Balcazar, Jose Guadalupe v. State ( 2003 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 3, 2003

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 3, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO.  14-02-00203-CR

____________

JOSE GUADALUPE BALCAZAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 872,380

__________________________________________________

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            Appellant appeals his conviction for murder, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.  We affirm.

Factual Background

            Shortly before 4:00 a.m. on the morning of March 22, 2001, Hedwig Village Police Officer B.T. Jeffries attempted to stop appellant’s vehicle as it sped down Echo Lane in Harris County, Texas.  Appellant refused to stop, forcing the officer to give chase for several blocks until appellant pulled over.  The officer immediately noticed appellant was sweating profusely in the cool night air, breathing heavily, and covered with blood. Doubting seriously appellant’s claim that the blood came from chickens he had been cutting up at home, the officer ran a routine warrant check and discovered appellant had two outstanding traffic warrants.  After arresting appellant and taking him to the Hedwig Village city jail, the officer  found eight dollars in currency, a Kroger Plus key chain, and a key in the backseat where appellant had been sitting, all of which were covered in blood.  Officer Jeffries turned the items over to the city jail booking area where officers photographed appellant and collected his clothing.  Appellant’s clothing was splattered with blood, particularly his tennis shoes. Small pieces of brain tissue were seen imbedded in between the laces of his shoes.  Appellant’s socks also had blood on them, especially in the toe areas.  Appellant’s chest, abdomen, and arms were scratched and bruised, with dried blood visible on his arms and hands.  There were no obvious injuries to appellant sufficient to explain his appearance.  About that time, an officer came into the jail and stated a homicide had just been reported on Long Point, a short distance from where Officer Jeffries had stopped appellant.  As the homicide was being investigated by the Houston Police Department, appellant’s clothing and property were retained for Houston Police Department investigators.

            Houston Police Officer Ernest Aguilar investigated the homicide scene, and testified that Javier Aguilar’s badly beaten body was found around 3:30 a.m., March 22nd, at an apartment complex parking lot on Long Point.  A trail of bloody footprints led away from the body.  Dried blood splatters were found on a nearby car along with bloody palm and fingerprints on the front bumper and hood.  The officer examined appellant’s clothing at the Hedwig Village jail and took samples of dried blood from appellant’s hands.  DNA testing showed that the blood taken from appellant’s hands belonged to Javier Aguilar. Forensic testing revealed that the bloody prints found on the vehicle next to Aguilar’s body matched appellant’s palm and fingerprints, and the footprints leading away from the body were characteristic of the bloody tennis shoes appellant had been wearing when arrested. It was also established that the currency and Kroger Plus key tag belonged to Aguilar, and the key fit his automobile.  Evidence showed Aguilar died of a fractured skull from blunt force trauma, consistent with being repeatedly kicked in the head.  The complainant’s sister testified complainant and appellant were acquaintances and that complainant had planned to visit with appellant that evening, but never returned from the visit.

            The jury found appellant guilty of murder, and assessed punishment at thirty-five years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine.

Analysis

            In four points of error, appellant complains of legally and factually insufficient evidence to show he caused complainant’s death or that he caused complainant’s death by committing an act clearly dangerous to human life.  We will address these inter-related points of error simultaneously.

            In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to 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 (1979); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 412 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence without the prism of “in the light most favorable to the verdict.”  Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  A verdict may be set aside for factual insufficiency only when the verdict is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.  Id. at 134–35. 

            In this case, there were no witnesses to complainant’s death, and much of the State’s case is based on circumstantial evidence.  It is well established that the same standard of review applies whether a case is based upon direct or circumstantial evidence.  King v. State, 895 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).  The identity of a criminal perpetrator may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence.  Earls v. State, 707 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 

class=Section2>

            We find the evidence legally and factually sufficient, and overrule appellant’s points of error.  Evidence supporting the jury’s verdict of murder included, but was not limited to complainant’s blood being splattered on appellant and his clothing, especially in the toe area of his tennis shoes and socks (significant in that complainant died of blunt head trauma consistent with being kicked); the bloody footprints leading from complainant’s body being characteristic of the tennis shoes worn by appellant at the time of his arrest; appellant’s possession of bloody currency and other person items belonging to complainant; and appellant’s palm and fingerprints on the vehicle parked next to decedent’s body.  Appellant was stopped by the police a short distance from where the murder occurred, breathing strenuously, sweating profusely, covered in blood, and giving police officers fabricated explanations for blood on his clothing.  Appellant and complainant knew each another, and complainant had planned to visit appellant the night of his murder.

Conclusion

            A rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally and knowingly caused Javier Aguilar’s death or committed an act dangerous to human life which caused his death.  The verdict is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.

            The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                        /s/        Eva M. Guzman

                                                                                    Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 3, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).