Payton v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 14-20-00175-CR |
| Parties | JACOBE DANTE PAYTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do Not Publish - Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCR-077001A
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Appellant Jacobe Dante Payton appeals his conviction for murder. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02. In four issues appellant challenges the (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction; (2) presence of the "wrong" alternate juror during deliberations; (3) exclusion of certain evidence; and (4) denial of a requested instruction on manslaughter. We affirm.
Latoyia Jarmon-Thomas, the complainant's mother, testified that on Friday evening after work she had an appointment to have her hair braided. Thomas anticipated that the appointment would last six to eight hours. The complainant, Thomas's seven-year-old daughter, accompanied Thomas to the appointment. Thomas's appointment did not end until approximately 1:00 in the morning. On the drive home the complainant fell asleep in the back seat of the car.
Driving home, as Thomas proceeded through a green light, she saw a white two-door Pontiac Grand Prix approaching the intersection. The Pontiac hit Thomas's car, which came to a stop in the middle of the intersection. Thomas woke the complainant and checked on her; the complainant said she was okay and went back to sleep. Thomas then saw two men get out of the two-door Pontiac and run away.
After the men ran away, a different white Pontiac Grand Prix with four doors drove up. The driver of the four-door Pontiac stopped, rolled down the window, pointed a gun out of the window with his left hand, and began firing. Originally Thomas thought the person firing the gun was a woman because the person had long hair pulled back in a ponytail and a slender build. Thomas heard one shot hit the back window of her car; at the time, she did not realize her car was still operable. After the shooting stopped, Thomas realized the car was running and moved it out of the intersection. Thomas thought she heard five or six shots.
After the shooter drove away, Thomas discovered her daughter had been shot and called 911. The complainant was transported to the hospital where she died from gunshot wounds.
Jeremy Monroe is a tow truck driver who was parked under the freeway at the intersection where the accident happened. Monroe testified that he saw a white car speed through the red light and hit the darker car. Monroe saw the occupant of the white car get out and start running away. As this man ran away Monroe saw another car approach and heard shots fired. Monroe identified the shooter as a black male but testified he did not see the shooter's face. After the shooting ended Monroe went to Thomas's car and called 911 when he realized the child had been shot.
Malik Webb testified that in 2017, at the time of the accident, he drove a white two-door Pontiac Grand Prix. On the night of the shooting, Webb attended a party at a club on South Post Oak Road. Webb saw appellant, who he knew by the nickname "Cobe," at the party that night. At the time appellant drove a white four-door Pontiac Grand Prix. Webb left the party around 1:30 or 1:45 in the morning with his friend, "Little Trey." Appellant left around the same time.
As Webb was driving Little Trey home, he heard what he thought were gunshots. Webb increased his speed to get out of the area and ran a red light, causing the collision with Thomas's car. When Webb's car came to a stop, he heard gunshots. Webb and Little Trey jumped out of the car and ran toward Webb's brother's house. As Webb and Trey were running, an acquaintance named Bobby drove by and offered them a ride. About five or six minutes later, appellant arrived at Webb's brother's house. Webb asked appellant if appellant knew what happened earlier at the accident scene, and appellant replied, "I don't know; I just started shooting[.]"
Detective David Stark testified that his investigation led to a suspect described as black with shoulder-length braids or dreadlocks. At that time the description was not specific as to whether the suspect was male or female. After receiving an anonymous tip, Stark began looking into a suspect nicknamed "Cobe." After checking with law enforcement officers at Willowridge High School, Stark learned 3 that appellant, who used to attend Willowridge, used that nickname.
Detective Gordon Sullivan placed appellant's name in a city-wide database as a suspect. Appellant was subsequently stopped on a traffic offense and taken into custody on outstanding warrants. The arresting officers notified Sullivan, who then requested that appellant be held for questioning. Sullivan conducted a short interview of appellant and testified that, at the time of the interview, appellant had shoulder-length dreadlocks.
Appellant gave two interviews to investigating officers. During the first interview appellant told officers he had been at the same party that Webb attended on the night of the offense. Appellant denied being at the accident scene during the first interview. During appellant's second interview, he admitted driving his white Pontiac Grand Prix the night of the offense. Appellant further admitted that he saw the accident scene, saw Webb's car, and heard four to six gunshots. Appellant told the officers he uses his left hand to shoot.
Five cartridge cases were recovered from the scene of the shooting. Four of the casings were determined to be relevant to the present case based on their caliber, how long they had been at the scene, and their proximity to the shooting. After interviewing appellant and learning that appellant admitted to being at the scene in his car, detectives obtained a search warrant for appellant's car and processed the car for evidence. Police discovered another nine-millimeter cartridge casing under the driver's seat of appellant's car. Police tested the interior of appellant's car and discovered gunshot residue on areas around the driver's side door and window.
Webb testified that he had seen appellant with a "green handgun." Several months after the shooting, Officer Reggie Rodriguez recovered a green handgun in an unrelated arrest of three men in Katy. A forensic firearms expert tested bullets from the gun recovered by Rodriguez. Detectives learned that all five cartridge casings-four from the scene and one from appellant's car-were the same caliber, same brand, and had been fired from the army-green colored handgun recovered by Rodriguez. Sullivan learned that the green handgun had been reported stolen by the owner approximately two months before the shooting.
The jury convicted appellant of the lesser-included offense of murder and sentenced him to 78 years in prison.
In appellant's first issue he contends the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for murder. Specifically, appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to show that (1) he committed any crime; and (2) he intended to cause serious bodily injury.
We review evidentiary sufficiency challenges under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The reviewing court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Anderson v. State, 416 S.W.3d 884, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to afford testimony. Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The jury may reasonably infer facts from the evidence presented, credit the witnesses it chooses, disbelieve any or all of the evidence or testimony proffered, and weigh the evidence as it sees fit. See Williams v. State, 473 S.W.3d 319, 324 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref'd). When the record supports conflicting inferences, the reviewing court presumes the trier of fact resolved the conflicts in favor of the State and defers to that determination. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
A person commits the offense of murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1). A person may also commit murder by intending to cause serious bodily injury and committing an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(2).
Appellant first asserts, "[t]he only evidence the State presented as to the identity of the shooter was a woman with shoulder-length hair." Appellant further asserts there was no physical evidence that identified appellant as the shooter. To the contrary, the record supports the following circumstances of appellant's guilt:
To continue reading
Request your trial