Pitts v. State

DEAIRA PITTS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO. 14-18-00987-CR

State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals

September 15, 2020

On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1577116

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Deaira Pitts guilty of the murder of the complainant, Michael Simmons. Appellant now appeals her conviction asserting that it should be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, (2) the trial court reversibly erred when it denied her request to include a defense of property instruction in the jury charge, (3) the trial court reversibly erred when it denied her request to submit the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the jury charge, and (4) she was egregiously harmed by the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that the State carried the burden of disproving self-defense. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

It is undisputed appellant stabbed Simmons in the back and Simmons died within minutes of being stabbed. Appellant agreed to be interviewed by police detective Shawn Overstreet and revealed the following sequence of events. Appellant met Simmons while he was working construction in Baltimore, Maryland. Simmons and appellant became romantically involved and appellant accompanied Simmons back to Houston when he finished his work in Baltimore. According to appellant, they were dating, but were not in a committed relationship. Once in Houston, they moved into Simmons' mother's apartment, but she eventually made them move out because they were constantly arguing. Simmons and appellant then moved into a hotel room while they searched for an apartment. They found an apartment and paid the amount required to move in on Friday evening, January 12, 2018. Appellant and Simmons each paid half of the money required to move into the apartment.

Appellant and Simmons started arguing the next day, their first full day in the apartment. The dispute continued Sunday when Simmons started playing loud music while appellant tried to study. Appellant left the apartment at this point. When she returned, Simmons "started picking at" her. Appellant told Simmons to leave the apartment and go get some fresh air. Simmons left the apartment and he met a stripper while he was out. Simmons called appellant and asked if he could bring the stripper back to the apartment. Appellant refused permission for Simmons to bring the stripper to the apartment, so Simmons returned alone.

The two began arguing again. Appellant tried to call the police because Simmons was refusing to leave the apartment. Simmons tried to grab appellant's phone and she fell to the floor. Appellant then started having an asthma attack andshe called 9-1-1 for an ambulance and the police. Appellant packed his things and left the apartment before the ambulance and police arrived. Appellant did not give the police Simmons' correct name because he was on parole and she did not want him to go to jail.

The police and ambulance left the apartment and Simmons returned a few minutes later, entering the second-floor apartment through the balcony sliding-glass door. When appellant asked why he had returned, Simmons responded that he was there to get the rest of his stuff. Simmons then tried to steal appellant's wallet. Appellant again called the police.¹ Simmons left the apartment again. Once Simmons had left, appellant locked both the balcony's sliding-glass door and the front door of the apartment.

At that point, appellant called a friend, Ronnie Mitchell, and asked him to come to the apartment.² According to appellant, she was concerned about what Simmons would do if he returned to the apartment and she wanted someone in the apartment for protection. Appellant described Mitchell as a friend, but told Detective Overstreet that Simmons believed she was having a relationship with Mitchell. Appellant also told Detective Overstreet that Simmons was possessive of her. Mitchell arrived at the apartment complex that evening. Mitchell initially stopped and talked to Simmons, who was sitting in his car in the complex parking lot. According to appellant, Mitchell told her that Simmons was "good." The two then entered the apartment, where appellant resumed studying. Throughout that Sunday, Simmons called and texted appellant. Simmons continually asked appellant for forgiveness and asked if he could return to the apartment.

That night, appellant heard Simmons try, and fail, to enter the apartmentthrough the balcony sliding-glass door. According to appellant, Simmons hopped down off the balcony, walked up the steps to the second floor, and approached the apartment's front door. This door had two locks, one that could be opened from the outside with a key, the second a deadbolt, which could only be opened from the inside. Simmons used his key to open the door's lock. Still unable to enter the apartment because the deadbolt remained locked, Simmons kicked the door.³ Appellant told Detective Overstreet that she then unlocked the deadbolt and opened the door so she could see what was going on outside. Simmons then kicked the door open and moved into the apartment, pushing appellant aside. Mitchell then came toward Simmons and the two men started struggling. According to appellant, the two men did not exchange blows, but it appeared Simmons was trying to push Mitchell out of the apartment. Appellant yelled at Simmons to stop.

Appellant told Detective Overstreet that she had never seen Simmons look the way he did that night and that she was scared of what would happen if Simmons won the struggle, pushed Mitchell out of the apartment, and then locked the door. When it appeared that Simmons was winning the struggle, appellant went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and stabbed Simmons three times in the back. Appellant told Detective Overstreet that Simmons walked out to the apartment landing, started vomiting, and collapsed. Mitchell, who had not been pushed completely out of the apartment, asked appellant what she had done. Appellant subsequently threw the knife in some bushes outside the apartment.

Nearby apartment residents testified that they heard arguing coming from appellant's apartment throughout the day. Apartment resident Kegan Houstontestified that he had seen Simmons walk by on the sidewalk around 11:00 p.m. and that Simmons appeared frustrated and angry. Other witnesses testified that they had seen Simmons sitting quietly outside the apartment that evening. About five minutes after he saw Simmons, Houston was in his bedroom when he heard a loud rumbling noise. Houston opened his first-floor apartment's front door and he saw Simmons laying on the stairs, spitting blood. Houston closed the door and told his friend, Jeremy Washington, what he had seen. Houston then called 9-1-1. Washington, who had talked to Simmons earlier in the evening, ran up the stairs where he found Simmons unresponsive and covered in blood.⁴ Washington knocked on appellant's apartment door. Mitchell came out on the landing and Washington asked what had happened. Washington then asked both Mitchell and appellant about four or five times if they had called the police. Neither responded. Eventually, Mitchell said he had nothing to do with it. Appellant said only that they "got into it." Mitchell did finally call 9-1-1, reporting that a black male had tried to break into the apartment and had been stabbed by the owner.

The paramedics arrived and found Simmons lying in a pool of blood at the top of the stairs. Simmons did not have a pulse and the paramedics determined that he was deceased. An autopsy concluded that Simmons had suffered three stab wounds, only one of which was fatal. The fatal wound was in the right side of his back, which penetrated his chest cavity and right lung, causing massive bleeding. According to the assistant medical examiner, Simmons died within minutes of being stabbed.

Appellant went to trial before a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence thetrial court's proposed charge included a self-defense instruction. Appellant objected to the proposed charge and requested that the trial court include two additional instructions: (1) a defense of property instruction pursuant to Penal Code section 9.42; and (2) an instruction on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The trial court rejected both. The jury subsequently found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment and sentenced her to serve twenty years in prison. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

I. The evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant's conviction.

Appellant argues in her fourth issue on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction because, in her view, no rational jury would have rejected her self-defense argument. We address this issue first because if successful, it would entitle appellant to the greatest relief. See Price v. State, 502 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).

A. Standard of review and applicable law

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1973); Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292, 293-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In our review, we consider all of the evidence in the record, whether admissible or inadmissible. Price v. State, 502 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (citing Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)). We measure the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction by comparing the evidence presented during the trial to the elements of the offenseas defined in a hypothetically-correct jury charge. Hernandez v. State, 556 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).

In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the...