Westbrook v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 2000 |
| Citation | 29 S.W.3d 103 |
| Parties | (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) COY WAYNE WESBROOK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS NO. 73,205 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mansfield, J., delivered an opinion announcing the judgment of the Court, in which Keasler, J., joined.
Appellant, Coy Wayne Wesbrook, was charged by indictment for capital murder committed in Harris County on November 13, 1997. See Tex. Pen. Code § 19.03(a)(7). A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury. That same jury answered the special issues in such a manner that the trial court was obligated to impose a sentence of death. See Art. 37.071, § 2(b),(e) & (g).1 Direct appeal to this Court is automatic pursuant to Article 37.071, § 2(h). Appellant presents thirteen points of error for consideration. With the exception of those points challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, each point of error will be addressed in the order it occurred at trial. We will affirm appellant's conviction and punishment.
Appellant, in points of error two and three, challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence presented during the guilt/innocence stage of trial. To properly consider these points, it is necessary to review the relevant facts, as illustrated by the State's evidence and by appellant's own testimony.
Around two o'clock in the morning, on November 13, 1997, 9-1-1 operators in Harris County received several calls reporting the sound of gunshots coming from a downstairs apartment in a small complex located in the eastern portion of the county. Five shots were heard within approximately forty seconds. Neighbors, either already awake or awakened by the gunshots, rushed outside to find one man lying on the ground and appellant, armed with a hunting rifle, exiting the apartment. Neighbors described appellant as calm as he walked to his truck, placed the gun inside the cab, and then stood by the tailgate where he waited for the sheriff's deputies to arrive. As appellant waited, he was overheard making comments like, or "I did what I had to do." Appellant continued to make similar statements, some of which could be heard on various 9-1-1 calls made from the crime scene that night.
The first deputy on the scene found appellant waiting patiently and also observed a male figure, obviously deceased, lying on the ground nearby. Appellant peacefully complied with law enforcement demands as he was taken into custody. When law enforcement officers looked inside the apartment, they saw the bodies of a woman lying on a couch and a man in a kneeling position on the floor next to a second couch. A fourth victim, still alive, lay on the floor. When the deputy asked appellant who was inside, he replied, "My ex-wife, that's who I came here to get."2 Stepping inside, the deputy found appellant's estranged wife, also still alive, in the bedroom. Appellant, who was handcuffed at this point, was questioned about the location of the gun. He indicated with his head and said, "It's in my truck." With appellant's consent, investigators searched the truck and recovered the weapon. A search of the grounds outside the apartment turned up a live round consistent with the bullet used in appellant's rifle. A firearms expert testified that appellant's gun was capable of holding five rounds, four in the magazine and one in the chamber.
The female victim on the couch, Ruth Money, was believed by investigators to have been shot first. She sustained a single wound to her chest from a bullet fired in a downward trajectory that exited her lower back. The second person shot was either the victim found outside, Anthony Rogers, or the victim found inside kneeling next to the couch, Antonio Cruz. Rogers was hit with a bullet that passed through his right arm, entered his chest, struck his right lung, and exited the body. Evidence indicated that he was shot either just before he attempted to exit the apartment door or as he was exiting. Cruz was killed by a bullet fired into his ear that severed his spinal cord and exited the back of his neck. The two remaining victims were believed to have been shot in the apartment bedroom from a distance of approximately two to four feet. The last male victim, Kelly Hazlip, was shot in the abdomen from a distance of about two feet. Hazlip survived for five days before dying. Appellant's estranged wife, who died shortly after emergency personnel arrived, appears to have held her hand up in a defensive gesture just before appellant fired. That hand suffered extensive damage as the bullet passed through. Bullet and bone fragments were then blown back into her face, neck and the right half of her chest and shoulder.
Appellant, the only surviving witness to the shooting, testified on his own behalf to explain the sequence of events that night. Appellant told the jury that he and his estranged wife, Gloria Coons, had separated, but he had arrived at her apartment after she had given indications of reconciliation. He had hoped she would be alone but, instead, he found Coons with her roommate, Ruth Money, and two male friends, Kelly Hazlip and Anthony Rogers. It was apparent that all had been drinking extensively. Appellant agreed to sit down and drink with the group even though he claimed he was uncomfortable with the situation. Antonio Cruz arrived a short time later.3 Eventually, the subject of conversation in the group turned to that of a sexual nature and culminated with appellant's estranged wife walking into her bedroom with Hazlip. After a few moments Anthony Rogers joined them. A short time later she reappeared with Rogers, whose pants were unzipped, announced that she had just provided him with oral sex, and she was about to have sex with Hazlip who was still in the bedroom.
