Williams v. State

Decision Date21 January 2014
Docket NumberNo. 01–12–00251–CR.,01–12–00251–CR.
PartiesTroy WILLIAMS II, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Randy Schaffer, The Schaffer Firm, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

Devon Anderson, District Attorney, Donald W. Rogers, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Houston, TX, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Justices JENNINGS, BROWN, and HUDDLE.

OPINION

HARVEY BROWN, Justice.

A jury convicted Troy Williams II of first degree murder, and the trial court assessed his punishment at eighteen years' confinement. On appeal, Williams contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial during voir dire, granting the State's challenge for cause of a venire person, and denying his motion for mistrial during closing argument, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

We affirm.

Background

Avila's neighbor, Juan Machado, testified that he was awakened one December morning between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. by loud noises from the apartment above his that sounded “like a fight or a struggle.” He then heard Avila “crying out for help” in Spanish. He estimated that Avila cried out for help about ten times with a steady stream of “screaming and moaning.” He also heard another voice coming from the apartment saying, “Shut up,” in Spanish. Machado called emergency assistance. The noises continued for about ten minutes and then stopped. He then called emergency assistance a second time when he “started hearing the struggle again.” The fighting ended with a final, louder noise. When police officers eventually arrived at the scene, Machado told them what he had heard.

Houston Police Department Officer J. Vasquez testified that he and Officer Z. Wang received a dispatch at 6:49 a.m. to a disturbance at the apartments. As they arrived on the scene at 6:54, they passed Williams walking away from Avila's apartment. Williams was carrying his shoes and some shirts, and had blood stains on his socks and upper body. Vasquez placed Williams in the patrol car, told Wang to check Avila's apartment, and released Williams shortly thereafter. Upon entering the apartment, Vasquez found Avila lying on a bed with blood “all on his head,” “all over [the] side of the bed on the floor,” and dripping off of Avila. Vasquez said that Avila appeared to be the victim of an “assault” or a “beating,” rather than a fight. Believing that Williams may have had something to do with the scene, Vasquez instructed Wang to find him. Wang reported over the radio that Williams was running away, and when Vasquez caught up to them, Wang had Williams in custody. They then turned Williams over to homicide detectives.

HPD Officer A. Taravella, who also was dispatched to the scene, testified that he saw “drops of blood” and “blood spatter” on the wall and headboard of the bed. He also seized two cellular telephones, one from inside the apartment and one that Officer Wang had recovered from Williams. He observed several disks of pornography that appeared to be “recently watched,” a plate with what appeared to be cocaine residue, a used condom, and a twenty-pound dumbbell. Based on the blood, a broken lamp, and a sofa cushion that was no longer on the couch, he believed “some sort of struggle” had taken place. Taravella testified that he believed that Avila had been struck in the head approximately five or six times and moved to the bed after he was first injured. HPD Crime Lab DNA analyst Clay Davis testified that Avila's DNA was found on the dumbbell and on Williams's clothes, chest, and hands.

HPD Homicide Detective P. Motard interviewed Williams the same day. He testified that Williams was “argumentative, erratic,” “almost nonsensical,” and “had blood scattered all over his body.” An ambulance transported Williams to a hospital, but Motard did not notice that he was cut or bruised. Motard obtained DNA samples of the blood on Williams's clothing. Once at the hospital, Williams did not claim that he had been sexually assaulted and resisted medical treatment.

Albert Chu, an assistant medical examiner at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences, performed an autopsy of Avila. Chu testified that Avila's cause of death was [b]lunt force injuries of the head and neck” consistent with a homicide. Avila had two fractures to his skull, bleeding on the surface of his brain, and some bruising of his brain. Avila's head had lacerations with “a similar shape to what was seen on the edges of the dumbbell.” Chu opined that Avila had been struck with a dumbbell or another blunt object at least three or four times. Chu also noted compression of Avila's neck, indicating strangulation. He characterized bruising on Avila's right middle finger and left forehand as injuries likely “sustained in the course of defending one's self.” Cocaine and alcohol were both present in Avila's system at the time of his death.

Williams testified in his defense. By way of background, he testified that his father was a chaplain who raised him in a “very religious” household with “very strict” rules. His parents disapproved of his uncle's homosexuality, and they did not interact with his uncle for years because they would not allow him to bring “a homosexual partner” to their home. Williams testified that he also disapproved of his uncle's lifestyle.

After playing basketball in high school, Williams attended Baylor University, where he started using marijuana and ecstasy and got suspended for stealing a laptop. He then attended Houston Baptist University but was expelled when he was discovered with marijuana.

On the day of Avila's death, Williams was nineteen years old and living in an apartment with the financial assistance of his parents. He testified that he used ecstasy twice daily.

Williams testified that he had not met Avila before the day in question. On the evening before Avila's death, Williams was picked up by his friend, “Toya,” because his automobile was being repaired. He had already taken marijuana and ecstasy. At her apartment, they used marijuana, consumed alcohol, played dominoes, and “hung out” with some of her friends for several hours. Williams left Toya's apartment after midnight because one of her male friends was “hitting on” him, making him uncomfortable. Toya declined to give Williams a ride home, but two women in the parking lot whom he had never met before agreed to drop him off near his apartment complex. When he could not find his apartment keys, he went to a friend's apartment but she was not home. His phone had a dead battery; therefore, he could not call anyone else.

