From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lawrence v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Aug 26, 2004
No. 05-02-01705-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2004)

Opinion

No. 05-02-01705-CR

Opinion issued August 26, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 283rd District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01-56668-MT. Affirmed.

Before Justices WHITTINGTON, WRIGHT, and BRIDGES


OPINION


Desmond Undra Lawrence appeals his capital murder conviction. A jury convicted appellant, and punishment was assessed automatically at life imprisonment. In three issues, appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction, and the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the complainant's husband's suicide. We affirm the trial court's judgment. At approximately 3:15 p.m. on August 17, 2001, three African-American men wearing black pantyhose over their faces and latex gloves entered the shared foyer of a check-cashing business and a restaurant. Violeta Davila was washing dishes in the restaurant's kitchen when she saw the first man come inside. The man was wearing a white shirt and carrying a gun. A second man, wearing a blue shirt with white numbers on it and carrying a gun and a duffle bag, followed the first man inside. The third man, wearing a green shirt, followed. The first man told Davila not to move and fired a shot into the ceiling before moving toward the check-cashing area. The first man fired several more shots, but Davila hid behind a bar until the shooting stopped. Maria Salenas, Davila's mother-in-law, was also in the restaurant when the three men entered, pointed a gun at her and told her not to move. Salenas then heard gunshots and screaming and ran out and saw Young Ja Chung bleeding and one of the men lying on the floor of the check-cashing business. Young Ja and her husband, Yon Tae, ran the check-cashing business. Yon Tae came out screaming and calling for help, and Salenas' daughter called the police. However, by the time the police arrived, Young Ja was dead. Dallas Police officer Rick Berry arrived at the scene and interviewed Yon Tae, who said he had been lying on a bed in the back of the check-cashing business and his wife had been at the counter when he heard shouting and gunfire. Yon Tae armed himself with a pistol and saw the man in the blue shirt with white numbers, later identified as Sylvester Avery, holding a gun and kicking his way into the check-cashing booth. Yon Tae shot Avery. Another of the men looked in at Yon Tae through the window of the check-cashing business and began shooting Young Ja. Yon Tae attended to his wife and did not see what the men did next. Kay Briedenbaugh, who worked at a laundry in an adjacent building, heard gunshots and looked out the front window. Breidenbaugh saw two African-American men running. One of the men was wearing a green shirt and dark pants, but she did not notice what the other man was wearing. The man in the green shirt got in the back of a beige four-door car, the other man got in the front passenger seat, and the car drove off. The man in the green shirt kept looking back, and Briedenbaugh saw his face and later identified him as Clarence Lyles in a photographic lineup. Rachel Sanchez was in her apartment across the street from the restaurant when she heard what sounded like thunder and looked out her window. Sanchez saw two African-American men carrying guns and running. The men were not wearing anything over their heads or over their faces. One of the men was wearing a light blue or white shirt, and he turned his head to the left and right when he came outside. As he did this, Sanchez saw the man's face. Sanchez later identified appellant from a photographic lineup and wrote her name, the date, and the time on the back of appellant's photograph. At trial more than a year later, however, Sanchez was unable to identify in the courtroom the man she saw running from the restaurant. Sanchez testified, "Now I don't remember. But that day that I saw them, I was sure of what I was signing and that [sic] I had seen." As the investigation into Young Ja's murder progressed, Berry learned Avery's family had known of his death before police identified him. By tracing back through the family members and others who had passed the information of Avery's death, Berry came into contact with Kevin Garden and questioned him. Garden told Berry he was very close to Avery, and he last spoke with Avery on the day of the murder. Avery called Garden and said "he had a deal for him." Avery and Garden later met, and Avery was talking about "hitting a lick," which meant robbing somebody. Garden said that, after the meeting, he dropped Avery off, drove around, washed his truck, and drank some beer. However, Garden was unable to verify his whereabouts before 6:00 p.m. Berry also questioned Eric Greer, whose information led to the arrest of Garden, appellant, and Lyles on capital murder charges. At trial, Greer testified Avery, Garden, Lyles, and appellant came to Greer's house on the Tuesday before the murder. Garden and Avery talked about "hitting a lick," robbing "a check cash." On Wednesday or Thursday, Garden and Avery again came to Greer's house, and Garden said "it was a little check cash and, you know, it was a lot of money off in there." At approximately noon or 1:00 p.m. on the day of the murder, Garden and Avery came to Greer's house, and appellant and Lyles pulled up a little later. Garden asked Greer if he wanted to "go with them and hit the lick." Greer declined, and Garden, Avery, appellant, and Lyles left at about 2:15 or 2:30 p.m. At approximately 4:30 or 4:45, Lyles pulled up and asked if Greer had seen Garden. Greer said he had not seen Garden, and Lyles left. Garden came by fifteen