At this point, as appellant testified, he was humiliated by this behavior and left the apartment to get in his truck and leave. Antonio Cruz followed, briefly talked with appellant, and eventually grabbed the truck's keys as appellant tried to start the vehicle. Cruz kept the keys and reentered the apartment.4 Appellant grabbed his hunting rifle and followed to get the keys back. Once inside, appellant claimed he was verbally harassed, threatened, and physically abused by those present. He testified that Ruth Money threw a beer at him, and he fired the gun at her in response. Rogers and Cruz, according to appellant, then rushed toward him, and he shot both men. Finally, appellant entered the bedroom, saw Coons and Hazlip still having sex and shot both. In his defense, appellant told the jury that he "lost it" and had no intention of killing any of the people inside that apartment.
In his second point of error, appellant argues the evidence used to establish his conviction for capital murder was legally insufficient because alternative evidence established that he was justified in using deadly force against Antonio Cruz. See Tex. Pen. Code § 9.42.
Evidence is legally insufficient if, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could not have found each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 647 (1996), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 100 (1997). The jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be given testimony, and it is also the exclusive province of the jury to reconcile conflicts in the evidence. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d at 647. A claim of legal insufficiency is, in effect, an argument that the case should never have even been presented to the jury. Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 132 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).
By claiming legal insufficiency in this manner, appellant is arguing that the evidence of justification to kill Antonio Cruz in order to retrieve his personal property was so compelling that the issue of his guilt should have never even been presented to the jury for its consideration. We disagree. Although the trial court decided that enough evidence existed to warrant a jury instruction on justification to protect personal property, we can confidently state that, after thoroughly examining the available record and viewing it in a light favorable to the verdict, this evidence of justification was not so strong that it greatly preponderated against the jury's finding of capital murder to the point of completely overwhelming it and rendering that evidence legally insufficient. Moreover, the jury's implicit rejection of appellant's theory of justification could not be considered irrational given the quantum of incriminating evidence presented by the State. Appellant's second point of error is overruled.
In his third point of error, appellant argues the evidence was factually insufficient to "establish that [he] intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Gloria Coons and Antonio Cruz."
This Court possesses the authority to conduct a factual sufficiency review on direct appeals. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d at 647. To conduct this review, we discard the prism utilized in a legal sufficiency review and, instead, view all of the evidence in a neutral light favoring neither side. Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d at 129. We will set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Ibid. A factual sufficiency review must be appropriately deferential so as to avoid the appellate court's substituting its own judgment for that of the fact finder. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d at 647. "The court's evaluation should not substantially intrude upon the jury's role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of witness testimony." Id. at 648.
Whethe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tabler v. Lumpkin
... ... After waiving his right to seek habeas corpus relief in state court, Petitioner unsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief in this Court. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated, in part, ... ...
- Bates v. State
-
Soffar v. Stephens
... ... In the past thirty-four years Soffar has twice been convicted of capital murder, has twice been sentenced to death, and has availed himself of state and federal review. Soffar has now filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Both parties seek summary judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 34, ... ...
- Perez v. State
-
Offenses against person
...court’s discretion, and we review a trial court’s instruction to the jury under an abuse of discretion standard. Wesbrook v. State , 29 S.W.3d 103, 122 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). “Charging the jury that ‘penetration is complete however slight’ has been held to be a proper instruction. See Gallowa......
-
Table of cases
...364 (Tex.Cr.App. 2009), §20:92 Welch v. State , 993 S.W.2d 690 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet .), Form 13-17 Wesbrook v. State , 29 S.W.3d 103, (Tex.Cr.App.2000), §§4:41, 6:40 Whalon v. State , 725 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986), §15:41 Wheat v. State, 537 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), §1......
-
Trial Issues
...were interwoven as one event, evidence of the other three murders was admissible on the trial of the fourth murder. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Evidence that a gang targeted a particular house on previous occasions is relevant to show the context in which the ch......
-
Right to counsel and effective assistance of counsel
...the defendant and an informant, and the conversation is then used in the punishment phase of the capital trial. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Manns v. State, 122 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Incriminating statements pertaining to pending charges are inadmiss......