Opinion
No. 05-09-00515-CR
Opinion issued July 28, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court no. 3 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F07-49723-LJXJ.
Before Justices O'NEILL, FRANCIS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cluren Stacey Parrish appeals his conviction for the murder of Terence Gray. After finding appellant guilty and finding he used or exhibited a deadly weapon during commission of the offense, the jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, at thirty years in prison. In two issues, appellant claims the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction because he was justified in using deadly force to protect himself against Gray's attempted use of unlawful deadly force and using deadly force to prevent a robbery. We disagree and affirm. Marcus Simon, Gray, and appellant sold drugs, particularly crack cocaine, from an apartment on Royal Lane in north Dallas. On March 10, 2007, police arrived at the apartment and discovered Gray's body. He had been shot in the head. Appellant was arrested and charged with Gray's murder. In two issues, appellant claims the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction because he was justified in using deadly force to (1) protect himself against Gray's attempted use of deadly force and (2) prevent the commission of a robbery. On a legal sufficiency challenge, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). As the reviewing court, we give deference to "the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19). When an appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury's rejection of self-defense, "we look not to whether the State presented evidence which refuted appellant's self-defense testimony, but rather we determine whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements" of the offense "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). A person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1) (Vernon 2003). The person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. Id. § 9.31(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009). A person is justified in using deadly force against another (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other as previously stated, (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated, and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of robbery. Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 235, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2141, 2141-42 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.32(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009)). The defendant has the initial burden of producing evidence to raise self-defense; the State then has the final burden of persuasion to disprove it. Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914. The State is not obligated to offer evidence refuting a claim of self-defense; rather, the State is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. When a fact finder determines that the defendant is guilty, there is an implicit finding against the defensive theory. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914). When an appellant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury's rejection of self-defense, we do not look "to whether the State presented evidence which refuted appellant's self-defense testimony, but rather we determine whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 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, 804 S.W.2d at 914. The indictment charged appellant with intentionally causing Gray's death by shooting Gray with a firearm, a deadly weapon. Forty-three year old Staecey Logan told the jury she had known Gray since they attended elementary school together. Logan began using drugs when she was twenty-one and, by age twenty-eight, it had become "a problem" for her. She was twice convicted of robbery and served five years in federal prison. After getting out, she was clean for seven years but eventually began to use drugs again. Although she lost contact with Gray when she attended college, she later reconnected with him. Logan braided hair for money but she also would "kick it" with others to support her drug habit. "Kicking it" means having sex. On March 9, 2007, Logan hooked up with Gray after kicking it with other people. Gray asked her to braid his hair because he had a date around midnight. She agreed. They stopped at a liquor store for wine and cigarettes, then drove to an apartment complex on Royal Lane. According to Gray, his "homeboy," who had "some good crack," lived there. Logan went upstairs with Gray where she met Simon, known as "Youngster," and his girlfriend. Youngster asked to borrow Gray's car because he needed to take his girlfriend home. Gray agreed to have Logan braid his hair in the apartment and cover for Youngster while Youngster drove his girlfriend home. They agreed Gray would not open the apartment door unless Youngster first called to let him know someone was coming to buy "product." After Youngster and his girlfriend left, Gray locked the door and put the chain on as well. Gray and Logan had each done some crack cocaine when someone tried to come in the door. Logan opened the door, and appellant walked in. Gray introduced appellant as "this is whose house it is, Youngster just lives here with him. He's just trapping here." Logan explained that "trapping" meant Youngster was using appellant's place to sell drugs. Appellant wanted to buy $25 worth of drugs. When Gray asked for the money, appellant said he would be back with the money later. Gray laid the drugs on the table but appellant said it was not enough. Gray gave him an additional small piece, and appellant left. Gray then realized he had a message on his phone from Youngster. He called Youngster back and verified appellant had just been there. But when he told Youngster appellant was bringing the money later, Youngster told Gray not to give appellant any product unless he had the money in hand. Appellant then returned with only $20. Gray said, "See, man, I knew it was gonna be something." Appellant gave him the additional piece back but Gray told him to keep it. Appellant left and according to Logan, no one was upset. Youngster returned, having gotten more drugs and some beer. Youngster was cutting up his drugs when appellant returned with $25, wanting to buy more drugs. This time, appellant asked for a "flipper" which is twice the amount of drugs for the same amount of money. Logan said a flipper was a good deal for a smoker but not for the dealer. Youngster "went off" on appellant, swearing at him and telling him he was tired of appellant asking for flippers. He continued, "Plus you tried to shave $5 earlier on, I don't appreciate that shit." Youngster took the $25 appellant had but did not give him any drugs. Appellant got mad and left, slamming the door on his way out. Youngster got a call and, after asking Gray to use the car again, left the apartment. Gray was sitting on the floor while Logan, sitting on the couch, braided his hair. Appellant walked in the apartment and asked if Youngster left any dope. Gray