Patterson v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-15-00167-CR,01-15-00167-CR |
| Parties | JOSHUA JACOB PATTERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas
A jury found Joshua Jacob Patterson guilty of murder and assessed punishment at 50 years' confinement and a $1,000 fine. In nine issues, Patterson contends that his conviction should be reversed because:
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
A grand jury indicted Patterson for the murder of Kristian Sullivan, who died of multiple gunshot wounds in the front yard of his grandmother's house. Patterson filed a pre-trial motion to suppress any statement he had made to law enforcement officers. In this motion, he asserted several bases for suppression, including that his statements "were taken without the safeguards required by and in violation of Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." But Patterson did not secure a ruling on the motion before or during trial.
The State's theory of the case was that Patterson and other members of the criminal street gang "100 Click" planned and carried out the murder of Sullivan, a member of the rival gang "F.A.B.," in retaliation for an earlier gang-related shooting.The defense disputed that Patterson was an active member of 100 Click and claimed that he did not know that the gang intended to kill Sullivan. The defense's theory was that Patterson drove Sterlyn Edwards and Antonnyer Morrison, one or both of whom shot Sullivan, to and from the murder scene without knowing they planned to shoot Sullivan. According to defense counsel, Patterson mistakenly believed he was driving the group to Sullivan's house to buy marijuana. Counsel told the jury Patterson was simply "in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people."
Multiple law enforcement officers testified for the State, including K. Tullos, a peace officer with the Missouri City Police Department who was assigned to investigate gang-related crimes and who investigated Sullivan's murder. Tullos testified about 100 Click and F.A.B.1 and about the violent rivalry between these two gangs. In particular, he stated that a F.A.B. member allegedly shot a member of 100 Click a couple of weeks before Sullivan's murder. Tullos testified that Sullivan was a member of F.A.B. and that the men Patterson drove to and from Sullivan's house—Edwards and Morrison—were members of 100 Click or an affiliated gang known as the "Young Ones."
Tullos discussed the criteria that the State uses to classify someone as a gang member. He testified that he classified Patterson as a member of 100 Click basedon social media postings in which Patterson associated with known gang members and displayed a hand sign associated with the gang. Tullos also relied on interviews with Edwards and others in identifying Patterson as a member of 100 Click. Tullos conceded on cross-examination that he had discretion to decide whether Patterson met the criteria, and that he had not encountered Patterson engaging in any gang-related activity before Sullivan's murder.
After Tullos's cross-examination, the State argued that by raising lack of evidence of Patterson's gang involvement as a defense in this case, the defense had opened the door to proof of an aggravated robbery that Patterson and Edwards allegedly committed together two to three months after Sullivan's murder. The defense objected that it had not opened the door and that the danger of unfair prejudice associated with this evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. The trial court overruled Patterson's objections to the admission of this extraneous aggravated robbery. Tullos then testified on re-direct that committing a crime with a known gang member is a criterion used by law enforcement authorities when assessing gang membership. He stated that he assisted in the investigation of an aggravated robbery of a check-cashing business, in which law enforcement officers identified Edwards as one of the robbers based on fingerprint evidence. Tullos identified Patterson as the other robber based on still photographs taken from videosurveillance footage. The State introduced these photos into evidence without objection.
R. Ramirez, a patrol sergeant with the City of Sugar Land Police Department, also testified for the State. At the time of the murder investigation, Ramirez was a supervisor of a special crimes unit that was comprised of law enforcement authorities in Sugar Land, Stafford, and Missouri City. The unit's purpose was to investigate gang crimes and street-level narcotics. Ramirez testified about the history of violence between 100 Click and F.A.B., noting that a person associated with 100 Click had been shot a couple of weeks before Sullivan's murder.
Ramirez also testified that he conducted a videotaped interview of Patterson, which the trial court admitted over a hearsay objection. During the interview, Patterson initially denied any involvement in Sullivan's murder, but eventually admitted that he drove Edwards and Morrison to and from the murder scene. He claimed in the interview that he did not know that Edwards and Morrison intended to kill Sullivan. Patterson insisted that he was not an active member of 100 Click and that he drove Edwards and Morrison to the scene of the crime believing that they were going to buy marijuana.
After Patterson's videotaped interview was played for the jury, Ramirez resumed his testimony. Ramirez testified that Edwards was the first person to implicate Patterson and conceded on cross-examination that Edwards told multiple,conflicting versions of the events surrounding Sullivan's murder. But Ramirez stated that Edwards ultimately told law enforcement officers that Patterson not only was the driver but also had been involved in the planning of Sullivan's murder and that the motive for the murder was gang-related retaliation.
The State also called as witnesses two young women who were with Patterson, Edwards, and Morrison on the evening of Sullivan's murder. Kandace Hall, who had a romantic relationship with Patterson, testified that she knew that Edwards, Morrison, and Patterson were members of 100 Click. Hall stated she and these three men left the location at which they were hanging out on the night of Sullivan's murder to purchase marijuana. Before they left, Patterson put a backpack in which he kept a gun in the car's trunk. Patterson drove while Edwards gave him directions. Once they arrived at their destination, Edwards and Morrison got out of the car and walked down the street. After a few minutes, Edwards and Morrison came running back to the car. Hall testified that Patterson backed the car up to meet them. When Edwards and Morrison got into the car, Hall saw that Edwards had the gun that Patterson kept in his backpack and Edwards said that he shot "him" without specifying whom he shot. Patterson did not ask who had been shot; he merely asked whether Edwards and Morrison had gotten the marijuana. Hall testified that there was no further conversation about the shooting, and that Patterson drove away from the scene. Hall also testified that Edwards and Patterson subsequently placed thegun under the hood of the car and that Patterson retrieved it from under the hood when she later dropped him off at home.
Hall's best friend, Samon Williams, also testified. Williams stated that she and Hall had been hanging out with some members of 100 Click, including Patterson, the evening of Sullivan's murder. But when another man named Tracy arrived, she left with him. Later, Hall, Patterson, Morrison, and Edwards arrived at Tracy's house to pick up Williams. Williams testified that the men were talking and seemed normal, but that Hall was shaking and scared. The five of them left Tracy's house, and Williams and Hall dropped Patterson, Morrison, and Edwards off at their respective homes. When they reached Patterson's home, Williams testified that he asked her to pop the hood and then retrieved a gun from under it.
In her closing argument, defense counsel argued that the jury had "not heard one single piece of evidence" that linked Patterson with Sullivan's murder other than that "he was in the wrong place at the wrong time" with the "wrong people." She also argued that Patterson denied being an active gang member, and that no witness could testify about any supposed gang activity on his part.
The jury rendered a guilty verdict and assessed punishment at 50 years' confinement and a $1,000 fine. Patterson filed a motion for new trial, in which he complained of the admission of evidence relating to the aggravated robbery and his gang affiliation. The trial court denied the motion.
In his first issue, Patterson contends that the State violated his right to due process by prosecuting him for murder rather than for engaging in organized criminal activity. He argues that Section 19.02 of the Penal Code, which defines murder, and Section 71.02 of the Penal Code, which defines organized crime, address the same subject matter and conflict. Therefore, he argues that the doctrine of in pari materia required that he be prosecuted under the more specific organized crime statute, not under the more general murder statute.
The doctrine of in pari materia confers on defendants a due process right to be prosecuted under a narrower, more specific statute when it...
To continue reading
Request your trial