Rodriguez v. State

JESUS RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

NUMBER 13-16-00396-CR

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

May 17, 2018

On appeal from the 450th District Court of Travis County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant Jesus Rodriguez appeals his conviction for murder, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). A juryreturned a guilty verdict, and the trial court assessed punishment at life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. Appellant raises five evidentiary issues, which primarily address the exclusion of evidence supporting appellant's belief or delusion that the decedent Michael Norwood was associated with a drug cartel and was attempting to carry out a "hit." By two additional issues, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Norwood by shooting him with a firearm. See id. The record reflects that appellant shot and killed Norwood at Brackenridge Hospital (the hospital) in Austin, Texas, shortly before midnight on December 31, 2013. Appellant arrived at the hospital earlier that evening complaining of back pain. He was prescribed medication and was discharged around 7:20 p.m. However, appellant remained around the emergency room waiting area for approximately four hours. A triage nurse asked hospital security to escort appellant from the building around 11:00 p.m. Appellant exited the waiting room area but remained just outside of the hospital.

Sonya Manning testified that she was waiting for a ride at the hospital. She witnessed security personnel direct appellant to leave the premises and noticed that he was carrying a backpack. While Manning was waiting inside the hospital, Norwood approached her and asked to use her lighter. She later went outside to smoke a cigarette and began conversing with Norwood. Manning noticed two police cars nearby.After one of the officers drove away, appellant approached Norwood and Manning, asking "What did you all say about me?" Norwood answered, "Ain't nobody said nothing about you dude." Appellant walked away, and Manning continued talking with Norwood.

According to Manning, after the second officer drove away, appellant approached them again and asked, "What did you all say about me?" Manning and Norwood again denied saying anything about appellant. Manning stated that appellant then walked in front of them, pulled out a gun, and said, "I was just waiting for the laws to leave." Manning described what happened next:

And he shot [Norwood.] It looked like—from my point of view, it looked like a straight face shot. [Norwood] blocked it and—he blocked it. And then [appellant] went up and grabbed [Norwood.] And I ran sideways like, you know—I'm thinking I'm running sideways, I ran into the emergency room. And that's when two more shots went off and it was [Norwood.] And he shot [Norwood] again.

Manning explained that when appellant approached them, Norwood was on the phone "with his kinfolk."

Several officers responded to the scene. According to their testimony, they apprehended appellant nearby on hospital grounds. Officers discovered a firearm under Norwood's body. They also recovered appellant's backpack and found two loaded handgun magazines.

According to the autopsy, Norwood died from two gunshot wounds—to his left upper chest and to the backside of his left shoulder. The muzzle imprint on the wounds indicated that the gun was in contact with Norwood's body when it was fired.

Appellant testified in his defense. He claimed that he believed Norwood was an associate of a drug cartel and that he feared he was carrying out a "hit." Appellantbelieved he was being targeted by a drug cartel, and he claimed that cartel members had previously shot and stabbed him. Appellant stated that he reached out to police on multiple occasions concerning these incidents. Appellant went to the hospital that evening "for protection and for the prescription." He remained on the premises because he felt the hospital was a safe location.

According to appellant, just prior to the shooting, he heard Norwood state "That fool is in front of me right now. If you're going to cap him, cap him." Appellant then began walking toward the parking garage when he heard a gunshot. He stated, "I start freaking out. I start looking around. And then [Norwood is] right there. And it happened all fast. We started fighting." Appellant claimed that his gun was thrown from his backpack during the struggle. He stated, "We both went after the gun, and we started struggling over the gun." Appellant admitted that he fired the gun that killed Norwood and that the gun found under Norwood's body was his.

The jury charge included instructions for murder, manslaughter, and self-defense. The jury found appellant guilty of murder. This appeal followed.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

By his sixth issue, which we address first, appellant argues the evidence was legally insufficient "to support the verdict." Specifically, appellant argues that "the evidence demonstrates it is reasonable to believe that self-defense was necessary."

A. Standard of Review

"The standard for determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction is 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292, 293-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis in Jackson); see Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 898-99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.); see also Kirk v. State, 421 S.W.3d 772, 776-77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref'd) (applying the Jackson standard to the jury's rejection of a self-defense theory). The fact-finder is the exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be given to their testimony. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899; Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence is within the fact-finder's exclusive province. Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We resolve any inconsistencies in the testimony in favor of the verdict. Bynum v. State, 767 S.W.2d 769, 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (en banc).

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the fact-finder's rejection of the defensive issue of self-defense, we look not to whether the State presented evidence which refuted appellant's self-defense testimony, but rather we determine whether any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt. Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see Gaona v. State, 498 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pet. ref'd); Kirk, 421 S.W.3d at 777.

B. Applicable Law

A person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of anindividual or if he intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1)-(2). However, under certain circumstances, self-defense justifies the use of deadly force. Morales v. State, 357 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The Texas Penal Code provides in part that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 9.31, 9.32(a) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).

The initial burden to produce evidence supporting self-defense rests with the defendant. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913. Once the defendant produces some evidence, the State bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to disprove the raised defense. See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594; Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913-14. "The burden of persuasion is not one that requires the production of evidence, rather it requires only that the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt." Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594. The issue of self-defense is a fact issue to be determined by the jury, which is free to accept or reject any defensive evidence on the issue. Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913-14. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, then it implicitly finds against the defensive theory. Id. at 914.

C. Analysis

The jury heard conflicting testimony concerning the moments preceding Norwood's death. Appellant claimed he feared Norwood was attacking him because he was associated with a drug cartel. Appellant described hearing Norwood say, "That foolis in front of me right now. If you're going to cap him, cap him." Appellant then heard a gunshot and described a physical struggle with Norwood resulting in his firearm falling from his backpack. Appellant claimed that he and Norwood both attempted to grab the weapon but that he reached the gun first. He stated he fired the weapon at Norwood because he feared for his life.

Manning's testimony directly contradicts appellant's version of events. According to Manning, appellant approached Norwood, pulled out his weapon, and shot Norwood without provocation. There was no evidence that Norwood was armed, and the only weapon recovered from the scene belonged to appellant.

Manning's testimony that appellant approached Norwood and shot him without provocation is legally sufficient evidence to support the...