or twenty minutes later and came in Greer's house, sat down for a few minutes, went out, got in his truck, and prepared to leave. Garden pulled back up, however, and told Greer that Avery had been shot, but he did not know whether or not Avery was dead. Garden said that, when Avery was shot, Garden "just went out the door shooting." Garden said, "It wasn't supposed to happen like that." Teresa Crockett, Greer's girlfriend, testified she overheard appellant and Garden speaking with Greer a couple of days before the murder. The men were talking about "some guns and stuff." Garden and appellant were talking about a car and something about "doing this." Greer stood up and said, "This is a check cash place. This ain't for my boys. You don't' even need to think like that." Appellant said, "They don't have a gun." Greer said, "They always have guns. It's a check cash place. You don't — you do that on your own." Latasha Ford, appellant's girlfriend, testified she was with appellant on the day of the murder. According to Ford, she and appellant went to Greer's house around noon. After about thirty minutes, Ford and appellant went to a restaurant before returning home and cleaning the house in preparation for a birthday party the next day. Ford testified appellant never left the house. At one point in the afternoon, appellant received a phone call and told Ford that Avery had been shot. A jury convicted appellant, and this appeal followed. In his first and second points of error, appellant complains the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. A person commits capital murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2004). When we review the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view 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. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we are to view all of the evidence in a neutral light, favoring neither party. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). We must determine whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both supporting and against the finding, demonstrates that the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga v. State, No. 539-02, 2004 WL 840786 at *7 (Tex.Crim. App. April 21, 2004). Evidence is factually insufficient when evidence supporting the verdict, considered by itself, is too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Evidence is also insufficient when contrary evidence is so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard could not have been met. Id. The fact finder is entitled to judge the credibility of the witnesses and may choose to believe all, some or none of the testimony presented. Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Here, the record shows appellant was present on multiple occasions when the other perpetrators of the robbery of the check-cashing business discussed the crime. Appellant's statement that "They don't have a gun," supports the inference that he was arguing in favor of the robbery. Sanchez identified appellant from a photographic lineup and wrote her name, the date, and the time on the back of appellant's photograph. Although she could not identify the man she saw more than a year before among those in the courtroom at trial, Sanchez testified that, on the day she saw the photographic lineup, she was "sure of what I was signing and that [sic] I had seen." Having reviewed the record, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support appellant's capital murder conviction. See King, 29 S.W.3d at 562; Zuniga, 2004 WL 840786 at *7. We overrule appellant's first and second points of error. In his third point of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in permitting testimony that Yon Tae Chung killed himself nine days after his wife's murder. We review the trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. See Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). As long as the trial court's ruling is within the zone of reasonable disagreement, there is no abuse of discretion, and its ruling will be upheld. Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Here, appellant argued that evidence of Yon Tae's suicide should have been excluded because it had no probative value under rules of evidence 402 and 403. Instead, appellant urged, the testimony should have been limited to the fact that Yon Tae "passed away," and it should not have been revealed that his death was a suicide or that he set himself on fire, as was the case. The trial court agreed that the prejudicial effect of the manner and means of Yon Tae's death would certainly outweigh the probative value, and it limited the testimony to the fact that Yon Tae committed suicide. Yan Tae was the man who shot Avery and the only eyewitness to Young Ja's shooting. Yan Tae's suicide nine days after the murder was relevant to show his state of mind when he made his statements to police and to explain why he was not at trial to testify. His suicide shows why he died so soon after the robbery and clarifies that he did not die from an injury inflicted by any of the robbers. Further, while Yan Tae's suicide shows he was distraught, it does not place blame on any particular defendant. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony as to how Yan Tae died. See Rachal, 917 S.W.2d at 807. We overrule appellant's third point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.


Summaries of

Lawrence v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Aug 26, 2004
No. 05-02-01705-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2004)
Case details for

Lawrence v. State

Case Details

Full title:DESMOND UNDRA LAWRENCE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Aug 26, 2004

Citations

No. 05-02-01705-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2004)