responded, "Yeah, man, you know, he did." Appellant walked around and said "Disrespectful motherfuckers got me fucked up, talking to me like I'm some kind of pussy. They don't know who they fucking with. Nobody have to take this shit off these niggas." Logan heard a noise and, looking around, realized appellant had a silver gun in his hand. He shot Gray who immediately fell to the floor on his side. Logan said, "Mister, please, I got two kids." Appellant replied, "Where is the dope?" He put his foot under Gray's body and rolled his body over, telling Logan to get Gray's wallet. He took money from Gray's wallet, then asked about Gray's duffel bag. He opened the bag and found cigarettes and some dope. He scooped up a piece of dope in his pipe, lit it, and smoked it. Appellant then commented he was waiting for Youngster because he "got something for his ass." Convincing appellant someone probably heard the gunshot and that she lived across the street, Logan and appellant left the apartment. He held the gun to her side as they walked to another apartment where Logan claimed she lived. She knocked on the door and pushed her way in. When the occupants threatened to call the police, appellant took off. The occupants forced Logan out. She then asked people around the complex for a phone to call the police. Finally, one woman took her to a nearby store where she called her brother and the police. She waited for the police to arrive and took them to the apartment where Gray's body was. She gave police a statement that morning. According to Logan, Gray did not have a gun, knife, or any other weapon that night. Amy Gruszecki, medical examiner for Dallas County, told the jury the gunshot wound to Gray's head was an intermediate range wound, meaning the shooter was most likely three to twelve inches away from Gray at the time he was shot. The bullet entered the right side of Gray's head, moving from right to left and landing at the bottom of Gray's left eye. It was a "fairly instantaneous death." Detective Steven David of the Dallas Police Department investigated Gray's death during the early morning hours of March 10, 2007. Later that morning, he interviewed Logan. On March 18, David interviewed appellant. When asked whether he knew why he was being interviewed, appellant said, "Somebody was found in an apartment." Appellant admitted he was authorized to be in or live in that apartment by the owner, Charles Boudrin. Appellant did not pay rent but claimed he was allowed to stay there because he had fixed up the place. He admitted he allowed Youngster to stay there a couple of days. When Youngster began dealing drugs from the apartment, appellant told him to stop and to move out, but Youngster did not do so. They had a big argument the night before Gray died. According to appellant, Youngster claimed appellant owed him money and threatened him. Appellant knew Youngster had a gun. On Wednesday March 7, Gray barged in appellant's apartment; appellant told him to leave. The next day, Gray was back, and appellant left. When appellant returned home Friday night, Gray was there. He and Youngster tried to make appellant sell drugs but he did not. Rather, he took the drugs and smoked some. Appellant left the apartment and did not know what happened. Appellant knew Youngster had a gun but did not know if Gray did. David asked appellant if "the girl" was there, but appellant said he did not see her. David then told appellant Logan was there and had seen it all. Regarding Logan, appellant said "If I was a crazed killer, I would have killed her to." In contrast, at trial, appellant told the jury he did shoot Gray but it was in self-defense. He admitted he used crack cocaine and that he bought his drugs from Youngster. Around the beginning of March 2007, Youngster needed a place to stay, and appellant let him stay at his place. Appellant owed Youngster about $40. After several days, appellant decided to go to rehab. He told Youngster he was going to pay him the $40 but that once he did, Youngster needed to move out. Youngster got verbally violent and began to threaten appellant. The Monday before he died, Gray showed up at the apartment around 4:30 in the morning, looking for Youngster. Appellant told Gray not to return. That Friday, Gray, Youngster, and Logan were in the apartment when appellant returned around 4:00 in the afternoon. Youngster demanded the $40, but appellant did not have it. Youngster gave him drugs and told him to sell them. When appellant returned later, Youngster was gone but Gray was sitting on the floor and had appellant's knife in his hand. Gray said Youngster would be back soon. Appellant left again, and when he returned the third time, Youngster was there. Youngster grabbed the $25 appellant had and told him he would "beat [him] down" if he did not come up with the rest of the money. When appellant returned a fourth time, Youngster was gone, but Gray and Logan were still there. According to appellant, Gray said he was not to let appellant leave and that if appellant had any money, he was to give it to Gray. Appellant told Gray he did not have any money. Gray said they would wait for Youngster and "we gonna beat you down." Appellant walked into the bedroom. "[I]t just so happen[ed] there was a pillow on the floor." Underneath the pillow was a gun. Appellant did not know who the gun belonged to, how it got under the pillow, or even if it was loaded, but he took it and walked back into the living room where he shot Gray in the head. Logan begged him not to shoot her, then went through Gray's pockets offering appellant money and drugs she found. He did not take anything. After hearing this and other evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of murder. Although appellant claims he was justified in using deadly force to protect himself from Gray's attempted use of deadly force, at least one eye witness disputed appellant's version of events. Logan testified Gray had no weapon that night and that she was braiding his hair when appellant shot Gray in the head. Furthermore, in his statement to police, appellant said he did not know if Gray had a gun and did not mention Gray had a knife. Likewise, appellant's claim he was justified in defending himself with deadly force to prevent the commission of a robbery is not supported by the record. Nothing shows Gray intended to rob appellant; Logan testified appellant asked if Youngster left any dope and Gray told him "[Y]ou know, he did." And according to appellant's own version of events, Youngster and Gray talked about beating him up, not robbing him. After viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of murder and the same rational trier of fact would have found against appellant on the self-defense issues. See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 914. While this Court has a limited ability to substitute our judgment for that of the jury, nothing in the record before us compels us to do so. Having deferred to the jury's determinations on weight and credibility, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant's murder conviction. We overrule appellant's two issues. We affirm the trial court's judgment.