At approximately 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., Williams went back down to the parking lot of his friend's apartment complex, where he started talking with an African–American man and a Hispanic man, later identified as Avila. Williams asked them if they could give him a ride to his parent's house in Fort Bend County or a place to stay because he was cold; the African–American man declined, but Avila agreed to Williams's request to stay in his apartment.

Once inside, Avila offered Williams cocaine, but he declined. After Avila went into the kitchen, Williams laid on the couch in the living room and fell asleep, still fully clothed. Williams testified that he later realized that Avila was removing his sweatshirt and shirt as Williams was sleeping. Williams did nothing about it; he was “letting it go” because [i]t didn't bother” him. When he awoke again, his shirt, shorts, and shoes had been removed, and Avila was performing oral sex on him. Williams pushed Avila off of him. According to Williams, Avila got up off the floor and punched him, and the two started fighting. At some point during the fight, Williams picked up a twenty pound dumbbell from the hallway; he began “swinging away” with the dumbbell and knocked Avila's teeth out. After Williams “managed to get on top” of Avila and “pin him” lying face down, he repeatedly hit Avila with the dumbbell and did not stop until he “knew he was dead.” After initially objecting to re-enacting the blows with a dumbbell because it would “incriminate me,” Williams demonstrated the force he used to hit Avila by hitting a piece of wood. Williams testified that he killed Avila because he “wanted to make sure” he would [s]top trying to sexually assault me.”

Williams conceded that the front door to the apartment was less than twenty steps away, that Avila was about four inches smaller than him and in his forties, yet he claimed that Avila “was stronger” than him. He also recalled that Avila was “yelling for help” at some point. He acknowledged that Avila “needed help because [Williams] was beating him.” Williams testified that “striking [Avila] in the back of the head with a dumbbell numerous times until he died was immediately necessary to defend [him]self.”

Using Avila's cellular telephone, Williams attempted to call his family and a friend around 6:00 a.m., but none of them answered. He did not call 911. Near 7:00 a.m, he put his shorts on and walked out of the apartment, carrying his shirt, shoes, and Avila's cellular telephone.

As he left the apartment, he was confronted by Officers Vasquez and Wang and said, “I was kidnapped. It was self-defense.”The police officers allowed him to leave, but shortly thereafter Wang “came after [him].” Williams ran but Wang caught him and placed him under arrest. Williams testified that he asked to be taken to the hospital because he was “ashamed” and “didn't want them to know that [he] was sexually assaulted.”

When Williams was interviewed by HPD, he told the officers that he had been kidnapped, Avila had threatened to call his uncle, and he had “lightly” hit Avila with the dumbbell. He later admitted that his “elaborate story ... was full of lies.” He “had no problem putting that story together,” and claimed that he fabricated the story because he was ashamed that he had been sexually assaulted. He denied having sex...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • State v. McKinley
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 29, 2014
    ...experience as police officers, we have no trouble finding that their opinions were admissible under Rule 701.”); Williams v. State, 417 S.W.3d 162, 182 (Tex.App.2013) (finding police officer properly gave lay witness opinion in describing crime scene).21 G. Ruling Concerning Facebook Eviden......
  • Adell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 3, 2023
    ...that is "so prejudicial that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful and futile" (internal quotations omitted)); Williams, 417 S.W.3d at 175 mistrial is an extreme remedy and should be exceedingly uncommon."). Otherwise, when the prejudice is curable, an instruction by the......
  • Molina v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 2019
    ...inferences from the evidence. Sterling v. State , 830 S.W.2d 114, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) ; Williams v. State , 417 S.W.3d 162, 174 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd). Improper jury argument is not a basis for reversal unless, when viewed in light of the record as a whole, ......
  • Roberts v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 2016
    ...against the defendant.'") (quoting Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65, 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)); Williams v. State, 417 S.W.3d 162, 175 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd) ("A mistrial is an extreme remedy and should be exceedingly uncommon."); see also Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Summation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...were made during State’s closing argument in response to statements made by defense counsel during defense’s closing. Williams v. State , 417 S.W.3d 162, 175-77 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d). Where the prosecutor asserted that both the defendant and his counsel “had years......
  • CHAPTER 8.I. Motion Authorities
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Motions in Limine Title Chapter 8 Witness Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...786 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (an expert witness may not testify to his opinion on a pure question of law). Williams v. State, 417 S.W.3d 162, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd) (no witness is competent to voice an opinion as to guilt or innocence of a criminal defe......
  • CHAPTER 9.I. Motion Authorities
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Motions in Limine Title Chapter 9 Trial Presentation
    • Invalid date
    ...a layperson to determine, with reasonable probability, the causal relationship between the event and condition."). Williams v. State, 417 S.W.3d 162, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd) ("[O]pinion testimony that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable solely because i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT