Martinez v. State

• Decision Date: 21 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 10-15-00360-CR,10-15-00360-CR
• Parties: JEFFERY MARTINEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

JEFFERY MARTINEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 10-15-00360-CR

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

September 21, 2016

From the 278th District Court Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26495

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In eleven issues, appellant, Jeffery Martinez, challenges his conviction for intoxication manslaughter. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.08(b) (West 2011). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Here, appellant was charged by indictment with intoxication manslaughter for "operat[ing] a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated by reason of the introduction of alcohol into the body, and did by reason of such intoxication cause the death of another, namely Pedro Ramirez-Monsivais . . . ." The record reveals that Jorge Rodriguez-Sepeda also died as a result of the incident, though the indictment did not reference him.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury found appellant guilty of the charged offense and sentenced him to ten years and six months' incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with a $7,500 fine. Appellant subsequently filed motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment. Both motions were denied by the trial court. The trial court certified appellant's right of appeal, and this appeal followed.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his first and second issues, appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, appellant complains that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the vehicle that caused the deaths of two others.

At the outset, we note that the Court of Criminal Appeals, in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), abandoned the factual-sufficiency standard in criminal cases, instructing that we need only consider the sufficiency of the evidence under the legal-sufficiency standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). As such, we analyze appellant's first two issues under the Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard of review. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 902 (concluding that there is "no meaningful distinction between the Jackson v. Virginialegally sufficiency standard and the . . . factual sufficiency standard, and these two standards have become indistinguishable.").

In Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals expressed our standard of review of a sufficiency issue as follows:

In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction, a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). This "familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact 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. "Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction." Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.

Id.

Our review of "all of the evidence" includes evidence that was properly and improperly admitted. Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). And if the record supports conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the prosecution and therefore defer to that determination. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793. Furthermore, direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally: "Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt." Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. Finally, it is well established that the factfinderis entitled to judge the credibility of the witnesses and can choose to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by reference to the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge for the case. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A hypothetically-correct jury charge does four things: (1) accurately sets out the law; (2) is authorized by the indictment; (3) does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability; and (4) adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried. Id.

"A person commits [intoxication manslaughter] if the person . . . (1) operates a motor vehicle in a public place . . . ; and (2) is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.08; see Mitchell v. State, 419 S.W.3d 655, 663 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. ref'd). At trial and on appeal, appellant only challenges the first element—whether he was the person operating the motor vehicle at the time of the crash.

Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Michael Alders testified that he was dispatched to a crash on Interstate 45 on April 3, 2012, at approximately 1:03 a.m. Upon arriving, Trooper Alders discovered that two people had died as a result of the crash. Trooper Alders also observed appellant and another person injured in a different vehicle.Trooper Alders testified that: "After talking to EMS personnel and people on the scene, it was determined that they believed that due to the injuries and obviously the impact of the Jeep, that Martinez [appellant] was the driver." Trooper Alders later clarified that appellant "had broken—lower extremity injuries, possible broken foot" and that this was important "[b]ecause there was a heavy impact on the driver's side—to the driver's side from the head-on collision. The driver's side, the floor was crushed all the way up to the seat. Whoever was sitting there was going to have lower extremity injuries."

Steve Jeter, a sergeant with the Texas Rangers, concurred with Trooper Alders's conclusion that appellant was the driver of the vehicle. Ranger Jeter agreed that appellant's injuries to his lower extremities demonstrated that he was the driver of the vehicle. Ranger Jeter also noted that what appeared to be appellant's shoe was found pinned in the floorboard on the driver's side of the vehicle. Kristi Wimsatt, the DNA section supervisor at the Texas Department of Public Safety crime lab, testified that she compared the known DNA profile of appellant with the DNA profiles found on the shoe recovered by Ranger Jeter and the driver's-side airbag. Wimsatt confirmed that appellant was the source of the mixture DNA found on the shoe and that appellant was the single-source contributor of DNA found on the driver's-side airbag.

Despite the aforementioned evidence, appellant argues on appeal that, among other things, no witness placed him as the driver of the vehicle; the first person on the scene, Walker County EMS Field Supervisor Dean Cashburn, noticed that appellant "wassitting with his torso and head through the front two seats and then towards the passenger seat"; appellant was removed from the passenger side of the vehicle "for convenience" by the Jaws of Life; "[a]ppellant's injuries appeared to be passenger seatbelt marks"; and appellant's "full DNA profile" was apparently found on the "passenger seatbelt." However, as noted earlier, it is within the province of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and we are to defer to the jury's resolution of those conflicts. See Chambers, 805 S.W.2d at 461; see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2792-93; Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Render v. State, 316 S.W.3d 846, 859 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. ref'd) ("An appellate court must give deference to a jury's decision regarding what weight to give contradictory testimonial evidence because the decision is most likely based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor, which the jury is in a better position to judge."). In convicting appellant of the charged offense, the jury clearly believed the testimony of the State's witnesses and the DNA evidence found on the shoe recovered from the floorboard of the driver's side of the vehicle and the driver's-side airbag that linked appellant as the driver of the vehicle; and as such, we must defer to the jury's resolution of the conflict in the evidence. See Chambers, 805 S.W.2d at 461; see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2792-93; Lancon, 253 S.W.3d at 706; Render, 316 S.W.3d at 859.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational factfinder could have concluded that the State proved beyond a reasonabledoubt that appellant committed the offense of intoxication manslaughter. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.08(b); see also Lucio, 351 S.W.3d at 894; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. We therefore hold that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.08(b); see also Lucio, 351 S.W.3d at 894; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first two issues.

III. APPELLANT'S EXPERT WITNESS

In his third issue, appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow his expert witness, Richard Baratta, Ph.D., to testify before the jury about one of the two opinions he formed.

We review the admission or exclusion of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. See Joiner v. State, 825 S.W.2d 701,...