everyone was friendly and laughing and that they eventually moved inside and continued drinking.

Benavides testified that he lit a joint and offered to share it with the rest of the group, but they all declined. Diaz told Benavides that he could not smoke pot because he was on parole. Benavides testified that he left the house around 1:00 a.m. and that he thought Kirk had walked with him outside to his truck, but he could not remember for sure. He stated that the mood inside the house was light and that nobody was arguing or upset when he decided to leave. Benavides further testified that around noon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Fino v. State, 05-17-00169-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2018
    ...correct a jury charge after deliberations have begun if it is convinced the given charge was erroneous. Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 785-86 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd). The trial court had the discretion to determine whether to submit a supplemental instruction under article 3......
  • Thetford v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 2021
    ...of preservation in the trial court." Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 784 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd) (quoting Kirsch). An Allen27 charge is a supplemental jury instruction that "reminds the jury that if it is unable to ......
  • Schindler v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 11, 2018
    ...or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 781 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd); Davis v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683, 703 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref'd). Under this standard, the trial c......
  • Rodriguez v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2018
    ...in Jackson); see Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 898-99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.); see also Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 776-77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd) (applying the Jackson standard to the jury's rejection of a self-defense theory). The fact-finder is the ex......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 2.I. Motion Authorities
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Motions in Limine Title Chapter 2 Prejudicial Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...905 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, pet. filed); Andrews v. State, 429 S.W.3d 849, 865 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref'd); Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 782 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd); Mitchell v. State, 377 S.W.3d 21, 28 (Tex. App.—Waco 2011, pet. dism'd, untimely filed). The balan......
  • CHAPTER 4.I. Motion Authorities
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Motions in Limine Title Chapter 4 Writings and Physical Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...is clothed or naked, the availability of other means of proof, and other circumstances unique to the individual case."). Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd) (Rule 403 requires that a photograph have some probative value and that its probative value not be s......
  • Introduction to jury instruction law
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Jury Charges. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 4, 2021
    ...correcting erroneous instruction was not error when it was submitted in response to a jury note reflecting confusion). Kirk v. State , 421 S.W.3d 772 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2014). §1:210 Limiting Instructions — Extraneous Offenses Extraneous acts are generally inadmissible at the guilt stage o......

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