White v. State
| Decision Date | 17 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-19-00438-CR,05-19-00438-CR |
| Parties | DONALD RAMEL JAMES WHITE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Before Justices Whitehill, Osborne, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Osborne
Appellant, Donald Ramel James White, was convicted of attempted capital murder of a peace officer and sentenced to ninety years' imprisonment. On appeal, appellant raises five issues challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and the correctness of the jury charge. We affirm.
Thinh Nguyen is a Farmers Branch police officer assigned to the bike team, a division of the police department which emphasizes a lot of community service and community policing. The uniform for the bike team, which is also the department's "summer uniform," has shorts, a patch that says "Farmer's Branch Police," and a belt which carries items such as his gun, magazines, a handcuff case, tazer, and radio. It is Nguyen's preference to wear this uniform as opposed to the more formal, standard police uniform.
Nguyen also serves as a "courtesy officer" at the Prairie Crossing Apartment complex on Sigma Road in Farmers Branch. A courtesy officer is a police officer who, in exchange for reduced rent, works at the apartment complex while off-duty to protect the community, respond to disturbances, and enforce the law. The Farmers Branch police department permits officers to hold these types of part-time off duty jobs with the approval of the chief of that department. Nguyen sought and obtained such approval, which allowed him to work either in uniform or out of uniform. The jury heard testimony that an officer who is working their off-duty part time employment has the authority to act as a police officer and is directed to "[t]ake appropriate action to deal with any violation of law or breach of the peace that comes to their attention."
On days that Nguyen worked as a police officer, he would first do a quick check of the apartment complex, usually between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., while in uniform. During several of those morning patrols in 2017, Nguyen saw appellant in the kitchen area of the apartment clubhouse. During their first encounter, Nguyen asked appellant if he lived in the complex and appellant "nodded yeah." Nguyenasked if appellant was going to work; appellant said "yes" and told Nguyen that he worked at Tuesday Morning.
Nguyen encountered appellant in the same way on four or five additional occasions. Nguyen described their interactions, which were always in the clubhouse of the apartment complex, as "short and brief," but friendly and cordial. Nguyen was always in uniform during these encounters.
One day, one of the leasing agents at the complex told Nguyen that a homeless man, whom she described as a "tall black male with dreadlocks," had been in the kitchen area of the complex. When she asked him if he lived in the complex he ran off. Nguyen believed he recognized appellant from this description. Nguyen testified that, if he saw appellant again, he planned to ask him if he was a resident and, if he was not, ask him to leave the premises.
On October 20, 2017, Nguyen worked a city event in his capacity as a Farmers Branch police officer. He got off duty about 10:30 p.m. and, when he got home, went straight to bed. Around 2:00 a.m., he was awakened by "loud noises down at the pool." He got up, grabbed a flashlight, and, wearing only an orange shirt and cream colored shorts, went down to investigate. He did not take his gun with him.
When Nguyen got downstairs, the noise was no longer audible. He saw a female sitting in the pool texting on her phone. While the pool area closed at midnight and Nguyen had the authority to ask her to leave, he just asked her about the noise and told her to "keep it down."
Nguyen decided to check the clubhouse "just to make sure that ... nothing ha[d] been broken into." When Nguyen went into the clubhouse, he saw appellant sitting in the computer room. Nguyen asked appellant if he lived there and appellant said that he did. Nguyen asked appellant if he could prove it by giving him some identification or an apartment number. Appellant responded by calling Nguyen a racist. Nguyen told appellant, "I'm a courtesy officer and I'm also a police officer of Farmers Branch."
Appellant got up "like he was leaving." Appellant did not speak, but, as he was gathering his things, Nguyen saw something in appellant's right hand. Appellant then attacked Nguyen and stabbed him on the right side of his neck with a knife.
During the course of the ensuing struggle, appellant grabbed Nguyen, spun him around, and caused him to fall to the ground. Appellant then got on top of Nguyen, straddled him, and started choking him while the knife was still in his neck. Nguyen feared he was going to die and felt if he did not do something appellant would kill him. He told appellant to stop and started screaming for help. While it was hard for him to get words out, he told appellant: All appellant said in return was "Shhh" and "Be quiet." Nguyen testified that appellant looked at him with "dead-set eyes."
Nguyen felt himself getting weak and tired. He looked around, saw a knife on the floor, grabbed it and slashed at appellant. He missed the first time, but madecontact the second time, which caused appellant to flinch long enough for Nguyen to "back-peddle" away from appellant; he lost one of his shoes in the process. Appellant chased Nguyen in an attempt to continue the assault and the two continued to struggle in the clubhouse. Nguyen eventually made it outside, but appellant continued to pursue and attack him.
Nguyen saw the knife on the ground, but was unable to reach it. As he continued to struggle with appellant, Nguyen saw two women at the pool and screamed for help. He described his efforts to obtain help and the culmination of the attack as follows:
Nguyen was able to get up; he looked and saw a fellow Farmers Branch police officer out in the street. Nguyen screamed at him, then jumped over the patio fence and a gate in an effort to get to the officer. Breathing heavily, he collapsed in the street and went into shock.
Officers who found Nguyen testified that that he was frantic, breathing heavily, in pain, covered in blood, and in shock. They attempted first aid. The officers noticed signs of a struggle in the clubhouse: a chair was knocked over, there was blood on the ground, and one of Nguyen's shoes was in the room. There was a blood trail leading from the clubhouse to the pool area, where there was a large amount of blood. Phillip Foxall, a lieutenant with the Farmers Branch police who surveyed the scene, testified it was clear to him that a violent encounter had taken place and that Nguyen, during this encounter, had been fighting for his life.
Appellant, who initially evaded capture after fleeing, was spotted and arrested by the Irving Police Department just after 11:00 p.m. that same day. Subsequent DNA analysis of blood stains on appellant's socks and backpack were consistent with Nguyen's blood. Nguyen picked appellant's photograph out of a photo lineup.
While appellant was in jail awaiting trial, he called his brother; the call was recorded. On the call, appellant admitted attacking Nguyen and described the assault, including stabbing Nguyen in the neck. During this call, appellant told his brother that he knew Nguyen was a "real" police officer even though he was working as a courtesy officer, saying, "I knew he was a cop;" "I seen him before;" and "I seen him in uniform." Appellant repeatedly told his brother that he was trying to "take out" Nguyen.
Nguyen suffered scratches and bruises on his neck, which were common injuries to a person who had been strangled. He had abrasions about his upper torso,a "deep" stab wound in his neck on the right side just below his ear, and another wound on his left bicep. He testified that he had been diagnosed with PTSD after the attack and sought counseling. He had to be cleared by a psychologist before he was allowed to return to his duties as a police officer.
In two issues, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. When we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offenses of attempted capital murder.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is evaluated under the standards established in Jackson v. Virginia 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979); see also Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational jury could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 894-95. This standard of review for legal sufficiency is the same for both direct and circumstantial evidence. Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608,...
To continue reading
Request your trial